Sitting of 10 February 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Art Market
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Peter Brooke: My first, very pleasant, duty is to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the serendipity under which we meet this morning to debate the British art market, in the context of the European Union, within 15 days of a critical Council meeting of EU Trade Ministers, with the seemingly innocuous, but potentially devastating, subject of droit de suite on the agenda.
  Secondly, I must again declare my own unremunerated interest as president of the British Art Market Federation, a body created in the closing years of the previous Government, at the request of that Government, to provide a single conduit for the market to make representations to the three Departments that share umbrella responsibility for different aspects of the market's affairs. In alphabetical order, those Departments are the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Trade and Industry—appositely represented today by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, given that the Council of Ministers meets on 25 February—and Her Majesty's Treasury. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who initiated the British Art Market Federation, and to the way that Ministers have acted to date on behalf of the market. I include the Prime Minister in that tribute.
  Thirdly, I thank parliamentary colleagues who are attending this earliest of events in the parliamentary day. I risk sounding like the dodo in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by saying that all have won and all shall have prizes, but I shall certainly embrace brevity in the hope that the maximum number of my colleagues can speak, and I hope that they will follow my example. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) for encouraging me to initiate this debate.
  Although I risk playing the dodo, that charge cannot be laid against the British art market. The market's history goes back centuries, but its practices, services and scholarship are highly contemporary. Its integration with the continent is long and profound. If a flood of church art and church furniture left this country for the continent in the aftermath of the reformation, a similar tide returned during the neo-Gothic period of the first half of the previous century under the influence of the younger Pugin, who did so much to adorn this Palace.
  236
  If it is timely that we meet within 15 days of the Trade Council, it is also timely that we meet within 10 days of the 350th anniversary of the death of Charles I, whose martyrdom, in the eyes of some, makes him the putative patron saint of British art collecting—a practice that was reinforced by the grand tour of subsequent centuries. Continental artists and craftsmen have been as welcome here as they have been prevalent—from Rubens, Holbein, Van Dyck and Kokoschka to French carvers and Italian plasterers—and vice versa.
  A peculiarly British contribution to the market is our genius, attributed to us by Bonaparte, as shopkeepers, which covers a multitude of skills and functions. The British Art Market Federation is made up of 15 different organisations and, if ours is a niche market, it is a larger niche than most: more than £2 billion is involved and it employs more than 50,000 people. The market can be read across into hotels, restaurants, other shops and theatres—many of which are concentrated in my constituency—as the magnets of our great art fairs bring foreigners from outside the European Union to London.
  If that market leadership were a lonely issue, the preoccupation of the European Commission with level playing fields might be more tolerable. What is ultimately anti-European about the Commission's interest in the market is that the practical consequence will primarily be not to transfer business to the continent, but to move it inexorably from the European Union to the rival markets of Switzerland and the United States. Last week, elsewhere in this Palace, during the Standing Committee proceedings on the Greater London Authority Bill, I tabled an amendment stating that the mayor of London should pay due heed to London's global competitiveness. In the context of today's debate, a similar duty should notionally be laid on the Commission: to pay due need to the European Union's global competitiveness.
  The great Bagehot remarked that in 1802 every hereditary monarch in the world was insane. In this year of grace, I do not want to lay such a charge against the entire Commission, but there is a manic quality to its thinking on the subject of our debate. Europe's economic welfare is not so well founded that we can afford to behave like Gadarene lemmings and cheerfully expel our traditional businesses to Geneva and New York. Why do I say that? Because, in a world of narrow margins, arbitrary transaction costs are slow poison to the competitiveness of even the healthiest of industries. The market here is threatened, first, by the charge of droit de suite—the imposition of an extra cost whenever a work of art changes hands up to 70 years after its creator's death. Colleagues will dissect the absurdities, contradictions and excesses of that apparently virtuous principle. It is threatened, secondly, by a doubling of value added tax in this country on works of art imported into the European Union.
  My principal charge against the Commission is its unwillingness to face the reality that those moves will not enlarge the EU market; they will simply export trade and jobs to competitors beside Lac Léman and the Hudson river, who could be forgiven for scarcely believing their good fortune. The Commission has an obligation to us all to explain why that analysis is wrong. Its inadequate economic justification for the droit de suite proposal two years ago was subject to acute criticism, which in any intellectually rigorous climate called for a rejoinder,

  237
  but answer came there none. The analogous request from Her Majesty's Government for an impact study has been similarly disregarded.
  The Commission was due to publish a review of the effects of VAT by the end of last year. There are rumours that it will dismiss the risks, but six weeks into the new year it has not been published. That might be charitably attributed to embarrassment about its intellectual rigour, too.
  The great artist, Max Ernst, told the story of how his father had painted their garden omitting a tree for reasons of composition, but had then been so troubled by what he had done that he had gone out and cut down the tree. That story has two morals in today's context: first, that we are in danger of needlessly cutting down one of the great trees in the European forest; and, secondly, that the event is not being attended by the intellectual rigour that Max Ernst's father displayed.
  One rejoinder that the Commission might make is that the percentages are small and their effect is being exaggerated. By the same lucky chance that is giving us this debate, last Saturday our television screens showed a film of that European cockpit, Yugoslavia, during the last war. A black American soldier complains to Edward Fox that his high explosives seem to have had no visible effect on the dam that they seek to blow up. Edward Fox languidly replies that he must not be in a hurry—the dam is very large and the high explosives very small; the high explosives will create a wound through which nature will then do its work. Just such a sequence of events threatens the British art market, and thus the European art market as well. Initially, the effect may seem small, but the nature and essence of markets will ensure that, in the fulness of time, the imbalance of costs will transfer advantage massively outside the European Union.
  The percentages may seem small, but they deter trade. In a world where 70 per cent. of the droit de suite paid in France in 1996 went to the six or seven impressionist families, a small percentage of a large sum would still be massive.
  What are we asking of those on the Treasury Bench? My right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary, whose pamphlet last year did much to illuminate the issue, will spell out the official Opposition's view. My plea, which is understandably on behalf of the British Art Market Federation, is for time. Time in the EU means derogations—a derogation of decent length in connection with droit de suite, if that directive is to come, and an extended derogation for VAT. I ask for time because, in the recent past, time has not been used by the Commission, to use my metaphor of the dam, to test the dam to see how genuinely secure it is against the flood waters moving out of the EU, as the ecclesiastical furniture moved out of this country in another period of seismic European development after the Reformation.
  I close on a personal note. I have lived thrice on the continent: twice within the European Union and once outside. I have no little sympathy for the European ideal, but it troubles me when I see us collectively acting contrary to Europe's best interests in creating an unnecessary level playing field, as in the garden of the Ernst family. Composition has much to recommend it, but global competition is ultimately all. However, my views
  238
  are as nothing compared to the frustration and sadness of the natural internationalists who make up the art market in this country.
  A moment ago, I mentioned Yugoslavia. One of the taproots of our European culture is the Homeric saga of the Trojan war, excavated by a great German scholar. Contemporary scholarship says that that war was about competition for trade routes rather than possession of a great beauty. It would be sad today if we were to lose not only the trade routes but the beauty.
  9.44 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: That eloquent and elegant introduction by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) encapsulated the problem. It now behoves me to be succinct.
  Incidentally, Madam Speaker, one of the shortcomings of these one-hour-and-25 minute debates is that Ministers are rarely given an adequate time to reply. The Minister in this debate has a great deal in the opening speech to which to reply.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I regard these debates as a priority for Back Benchers.
  Mr. Dalyell: Exactly, but Back Benchers deserve a reply to their questions; thus my speech will be in the form of questions.
  The issue of droit de suite—part of the copyright law in several other EC states, which entitles artists or their heirs to receive a payment whenever an original work of theirs is resold while those works are in copyright—presents problems. What discussions have taken place with our European partners about their copyright laws? This issue is crucial to VAT harmonisation, which is partly at the root of the problem.
  My second question concerns resale rights. The Government have described how, during our presidency, the UK was able to call for other member states to make cost-benefit analyses, and for the Council working group under future presidencies to study those. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), said:
  "even the Commission has accepted that royalty rates need to be looked at carefully."
  In December, the then Minister for Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), spoke to the French Minister of Culture, Mrs. Trautmann, who said that France had not made a study of the resale right but would ask the Commission to make one. What has happened about that?
  My third question concerns an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs:
  "The draft Directive on artists' resale rights is expected to be on the agenda for the Internal Market Council on 25 February. While a large majority of member states, unlike the United Kingdom, support the principle of harmonisation in this area, it is not yet clear whether it will be ready for agreement by then. The Government are continuing to make clear their opposition to this measure, and are working to try to minimise the damage it would do to the competitiveness of the UK's international art market."—[Official Report, 8 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 51.]
  That raises the question of the 2.5 per cent. and the 5 per cent. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, 50,000 people are involved—the

  239
  art industry is bigger than the music industry. The many related services, not only in London but in other centres such as Edinburgh, include picture restorers, framers, conservation specialists, shippers, insurers and exhibition organisers. Many substantial jobs are at stake, and the multiplier effect goes—I shall not say across the economy, as that would be to over-egg the pudding—very widely.
  My fourth question concerns VAT and paperwork. May I ask a heretical question? Is it desirable for Europe to have VAT on works of art at all? The sum of it is that we lose out to Switzerland, and certainly to the United States. Is not import tax inappropriate? European Governments might get more into their treasuries out of returns from a healthy art market than they do by messing around with import tax.
  My final question is on a slightly different issue. It concerns fraud and theft in the art market, which is a growing problem, especially in relation to bespoken theft. There are now specialists who do feasibility studies on action in transport getaways, break-ins, decoys, and all the other elements of highly professional art theft. I know that the Art Loss Register and James Emson do extremely good work. What is the police strength? Can my hon. Friend the Minister get figures from the Home Office on the seriousness of purpose of the police in this matter? I understand that art police resources have improved greatly in the past few years, but a decade ago they were deeply unsatisfactory.
  As an example of the professionalism of art thieves, I point out that, at the time of the recent attempted theft at Belton house, if the police vehicle had gone at full speed down a particular lane, the police would almost certainly have sustained fatal casualties. Such are the lengths to which the perpetrators of the planned seizures of treasures go, and there is a huge amount of money in it for them. Are the police serious about counteracting these crimes? This is not an absolute police priority—that would be silly—but can the Minister tell us what is being done about this problem?
  What about the artefacts that are coming in from eastern Europe? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) used to lead the all-party arts and heritage group. I vividly remember visiting churches in Czechoslovakia, some of which were locked and others from which many artefacts had been stolen for the Amsterdam, Frankfurt or London art markets. The icons from eastern Europe—not least from the former Soviet Union—flooded out from the places in which they belonged. That is a serious matter for anyone who is concerned about the European heritage. Can anything be done about that? That may be easier said than done, but it is a real problem.
  9.51 am
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have little to add to the eloquent plea made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The debate is timely, because the decisions of the Commission are imminent. The case that the right hon. Gentleman deployed was opened most forcefully last year by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who I think will contribute to the debate later. We are grateful to him for focusing on this threat to a major British trading activity.
  240
  Is the Minister aware that these impending measures have already substantially transferred business from this country to the United States and Switzerland in anticipation of the almost inevitable—as it is perceived by the art market—development of the tax regime, especially the ending of the derogation from the sixth directive at the end of June this year, which will increase the VAT on imports from 2.5 to 5 per cent? It is my understanding that that measure can be reversed only if there is a unanimous decision of the Council to that effect, and such a unanimous decision is thought unlikely.
  It is important that the arguments against the ending of the derogation—I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in seeking prolongation—are carefully rehearsed, and that the case that may be argued by the Commission is answered point by point. If, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, its case is intellectually unsound, it should be answered by a strong rebuttal from Her Majesty's Government.
  I am aware of some of the arguments by Directorate-General XV about the impact of the droit de suite proposals, but I have not yet been able to elicit from the Commission the arguments that it is deploying about the impact of value added tax. It is perverse of the Commission to proceed with this proposal in the mistaken belief that it is in the interests of the European Union to have common rates of tax on important works of art when the sole consequence, as the right hon. Gentleman properly explained, will be to damage European trade for the benefit only of those trading outwith the continent.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: The right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal will damage European trade, but is it not also true that it will damage British trade more than that of any other European country?
  Mr. Maclennan: That argument will undoubtedly appeal to Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Steen: But is it correct?
  Mr. Maclennan: I believe that it is correct. However, as we must persuade 14 other Ministers of the virtues of our argument, it may be best to couch it in European terms. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment, however.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is not the real kernel of the argument that, although Britain will suffer the most, the European Union will also suffer? The 5,000 jobs that will be lost in Britain will not be redistributed to Europe: they will go to auction houses outside Europe, notably in Switzerland and the United States.
  Mr. Maclennan: That is exactly the point; it has already been made, so I do not wish to labour it.
  Will the Minister use his influence to prevail on the European Union and the Commission to make their case transparent, for there is still time? If the arguments are to carry any weight—the matter should not be decided merely on the basis of Britain's interests alone—the Commission's view should be published. We have not yet had the conclusions of the inquiry. I understand that the inquiry is being led not by Directorate-General XV,

  241
  which has some responsibility for the art world, but by Directorate-General XXI, which may have less direct understanding of these matters.
  The harmonisation of droit de suite is a peculiarly perverse proposal. There is little evidence that droit de suite has been of great benefit to young artists, for whose assistance it was primarily devised, in the countries in which it operates—I am thinking particularly of France and Denmark. Indeed, young artists in this country have little expectation of deriving benefit from the proposal. They have expressed to a number of us the view that the complexities of seeking to raise and police such an operation are not worth the candle. Although it may benefit a handful of our most distinguished artists whose works command a high price in the secondary market, such as Mr. Lucian Freud, it will not give a great leg-up to young artists who are trying to make a living and establish a reputation, and for whom secondary market values are probably low.
  Mr. John Townend: As a spokesman for probably the most Europhile party in the House of Commons, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is appalling that a British industry of this size should be destroyed or, at best, severely undermined, and there is nothing we can do about it? Have we not transferred too much sovereignty, if we are putting people's jobs and industry at such risk?
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not see the necessity for that intervention. The thrust of my remarks is criticism of what is proposed, and I feel that the hon. Gentleman's added emphasis would be more appropriately deployed in his own speech.
  I am wholly opposed to this development. I do not think that the droit de suite is a practical or sensible way to try to assist young artists, or that the House need trouble itself with those who are already well established. The scheme has been relatively ineffective in the countries where it already operates; it has been hard to police, and I understand that a number of the companies involved have gone bankrupt. I think that the European Union is foolish to try to translate the scheme from one or two countries to all EU countries. This is not a suitable area for harmonisation, and the proposal should be resisted for that reason.
  10.1 am
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on securing the debate, and on making his case so thoroughly, wittily and cogently. I would like to say that his speech was also timely, but I fear that the die is cast—although I hope it is not. We shall soon see.
  The British art market is of world significance, second only to that of New York. It gives employment to upwards of 40,000 people, in supporting professions and skills. My right hon. Friend's speech showed what disaster the ending of the derogation, the doubling of value added tax to 5 per cent. and the imposition of the droit de suite will bring in their train. We know that those developments will be disastrous. When VAT was first imposed at 2.5 per
  242
  cent. in 1994, business from non-EU countries fell sharply. It is not that 5 per cent. is high as such things go; but the international art business can easily migrate to where the tax regime is favourable. Why should anyone continue to buy, sell and auction in London when it can be done far less expensively and with much less red tape in New York or Zurich?
  If the business lost to the United Kingdom were, as a result, distributed more evenly around the EU, there would be some logic in the EU's plans, but the rest of the EU will gain nothing—except, perhaps, a little more VAT, at the expense of jobs and the income tax that those jobs provide in the UK. The planned levy—the droit de suite—on modern art sales, to enable the artist or, in most cases, the artist's heirs to benefit from the artist's continuing popularity and every successive sale of his work, will have a similar effect, driving business out of London and out of the EU. Switzerland and the United States have no such levy, and buyers will go where they do not have to pay it.
  If the levy really did help and encourage struggling artists, there would be some sense in it, but in France—where, as my right hon. Friend observed, there has long been such a levy—the money goes largely to the estates of rich and successful artists after they are dead. It is of little assistance to struggling artists with no early resale expectation, whose resale potential, such as it is, will no doubt be discounted in the prices that they are currently obtaining. It will generally be of use to them only after they have become rich and successful—by which time they will probably have died.
  If those two measures are implemented, they will make nonsense of the argument that the EU's central mission is to achieve a world-competitive European economy. They will destroy London, which has already been damaged by the original imposition of VAT in 1994, as an internationally competitive art market.
  Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the vital importance of the industry to the United Kingdom, and the damage that could be done to it. The Luxembourg convention, which exists for qualified majority voting procedures, is designed to protect countries' vital national interests. Should it be invoked in this instance? Should Britain make the point that the industry is a vital national interest, and ask the EU to drop the qualified majority voting approach? France did that twice while I was a Minister.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: The industry is certainly a vital national interest, and one that is particular to this country, although it benefits the whole of Europe. It is this country that receives the trade that benefits the rest of the European Community. I shall say more about that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more than we already know.
  The European Union presents itself as wholly respectful of, and encouraging to, the special character and skills of member countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) implied as much in his intervention. It is extraordinary that, in this case, the EU appears to be intent on annihilating a particularly successful aspect of British cultural and commercial life for the sake of the hobgoblin of bureaucratic consistency. It seems that the European Commission may again be

  243
  teaching us the lesson that, in the EU, a derogation—however justified in common sense—is seldom a final victory for common sense. All too often, it is a defeat for common sense temporarily postponed.
  I understand that the Commission was going to review the issue thoroughly by the end of last year, but that has not happened. Certainly, no review has been published. I hope that the Minister will tell us that a review is on its way. I hope that he will be able to convince the House that I am too pessimistic, and possibly too cynical, and that the Commission is thinking again, and will come up with constructive proposals that enable the London art market to survive and flourish. Failing that, if the Commission has not yet seen the light, I hope that the Government have at least brought together a blocking minority of fellow member countries that have seen the light, or that they are considering invoking the Luxembourg compromise.
  If the Government are serious about protecting British interests in Europe—as they say they are—and, in this instance, protecting the overall long-term interests of Europe, they will already be taking such action. I am sure that the Minister will want to let us know what is happening.
  Mr. Steen: Might not the Government also consider asking the Commission to pursue the fiche d'impact? I believe that European law obliges the Commission to pursue it in the case of all directives or rules and regulations that have an impact on European countries. It has to conduct a study to show the effect that a directive, or rules and regulations, would have on employment or trade in all European nations. Should the Government try to persuade the Commission that it should not proceed with this arrangement until it has carried out a fiche d'impact? I believe that, if the Government have not done so, they should.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: There are a number of things that the Government could do. I am happy to serve as the vehicle for my hon. Friend's question to the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister's answer.
  10.9 am
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My first objective is to strengthen the Minister's determination to fight this case. Secondly, I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on his eloquent and effective speech, in which, as ever, he deployed all his skills. Not only is he, like me, a former Secretary of State for what used to be National Heritage; he is a former Treasury Minister, and a former Whip. His skill in that last regard can be seen from the fact that he has been able to produce so many hon. Members for today's debate. Thirdly, I intend to make the shortest of this morning's speeches.
  When I was Secretary of State for National Heritage, I was inevitably overwhelmed by people who were looking for cash handouts. Supporting arts, sport and heritage is part of the Government's responsibility—the national lottery makes it easier—but it is also to create a climate in which successful cultural industries can flourish.
  The British art market is one such formidably successful industry. It is not looking for cash handouts,
  244
  but it needs a regulatory system that respects its independence and effectiveness. Above all, it needs Ministers who will fight its cause. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Treasury during my time in office, who were part of that determined campaign.
  As has been said, we face an extremely serious position. The industry is not only an enormous cultural asset, but a great commercial contributor—it provides up to 50,000 jobs. Many businesses are involved—not just the great four of Sotheby's, Bonham, Phillips and Christie's, but many other smaller and expert industries, restorers, valuers, dealers and galleries, which in themselves feed further into the tourism industry, which has become so important.
  Two issues have no logic or sense. It has been made clear that the imposition of the 5 per cent. VAT on imports would simply benefit New York, Switzerland or the far east. The droit de suite would bring precious little benefit to young artists, and there are many other ways to assist them.
  At a time when there is growing hostility to the idea of a Europe led by ideology, it is enormously important for the Government to act now on the basis of the evidence and of pragmatism to safeguard an industry that is vital to Britain and to our people.
  10.12 am
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I support the condemnation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) of the Commission's proposals. I do so with some sympathy for the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. I was his predecessor in the previous Government and dealt with these matters. It is appropriate that a Department of Trade and Industry Minister is on the Front Bench, because the issue stems from the whole genus of measures that come under copyright.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). The industries that are covered by copyright, and for which it is important that intellectual property is protected, are among those that do most to benefit the British economy. They include the music industry—the commercial aspects of which I was also responsible for—publishing and many others. They are at the heart of what we have been proud to achieve in European and world markets. We send an important message to the public in not overlooking the contribution that those industries have made to our commercial as well as cultural life.
  When I was upstairs in a Standing Committee at the beginning of 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster also made a forceful presentation of the case for the British art market. There is no doubt in these circumstances that the Commission has made a monumental error. I rapidly say that I happen to be one of those Conservatives who is a Europhile, and that the Commission is important for us to carry out our objectives within the single European market. As a general point of principle, without the Commission,

  245
  we would not have made tremendous progress in the European Union in breaking down trade and non-tariff barriers.
  Mr. Dalyell: As a fellow Europhile, may I ask the hon. Gentleman a matter of fact? When he was dealing in a ministerial capacity with Commissioner Monti, what did commissioners say in defence of the droit de suite?
  Mr. Taylor: Commissioners said a great deal. Commissioner Monti and the Internal Market Council had many discussions on those matters, none of which was convincing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has said, their undertakings to come forward with further evidence and documentation did not materialise, certainly not while I was a Minister.
  As someone who is not, in principle, against the Commission, I hope that the House will bear with me when I say that the Commission is not always infallible. On this occasion, it has been fallible. It has made a mistake about harmonisation of a sector where the damage will be to the European Union as a whole, and specifically to one member country—the UK.
  There seems to be an argument for looking at taxation across the European Union and for saying that there are cases where harmonisation will improve the competitiveness of the European Union, but proposals should not be made to try to create harmonisation if they damage one country and do not benefit others in the European Union itself. That is a more communautaire view than that being expressed by Commissioner Monti.
  I want to assist the Minister in the deliberations in which he will be involved in the next few days. Does he know from the legal advice that he is receiving whether the proposal has been made under the right article—100A? I was nervous of attempting to label it a taxation measure because I feared that that may not count in our interest in the long term, but I would nevertheless be interested in what the Minister has to say.
  Has the Commission attempted to show that those countries that have not applied the artist resale right have done that because it does not work in favour of those whom they most hope to benefit—the struggling artists—and tends, as has already been said, to apply only to the estates of dead artists who have been extremely successful? Has the Commission examined the way in which the art market will move off shore, either to Geneva or to New York, as it undoubtedly will? It will probably not move to California because it has a levy; there is an internal distortion in the United States market. Nevertheless, that is a matter for the United States, not an argument that the Commission can use. That is why I raise it; I know that the Commission has used it.
  Those are serious questions. I am not sure that the Commission has done its homework since the days when I was attempting to put pressure on it. The matter is too important for the art market in the UK, all the jobs that it provides, the prospects for the art world and Britain's role in the world.
  I hope that the Minister can give more up-to-date information than was available to me when I left office. I hope that he will use every endeavour to put across that
  246
  we make not an anti-European criticism, but a criticism of the way in which the Commission is applying certain principles. We must stand up against its making that mistake. If it makes it, the Commission will damage its credibility on a much wider basis.
  10.18 am
  Mr. James Gray: It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whom I congratulate on securing the debate on such an extraordinarily important issue. It is also a great honour to follow so many other distinguished and eloquent right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches and hon. Members across the Floor. I am particularly grateful to them for their concise, brief contributions, because that allows less distinguished Back Benchers to get a word in edgeways, which, as Madam Speaker made clear earlier, is the purpose of such debates.
  The debate is broader than simply the issue of art. It is about the way in which we tend to talk about many difficult and different political issues. In the world and in the Chamber, we tend increasingly to use single, often meaningless, words to try to encapsulate the things that we are getting at.
  For example, the word "modernisation" is uttered in the Chamber more often than any other word. It is, of course, entirely meaningless. All Governments modernise everything. "Equalisation" is another oft repeated word. It seems to be presumed that equalisation is necessarily a good thing, but it may mean making things worse—equalising down. Integration may mean forcing together into one place things which should be different. Harmonisation is perhaps the greatest of those meaningless mantras that Europhile friends tend to use so much. They suggest that harmonisation is necessarily a good thing, but today's topic amply demonstrates that it is not and that the Government should stand up for British, not European interests. We have a strong art market which is the envy of the world and the mantra of harmonisation could lead to its destruction.
  Either of the tax proposals before the Commission would damage the art market, but together they could destroy it. In that context, and given that there has been no economic analysis of their effects, it is quite extraordinary that the proposals got off the starting block. They provide a bizarre window into the workings of the European Commission, which produces politically correct, wonderful sounding ideas, for example, that tax harmonisation will help young artists. They all look marvellous on paper, but the costs have not been considered. What progress has the Minister made on asking the Commission to look into precisely what the proposals would mean for the British art market?
  Once again, Britain seems to be at the receiving end of the rawest deal from the European Union. We are expected to sit back and say, "This is all fine. Harmonisation is marvellous. It is the European Union at its best. Okay, chaps. Crack on. Qualified majority voting is fine. We'll lie down and take it." Perhaps this should be the issue on which the Government should say, "No. Hang on a minute", as Baroness Thatcher, with her handbag, did so memorably on the subject of the rebate. We ought to take a stand. It may be a small issue, but it may be the one on which the Government should stand up and say, "Enough is enough. We intend to go no further."

  247
  All our European partners—I am not sure that I like the word partners—have so much to gain, but we have so much to lose as the proposals would do down the London art market. Unlike us, they do not care what happens to the international art market because they play just a small part in it. Our art market is unique in Europe and we should stand up for it.
  If the Government are looking for a cause to demonstrate their clout in Europe, about which they brag so often, what about this one? Perhaps they should stand up and say, "Okay, Europe. We are going to make you listen and do something about this iniquitous tax." Both proposals are entirely indefensible and would damage an immensely successful and internationally renowned British industry.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend used the word "tax". Is he absolutely certain that it is a tax and involves the Exchequer, or is it a levy? Precision is quite important when the Minister has to raise the matter at the Internal Market Council.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is quite right. I used the word loosely. I was referring to VAT derogation, which is a tax. However, the provision which I tend to refer to as "droit de seigneur", although that that is not quite the right expression, is a levy rather than a tax. I apologise to my hon. Friend, who is quite right.
  In the circumstances, the Minister's response in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was unsatisfactory. He said:
  "The Government … are working to try to minimise the damage it would do to the competitiveness of the UK's international art market."—[Official Report, 8 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 51.]
  The Minister referred to minimising the damage, not stopping it. He did not say that Britain would not agree to the proposals, but appeared to accept that they would be introduced and was looking for ways to minimise their damage. If the Minister intends to do something to stop the iniquitous proposals from Europe, his answer to my right hon. Friend was weak and he should correct it.
  At the Internal Market Council on 25 February, I hope that the Government will make it clear that we shall have none of it and that through our high-level contacts we shall seek enough allies in Europe to stop the proposals. I understand that the Italians may be considering voting with us. Perhaps the well-known hotline between No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic could be used usefully on this occasion, not to help Mr. Murdoch but to help the London art market.
  I call on the Government not just to pay lip service to the marvellous mantras of which they are so beloved, but to help one of our key British industries—the British art market—and to do something on 25 February that will not necessarily help Europe, but will help Britain.
  10.25 am
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on securing today's debate. My interest in this issue goes back to when I was briefly special adviser to the Minister for the Arts in the mid-1980s, but it was revived in the autumn when I found myself in a fourball, playing golf with the finance director
  248
  of one of the major auction houses. He told me in a very matter-of-fact tone of his plans for the auction house to move abroad, with most of its business going to New York and some to Geneva, if the EC proposals were implemented. So he already had contingency plans well in hand. Of course, auction houses want to move outside any zone where European regulation may be imposed on them as a result of the droit de suite.
  We have all heard the arguments and almost everyone agrees with them. Clearly, VAT at 5 per cent. will drive away business. VAT also causes enormous administrative hassle. The droit de suite will not have the effects intended for it. It does not benefit artists, but their children or grandchildren as it lowers prices in the primary art market. Like VAT, it also drives business abroad and was rejected as an approach by the Whitford report on copyright on the grounds that it would be unenforceable as some of the art market would go underground and the rest would go abroad. Today, we all agree that droit de suite would be a disaster.
  A major task rests with the Government to provide as much information as possible by answering many of the questions that have been raised today. That would enhance the force of the arguments that Britain could make against those measures.
  Let me summarise some of the questions that the Government should try to answer. On VAT, what estimate have the Government made of the encouragement of the repatriation of our cultural heritage that resulted from the absence of VAT prior to 1994, and the imposition of the seventh VAT directive? A similar question for the Government is their estimate of the contribution that 2.5 per cent. VAT is now making to the decline in imports since 1994. What is their estimate of the effects that raising VAT to 5 per cent. would have on art imports? Will the Government press the European Commission to publish its promised study on the effects of VAT on art imports? I understand that it was promised by the end of 1998, but it is still not forthcoming. Will the Government try to negotiate an extension of the derogation to keep VAT at 2.5 per cent. at least until the Commission has published its report and its conclusions are digested?
  Can the Government confirm that they are still convinced of the harmful effects of droit de suite and its perverse and damaging effects on artists and the art market? Will they carry out a short study on those issues and publish their findings so that there can be complete clarity as to where they stand? Is there any scope for challenging the fact that droit de suite is being brought forward as a trade measure by the European Commission and is therefore subject to qualified majority voting, when logically, as has been pointed out by several hon. Members, it should be treated as a tax measure? Will the Government undertake to make further representations that it should be covered by the unanimity principle? If that is not possible—and perhaps it is not—what efforts are the Government making to try to secure a deal with another major European country in order to secure a blocking minority under qualified majority voting? The Dutch are already allies. Probably there are one or two other allies around—the Irish perhaps. One more major country as an ally would secure a blocking minority.
  If we fail in that action, have the Government considered—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davies) asked a moment

  249
  ago—whether there is any scope for using a Luxembourg compromise? What are the Government's views on the scope for use of a Luxembourg compromise in this case?
  I believe that getting the facts into the open as much as possible will do most of the work for all of us in securing, or impressing, Britain's case on the Commission. If our case does not prevail, the losers will be clear—in lost jobs and tax revenue, and the loss of a centre of excellence, which will go abroad.
  When I was on the golf course, I was struck by how relaxed the finance director of the major auction house was. Of course he was relaxed: he has his plans to go abroad well in hand. He does not really want to live abroad, but he will do so if necessary. Senior members of auction houses will go abroad. Although thousands of jobs will be lost, those right at the top will not lose theirs. People at the top of auction houses would rather stay in London—as moving would entail an economic cost in upheaval and a risk of losing business—but they are not the ones who will be hit hardest. The people who will be hit hardest are the people of Britain, who will lose jobs and a centre of excellence.
  10.31 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have been asked to speak in this debate, and shall make a very short speech. However, before I launch into the debate, I should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on securing this debate, which is timely.
  The more one looks into the matter, the more nonsensical it becomes. As from 1 July, the seventh VAT directive will come into operation; tax on imported art from countries outside the European Union will be increased from 2.5 to 5 per cent.; and the derogation agreed on 13 December 1993 will end. Therefore, time is running out on the matter.
  I ask the Minister what representations he has made to the Commission; whether a fiche d'impact has been prepared; and whether an impact assessment—which, under the terms of the seventh directive, was supposed to be completed by the end of 1998—has yet been received by the Government? If the Government have not yet received an impact assessment, we should ask the Commission for more time to implement the derogation. I hope that the Minister will be able to refer to that when he replies to the debate.
  The British art market is worth £2.2 billion, is larger than the entire music industry market and provides about 50,000 jobs. The two proposals will put at risk a minimum of 5,000 jobs. Britain would lose those jobs essentially because we have the second most important art market in the world. It would be one thing—in a communautaire sense—if those jobs were to be redistributed across other parts of the European Union, but that will not happen. They will simply be lost to Switzerland, New York, Hong Kong and other art centres. The seventh directive therefore seems to be based on pretty thin ice.
  We are considering also the droit de suite, which is a French term. I rather prefer the term "artists' resale right", which seems to have a more English ring to it. If we are to have an English tax, let us have an English, not French name for it.
  250
  It would be a different matter also if the tax were to benefit the general art market, but it will not. It will benefit comparatively few young artists' families, who could benefit in other ways. The problem with the droit de suite is that it has very high compliance costs, which alone are estimated to involve an income loss of £68 million.
  Implementation of the VAT seventh directive to increase, from 1 July, VAT on imported art to 5 per cent., and the introduction of the artists' resale tax, will have a very damaging affect on the British market. I should therefore like to spur the Minister—in a cross-party and common-sense spirit—to ask the Commission again to re-examine the matter. After all, just before the 1997 general election, Commissioner Monti wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and said that he would very carefully examine the assessment of the measures' impact on Britain. He should live up to his words.
  The Minister, the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues have already raised the issue with several fellow countries to determine whether a blocking minority might be obtained to ensure that the derogation is continued. I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to use every possible effort to discover whether we cannot find some common cause on the changes, and to ensure that their most damaging aspects are not implemented.
  10.35 am
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On behalf of the House, I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for securing this debate, and for introducing it with his customary erudition and wit. He spoke not only for his own constituency—although he does represent perhaps the greatest concentration of dealers and auction houses in the world—but for the wider art market, which, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) reminded us, extends way north of the border. We are speaking today not only for the great names in the art market but for the associated industries and the network of dealers and galleries across the United Kingdom, which employ upwards of 50,000.
  A great British success story faces a serious and immediate threat not from any failing in its own endeavours—it is still the greatest and most competitive art market, certainly in Europe and possibly in the world—but externally, from two imposed taxes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has succeeded in his debate in uniting the entire House behind his cause. That is never an easy thing to do, but it has been done today. We have heard powerful and well-argued speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, representing every sector of opinion in the Chamber.
  As we have heard, the threat we face comes from two directions. The first threat is the proposed doubling, from June 1999, of VAT on imported art. I repeat a question that other hon. Members have asked the Minister: where is the European Commission study that is required by treaty law before the change is made?
  We know that, even with a VAT increase of 2.5 per cent., damage has already been done. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said correctly that anticipation of the higher rate and of the droit de suite is already doing damage to the London and United Kingdom art market.

  251
  The second threat is the proposed resale levy, or droit de suite, that will be charged on the resale of works of art by any living artist or for 70 years after the artist's death. I believe that that is a fiscal measure—a tax—and should not have been introduced as a trade measure. Whatever it is called, its effects are clear: objects for sale will simply be transferred from the United Kingdom and out of the European Union. The levy savings realised by removing valuable objects for sale to New York will be greater than any possible freight costs or associated transfer charges.
  The proposal encompasses not only paintings, but sculpture, manuscripts, tapestries and even photographs. The artist will receive nothing from the proposal. Either sales will be driven underground, by private treaty between individuals, or objects and paintings of any value will be transferred out of the European Union entirely. The proposal is crazy, defies common sense and will not help the European Union in any way. The beneficiaries will be dealers in New York, Geneva, Tokyo and every other part of the world.
  The proposal is baffling. Dealers in New York are rubbing their eyes in disbelief at the Marshall aid in reverse. The European Union is proposing a measure that will quite certainly and deliberately transfer business, profit and employment from the European Union to north America. That is being done by the European Commission—supposedly the guardian of European interests. The Commission says that London has an unfair advantage by not having the droit de suite, and that sales are transferred from Germany and France to London. By exactly the same logic, if London has the levy forced on it, sales will be transferred out of the European Union altogether. The Commission is condemned according to its own logic.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor)—who comes to these matters with a sympathetic point of view—realises that the Commission has got it badly wrong. Of course, it is not the Commission or the staff in Brussels who will suffer—it is the London art market. It will not be the owners of the auction houses who suffer. The Commission has said, dismissively, that the entire campaign has been got up by Sotheby's, Christies and the big auction houses. They will not suffer—they already have salerooms in New York, and more auctions will be transferred there.
  Those who will suffer will be the office staff, the experts, the packers, the porters and the associated industries—the framers, the restorers, the printers of documents and the little galleries associated with those businesses. They cannot move, and they will suffer. The Commission has a harmonising agenda. It does not have in mind the national concerns of member states.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way. I am trying to answer some points made in the debate. We only have a few minutes, and we want to hear from the Minister also.
  It is to the member states that we ought to turn to defend national interests. That brings to the fore another baffling aspect of this whole affair. Why is the German presidency bringing forward the measure? Is it stupidity? Does Germany not realise the damage that will be done
  252
  to employment and the interests of the European Union? I do not think so. The matter has been exhaustively discussed in working parties in Brussels, and I know from previous debates that the Government are fully engaged in the matter.
  To be fair, I was impressed by a debate that we had last July when the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), showed a thorough grasp of the issue and acknowledged that great damage would be done. He estimated that if the measure went ahead, we could lose earnings of up to £65 million a year, resulting in 5,000 job losses. He pledged to fight the measures. I am grateful for the way in which the Government have become engaged in the matter. It has been explained to the Council of Ministers exactly what is at stake, and there are many academic studies to back up our view.
  I do not want to be misunderstood in what I am about to say. I admire modern Germany, and I am very slow to question the motives of either the European Commission or other member states. However, as they are proceeding in full knowledge of the damage that will be caused—which has been backed up by countless studies and many debates—I must conclude that this is a calculated attempt to damage an important British industry. If that is not the case, let us have an explanation. There may be resentment or jealousy that the British art market, centred in London, is somehow not fully European and perhaps gets its trade from a global market—perhaps too much from north America. That is the only explanation.
  If that is true, the Council of Ministers, in two weeks' time, will be engaging in an act of quite unnecessary industrial vandalism. For the German Government to bring forward this measure under their presidency is curious. We know that the German Government were elected on a pledge to reduce German unemployment by 1 million. Sadly, that has not happened—German unemployment has risen to 4.5 million. The measure will not create jobs in Germany, but it will destroy them elsewhere in the EU. How can an organisation and a member state be proceeding with a measure that will cost European jobs, as has been proved in this short debate?
  The matter is extremely urgent. The Internal Market Council meets on 25 February. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, now is the time to take a stand. The day after that Council meeting, the Council of Ministers meets in the form of a European Council, when all heads of state and all Prime Ministers will meet to discuss the European budget. Let the Prime Minister of this country use this as an example of the European Union damaging itself by allowing the ideology of tax harmonisation to overcome common sense and the commercial interests of member states.
  I ask the Minister to request formally the Internal Market Council to postpone by one day its deliberations so that the matter can be raised at that higher forum. I believe that this matter should be the subject of a Luxembourg compromise. As the House knows, this is a mechanism whereby a measure brought forward under majority voting can nevertheless be subject to a national veto where important national interests are at stake. The mechanism has been invoked by other countries, including France. It should be invoked in this case.
  The Prime Minister has said that he has influence in Europe. Let us see—let us use this as a test case of that influence. Let him prove it. The House is in no doubt

  253
  that this is an important national asset. The threat is real, immediate and serious and we want something done about it.
  10.47 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on bringing this important matter to the House once again? Let me say at the outset that I have not heard a single word with which I disagree.
  The point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is very important. I would like to think that the decision is not motivated by malice or jealousy on the Germans' part—I would hate to think that that is the real reason. I suspect that it has something to do with a matter that has not been raised this morning—the belief among Members of the European Parliament that this sounds like a good thing.
  MEPs may believe that it would be better for the artists to benefit from the resale of their work, rather than a dealer. I can imagine colleagues from all political persuasions trooping into the European Parliament, thinking that their proposals will support young artists who will receive the benefits from their work in the future. In fact, they could not be more wrong.
  I declare an interest—I was an art student. I was one of the rebels in the 1960s at Hornsey—the most famous art college in the world at that time. We destroyed that reputation pretty effectively. However, it was at that time that I began to understand that the network of dealers and the way in which the art trade works in London is vital in encouraging the undergrowth of young artists, creative talent and experts which later grows into great artists and great industries.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but he mentioned the European Parliament. On 10 December 1996, the rapporteur of a Committee reporting to the European Paliament said:
  "It is important that the harmonisation does not lead to the decline of the art market within the European Union and its displacement to the United States or elsewhere."
  There is some common sense evident in that opinion—I wonder how much further forward it has been taken.
  Dr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that, because I do not think that any progress has been made. That is the problem. I suspect that the gut reaction of many MEPs has been that the issue is a small one among many and that they may as well go along with the Commission.
  The hon. Member for Esher and Walton, my predecessor in this job—in fact, he was my predecessor but one, as I came in after a little earthquake in July—made an important point. The Commission contends that harmonisation of the artists' resale right is a single market measure, but article 100A is the appropriate legal basis. The Commission rejects suggestions that the measure is a fiscal or social one, meriting a change in the legal base. In all honesty, I see no possibility of persuading the Commission to change the legal base.
  254
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the possibility of our getting allies to fight this cause, but we have sought in vain for allies, as the previous Government did. We would have to get all the other member states to agree, as unanimity would be required in the Council. Article 173 provides scope for challenge, but only in relation to acts that are already adopted. We have significant doubts about whether the Commission has properly justified the proposal as an article 100A measure. Its failure to produce an impact report only compounds our doubts.
  Sir Michael Spicer: What is the Government's position? A little confusion seems to have arisen in the House of Lords. On 28 January, Lord McIntosh gave a firm assurance that there would be no increase in the rate of VAT on art. I am told that Baroness Jay is now running around saying that that assurance was not a firm one and back-tracking on it.
  Dr. Howells: I have not heard what Baroness Jay has said. We are implacably opposed to an increase in VAT and we will fight it however we can. I was very grateful to my long-term friend, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), when he brought up the use of the Luxembourg arrangement—I have heard it called an arrangement, an agreement and a compromise—which I will consider seriously, because it is a central issue. The right hon. Member for Wells said that it was worth making a stand, and I agree entirely.
  Mr. David Davis: I have every sympathy with my friend the Minister. Let me give him what I hope will be helpful advice, because I know what will happen: his officials and those at the Foreign Office will say that a Luxembourg compromise is not a good idea as it rocks the boat too much. That is what they always say. On at least one occasion, and I think on two, I have witnessed France invoking a Luxembourg compromise, claiming a vital national interest, most recently about a shipping industry issue, which was no bigger than this issue and was certainly not unique to France. That compromise was accepted by Germany and the rest of the Council. I have never heard of a better case than ours for a Luxembourg compromise.
  Dr. Howells: I am grateful for that advice, and I undertake to consider it seriously and try to argue my corner.
  Little has been said with which I disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised an important issue that is not widely understood: the centrality of the trade. The trade is enormously important and tells us something about the way in which wealth is generated today. We have hundreds of debates on the coal and steel industries and on all sorts of manufacturing sectors, but we probably have only one great cluster in this country that is world class: the City.
  The City attracts industries—some of them, including the art trade, have been around for a long time—that are integral to it. It is a way of life that generates wealth and creativity. The business of intellectual property rights, encouraging and rewarding creativity, makes a reality of the rhetoric, in which the Government and the previous Government have indulged constantly, of adding value to

  255
  work. If we are to add value in a real sense by encouraging the undergrowth of young talent, we will have to get this right.
  Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wells was correct in his analysis of why the measure was being pushed through under the German presidency. I know that the Austrians were keen to go ahead with it but could not find the time. I am amazed that Commissioner Monti sees fit not to publish his report. It will be months late. This is important to the British economy and, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, to the European economy as a whole, but the Commission does not understand that importance. It is perhaps not properly understood that the art market is one of the drivers of the modern economy.
  It seems a paradox that dealing in fine art, much of it old, should be so controversial. If we cannot encourage our young people to become artists, writers and designers, melding science and creativity, as some of our most brilliant companies do, we will not survive as a first-rate exporting nation. What we are discussing is crucial to that.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister comment on what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about fraud in the art market, and in particular the haemorrhaging of VAT when works of art are illegally exported out of the European Union?
  Dr. Howells: It is interesting that the music industry has decided to employ its own police and investigators to track down piracy across the globe. Some romance attaches to computer piracy, but it is thieving—it is stealing other people's creativity and invention—and there is no doubt that the same is true in the art world.
  It has been said that the industry could be driven underground. That would be the worst outcome. We cannot afford to do that. It is important that beautiful paintings, ceramics and other objects can be seen by the public and that we do not have a sub-culture of gangsterism, which could very well arise from the measure. I give the House an undertaking to continue the good work that was done by the previous Government in trying by all means to prevent that.
  Mr. Tyrie: Since the European Commission continues to refuse to publish its report, will the Government publish their own estimate of the effects of the introduction of VAT and of droit de suite, and give it the widest possible publicity?
  Dr. Howells: I certainly want us to present coherently the arguments that right hon. and hon. Members have made today, and the argument that we will put to the Internal Market Council on 25 February. As we speak, the matter is being discussed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives; it is that urgent. I hope that the messages that have come to me this morning will have some impact on the deliberations in Brussels, and I once again thank the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

  Human Rights (Women)
  10.59 am
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank Madam Speaker for allocating time for a debate on an extremely important issue previously, I believe, unmentioned in this place, probably due to a form of political correctitude. The debate concerns mainly the treatment of Asian Muslim women by their families. I pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for giving me a great deal of support over the past 22 months on this subject and for encouraging me to call for this debate.
  A few months ago, I met a couple called Jack and Zena Briggs. They had committed the unforgivable crime of falling in love and ultimately marrying. They are from Bradford, and their story has been told many times. Zena's fate had been sealed virtually from birth when her parents promised her to a first cousin in Pakistan, a young man whom she despised and regarded as arrogant, who had no English and who treated women as beneath contempt.
  On the fateful day six years ago when Jack and Zena decided to run away and marry, they knew that there would be problems but hoped that, eventually, her family would accept Jack, as his family accepted her. That was not to be. To this day, a death sentence hangs over the couple, and, over the years, the otherwise decent Bradford Asian family has employed private detectives, bounty hunters and hit men to seek out their once much-loved daughter for the purpose of killing her and her husband, even stooping to punishing them by terrifying Jack's elderly mother who was dying of cancer.
  Speaking of their present predicament, Zena said:
  "Every time there's a knock on the door your pulse quickens, not knowing who it is. Every time the phone rings, as you're picking it up and saying 'hello' you're thinking, Is this them? Have they finally found us? Is this another trick call to lure us to a rendezvous where we'll meet our deaths? When you're walking in the street and a car slowly pulls up at the side of you, you try not to freeze, as the palms of your hands begin to sweat, your breathing becomes rapid, your heart starts beating ten to the dozen. Is this someone just innocently asking for directions? Or could it be your executioner wanting to make sure it's you before he grabs you and pulls you into the car?
  You have no idea how it will happen when it happens."
  John McCarthy, who well understands the effects of spending years on a form of death row, wrote the introduction to their book "Jack and Zena". To put their tragedy into context, I can do no better than quote him:
  "It is very hard to believe that this is happening in Britain today. But it is, and the story raises important questions about how we move on as a multiracial society. How can a family be free to plan to kill a daughter and the man she loves while the establishment appears unable or unwilling to work for a resolution? It is too simple to say that her family must just be made to drop their threats. Their actions come out of a cultural tradition that needs to be understood before it can be reformed. Reformed it must be for the sake of many other youngsters who wish to take up the personal opportunities of living in a multicultural society. It is vital for us to learn from this story to be better equipped to fight against racism. It is a tragic irony that it is Jack and Zena, the victims of this awful culture clash, who are the shining light of race relations in this situation."
  On the day that I met Zena, I also met Asiya, although that is not her real name. At the age of 15, she was forced into a marriage with a much older man. After a few days of appalling treatment by him, she waited for her strength

  257
  to return and, when sure that he was soundly asleep, made her escape. She phoned her mum, told her harrowing story, and asked if she could return to the family home. Her mother was completely unmoved, demanded that Asiya should go back to her husband and threatened that if she returned home, she would be killed. Asiya, now 16, is still on the run. Those two lovely, lively girls asked me to raise their tragic stories, whenever and however I could. I am unable to give any background to Asiya's story, save for the fact that she had a west Yorkshire—possibly Bradford—accent, and was too scared to give any details either to me or anyone else.
  Having talked to many people in the Keighley and Bradford areas, and to female Muslim social and community workers in London, including a woman from the Muslim Parliament, I have formed the view that the increasing incidence of forced marriages, or attempted forced marriages, has little to do with religion. The question that I have asked myself and others so often over the past two years is why families are prepared to go to such lengths to force their daughters into such unsuitable marriages. The answer is often that it is their culture and that outsiders such as myself should not interfere with what are essentially community and family matters.
  I cannot accept that view, nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) who rescued two girls from a dreadful situation in Pakistan, which had been inflicted on them by their father. His brave, decisive actions effectively put his head on the political chopping block, a fate that I trust will not befall me and my hon. Friends who will raise similar issues this morning.
  When, in 1983, I found myself unemployed for 12 months, I volunteered to become an unqualified teacher of English as a second language to young Asian women in their homes, mainly in the Highfield area of Keighley. I took on three women—Asiya, Ruqia and Ghanimat Jan—and spent every Wednesday morning with them for four years, learning a great deal more from them than they ever learned from me and, of course, getting involved—probably too involved—with family problems, disputes and celebrations. They all came here as young brides and, in common with young women entering the United Kingdom today in similar circumstances, had little, if any, English. They therefore had no knowledge of their civil or human rights. Worst of all, they had no immediate family to turn to if their in-laws were giving them a hard time.
  To give an idea of what it was like for the women we were to help, we were given "Finding a voice" by Amrit Wilson, which was reprinted in 1981. One of the hundreds of quotes from Asian women sums up quite well their unhappiness at being taken to and abandoned in this very strange, cold, hostile country:
  "You ask me how I felt when we arrived here? Bad—I felt bad, to leave them all, everyone back in the village. Did I expect it to be like this? No, tell me, how could I? After all, I had never been here before, there was no means of knowing. I used to cry, not knowing anyone or anything, missing my own home. To live in one room after living in a country when houses are so open … It was hard, very hard."
  I find the plight of those women, and their vulnerability, a greater worry than the plight of our UK Asian women. Many Bradford and Keighley women from both of those groups have good reason to be grateful to
  258
  Philip Balmforth, a retired policeman who helps Asian women escape, go into hiding and live with some degree of security. Working alongside West Yorkshire police and Bradford social services department, he helps women fleeing domestic violence who are referred to him by doctors, nurses and social workers. He also helps the growing number of younger women who approach him for help to avoid unwanted marriages or who, having gone through the marriage—unwillingly—wish to leave. Many of those women are eventually helped by the very well-regarded Manningham housing association in Bradford.
  The number of referrals to Philip has gone up from 168 in 1996 to 283 in 1998. Some are Sikh, but they are mainly Muslim; and the increase is mainly among young UK women avoiding marriages. My only explanation for this growth is that there is an ever-increasing number of women reaching maturity who regard themselves as of a cross culture, with different aspirations to their mothers. Many will have much more in common with girls from the indigenous population than with male cousins in Pakistan who have no English, who have lived their lives in tiny Mirpur villages and who know only rural life and agricultural work. Yet our young women are expected to marry those men.
  Since I started preparing this speech, an article in last Sunday's edition of The Observer has been drawn to my attention. It is so very relevant that I shall quote from it, as much of it ties up with the type of situations that I hear about in Keighley and Bradford. I do not know where the woman mentioned in the article comes from, nor do I know where the three girls she talks about live. The article, by Carol Sarler, is entitled "The silence of the imams … while another child dies". It states:
  "Take three girls, linked by nothing save their fathers' faith and the fact that I knew all of them. The first was a bright, young schoolfriend of my daughter whose parents suddenly announced, when she reached 15, that she'd be leaving school shortly to prepare for her marriage to a strange and older man. My daughter asked me, on the frightened child's behalf, if I would hide her—but, even as I weighed my conscience against Holloway prison my dilemma was removed: the child had mysteriously changed her mind about the man."
  We find that that happens all the time. Neither Sarler nor her daughter ever saw the girl again. The article goes on:
  "The second girl was only 14 when her own family beat her, kidnapped her and imprisoned her—all designed to knock the Western stuffing out of her—and then began to plan her wedding. She escaped but was almost murdered in the process and now lives as a teenage exile far from all she ever knew.
  The third was a neighbour. A darling little thing, perhaps 16, with a sweet, shy smile and a puppy dog eagerness to please the husband who had been found for her. For his part, she was there to work and breed, and she most certainly wasn't allowed to mix with anyone else. So I didn't get to know her well at all. Still I was sorry when, one lonely day, she hanged herself."
  I wish to make it absolutely clear that I do not oppose arranged marriages as such. My assistant in Keighley, Shamim, has just gone through such a marriage, and is perfectly happy with the situation. My appeal to the Asian Muslim parents of Keighley—and beyond—is that they should discuss with their daughters the plans that they have for their future. If the daughters do not like their parents' choice and would prefer to marry a man from their own cultural background, then their parents only have to look around to discover that there are many eligible Muslim bachelors in West Yorkshire. Those men will also have the advantage of being able to get work and will therefore not be a drain on the daughters' families.

  259
  My other appeal is to the leaders of the Asian Muslim community. I hope that they will encourage their people to put their daughters' happiness, welfare and human rights first. If they do, their community will progress and prosper, in line with the Sikh and Hindu communities.
  Because my own daughter-in-law is from an Asian family, I am not blind to the many benefits of belonging to such a family, whose members are more supportive of each other than is the rule in the west. We must also recognise that Asian women must not seek help outside their community or even family, as that is regarded as a betrayal. Therefore, the cries for help that we hear may be just the tip of the iceberg and we must remember that Members of Parliament—especially those of us who are women—are here to listen and support without being judgmental. Our Asian women constituents are perfectly entitled to expect the same human rights as are afforded to us and to our daughters. They are also entitled to expect us to help them to enjoy those human rights.
  Finally, I want to touch briefly on the plight of another group of women whose every human right has been removed since the Taliban took over most of Afghanistan. That vast country, in which there are thousands of widows after years of internal and external wars, is now ruled by men who have reduced the role of women to that of child bearers. They are barred from education, medical care or any means of earning a living, which means that the children of widows are reduced to begging and scavenging for food. As and when the money is available, the widows cannot even go out to shop without being escorted by a close male member of their family: if they do not have such a relative, they leave their homes risking a severe beating.
  The United States of America in particular—and this country to a lesser extent—fed the Afghan war machine over many years. It is thought that American dollars are still being used to support the Taliban. I hope and trust that that does not have even the tacit support of our Government, and that we will do all in our power to rescue Afghanistan and its women from the Taliban's culture of cruelty and human degradation.
  I should also like to mention that, at a meeting in Paris about a year ago of the Western European Union, a report was presented on the situation in Afghanistan. The rapporteur was a French socialist, and he claimed that many of the Madrasas had young men from just inside Pakistan who join the Taliban forces, and were supported by money from the Central Intelligence Agency. I do not know whether that is true, and the report was disappointing in that it failed to mention the plight of Afghanistan's women. That had to be put right by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who did a great job in that regard.
  Finally, I wish to thank the Council of Europe Equal Opportunities Committee, of which I am a member, for raising internationally, at a conference in December, the tragedy that continues to be Afghanistan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, for giving his time to reply to this debate.
  11.16 am
  Jackie Ballard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on securing this important debate, and on her brave and moving speech, which I am sure will have affected everyone in the House.
  260
  All hon. Members would agree that it is a basic human right to have a voice, and to be heard and represented. In my remarks, I shall concentrate on the issue of representation. I am sure that all hon. Members would also agree that women's voices are essential to a healthy democracy and a healthy society. I do not believe that only women can represent women, but a legislature that does not have the same gender balance as the population as a whole cannot call itself representative.
  Here I must make the obvious confession: my party has failed dismally in that regard, with only three women Members of this Parliament. However, we will have a better balance in the European Parliament after June, and we have the highest percentage of women councillors in local government. The party is taking steps to address our failings in that regard.
  Ms Jenny Jones: I know that we are discussing an important matter in the debate, but the hon. Lady mentioned the number of women in her party and it has not escaped our notice that her party is going through a leadership contest at the moment. Does she have it in mind that her party might deal with the problem that she has described by having a woman leader?
  Jackie Ballard: I could not possibly comment on that. However, the other day, I received a document from the Council for Parity Democracy. That document, which lists every woman in the world who is head of government or head of state, or who leads business or international organisations, is only 20 pages long. There are not nearly enough women leaders around the world, and perhaps my party could make a start on changing that. One never knows.
  Other parties, here and abroad, are also tackling the issue of women's participation in democracy. That is a key aspect of the British Council's work in many developing countries, with which I and some Labour Members have been involved over the past couple of years. I shall speak briefly about the institutional changes that this Government have made to improve women's lives, and then give an example from one of the countries that I have visited.
  First, I was disappointed—as I am sure were some Labour Members—that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) was suddenly moved aside from her post as Minister for Women, even though she had proved to be quite effective. That did not give a very good message about the Government's intentions with regard to women. I am not throwing any aspersions about her replacement, although the Minister for Public Health, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), has other ministerial responsibilities, which obviously make the job more difficult.
  One of the concerns of the women's unit is to increase the number of women who serve on public bodies. At the moment, only 31 per cent. of appointees to public bodies are women. If one looks more closely at the figures, one finds that most of those are in unpaid posts. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has the best record, employing women in 36 per cent. of paid posts and 28 per cent. of unpaid posts in the past two years. In contrast, women fill only 26 per cent. of paid posts and 86 per cent. of unpaid posts in the Department of Health, which clearly has a long way to go.

  261
  Only 10 per cent. of our judges are women, and there are even fewer women in the higher courts. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to redress that imbalance? He must be pushed on the issue. Male judges have shown their inability to deal sensitively with crimes against women, such as rape and domestic violence. We are told that dealing with domestic violence is a key priority of the Government, but there is still much to be done to increase resources for women seeking refuge, improve training of police officers and conduct regular monitoring of reports of domestic violence, all of which is almost non-existent.
  I was recently in Mexico with the British Council, attending a seminar on work in that country on women's rights, aimed at increasing women's participation in decision making. The position of women in the societies of many countries that signed the Beijing declaration, such as Mexico, is well behind that of the United Kingdom, yet, because they start from a low base, they put in place more effective structures than we have here. In Mexico, for example, the gender and equity parliamentary commission, which plays a similar role to a Select Committee, has a remit to look at the impact of all legislation on gender and equity. We might do well to consider that model.
  The Mexican Government have embarked on a programme to establish a women's unit in each of the 32 states. We might well consider such a decentralised model, in which women's units work with state and local governments to implement a programme to improve women's rights. That enables the Government to respond to specific issues in different places in different regions, where there are different rates of progress, and where large indigenous populations, ethnic minorities or rural women have different needs than women in the city.
  It is more than two decades since the framework of laws was implemented in the UK to try to eliminate sexual discrimination—which has usually, but not exclusively, been against women—in education and training, employment and consumer affairs. The Equal Opportunities Commission has recently proposed reforming sex equality laws by the introduction of a single sex equality Act, which would be based on the principle of equal treatment, and which would put the onus on employers and service providers to comply with the law, rather than the complainant having to take the case to a tribunal. I hope that the Government will very soon be able to respond to the EOC proposal, and inform the House when we can expect sex equality legislation in the Queen's Speech.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to say in his response to the debate when the Government will set up a human rights commission. I apologise to him that I shall have to leave a few minutes before the end of the debate, although I let him know about that earlier.
  When we have a voice as women and as Members of Parliament, we should use it to the advantage of all those without a voice. Around the world, many women are held back by traditions, cultural and otherwise, which prevent them from exercising their choice. The hon. Member for Keighley described how that impacts on many women in this country. The Beijing declaration came to the clear view that women's views must be heard, that a nation's progress depends on the progress of women and that the
  262
  strength of the political system depends on the inclusion of women. Human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights.
  11.24 am
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) to hear that I agree with just about everything she said. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on obtaining this debate and on her excellent and moving speech. Nobody should underestimate the courage that it took to make such a speech. I shall speak on many of the issues that she raised, but, given the virtual worldwide silence on women's human rights, I make no apology for doing so. Today should mark the beginning of an effective campaign to highlight the plight of millions of women and children, whose basic human rights are violated daily in the name of culture or religion.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I do not speak in any superior, patronising way, as I am only too well aware of the history of my country, and the crimes against women and humanity that it has committed globally and at home. In supporting this debate, my hon. Friend and I shall probably face accusations of racism or Islamophobia, but experiences, and what I have seen as I have travelled the world as a Member of Parliament, make it clear that silence is not an option any more.
  Female circumcision is not just a problem in the developing world; it happens in the west. There is a case about it in Paris at the moment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) will speak about what is happening in Britain. The World Health Organisation has stated:
  "most of the girls and women who have been subjected to female genital mutilation live in 28 African countries, although some live in Asia and the Middle East."
  Due to immigration, some live in Europe, Australia, Canada and the United States of America, too. It is estimated that about 140 million women and girls worldwide have suffered that dreadful practice, and that a further 2 million girls are annually at risk.
  Female genital mutilation—or FGM, as it is called—comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of external female genitalia, or other injury to female genital organs, whether for cultural, religious or non-therapeutic reasons. The procedures are always totally irreversible. They are harmful to the health of women and girls, and the effects last a lifetime. Immediate complications include severe pain, shock, urine retention, ulceration of the genital region, haemorrhage, and infection, which can often lead to death in the poorest areas of the world. Long-term consequences are horrendous, and include incontinence, painful sexual intercourse, sexual dysfunction and the possibility of HIV infection. The risk of maternal death and stillbirth is greatly increased, especially in the absence of skilled health personnel.
  That is torture on a massive scale. It is committed against millions of girls and women every year, yet where is the outcry? Who is saying much about it? Insomniacs will have heard a good programme at 3 o'clock this morning on the BBC World Service, in which Dr. Olienka, a very brave Nigerian woman who has led a one-woman crusade, and other women spoke about the practice in Sierra Leone. How many Parliaments debate

  263
  the obscenity? How many times has the United Nations Security Council, the Group of Seven or the United Nations itself debated, on a world platform, that crime against humanity? The truth is that they do not because the victims are female. The practice violates every part of the universal declaration of human rights.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady will be heartened to know that female genital mutilation was discussed during negotiations in Beijing. Does she agree that, far too often, people brush the subject under the carpet and do not want to talk about it because it is taboo and not to be discussed in the open? We have a duty, particularly as women parliamentarians, to speak out about the matter and to say that it is absolutely wrong.
  Mrs. Mahon: I agree with the hon. Lady. The practice is a absolute violation of human rights, yet it is conducted in the name of religion or for cultural reasons, among Christian as well as Muslim women. It predates such religions, so the religions cannot claim that it is done for religious reasons. I believe that it is done to control women and to keep them under the thumb, so to speak.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Often, such practices and other human rights violations are dismissed as village Islam—just as a village in Poland might be more Catholic than the Pope. Does my hon. Friend agree that religious leaders have a responsibility to teach their flocks exactly what their religion says and not to allow ignorance to develop?
  Mrs. Mahon: Absolutely. Such mutilation has nothing to do with the great religions of the world. It is an abuse and a violation.
  I shall briefly discuss what is happening in Afghanistan. When the South African Government declared a state of apartheid—an inhuman system, which institutionalised the supposedly superior status of whites in all political, economic and social matters—the world was rightly outraged. How could the civilised world stand by and watch such an obscenity take place? That white South African state became a pariah state, and a magnificent campaign was fought, in which many of us were involved, to end that evil.
  Where is the outcry against gender apartheid in Afghanistan? Who is speaking out about the human catastrophe taking place there? Where are the major debates in the United Nations? When there was apartheid in South Africa—a dreadful evil, which I helped to oppose—it was an almost weekly issue for discussion. However, since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, women and girls have been legally—under the Taliban—subjected to extreme conditions of exclusion. That wicked regime, in a country of millions of war-damaged people and widows, has denied basic human rights to all girls and women.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, in Afghanistan women are barred from receiving any education. They are banned from work and are not allowed to leave home unaccompanied. They are almost under house arrest. Girls are married off, quite often, to strangers much older than themselves, and in some cases just used as sex slaves.
  The Council of Europe—I am grateful for the work that it has done—has studied the situation and is trying to draw attention to it. Naturally, it condemns it. The Council of
  264
  Europe published a report in November 1998. Evidence had been taken from agencies and from Afghans who had witnessed at first hand the Taliban's treatment of women. Interestingly, the report says clearly that that treatment has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. It was taught by the Taliban in the camps in Peshawar. I tried to get there about eight years ago, but was turned back when I reached the camps. They said that I was a wicked woman, and I was not allowed to enter. Those camps taught that evil; the Pakistani Government has much to answer for in that.
  Amnesty International has condemned the treatment that is inflicted on women and girls in Afghanistan. It now says that those women are prisoners of conscience, and that the restrictions should be lifted immediately.
  Meanwhile, in Pakistan—one of the only three countries to recognise the Taliban regime—things are not very good for women. The plight of many women in rural areas is grim indeed. In 1979, Zia, then head of the military regime, introduced several ordinances dealing directly with women; those are still in force. The first and most notorious, the Huddood ordinance, deals with—among other things—rape, adultery, fornication and prostitution, and suggests punishments for all those crimes. Zina, the adultery clause, has led to thousands of women being imprisoned—and, in many cases, beaten and killed—just because someone, not necessarily the husband, accuses them of adultery. Zina-bil-jahr, the clause dealing with rape, states that four male Muslims of good character must have witnessed the crime of rape. That makes it almost impossible for any woman to bring charges. That is an outrage; the Pakistan Government should hang their heads in shame because they still allow it.
  People in Pakistan are working to do something about what is happening there. The Pakistan commission on the status of women, which began its work in 1984—some of whose members I met when I was in Pakistan—submitted a report. Its findings were clear. It said:
  "the average rural woman in Pakistan is born in near slavery, leads a life of drudgery and dies invariably in oblivion".
  The United Nations 1994 human rights development report said:
  "Pakistani women's participation in education, health, labour and politics is lower than many countries in the region, reflecting a major crisis in civil society".
  I believe that anyone who saw the BBC "Correspondent" programme, "Murder in Purdah", shown in January, will realise that it is vital that all the nations of the civilised world speak out. The testimony of the 15-year-old girl, given 24 hours before she died from the horrible burns that she had received from her husband or his relatives, will haunt those who saw it for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), chairman of the all-party group on human rights, will be showing the film at 6 o'clock on Monday 15 February in one of the Committee Rooms.
  The 15-year-old had been virtually sold by her father to an older man, who will probably never be punished. The film repeatedly showed how the men are allowed virtually to sell their daughters. The husbands abuse them. Quite often, if the marriage breaks down, the women end up in prison or their children are taken from them. The men who have committed the crimes walk free; they bragged about it on the documentary. A man who had shot his wife kept the gun as a trophy, and bribed his way out of prison.

  265
  We must campaign for the abolition of the Zina laws and the Huddood ordinances. The Pakistani Government cannot claim to be part of the civilised family of nations while it allows those crimes against women.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I should like to finish by coming closer to home. I, too, was moved by Carol Sarler's article in The Observer. I believe that every woman from every community from certain parts of the subcontinent can associate with her opening remarks, which my hon. Friend so movingly read out.
  Just this week, I have had yet another case of a young woman—a very bright, well-educated young woman, born in Halifax—who, last year, was tricked into going on holiday and married against her will. As she is well educated and has spirit, she is objecting to the marriage and has decided that the young man will not be brought into this country. However, we must question the role of the institutions that should be protecting those young, in this case Yorkshire—Halifax—girls. Obviously, they are being badly let down by the institutions. The law, it seems, is not for them.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), who rescued Rifat Haq, who was 20 years old, and Nazia, who was 13 years old, who were abducted by their own father and married off. At 13, that is illegal in Pakistan as well as Britain, and we should be speaking out about it. The veil of silence should be lifted on that practice.
  I want to mention Zoora Shah, a Bradford woman, who for 20 years was beaten and raped and made to sleep with other men by Mohammed Azam, the brother of Sher Azam—former head of the city's council for mosques. When that evil man tried to abuse her daughters, she poisoned him; but, because she was too ashamed, for cultural reasons, to defend herself properly, she was given a life sentence.
  A few streets away in the same city, Shabir Hussain killed his sister-in-law, Tasleem Begum, in an "honour killing", because her arranged marriage had failed and she wanted to run her own life. He ran her down three times in his car and was sentenced to life for murder, but on appeal had his sentence reduced to one for manslaughter. Passing judgment, Judge Hodson said:
  "I accept there has been considerable pressure on you for the last few years. Something blew up in your head that caused you a complete and sudden loss of control".
  That judgment was outrageous. The double standards applied in those two cases are mind-blowing—the result of the conspiracy of silence surrounding anything to do with basic human rights for Asian women. We are in danger of importing the principles of Zina and the Huddood ordinances into the streets and cities of this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and I intend to campaign for an end to gender apartheid. We want the victims to contact us here in the House of Commons. We intend to lobby, to harass and to ensure that all the agencies that should be protecting women to do their jobs. Lest there be accusations of racism, let me say that, like my hon. Friend, I have black grandchildren who are the absolute joy of my life. I reject any accusation of racism. I have friends whom I love in the Muslim
  266
  community. I certainly was not popular politically for opposing the bombing in Iraq against ordinary Muslims. Any claims of racism are nonsensical.
  I have read the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and there is no exclusion clause explaining that the declaration does not cover female genital mutilation. There is no footnote excluding Afghan women, or Pakistani women in Bradford, Halifax, Keighley, Wolverhampton or Glasgow. Universal means every man, woman and child on this planet. If we do not speak up for that, we deny human rights for millions of women and girls.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless speeches are reasonably brief, many will be disappointed.
  11.41 am
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is not often that I wholeheartedly agree with Labour Members. However, this morning I have heard two speeches that I admired. I would like to join other colleagues in offering my unreserved congratulations to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on having the courage to initiate this debate and to make her voice heard on behalf of women who are undoubtedly abused, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
  If the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is starting a campaign, perhaps she will give some consideration to talking to me about it. I would be very willing to join any campaign that would end the barbaric practices that are perpetrated against women throughout the world.
  Slightly more than 50 years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations produced the universal declaration of human rights, which followed the dark days of the second world war. Those were dark days in our own history in Europe. However, the declaration made it clear that the rights that it expounded were for all people without exception. Though much progress has been made over the past 50 years, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members would acknowledge, much more is needed around the globe.
  The debate seeks to highlight the single gender, and I obviously have a great deal of sympathy with that. However, I say at the outset that I would not want a single gender debate to remove the highlight from human rights in general—the human rights that belong to both men and women. If we practise the politics of inclusion and believe in equal opportunities, we should not narrow our horizons and ignore 50 per cent. of the population.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I accept what the hon. Lady says about making her remarks apply to both sexes. However, does she agree with me that nowadays, the nature of war, and especially civil war, means that women and children are disproportionately affected? Many more women have their human rights abused because of war and civil war throughout the world now than ever before. This is one of the main problems. War has become war against women, who are raped, mutilated and abducted. They are damaged far more than the male of the species.
  Mrs. Gillan: I do not wish to have a disagreement with the hon. Lady because I have sympathy with her remarks.

  267
  However, it would be narrow-minded to imagine for a moment that it is not possible to damage men, to damage boy children, to rape boy children and to rape men. I would not want to enter into a debate in which we held a competition to determine who was abused more. The abuses of civil war and war in general are well known, sadly, to all right hon. and hon. Members.
  I wish to focus on the fact that there must be equality of attitude towards the debate, although at the same time, we must highlight the special and particular treatment for which women are often singled out, particularly in the name of religion.
  When I was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, I had the privilege of signing the declaration on the platform for action in Beijing. The then Government took the matter so seriously that we sent three Ministers to Beijing. It was not a jolly for the three Ministers and it was not a trip on Concorde. Three very senior Ministers went to Beijing to do a job of work, not only on behalf of the women of the United Kingdom, but on behalf of women throughout the world. I pay tribute to Baroness Chalker and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who attended the conference with me.
  I pay tribute also to the non-governmental officers who attended the conference, in far more difficult circumstances than myself. A parallel conference for NGOs took place down the road. Due to adverse weather conditions and the poor preparation of the buildings that were to be used, many of the NGOs were up to their knees in mud. There was a tremendous spirit among the NGOs, the politicians and the representatives who had made it to Beijing to negotiate the platform for action.
  Sadly, the negotiating team that I used and the equal opportunities unit within the Department for Education and Employment have now been broken up. The Government have had four Ministers with responsibilities for women in less than two years, including one who was unpaid. I believe that the message that is going out to women is completely wrong. Perhaps the Conservative Government were not quite so up-front about our policies for women. We never promised a ministry for women. I believe that the previous Government made good progress on rights for women and that the present Government have caused a great deal of disappointment throughout the country. However, that is not the main thrust of my speech.
  At Beijing, I met women who took my breath away. I met women who had been tortured and mutilated. I met women whose very lives were in danger because of their presence at the conference. These were real women and real injustices. I heard stories at first hand which ranged from bride burning to female genital mutilation, and from rape to female infanticide. Sadly, we can travel around the globe and collect stories of abuses as we move from country to country.
  In common with those who have already spoken in this debate, I wish to highlight three areas where crimes against women are rife and, sadly, are often committed in the name of religion, or because one religion does not tolerate another. I am grateful to Christian Solidarity Worldwide for its briefings on this subject and I have no hesitation in reading from them. I think that the House would wish to hear particular stories from India and Pakistan.
  268
  At the end of last year, four nuns belonging to a missionary group, the Foreign Missionary Sisters, were gang raped by suspected Hindu militants in the Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh in central India. The four Catholic nuns were all under 35 years of age. They were dragged out of their convent, taken to a nearby field and gang raped by 15 to 20 men. The police claim that they have arrested four people in connection with the incident, but have declined to disclose their identity.
  The assailants first knocked at the door of the convent, pretending that they needed urgent medical help for someone. The nuns were unconvinced and refused to open the door. They barricaded themselves in a chapel, but the assailants broke into the convent and ransacked the whole building before dragging the nuns from the chapel and taking them to the fields to be raped. All four of the nuns were from the state of Tamil Nadu and working for FMS, a humanitarian medical organisation which was set up to provide medical help to people bereft of medical facilities in the remote rural areas of the country.
  I do not say that a nun is better than any other woman, but the incident serves my purpose in showing that people could choose women who were in the area for humanitarian purposes and that the authorities do not pursue to the nth degree the perpetrators of such a revolting and abhorrent crime.
  We have heard about the situation in Pakistan. Again, Christian Solidarity Worldwide has provided me with a brief, which states:
  "Every morning, teeming multitudes of under-nourished women are gobbled up by the smoky brick buildings of factories and disgorged in the evening after a heavy day's labour. Millions of other women are bent in back-breaking labour in the fields and farms and in the muddy courtyards of cramped dwellings from dawn to dusk. Few women have formal work in Pakistan. However, those who do often find themselves subject to discriminatory treatment in the workplace with lower pay and poorer working conditions and security than their male counterparts."
  Discrimination stretches beyond the workplace, affecting the political, legal and social status of women. Legally, the evidence of a woman is worth half that of a man. Worse still, the evidence of a Christian woman is not accepted at all in cases filed under Sharia law. However, such women can still be charged, convicted and punished under Sharia law.
  Incidents of rape and violence against women are a daily news item. As we heard, the Huddood laws relating to rape require the eye-witness testimony of four adult male witnesses for rape to be proved. That is ridiculous; it denies justice to many of the victims of rape in that country. However, if rape is unproven, the unfortunate girl is charged with adultery. That cannot be right under any religion or any laws. No politician in any state could possibly endorse that.
  Political representation of women remains low. Although some efforts are being made to ensure that women have seats in Parliament, their tragedy often goes unheard because they have no real voice.
  Finally, I shall deal with Afghanistan, as other hon. Members have touched on the subject. For me, the present situation in Afghanistan represents some of the worst treatment handed out to women across the globe. We have heard how women are prevented from seeking employment. Women doctors are prohibited from practising their trade. Education is not permitted for female children. Women are not allowed to walk down

  269
  the street unless accompanied by a man. Amnesty International, which collects and catalogues some of the worst abuses of human rights, came across a case only a couple of years ago in which the Taliban had a woman's thumb cut off because she wore nail varnish.
  The Minister who is to reply to the debate has not been known for speaking in women's debates in the House. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and hope that he will make a fine contribution in what, I believe, will be his first debate on women's issues. I hope that he sits on the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues, which was started under the Conservative Government. Perhaps in the course of his winding-up speech he will tell us how many times that Cabinet Sub-Committee has met.
  I urge the Minister to ensure that continuous and strong representations are made to the three countries that I have highlighted, in particular to Afghanistan and the Taliban. In their daily business of running the country and representing its interests and views abroad, Ministers should keep at the forefront of their minds the countless women and girls who die or are damaged each day from gender-based discrimination, and on every possible occasion they should support and promulgate human rights for all—men and women.
  Whether distributing aid, negotiating a trade deal or making a diplomatic visit, Ministers should keep human rights in mind so that we can continue to make progress over the next 50 years, as we have over the past 50 years. Ministers should not go abroad or discuss any matter with their opposite numbers, no matter from which country they come, without attempting to draw human rights abuses to their colleagues' attention and helping to eradicate some of the worst treatment imaginable of one human being by another.
  11.54 am
  Ms Jenny Jones: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on securing this important debate. Everyone in the House agrees that she does not lack courage in raising this important and sensitive subject.
  I serve on the Council of Europe with my hon. Friend; we are both members of the equal opportunities committee there. As we have heard, the committee has been taking evidence on the situation in Afghanistan. The House might also be interested to know that last year, shortly after the committee was formed, one of the first topics with which we had to get to grips was the news that virginity testing had been re-introduced in Turkey. Thanks to the women and the men on the equal opportunities committee, we succeeded in getting that proposal widely publicised and stopped. We are very busy on the Council of Europe these days.
  Last week, my constituency office received a telephone call from a distraught young woman who told my staff the story of her cousin's wife, who is a constituent of mine. My constituent, whom I shall not name for reasons that will shortly become obvious, had married a man of whom her parents did not approve. The marriage had been against their wishes. Shortly after her marriage, she and her husband decided to go to Pakistan for a family visit. She wanted to meet her husband's family there.
  When the couple arrived at the village, they were both arrested and locked up in the local police gaol. It transpired that my constituent's family in Pakistan had
  270
  brought charges against her and her husband. They had accused her husband of kidnapping her and they had accused her of stealing the family jewellery, which was part of the dowry. More seriously, a male relative of my constituent had stationed himself outside the gaol and said that he would shoot her if she was released.
  My constituent is a British citizen. She asked to be given access to the British embassy in Islamabad and was refused. She and her husband were kept in the lock-up for almost three days before his family found out where they were. They telephoned their family in Wolverhampton, who immediately contacted my office. We immediately involved the British embassy in Islamabad.
  I congratulate the official at the embassy, who took immediate action. Embassy staff contacted the police station, pointed out that a British citizen had been arrested and asked why. Negotiations took place. The police dropped the charges, which the family considered to have been trumped up. They released the couple and gave them protective custody until they could reach my constituent's husband's family where they felt safe.
  Everyone concerned took seriously the threat to kill my constituent. The House will note that it was the woman, not her husband, who was to be killed. My constituent will shortly return to the United Kingdom. She has family in this country, and I am seriously beginning to wonder what will happen to her when she returns to the UK. Needless to say, I shall keep in close contact with her and her family to make sure that she will be all right.
  That story shocks me, as do the others that we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The stories are so shocking because the women involved are taking the sort of decision about their personal lives that all other women in this country take, but they are being forced to pay a terrible price for doing so. They are being put through hell for making choices that the rest of us take for granted.
  In telling the House of my constituent's experiences, I do not point the finger at any one faith or culture. All faiths have their zealots. At present, almost every religion is grappling with fundamentalism; it is not a phenomenon associated particularly with Islam. Unfortunately, because of the press coverage in this country, fundamentalism is automatically associated with Islam, and we have indeed heard stories from Afghanistan.
  However, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) pointed out some of the effects of fundamentalist Hinduism in India. Recently, our attention has been drawn to what is happening in the United States, where fundamentalist Christians are killing people and bombing property in a campaign against family planning and access to legal abortion. We need to keep the matter in perspective. One key feature of all religious fundamentalism is the suppression of women.
  Ours is an inclusive society in which we strive to understand and respect all cultures and differences, which I have often said is our strong point. But—this is a big but—we should not allow that to blind us to the practices which result in the violation of human rights of men and women. Regardless of faith and culture, it is plain wrong to kidnap and drug a woman, and to threaten or commit violence against a woman, because she wants to make a particular decision in her life.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax referred to female circumcision. An article in The Independent last week said that female circumcision is being practised in

  271
  Britain. We all know about the case which is currently before the French courts, but that article said that a team of investigative journalists attached to a television company had discovered two Harley street doctors involved in female circumcision in Britain. If that is true, it is shocking. The House must speak out about it and investigate it. Another practice involves young girls born in Britain, and therefore British citizens, being sent to their families' country of origin for the operation—to me it is mutilation—and then returned to Britain. That must stop.
  All are agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has been courageous in raising this sensitive issue, but we must have an intelligent debate. We cannot allow ourselves to be embroiled in arguments about racism, cultural rights, traditions and so on. Britain now has the Human Rights Act 1998. As a member of the Council of Europe, I was a particular enthusiast for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our legislation. It is one of the best things that the Government have done. However, the House must ensure that human rights are for all our daughters, regardless of their cultural background.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I, too, sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on bringing before the House all the important issues affecting women that have been raised today, in particular the question of forced arranged marriages and their consequences on social life in Britain.
  I, too, have heard allegations of female genital mutilation being carried out in Britain, and the Select Committee on International Development heard evidence of that being carried out in Harley street. Other abuses, too, are suffered by British women, and we must be vigilant in stamping out such practices in Britain. They are against our law and human rights, and against British women. I should like to join any organisation that is established to campaign against these practices, so that those responsible are brought to justice and the practices about which we have heard are stamped out.
  Dr. Tonge: Speaking from a medical point of view, it would be helpful if, when we campaign for the abolition of genital mutilation, we included male genital mutilation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no medical reason for male circumcision. Many small boys are seriously damaged by that operation being done by unlicensed practitioners and people who do not know how to do it properly. It may broaden the issue and make it easier for certain cultural groups to accept if we go for both forms of operation, not just one of them.
  Mr. Wells: That is an excellent suggestion. I was about to say that this should be the concern of not only women, but men and women. Evidence given to the International Development Committee suggests that the law is not necessarily the way in which to stop such practices. A law against such practices is in place in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, all of which have signed up to the Peking action programme and the Cairo action programme on sexual and reproductive health drawn up five years ago. Therefore, it is not colonial or imperialist to suggest that these practices need to be stamped out in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
  272
  The House may not be aware that the International Development Committee is going to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh at the end of February and the beginning of March, and our subject is gender and development. We have purposely called it that because we must get the men on our side on this issue. It is often when the imams and other men controlling such societies agree that such practices are wrong that they are most quickly stamped out, so we must involve everyone in the crusade.
  The usual population balance between the genders is 52 per cent. female and 48 per cent. male. In India, that has not only been reversed, but the female population is now as low as 45 per cent. That means that practices against female children are widespread in India. Death in childbirth is one factor, but the starving and deliberate murder of girl children on birth, and amniocentesis, which allows a female embryo to be identified and aborted, are widely practised. Apart from anything else, such practices are against nature, but they are also against the law and against human rights, to which India has signed up.
  We must campaign against such abuses, which feed back into Bradford, Keighley, Wolverhampton and Southall, and we must be militant about abolishing such abhorrent practices.
  12.7 pm
  Ms Chris McCafferty: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on securing this important debate. I am pleased that we are having it during the week of the five-year review of the Cairo conference programme of action which put women's rights at the heart of its agenda.
  Despite many international agreements affirming women's human rights, girls and women are still much more likely than men to be poor, undernourished and illiterate, and to have less access than men to education, medical care, property ownership, credit, training and employment.
  Discrimination against girls often begins before birth in the preference for sons, and in too many places continues with the denial of education and medical care, and with forced teenage or even pre-teenage marriage, sex and pregnancy.
  Women may be restricted to the home, sexually and physically abused without any remedy, and denied rights to own or inherit property, receive training or credit, or to take part in political or social discourse, as is the case in Afghanistan today, which was so movingly described by my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). Such treatment of women is a corruption of Islam, which teaches respect and honour for women.
  At puberty, in particular, girls have specific needs that should be addressed. Access to health education alleviates trauma caused by ignorance of bodily changes, and leads to improved hygiene, the lack of which often leads to infection and sometimes death. However, in Afghanistan, that education is forbidden and in many countries, it is simply not available. Girls expect only to be mothers, and are restricted in education and employment, while boys are prepared to be heads of families. Laws against domestic violence are often not enforced on behalf of women, making women vulnerable to persistent abuse,

  273
  or even murder. When women defend themselves, or try to flee such violence, it is often they who are imprisoned, instead of the perpetrators.
  Unfortunately, achieving gender equality in those areas requires the support of men, who exercise most of the power and who, in some countries, appear to want to keep their women in fear and subjugation. Investment in education for women and expanding their access to credit, training, property and legal rights give them options to achieve status and satisfaction in life, and liberate their economic potential. For centuries, child bearing has been women's chief source of security and status, and that remains the case, especially in countries where women are denied education, reproductive health care, secure livelihoods, and full and equal rights. Programmes that offer girls alternative life-style choices can help girls to stay in school and, consequently, delay child bearing. Such women tend to have fewer children.
  Two thirds of the illiterate adults in the world are female, but where there are higher levels of women's education, there are also lower infant mortality and lower fertility. Women in developing nations are usually in charge of securing water, food and fuel, and they oversee their families' health and diet. They tend to put into immediate practice whatever they learn about nutrition, health care, and the preservation of the environment and natural resources.
  The roles that men and women play in society are socially determined and often justified as being required by culture or religion. However, there can be no democracy without equality. If we judge a country by the conditions and status of its women, many would fall short, but in Afghanistan, women have no status at all and their life conditions are intolerable. The dreadful situation in which Afghan women are trying to survive is getting worse every day. Women's human rights are being violated daily, in the name of law and order and religion.
  The restrictions imposed on women by the Taliban are not unique. In other countries in the region such as Pakistan, the quality of life for women, in terms of their status and the violation of their rights, is now little better than in Afghanistan, because of the resurgence of fundamentalism. The systematic attacks on women's rights in those countries should be a warning that regressive steps can occur anywhere and at any time. The international community has a duty to take resolute action to restore women's rights in Afghanistan, and to help to stop further deterioration of the quality of life and rights of women in other Islamic communities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax told us about the most pernicious form of the violation of women's human rights: female genital mutilation—a term used for a variety of surgical operations—which is carried out on healthy, female children, mainly for traditional reasons, and which is often backed by enormous social pressure. That mutilation, often carried out with unsterilised instruments and without anaesthetic, can lead to immediate health risk and often causes long-term health damage. That it is being carried out in the luxury of Harley street is no less oppressive. The practice is prevalent in north Africa, the near east and Asia, and it is not uncommon for children born in Britain to be sent abroad to be operated on. Such children often believe that they are going to visit relatives, only to be violated by
  274
  people whom they trust. Where are the laws to protect those vulnerable children? No wonder the problem is being swept under the carpet.
  Slavery, torture, and racial and ethnic prejudice are centuries old, and are now rightly condemned when they involve people of colour, political dissidents or ethnic groups. Violation of women's human rights must receive the same international censure. I urge the Government to use every possible forum to condemn the continuing abuse of women's human rights wherever it is perpetrated. In particular, I urge them to establish mechanisms to ensure that women and girls living in Britain are protected from female genital mutilation, either in this country or abroad.
  12.14 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: May I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on initiating the debate on this very important topic? We have heard a number of excellent speeches and I should particularly like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for telling us of her experiences in these matters as a former Minister with responsibility for women. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley on her courageous speech. It cannot have been easy to stand up and say what she said today. She spoke movingly and sensitively, and her comments gained the wholehearted support of everybody in the House.
  It is a sad comment on the world today that, as we stand at the brink of a new millennium, it is still necessary for us to debate restrictions on human rights faced by so many women across the world. Different examples of those restrictions have been referred to in the debate. The lot of women in the UK has been improved over the years, as society has changed. Involvement in the political process has played a part in that, as an impetus for change; it is, perhaps, appropriate that we are having this debate in the week of the 70th anniversary of the extension of the vote to women.
  I must say to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) that, although her speech might have been something of a leadership bid, I thought that she rather missed the point of the debate. Many other hon. Members raised issues of extreme importance that the Government must take seriously and on which they must act. In many parts of the world—and also, as we have heard, for women in certain communities in the UK—the treatment of many women has not improved greatly over many generations. Those women are still treated as second-class citizens, because of cultural attitudes and traditions that apply within their communities.
  I want to mention one issue that has not been fully addressed. One of the key developments that can open opportunities to women and improve their position in society is access to education. As UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—reported at the international conference on girls' education last May, one of the problems in the world is that girls make up two thirds of the approximately 132 million children in developing countries who are not in school. There are 900 million illiterate adults in the world, of whom two thirds are female.
  Education is a key to breaking out of poverty; it empowers individuals and encourages them to become active citizens. It enables them to have access to

  275
  information about choices in their lives, and provides them with the skills and understanding to make those choices. In too many places, girls are discouraged or prevented from going to school; sometimes, that issue relates to the ability to access school because of distance or the number of places available. However, all too often, girls do not go to school because they are expected to stay at home to do the chores—or to enter into an early marriage, because of early pregnancies—or simply because school is considered to be a low priority for girls.
  That is a problem in particular areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia and some parts of the middle east and north Africa. It is a particular problem in Afghanistan, although I shall not refer to that in detail, because time is short and many hon. Members have already spoken of the very real concerns about the ways in which women are being appallingly treated by the Taliban regime there.
  Education is not only important for itself; it offers a key to economic freedom and employment. The previous Government supported a number of projects, within the overseas aid budget, which were designed to help women to gain access to education and employment. Such projects included the micro-credit schemes, which enabled women to borrow in order to set themselves up in employment. That scheme was started in Bangladesh, but was extended, with our support, to other countries such as Kenya. We also encouraged community projects, with a particular emphasis on learning. Another issue—to which some hon. Members referred—was the important support for the provision of contraceptive advice through our children by choice not chance programme. All those moves were aimed at providing help and support to women, to enable them to make the choices necessary to change their lives.
  Whatever support is provided, one fundamental problem is faced by women in many communities: the problem of cultural attitudes. There is always tension between our right to comment on alternative cultures and the freedom of others to choose to hold to those cultures. We must be sensitive to that tension, but when we see clear violations of basic human rights, it is right that we in this House should stand up and speak out, precisely as the hon. Member for Keighley and other hon. Members have done this morning.
  Although we have mentioned a number of countries where there are human rights problems for women, the issues that strike us most are where there is clear evidence of abuses taking place in the UK. Although I do not have the same degree of experience as the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Keighley, I have had a constituency case in which an arranged marriage did not work and the woman found herself effectively detained against her will by her husband's family. For some, that is the stuff of paperback thrillers, but it happens to women in the UK.
  Last year, I raised the issue of bounty hunters with the Home Secretary, and the Minister's response referred to the responsibilities of the police. The basic problem, however, lies with the community's attitude, which says that it is right to chase after young women who, as in the case of Zena, have chosen how they want to lead their lives. Their community says that that is wrong and is prepared to go to extreme lengths to prevent them from exercising the freedom of choice that we all take for granted. We expect that freedom of choice to be available
  276
  to all UK citizens, regardless of their community, culture or background. I am interested to hear the Minister's response on this issue. The hon. Member for Keighley referred to the need for Asian community leaders to take that issue on board. What action are the Government taking to encourage that process, and to ensure that UK citizens are provided with the same freedom of choice and the same rights?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said that she was disappointed in the Government's attitude to women's issues. Since responsibility for women moved to the Department of Health, general women's issues have not been raised in health questions. I note that a Home Office Minister will respond to this debate. This, however, is neither the time nor the place to go into detail on that, because hon. Members have raised some serious issues and I look forward to the Minister's response.
  I want to refer to the specific issue of female circumcision. Let us not call it female circumcision; female genital mutilation is the right description. It is appalling to hear what that involves for women who go through it—trauma, pain and suffering.
  Members of Parliament are privileged to be able to raise these issues freely, and we have rightly exercised that privilege this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley again on securing this debate, and I trust that the Minister will respond sensitively to the issues that have been raised.
  12.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): This has been an important and good debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on raising it.
  I shall focus on the issue of forced marriages, but first I shall respond to some of the other issues that were raised. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) asked for the Government's general position on human rights. We now have more women in Parliament and in the Government than ever before, and the Government seek to address the issues of access to education, domestic violence and child care in a cross-governmental and progressive way. We shall continue to develop our programme to enhance women's rights. She specifically asked about the human rights commission. It is an open debate and we are waiting to see how it develops once we have passed the Human Rights Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) discussed the appalling evidence of female genital mutilation. It is unlawful in Britain and I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax and for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty), and with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that we must outrightly and forthrightly condemn that barbaric practice. On behalf of the Government, I condemn it. The Department for International Development is working hard in other countries to try to stop female genital mutilation.
  I shall now deal with the issue of forced marriages. I wish to state clearly that forced marriages are wrong. It is distressing to hear of instances of young people entering marriages not with joy and expectation, but with trepidation and fear. That treatment of a woman within a

  277
  marriage or a relationship is unacceptable. We cannot tolerate compulsion on individuals to marry. The Government have put human rights at the heart of their agenda, and incorporated the European convention in UK law. The United Nations universal declaration on human rights states that
  "marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses".
  Individuals' human rights should be respected by everyone. All British citizen should have equal rights and responsibilities, and respect for women's rights is central to that. It is incumbent on men and women in every community in this country to respect their partners, sisters, daughters and wives, and support them in making choices that will lead to fulfilling lives. Respect for the choices of others is important.
  Different communities have different traditions, and we are proud that Britain is a multiracial society. We are the stronger for it. Our multiracial and diverse society should give due respect to different beliefs and traditions, but not at the price of conflict with the fundamental rights of individuals or the laws of this country.
  The Government must respond sensitively on those issues, but multicultural sensitivity is no excuse for official silence or moral blindness. We long ago abolished laws that treated women as chattels. We cannot shelter or tolerate bad practices under the guise of sensitivity. The Bible, the Koran and other religious texts teach respect for women; the Government's position on this issue does not conflict with those great religious teachings. We must be careful that, in highlighting aspects of laws in some Muslim countries, we do not fall into the trap of branding Muslims as fundamentalists. British Muslims are, by and large, a sensible and moderate community that forms part of Britain's mainstream religious debate. This debate is not about Muslims—as one of my hon. Friends said, all faiths have their zealots; it is about behaviour which the vast majority of British Muslims would have no part in.
  It is important to keep this issue, particularly its scale, in perspective. It is difficult to be precise about the scale, and I do not believe that the number of cases is large. The vast majority of families, from whichever community, want for their children more than they themselves achieved. That aspiration may include access to education, professional achievement, or marriage and family. We must recognise and understand the pressures on some families in this country today, and the problem of young people who may be forced into marriage.
  Families that brought with them their traditions and values, and blended those with their responsibilities as citizens in this country, have contributed to our society in
  278
  a tremendous way over the past 40 or 50 years. Their children and grandchildren have had educational opportunities, and their families have encouraged them in that. Many of those young women may wish to take a different path in life from their parents, and a different path from that which their parents may choose for them. That is not unique to a particular community. Young men in many of our communities, particularly in areas like Yorkshire, where some of my hon. Friends come from, have suffered severely from downturns in the local economy, the closing of mills and the loss of jobs. They hold on to marriage and the prospect of marriage as fundamental to their dignity and self-pride.
  Expectation of an arranged marriage may be different on the part of the parents, the young man and the young woman. When one party to the marriage still lives overseas, another factor enters the equation of whether the marriage will succeed. However, the idea of arranged marriages should be separated from that of forced marriages. Many religious and ethnic communities have a long tradition of arranged marriages, and that tradition often works well. Indeed, I am aware of no evidence that arranged marriages are less successful than marriages that involve a greater freedom of choice. I have spoken to many women whose voluntary but arranged marriages have brought them great happiness.
  The concern is not about arranged marriages; it is about forced marriages. Conflicting expectations can cause marriages to break down and it is important to ensure that communities get the message that any kind of marriage needs support to ensure that it is voluntarily entered into and successful. Organisations like Women's Aid and Southall Black Sisters have made an important contribution in raising the issue of forced marriages and putting the subject on our agenda.
  We have heard about the important work being done in Bradford to deal with issues such as those raised by the case of Zena and Jack, which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley described in her speech. We also heard the story of Asiya, who is on the run at 16 years of age. Those are appalling stories. The Government seek to support the Bradford police's work. I had intended to go into that matter in more detail, and to discuss issues related to entry control and to Afghanistan, but lack of time prevents that.
  The Government are aware of the issue of forced marriages. We will not retreat into silence on these matters. The communities involved should not ignore the fate of these girls. The victims may be small in number, but their voice will not be ignored. The vast majority of members of their community condemn their ill treatment, and many of them have spoken out—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

  University Students (Accommodation)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful for the opportunity to express my concerns about student accommodation, and to raise these issues within hours of my noble Friend Lord Tope's doing so in the other place. I trust that the Minister will agree that the current registration, inspection and enforcement of health and safety standards for student accommodation are confused and unsatisfactory. Indeed, that applies to much of the rented housing sector.
  I hope that the Minister will also agree that reform of the rented housing sector is necessary. Indeed, it was one of Labour's now famous manifesto promises:
  "We will provide protection where most needed: for tenants in houses in multiple occupation. There will be a proper system of licensing by local authorities which will benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike."
  The Liberal Democrats share that manifesto commitment, and I would expect any future leader of my party vigorously to fight for it.
  At present, 1.5 million students in higher education live in halls of residence, university-owned premises or private sector rented accommodation. Many of them live in shared houses. Students make up a significant proportion of the rented sector, and they suffer disproportionately because of their circumstances. For many students, that is their first experience of independent living, and it can often be a nightmare. I should declare an interest in that my son is a first-year undergraduate at Lancaster university and is discovering the joys of finding suitable accommodation for his second year.
  It is not my intention to shroud-wave, but I remind the House that research on fire risk in HMOs published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 1997 found that bedsit tenants are six times more likely to die as a result of fire than adults in houses occupied by a single household, and that 45 per cent. of fire deaths in houses of multiple occupation occur in buildings with one or two storeys. Deaths from leaking gas appliances and from carbon monoxide fumes are still common. Ten students have lost their lives unnecessarily since 1990.
  In 1996, the English house conditions survey reported that 12 per cent. of shared houses were unfit for human habitation, rising to 23 per cent. of houses that were divided into bedsits. Both types of accommodation are typical student accommodation. The situation has, if anything, worsened since 1996. Last year, that prompted the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health to issue a hard-hitting press statement, which said:
  "Some houses let to students are quite simply death traps. Students are in a particularly vulnerable position because they are often forced to rent housing which is on short term leases and only available to students, so removing pressure on the landlord to invest in long term improvements."
  The 1997–98 National Union of Students survey of student accommodation costs revealed that 60 per cent. of a student's income goes on housing.
  Mr. Harold Best: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that among the many grievous problems to which he is drawing the House's attention are those associated with the serious decline in the housing
  280
  stock and the communities where these properties are to be found? Is he aware that other hon. Members are trying to persuade the Department to move on this issue? Leeds district council is acting, with others, as a lead authority to bring about these changes.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, because Leeds has many examples of good practice. UNIPOL has done a tremendous amount to vet student accommodation in the Leeds area, and has now become a major landlord. Leeds, Lancaster and Teesside city councils have some superb schemes on the go, and they should be extended across the country, so that there is a commonality of quality rather than just isolated pockets of excellence.
  Housing costs affect not only students but the poorest members of our society, who, like the poorest students, spend a greater proportion of their income on housing costs but have the least choice.
  I should like the Minister to respond to three issues: the legal definition of a house in multiple occupation; the licensing of HMOs and other rented properties; and the enforcement of health and safety regulations for all student properties, including HMOs.
  The present confusion about the legal definition of what comprises an HMO must be resolved. Section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 states that an HMO is
  "a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household."
  Between 1969 and 1995, an HMO was deemed to include student houses, which traditionally account for 56 per cent. of student accommodation. However, the Court of Appeal in the Barnes v. Sheffield City Council judgment ruled against that assumption, and, in effect, withdrew enforcement protection for a large body of students.
  Sheffield city council had ordered the owners of a terraced house occupied by five female students to install fire escapes and other fire precautions. The owners refused, arguing that their property was not an HMO, so the council had no powers to insist on the improvements. Despite the fact that the students pursued entirely separate life styles, the court decided that it was a single household and not a house of multiple occupancy, because the students shared the facilities, had signed similar tenancy agreements, shared responsibility for cleaning and did not have locks on their doors. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the vast majority of local authorities with large populations of students saw that judgment as an unscrupulous landlords' charter and roundly condemned it.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Sheffield. Several thousand of my constituents are students who live in such accommodation. Does he share my view that a proper, enforceable system of licensing would benefit not only students, but the host community, which wants high-quality housing in the area, not unscrupulous landlords who allow housing to fall into disrepair?
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend echoes the comments made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). This issue is not just about students; it affects large areas, particularly the towns and cities with major student populations. Under the 1985 Act, local authorities can

  281
  have a registration scheme if they so wish. However, large areas are excluded from registration, even under the current legislation. That anomaly should be sorted out.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I appreciate my hon. Friend's raising of this issue. I would be interested to know whether he agrees with me that a fourth issue that should be tackled is the practice of universities that have irresponsibly encouraged more and more students to come to areas where they are located without having the proper housing resources and without the local authority or the community being able to absorb those students in suitable accommodation. Until that issue is addressed, we will be plagued by this problem across the nation.
  Mr. Willis: I have tried not to get into that complex and difficult subject. My hon. Friend is right: the expansion of the student population in the past 10 years has overburdened some of our towns and cities. Universities have more often than not said that accommodation and the social well-being of students are not their responsibility. They are opting out of that responsibility, and that is a major problem.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: There is another widespread problem, which certainly affects Southampton. Institutes of higher education have attempted to build accommodation for students to take them out of the housing market, but they have done so on disadvantageous borrowing terms, with the result that the hall fees are high. Either students are being driven back into the private rented market, or universities and colleges are tempted to cut corners in order to meet the costs that they have themselves incurred.
  Mr. Willis: Indeed, an enormous number of problems are arising. I know from a survey that I completed recently that one London university has refurbished a block principally to attract what I would call private sector guests during the summer, and now charges students £114 a week. I challenged that university: was it right for student accommodation to be treated in that way? I was simply told, "We have enough takers in London." I do not think that is the right attitude. Student accommodation is there to support students and their education.
  The Barnes v. Sheffield City Council judgment was a landmark. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), a former housing spokesperson who is now the Minister for Energy and Industry, was quoted thus in the Yorkshire Post of 10 May 1995:
  "this has exposed a literally deadly loophole in the law".
  The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), then president of the National Union of Students, said:
  "This looks like a green light to treat students as second-class tenants".
  How right they both were. Immediately, local authorities with large student populations saw an increase in lettings on a shared basis to evade health and safety regulations. In response to a recent survey by Shelter, Nottingham city council said:
  "Many landlords locally are very aware of the Barnes judgement. This is very worrying as it creates a 'sham' situation which is potentially dangerous to tenants".
  282
  Perhaps the most disturbing effect of the Barnes judgment, however, has been local authorities' reluctance to use their HMO powers to inspect shared houses or enforce standards because of their fear of losing their case in the courts. They have good reason: only last year, Islington council lost a similar case in the Rogers v. Islington Council judgment, although I am pleased to say that it is appealing that judgment.
  Many tragedies have occurred because of the failure of licensing and regulation. In Australia, all properties available to let to non-related family members, whether in discrete units or as a household, must be licensed. Such a simplification of the law is required here: all properties offered to let should be subject to mandatory licensing and inspection. That would immediately remove the loopholes that currently allow unscrupulous landlords to avoid their responsibilities for health and safety, and would end the absurd situation in which shared houses are not covered by existing regulations. As in any other workplace, the landlord would be responsible in law to those who used his premises; and university accommodation, which is currently exempt from requirements for independent registration and inspection, would lose that exemption.
  There is an urgent need to replace the cumbersome framework for regulating standards in the private and public rented sectors, but that cannot be done until we have an effective licensing system. I hope that is what the Government had in mind when they promised a consultation document on the shape of licensing earlier this year. Can the Minister assure us, without prejudicing the outcome of that document, that the consultation will be about all rented accommodation, not just existing HMOs? Can he assure us that the present system under which universities are exempt from local authority HMO registration requirements will be ended, and that the practice of self-regulation will also be abandoned? In short, can he assure us that all student accommodation will come into the same broad category as other similar rented accommodation, and that it will not be assumed that universities or colleges do things better?
  Finally, may I plead with the Minister to simplify the whole regulation and inspection framework? Local authorities have powers of entry to registered properties, under part IV of the Housing Act 1985, to require works to make houses safe and fit for human habitation. The Health and Safety Executive has powers to enforce the requirements of the gas safety regulations, but has not enough resources to inspect adequately. Trading standards authorities have powers to enforce furniture and furnishings regulations, but have no powers of entry. It is small wonder that responsible landlords throw up their hands in horror, and irresponsible landlords hide behind the confusion.
  Local authorities should act as one-stop shops to enforce all the regulations during a single inspection. That would cut costs, increase efficiency, build up relationships with landlords and, above all, ensure that tenants were fully protected.
  I suspect that little separates the Minister and me in terms of our objectives for the protection of students and other members of the public. We look to him to end the confusion over HMOs, and to fully license and regulate all rented student properties.
  12.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing the debate, and on using it to raise an extremely important subject. By happy coincidence, today's debate follows a debate in the other place, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was initiated by his noble Friend Lord Tope, and my noble Friend Lady Farrington responded.
  The hon. Gentleman declared an interest: his son is a first-year student at Lancaster university. That has nudged me to declare a potential interest: my eldest daughter expects to go to university next year. The hon. Gentleman made a number of important points, as did several other hon. Members. I am glad that he was gracious enough to give way to his hon. Friends, and also to two of mine. I note the failure of any Conservative Members to attend this important debate.
  I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government share his concerns, and are addressing them. I shall try to respond to his points in detail.
  We are committed to introducing a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation, which play an important role in providing student accommodation. We recognise the risks and problems in that part of the private rented sector. The worst housing conditions are often found in such accommodation. HMOs can present a number of risks to those who live in them. As with other housing, there may be problems of structural instability, disrepair, damp or a lack of adequate facilities. The 1996 English house conditions survey found that just under 10 per cent. of private sector HMOs failed to meet the general housing fitness standard. The 1996 definition was more stringent than earlier definitions.
  There are particular risks associated with multiple occupancy. For example, kitchen, washing and toilet facilities may be entirely inadequate for the number of occupants. Houses may be overcrowded. The English house conditions survey found that 40 per cent. of houses providing bedsit accommodation were unfit for the number of occupants. That is a stunning figure, and a clear indication of the problems of overcrowding.
  Fire safety is a particular worry. Research by our Department shows that—as the hon. Gentleman said—in some types of HMO the risk of death by fire may be six times greater than that in comparable single-occupancy accommodation. That is particularly serious.
  Given the obvious need for the problems to be tackled, the Government intend to consult on proposals for a national and mandatory HMO licensing scheme. We hope to issue our consultation paper early this year. The Government are determined to protect the most vulnerable sections of the community from exploitation by unscrupulous or uncaring landlords. We aim to ensure that HMOs are safe, and provide acceptable living conditions.
  We intend the new system to be comprehensive and effective. We especially want to avoid the ambiguities in definition, and the consequent enforcement difficulties, associated with existing HMO controls. At the same time, we recognise the need to ensure that unnecessary burdens are not placed on good landlords who provide a proper standard of accommodation.
  HMOs play an important role in providing housing for groups of people, including students, who may have difficulty finding alternative accommodation, so our
  284
  objective is to improve standards in HMOs, rather than to close them. Obviously, those in the worst condition may, in certain cases, require closure, but the objective is to raise standards, rather than to discourage HMOs, which, if well managed and maintained, can provide appropriate accommodation not just for students, but for other single people who are looking for such accommodation.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the case of Barnes v. Sheffield city council. We are well aware of the difficulties with the definition of a multi-occupied house, particularly in relation to shared houses of the type occupied by students. I find it difficult to understand how the Court of Appeal can have reached the conclusion that a property that is occupied by a significant number of independent students can be treated other than as a house in multiple occupation, but it is not for me to comment on the law. I can respond only to the situation that is created by the judgment.
  We recognise that there is a problem; we are keen that it should be dealt with. We intend to adopt a more precise definition for the purposes of both the proposed licensing system and other HMO-specific controls.
  Views on suitable alternatives and definitions will be sought in our forthcoming consultation paper on licensing. One option is to use a definition that is based on that currently used for licensing in Scotland. That would apply to all houses that are shared by members of more than two families, thereby overcoming the problem that presented itself in the case of Barnes v. Sheffield city council. There may be difficulties associated with that particular approach, so we are not recommending it, but we will put it forward as one option for consideration in the consultation. We recognise that the vast majority of houses that are shared by students would be covered by the Scottish definition.
  We are not convinced of the case for licensing all the private rented sector. There are two principal reasons for that. Such a scheme could be unduly bureaucratic and would involve unnecessary visits to properties that are in perfectly good condition and well maintained. Equally, we would not wish to discourage the supply of rented accommodation with a system that appeared to be unduly restrictive. However, we are concerned at conditions in the lower end of the privately rented market. If existing voluntary arrangements and any new voluntary arrangements that develop over the next year or two in response to our concerns do not raise standards adequately over time, we will consider alternative options.
  We need to consider carefully how HMO licensing might work and what standards should be achieved. We also need to consider the cost to landlords and to local authorities that will administer the system. We do not want to impose a regime that proves unworkable and that leads to many landlords withdrawing their properties from the market rather than bringing them up to acceptable standards.
  The Government view licensing as the primary control mechanism for ensuring acceptable standards in HMOs. Therefore a wide range of issues affecting the health and safety of HMO residents will be addressed in the consultation paper. Licensing criteria will cover three main areas: the physical condition of the premises, their management and the fitness of the licensee. We want to set published standards that are proportionate to fire and other health and safety risks, and which will be

  285
  consistently enforced throughout the country. They will also need to be compatible with possible changes to the general housing fitness standard following the current review.
  As the hon. Gentleman will understand, definitions must relate to the type of property and how the property is occupied, rather than to the type of tenant. I cannot therefore give him the assurance that all accommodation that is occupied by students will be covered. Nevertheless, we recognise that many students will occupy HMOs and accommodation that is likely to come within the definition of HMOs. We will set that out in the consultation paper.
  Primary legislation will be required to introduce the scheme. The Government will legislate as soon as an opportunity becomes available.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to inspection and enforcement arrangements. I can assure him that we want an effective enforcement regime that avoids conflict and overlap. Our consultation paper will examine the relationship between our proposed licensing regime and other present or proposed legislation that may apply to HMOs—for example, in respect of fire safety and gas appliances, both of which raise important issues.
  While not prejudging the consultation, we will want to ensure that the respective expertise of the fire, health and safety and housing authorities is used to best effect. We envisage that local housing authorities will continue to be the first point of contact for licensable premises. We recognise the benefits of the existing one-stop shop approach that is provided to landlords by housing authorities.
  I can also advise the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive, as part of its comprehensive review of gas safety, is considering alternative enforcement strategies and bodies. Currently, the HSE is the sole enforcing authority for gas safety legislation, although it works closely with local authorities.
  The HSE review is considering, among other issues, whether local authority environmental health officers should undertake gas safety inspection and enforcement. I do not wish to prejudge the review, but it may make sense for gas safety work to be integrated into housing authority inspection of HMOs. The HSE review's recommendations should be available by the end of the current year.
  Mr. Willis: Will the Minister deal with the responsibilities of trading standards departments for furnishings and fittings, particularly furniture, which have
  286
  to meet safety standards? Does he envisage that, particularly where we have two-tier authorities, with a district and a county having those responsibilities, environmental health departments will be able to take them on as well, so that we genuinely have a one-stop shop and, when an inspector goes to a property, he looks at everything from the gas appliance to the curtains and settee?
  Mr. Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are keen to have a properly integrated approach that ensures the minimum duplication and overlap. He will understand that I cannot give a precise commitment in advance of the publication of the consultation paper, but I can assure him that we are looking to achieve that level of integration.
  Local authorities have significant and wide-ranging powers to take action to ensure acceptable standards in HMOs. They can require landlords to carry out works if they consider that the HMO is not fit for the number of occupants on specified grounds—if there are inadequate kitchen, washing or toilet facilities, inadequate means of escape from fire, or other inadequate fire precautions. I accept that there may be definitional difficulties; we have touched on those in relation to the Barnes v. Sheffield city council case. However, in general, local authorities have powers that can help to tackle the problems. They can also require works to remedy management neglect, and can impose limits on the number of occupants.
  Failure to carry out works is an offence. Authorities can do the work themselves and recover the cost, although I recognise that there is often anxiety that they may not be able to recover it. HMO managers also have a duty to maintain premises and certain installations, including gas appliances. Non-compliance is a criminal offence.
  Local authorities have discretion to introduce HMO registration schemes. Those require HMO landlords to register properties that are covered by the scheme with the authority. Such schemes may have wider powers than general HMO legislation, and include the power to refuse or to revoke registration if acceptable standards are not met. We are encouraging local authorities to adopt registration schemes, using their existing HMO powers as an interim measure, pending introduction of the new mandatory national licensing system.
  I have made clear the Government's commitment to tackling the problems in HMOs, which are used largely by students, as well as by other groups, and our commitment to introducing in the near future a full consultation on the proposals for an HMO licensing scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the Government take those issues seriously and are actively addressing them.

  Private Finance Initiative
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was shadow Health Secretary, she stated:
  "When the private sector is building, owning, managing and running a hospital it has been privatised".
  I agree with that sentiment. Many organisations that I shall mention later in my speech have said that that position has been realised by the implementation of the private finance initiative, under which public facilities are owned and run by private-sector companies that either lease them back or charge the public authority for providing the service.
  Some time ago, Unison, which is the largest public service trade union and has considerable expertise on the subject, warned that the PFI was the latest Conservative scheme for privatisation and argued:
  "Under the PFI the private sector pays for replacing or refurbishing public assets, such as computer systems or a new hospital, and is given a very long contract to operate the assets or to run the associated services and the jobs involved are transferred to the private company. The private sector recoups the money it has spent through a charge for the services it provides."
  We have heard the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham and of Unison, the major trade union within the public services. Will Hutton, the editor of The Observer, has done considerable research on the subject. He concluded that the
  "PFI is becoming the means of literally privatising the state"
  and called for
  "it to be scrapped".
  So there is unity and agreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, Unison, the editor of The Observer and me. That is quite an achievement on a Wednesday morning.
  As someone who is neither old nor new Labour, but just Labour and who represents Blaenau Gwent, the birthplace of the national health service, I would have expected a Labour Government to scrap the PFI, which, understandably, was introduced by the Tory Government, who hated the idea of public service. Yet instead, the present Government are increasingly putting our future into the hands of PFIs.
  Other Opposition parties also supported Labour's position in opposition and in government. Surely a Labour Government, whose party constitution describes itself as "Democratic Socialist", should value public services and seek to extend their role in society, recognising that they enhance life chances in communities such as mine.
  If the Minister is not willing to accept the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, Unison, Will Hutton or me, perhaps he will accept the report of the Treasury task force on PFI, which states:
  "The PFI transforms Government Departments and Agencies from being owners and operators of assets into purchasers of services from the private sector. PFI firms become long term providers of services rather than simply upfront asset builders, combining the responsibilities of designing, building, financing and operating the assets in order to deliver the services demanded by the public sector."
  288
  Given the views of such a wide group of people and organisations, it is not surprising that the Trades Union Congress also condemned PFI in principle, instructing
  "the General Council to campaign for the ending of PFI … and to press the Government to reinstate proper capital funding to ensure the future infrastructure of the public services in a way that does not damage jobs and services."
  Indeed, I remember a Labour policy document in 1995 describing PFIs as "creeping privatisation" and, as always, I support the position of my party. However, now it appears that the PFI is being presented as some kind of miracle cure to overcome the problems of financing our public services.
  Peter Riplett, former group economist of Tarmac and hardly a member of the hard left, or even the campaign group, recognised that
  "the initiative will cost taxpayers much more in the long term than the traditional system of paying for the public investment, either out of current tax revenues or from borrowing".
  The reason is obvious. The cost of obtaining the funds from the private sector will not be as low as the Government could borrow from the national loan fund which comes with Government guarantees, is backed by tax revenues and borrowing and is inevitably and intuitively the cheapest way of raising funds.
  Once again, if the Minister rejects my opinion and that of Peter Riplett, perhaps he will listen to Graham Watts of the Construction Industry Council, who estimated that an average hospital project could cost the final selected bidder as much as 4.3 per cent. of the total project value. As I said, that is because it costs far more for the private sector than for the public sector to borrow money because of higher interest rates and the need to make a higher rate of return.
  The financing of the PFI can also have serious implications for public bodies such as local authorities. That was recognised in the Audit Commission report entitled "Taking the Initiative—A framework for purchasing under the Private Finance Initiative". It discusses the long period of contract in PFI on public bodies and argues that it could
  "restrict the future flexibility of the body to determine the way the services are provided".
  It continues:
  "Not only is this commitment likely to limit the ability to switch resources in the future but, in the event of the need to cut spending, the PFI contract payment is likely to be protected from any cutbacks. The corollary is that non-PFI expenditure may have to carry proportionately deeper cuts."
  Putting aside all those criticisms, we are expected to believe that the PFI was intended to be additional to public provisions, yet the Tory Government left us in no doubt that they intended to substitute for publicly financed capital expenditure, enabling them to cut the capital budget.
  It is not surprising that the Treasury Committee concluded:
  "In our view the PFI is now being treated by the Government as substantial. It is enabling the Government to cut capital budgets in future plans."
  As that was the conclusion of the Treasury Committee in respect of the Tory Government, how could the position be different under the present Government, who for their first two years in office have retained the same public expenditure plans?

  289
  Let us be in no doubt that the PFI is not providing a public service; it is about making money and profits by cutting the service provided or the costs involved. For example, eventually fewer staff are employed—on inferior pay and conditions. New staff are not protected by the agreements that applied previously.
  Allyson Pollock, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, states that her research shows that PFI
  "schemes are characterised by a marked reduction in available bed capacity of about 25 to 30 per cent."
  An example of the deterioration in service was given by Will Hutton, who stated in The Observer:
  "PFI hospitals have adopted very high throughput ratios to compensate for their dramatic bed reductions that imply no spare capacity whatsoever."
  The Welsh Institute for Social Health and Care recently produced a preliminary examination of three PFI projects in Wales including the new hospital at Mount Pleasant, Chepstow, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). It stated that a private consortium was chosen to design and build the facility on the sight of the former Mount Pleasant hospital. The trust granted the consortium a peppercorn lease for the land and paid an advance capital sum of £3.2 million to the consortium in order to reduce the annual revenue cost of renting the facility. Without that capital advance, the annual charge would have been £1.2 million. With the advance, the consortium will receive £756,000 per annum, to make the facility available.
  The report went on to say that, as part of the overall deal, the NHS was able to release land—27 acres in all—at St. Lawrence hospital and at Mount Pleasant hospital. By selling the land directly on the open market, the NHS was able to make £440,000 per acre. Consequently, that cash was available to the national health service.
  The report said that the outline building case for the new build at Mount Pleasant estimated that the cost would be £13.7 million to provide an 84-bed unit with minor treatment, X-ray, community deal and out-patient facilities. Thus—this is the important point—the income from the land sold, which was equivalent to £11.8 million of the assumed capital cost of the public sector comparator, would have financed 86 per cent. of the new build cost if the trust had been allowed to retain it.
  The scheme therefore did not have to take the PFI route to acquire most of the necessary capital funds, as the land equity was almost sufficient to provide them. Moreover, under the rules currently operating in the national health service, most of the income—less the £3.2 million advance payment—was forwarded to the Welsh Office, presumably to be used in other parts of the NHS. The Welsh Office should examine that practice, and consider changing it.
  Before entering the Chamber today, I was speaking to a fellow hon. Member, who approached me and said that a school in his constituency was being built under the PFI. He said that the project's legal costs were about £45,000. His community did not benefit from that money, although I suppose that the lawyers did. The people in his community lost a benefit, as two teachers could have been employed with that £45,000. The Labour Government—who have a different set of priorities from the previous
  290
  Government—must appreciate that £45,000 spent on two teachers is better than the same sum paid out to a set of lawyers.
  Loss of accountability is another problem with the PFI. Often, information on PFIs is withheld because of excuses of commercial confidentiality. We all know that commercial confidentiality is often used as an excuse in preventing the public from finding out what is happening in certain areas.
  If there is a problem with a PFI contract, who will be responsible for dealing with it, especially if the firm originally involved in the project and holding the equity is sold on to another company? Accountability is affected also if a council's cash and other assets are transferred to a company gaining control of a PFI project. For how long will contracts be monitored, especially if a council has lost many of its own staff to the company taking over a PFI?
  Why have successive Governments been so eager to support the PFI? Unison and the Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care agree that there are two main reasons for the support. The first is the requirement to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, so that we can meet the Maastricht criteria. Governments hope that the PFI will remove investment from the public sector balance sheet. Therefore, as a community, we are expected to forgo services so that we may fulfil the Maastricht criteria. It is therefore not surprising that some hon. Members continue to oppose Britain's entry into the single currency.
  The second reason for Governments' support of the PFI is their desire to introduce market-type incentives into public services, as a means of improving productivity. Most people welcome improved productivity. However, the type of productivity increases that I have mentioned today and that has been documented by many researchers in hospitals and other establishments receiving PFI funding has been achieved only to the detriment of the person—the patient, for example—using the service.
  I should like to think that all the concerns expressed by the organisations that I have mentioned today are unfounded, but I do not believe that they are. My position is identical to the position taken by Labour in 1995, when we said that the PFI was equivalent to "creeping privatisation". I therefore support the TUC's campaign to end the PFI.
  I want a Labour Government who defend public services and believe in the concept of service. Public services enhance the life chances of our communities, and not the life chances of a few people who think of public service as a way of making money—profits—at the community's expense. We are asking the Government to put people before profit.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for raising an important subject, and for doing so with his customary good humour and gentle use of irony. His speech was not only well researched but heartfelt. I also welcome the opportunity of replying to the debate, as it gives me a chance to outline the Government's progress on the private finance initiative, our further plans for its reform, and our wider commitment to developing public-private partnerships.

  291
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said in his speech that he is particularly concerned about the effect and use of the PFI in the health sector. I know that he will not object—and I trust that you will not, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if I use this opportunity, as a Health Minister, to announce that I am today establishing a group under the chairmanship of Professor Ian Cameron, provost and vice-chancellor of the university of Wales college of medicine, to examine meningococcal infection in Wales.
  The chief medical officer in Wales will nominate individuals with appropriate experience and knowledge to serve in the group, which the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation will be asked to join. I shall be asking Professor Cameron to report to me on the matter as soon as possible.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make that announcement.
  Since the Government were elected to office, in May 1997, we have revitalised the PFI, so that we can now rightly say that it is a key tool in helping to provide effective and good-value public services. Since the general election, we have signed £4 billion-worth of PFI deals and have made the PFI work in sectors, such as health, in which it had not worked before.
  We estimate that, by the end of 1999, private sector investment in PFI projects will account for about 14 per cent. of overall public sector investment. Accompanying the turnaround has been an upsurge in confidence, both in the public and private sectors, that the PFI can deliver the goods. We are now seeing its benefits spread to other parts of the public service, such as our schools.
  The Government are working closely with local government to use the PFI to improve public services. The Welsh Office has made PFI credits available, amounting to £150 million, to enable our six local authority pathfinder schemes to begin. The schemes were chosen to provide templates for future projects in Wales, and we anticipate that the first deals will be signed in the next few months. Additionally, we have recently announced another £120 million of credit that will be made available, and have invited Welsh local authorities to make proposals on their next wave of PFI projects.
  The transport sector led the way in the PFI. It is worth remembering that, a decade ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was first in proposing the type of public-private partnership arrangements that are now delivering the goods in transport. Schemes in progress include the chunnel high-speed rail link and dualling of the A55 across Anglesey. The Government are proud of our record on PFI, and we have been able to get it moving.
  When we came to office, we were prepared to take tough decisions. For instance, in the NHS in England, we established a system to prioritise PFI projects to break the logjam that had been allowed to build up. Health service need now dictates which PFI projects get the go-ahead and, to date, 25 new hospital developments have been given the green light as part of the biggest hospital programme in the history of the NHS. Work on nine is already under way.
  In Wales, we have made significant progress in getting PFI in health off the ground. Deals with a capital value of over £30 million have now been signed for projects ranging from staff residences and clinical waste disposal through to operating theatres and renal units.
  292
  We are particularly proud that, through the PFI, the people of Chepstow will soon benefit from a new, purpose-built community hospital, replacing old, out-dated and worn-out accommodation.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for expressing the reservations that many people have had about PFI, and which some of us had when Labour was in opposition. Will my hon. Friend the Minister accept that the people of Chepstow, having seen delay after delay, are grateful that the Government are ensuring that the problems associated with PFI under the previous Government have been resolved to some degree, and that there will be a new hospital in Chepstow? Will he assure us that PFI will not be associated with a significant—or minor—deterioration in the pay and conditions of staff working in hospitals?
  Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks. My father is a constituent of his and lives near the hospital site, and I know that the people of Chepstow have waited too long for the hospital to be developed. I can assure him that staff will be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE—to safeguard their interests in any transfer of employment.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that the question is not whether there should be a new hospital in Chepstow? Obviously, we all welcome that. The question is whether the hospital should be funded by public money or by PFI. Can the Minister explain why it needed to be a PFI project when 86 per cent. of the money could have been raised from the sale of the land? Is he saying that the conditions of staff in the long term will be protected, and that new staff will receive similar protection? Does he accept that this is privatisation of public services—a point we accepted as a party in 1995?
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend made a number of those points in his speech, and I intend to address them in my speech if I am able to move on. The Chepstow PFI project was judged to be value for money with the land value included, and the treatment of the land in the deal was cleared by the Treasury.
  The University hospital of Wales has been quick to grasp the opportunities that partnership can offer. Patients, visitors and staff are able to get on to the site and park much more easily thanks to a multi-storey car park and access road constructed through the PFI. A new entrance, concourse and reception area—again, built through the PFI—has improved enormously the environment and facilities for all users of the site, and has corrected long-standing problems dating back to the original design of the hospital.
  The PFI is also helping the NHS to become increasingly energy-efficient. A significant number of NHS trusts are now entering into energy management contracts with specialist service providers and obtaining substantial savings which can then be reinvested in direct patient care. These important and valuable developments would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without partnership under PFI, and would have required us to divert scarce resources away from other health priorities.

  293
  The previous Administration, under the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), actually took capital money away from the NHS in Wales and left us a legacy of aging and poorly equipped hospitals. We are working hard to restore our capacity to fund new capital developments in those cases where the PFI cannot offer a solution. However, as the schemes prove, the PFI can provide real and valuable alternatives and can offer excellent value for money. It also enables us to address urgent priorities now, rather than have important schemes wait until new public funds can be found.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, I will not give way. I have only another five minutes to complete my speech.
  For the future, negotiations are now well advanced with private sector partners on proposals to provide new hospitals to serve Neath and Port Talbot, and in western Cardiff. Elsewhere in Wales, the national health service continues to explore the potential for the PFI to help deliver new buildings and high-quality services.
  We have been able to make PFI work because we have been prepared to take head-on some of the logistical problems that bedevilled PFI in the past. One of our first actions was to appoint Sir Malcolm Bates to review the PFI process. He did an excellent job in analysing problems and, more importantly, finding solutions. Since Sir Malcolm reported, we have fully implemented all of his recommendations.
  In addition, we have been able to make PFI work because we have recognised the importance of getting the interests of staff right when evaluating bids and contracts. Openness between bidders, trade unions and staff is an
  294
  essential part of the PFI. PFI is not a secret process. That is why we have published guidelines on the consultation of staff and other interested bodies, as well as requiring the publication of key business cases and PFI documents.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Answer the question, Jon.
  Mr. Jones: Perhaps I am not answering the question in the way that my hon. Friend would like. If my hon. Friend is ideologically opposed to the whole concept of PFI, there is nothing that I, as a Minister, can say that will satisfy him. The Government have ensured that the maximum transparency and fairness is incorporated into the way in which the negotiations take place.
  There is always room for improvement, and the Government recognise that. We will be taking action to make PFI deals easier to complete. We are now looking at how to streamline the process of putting a PFI deal together. There is little doubt that both time and money can be saved by having standard template contracts. We published draft guidance on standard model clauses this month. Next month, we will publish guidance on accounting treatment that will help determine the level of risk transfer that will deliver best value for money.
  We have also asked Sir Malcolm Bates to take a second look at the PFI—and public-private partnerships more generally—to see how the Government can further refine our approach. That is because each project is different. That fact is a reflection of the different problems and priorities in different settings.
  We want to improve public services, to get better value for money, to provide incentives for effective business management, to correct underinvestment, and to optimise capital investment flow. That diversity calls for the development of a new approach to enable the public and private sectors to work together. The Government will be taking a lead in that process in the months ahead.

  Rural Pharmacies (Mid-Norfolk)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: This subject has been brought to my attention by a wide variety of constituents: doctors, pharmacists, people in the health authority and, of course, members of the public. It is an issue not just in my constituency and the rest of Norfolk—I acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson); it has been brought to the attention of many hon. Members with rural constituencies.
  The question of dispensing doctors and pharmacists has for many years aroused heated debate both between the two professions and within each of them. My purpose in raising the subject is not to take sides; I believe that it would be a very foolish politician who did so, and I can see that the Minister agrees. I want to bring to the Minister's attention the concerns of my constituents who, as patients, are rightly worried, and to find out whether he—a recently appointed Minister in a relatively new Government—has any intention of either amending the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 or using his good offices to help to resolve a dispute that has been rumbling on for years, if not decades.
  I recognise that, for some time, the General Practitioners Committee and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee have been trying to resolve areas of dispute. I hope that what is said here will be constructive and not impede those talks. It has been a principle since the health service was established that it is for doctors to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense, although that has often been more in principle than in practice; in theory, patients get the benefit of the expertise of both professions.
  In certain circumstances, doctors are permitted to provide pharmaceutical services for their patients rather than referring them to a pharmacist. The relevant legislation is in regulations 19 to 21 of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992. The first circumstance in which that applies is when the patient lives in what is called a controlled locality—an area designated as rural by the local health authority—and is more than one mile from the pharmacy. In that case, the general practitioner can apply for outline consent. The regulations deal with how areas are designated as rural by the health authority and make provision for the local medical or pharmaceutical committee to appeal against the authority's decision.
  The second circumstance is when patients satisfy their health authority that they would have serious difficulty obtaining the drugs or appliances from a pharmacy
  "by reason of distance or inadequacy of means of communication".
  In that case, the regulations do not specify what distance would constitute serious difficulty, so the discretion is left to the health authority.
  Because GPs in rural areas often depend on their dispensing for a significant part of their income, in support of their practice, it clearly has been and will continue to be a matter of grave concern to them if a pharmacist applies to open a pharmacy in their area. We should all be aware of that fact, which has been brought home to me by several doctors in my constituency. It is undoubtedly a crucial factor, and we should not duck it.
  296
  When it appears that a change is to be made to a doctor's dispensary, there is great upset and resentment among patients, many of whom are elderly, invalids or with limited transport. I have heard about that at at least one public meeting, and it is a matter of heartfelt concern to many patients.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: There is a similar problem in Shrivenham in my constituency. The arrangements seem to leave everyone dissatisfied. The pharmacists do not have commercial freedom and doctors and their patients—my constituents—have found the procedure for appeal very remote. I strongly support my hon. Friend's efforts to get the matter reviewed.
  Mr. Simpson: I thank my hon. Friend; he and I had discussions on this matter with the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) several weeks ago.
  My constituency fulfils many of the main criteria for a rural constituency. It is 60 miles wide and 20 miles deep, resting like a large banana astride Norwich, with four main towns—Dereham is the largest, with 16,000 inhabitants, and Reepham, where I live, the smallest, with 3,000—and many villages and hamlets. There is no centre to my constituency except me.
  Mid-Norfolk forms part of East Norfolk health authority, which has kindly provided me with up-to-date statistics for the whole area, but I suspect that the profile can be applied more narrowly to my constituency. The statistics give us a framework on which to work. As at 31 January, there were 104 pharmacies in contract with Norfolk Health, of which 56 are branches of a national chain, 12 branches of a local chain, 32 independent and four co-owned by GPs; 39 are located in towns or city centres, 29 in local shopping or residential areas, 19 in village centres, 10 in or adjacent to GP surgeries and seven in supermarkets.
  There are 87 medical practices in contract with Norfolk Health, of which 42, or 48 per cent., are dispensing practices. That is a high and significant percentage. There are 636,477 patients—at least, there were last night—registered with Norfolk Health medical practices, of whom 141,554, or 22 per cent., receive a dispensing service. Nearly all those are in the rural area.
  How can we help to resolve what has been in many, but not all, cases a dispute between dispensing doctors and pharmacists? Frankly, successive Health Ministers, aware of the potential minefield, have clung to the regulations and, understandably, not wanted to get directly involved. I consulted a former Health Minister last night, who said, "If only you had spoken to me earlier; I would have suggested that you did not raise this in an Adjournment debate. It is a minefield." Be that as it may, I have done so willingly.
  The Minister's immediate predecessor, now elevated as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, where he will undoubtedly take a different view of health expenditure, wrote to me on 16 November 1997, in reply to points raised by a constituent of mine about the possible loss of a dispensary in one of our rural surgeries. He said:
  "Ministers are aware of the complex issues surrounding rural dispensing and of how strongly local communities feel about the provision of pharmaceutical services in these areas. Decisions on applications to dispense under the NHS in rural areas are made by the local health authority, and an appeal by the Family Health

  297
  Services Appeal Authority, under regulations. These regulations were developed after many years of dispute and argument between the medical and pharmaceutical professions.
  You will appreciate that Ministers will be very wary of making any changes to the regulations that could potentially usher in a further period of inter-professional disharmony"—
  a marvellous civil service phrase—
  "similar to that which was prevalent in the past."
  Mr. David Prior: Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge number of applications for new supermarkets in both his constituency and mine is likely to increase the disharmony, as the traditional business done by pharmacists comes under increasing pressure?
  Mr. Simpson: That is a powerful point. Such competition will indeed bring even more disharmony.
  The highly emotive issue of dispensing doctors and pharmacists is, I believe, primarily about public perceptions, especially in rural areas, where many patients cannot recall receiving the service other than at their local surgery. It is a question of the provision of the best possible medical support for patients. It is also about money, and we should not duck that. It involves not only profit and loss for doctors and pharmacists but the NHS budget. It is something for which taxpayers should be aware they are all paying.
  Finally, all involved—the Department of Health, health authorities, doctors and pharmacists—need to recognise that they provide a service to the public, who must come first, whatever the professionals' strong feelings. However, I do not underestimate the fact that doctors and pharmacists aim to provide the very best medical cover and support.
  I conclude where I began—on, I hope, a constructive note. The issue has aroused interest and passion in my constituency, in other rural constituencies—as my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage and for North Norfolk mentioned—and on both sides of the House. I hope that the General Practitioners Committee and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, which will be tackling the problem, will take note of this debate and will take heart from the fact that Members of Parliament, speaking on behalf of their constituents, desire that a real effort be made to solve the problem.
  The Minister has a responsibility—first, through his guardianship of the regulations and, secondly, through his ability to use his good offices—to further the negotiations between two highly respected professional bodies which may soon approach him with, we hope, constructive ideas on how best to take the matter forward. Success will benefit my constituents and those of other hon. Members.
  1.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this debate and thank him for the constructive way in which he asked his questions and acknowledged some of the difficulties involved. As he said, I am relatively new to my job, and Adjournment debates perhaps have the effect of drawing to my attention some of the particular, but none the less
  298
  important, nooks and crannies of the national health service and the way in which we deliver our primary care services.
  General practitioners and community pharmacies make a vital contribution to primary care in rural areas, and to the national health service in general. Most people recognise that the best primary care is provided when the skills of all professionals—GPs, pharmacists, nurses and others—are deployed together as part of a co-ordinated, seamless service which focuses on patients, not on organisations or administrative structures.
  High-quality primary care is central to our agenda for the new NHS. That is as true for country areas as it for towns and cities. Our vision of the NHS is inclusive—we want the highest possible standards of quality and efficiency throughout the country.
  Rural areas are relatively well provided with GPs. They tend to have lower morbidity than urban areas, and rather more GPs on a weighted capitation basis. The reimbursement of surgery premises costs and some staff costs means that there is no disincentive to GPs to practise in expensive areas. Also, specific elements in the GP pay system recognise the additional costs of providing family doctor services in rural areas. Chief among them are the rural practice payment schemes. There are other forms of assistance for rural GPs. Isolated single-handed doctors can benefit from an allowance that helps them meet the cost of employing a locum while they are on training courses, and there is also an allowance to help single-handed GPs to employ an associate doctor.
  Community pharmacies are an equally important part of the NHS primary care network. Pharmacies do more than dispense medicines; they provide a source of easily accessible advice on a range of health and health care matters; they sell a range of over-the-counter medicines to help people self-medicate and look after their families; and they provide a source of expertise on prescription medicines, both for patients and for local prescribers.
  There are nearly 9,800 NHS community pharmacies in England, a number that has stayed more or less steady for several years. Around 250 of those, including many in rural areas, take advantage of the essential small pharmacies scheme, which ensures a minimum level of NHS income for pharmacies that provide a valuable service but might not otherwise be viable.
  General health service policy is that doctors prescribe medicines and pharmacists dispense them. Wherever possible, the aim is for patients to have the benefit of the expertise and services of doctors and pharmacists. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk acknowledged, this has been true since the inception of the national health service.
  However, in rural areas where a pharmacy would not be viable, GPs may be required or permitted to dispense. About 16 per cent. of all GPs in England—around half those in East Norfolk health authority—dispense to around 3.2 million patients between them. Naturally, dispensing doctors are mainly concentrated in rural or semi-rural health authority areas.
  In general, GPs are allowed to dispense only to patients who live in rural areas and more than one mile from the nearest pharmacy. Therefore, if a pharmacy opens locally, GPs stop dispensing for some or all of their patients.
  Pharmacies are not generally allowed to open in rural areas if the health authority is convinced that their doing so would prejudice the local provision of general medical

  299
  services. This is commonly known as the prejudice test. Similarly, GPs cannot acquire new dispensing rights if that would prejudice existing NHS pharmacy services. The aim is to make sure that changes in dispensing do not destabilise existing, necessary patient services. In both cases, where applications are granted, the health authority can impose transitional arrangements, requiring GPs gradually to increase or reduce the number of their dispensing patients. The regulations are designed to ensure that these important decisions are taken openly and fairly.
  Often, the health authority will hold a full oral hearing to ensure that the parties have a chance to make their case. The rules ensure that no one directly involved in either GP or pharmacy services can take part in the decision. There are appeals at each stage to the Family Health Services Appeals Authority, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State.
  The number of applications with which English health authorities deal under the pharmaceutical services regulations fluctuates but, in the six months to September 1998, 720 applications were received—an average of about seven per health authority. More than half were for minor relocations or change of ownership; only 61 related to rural areas.
  Health authorities consider applications within the framework of the regulations, which are intended to ensure that, where possible, communities benefit from both GP and pharmacy services. In doing so, they are required to take account of all relevant factors, and to consult local community health councils, as well as local GPs, pharmacists and their representatives. Community health councils represent the interests of local patients.
  As I said, local primary care is most comprehensive where communities can be served by family doctors and community pharmacists. Of course, there are some rural areas where a pharmacy may simply not be viable. In those cases, GPs provide a valuable extra service by dispensing medicines themselves. That is a service that we greatly appreciate, and for which additional fees and allowances are paid.
  Dispensing by GPs is essential if people in sparsely populated rural areas are to be able to get their medicines without difficulty. I am sure that dispensing doctors take very seriously the extra responsibility that that carries, and I know that their services are generally much appreciated by their patients. However, dispensing by doctors rather than pharmacists is, and has always been, a pragmatic response to the special circumstances of rural areas. It has not been promoted as an equal and rival model of pharmaceutical services.
  When a new pharmacy opens in a rural area, the effect is to widen the professional expertise available to the local community, but I recognise that decisions about the opening of new pharmacies in areas currently served by dispensing doctors can become the source of great local controversy.
  As I explained, decisions on individual applications are made by health authorities in accordance with regulations and after consultation with various local interests. On appeal, applications are decided by the Family Health Services Appeals Authority.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: That was a particularly difficult issue for my constituents at Shrivenham, who felt that the
  300
  appeal procedure was extremely remote and inaccessible and did not pay sufficient attention to them. Will the Minister comment on that?
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not familiar with that particular case. The system is designed to ensure, by virtue of the range of bodies and organisations consulted—including community health councils—that patients' views are adequately heard. If the hon. Gentleman would like to draw to my attention elements of his own local experience, perhaps by letter, I should be more than happy to look into the way in which the system operates. However, it would be going too far today to anticipate any possible changes.
  In general, I must say that it is a great shame that disputes over dispensing rights too often become bitter and pit professionals against each other, when we want them to co-operate for the benefit of patients. I know that there are people who feel that disputes are in part caused by deficiencies in the existing regulations.
  Pharmacists, for example, often say that they do not understand why the regulations can lead to GP practices in the centre of small towns operating a dispensary in competition—as they see it—with a nearby pharmacy. They point out that that pharmacy might even be located next door to the surgery. I am told that that is generally known as the market towns issue.
  On the other hand, GPs have asked why different rules apply when a pharmacy already operating in a health authority's area applies to open a new branch in a rural area. In particular, they have asked why, in such cases, pharmacy applicants do not have to pass the so-called prejudice test.
  I know of no evidence that suggests that the rules operate in a way that prevents patients from getting access to the medicines that they need. Indeed, the regulations are designed precisely to ensure that change is managed in a sensible way, without putting necessary services at risk. I agree, however, that it would be desirable if improvements could be made so that there are fewer disputes in future. Reducing the number of disputes can only be good news for patients.
  However, the House will understand that, like many Ministers before me, I am reluctant to appear to intervene on one side or the other in the debate over the minute detail of rural dispensing rules. That reluctance stems from a fear of stirring up yet more wasteful dispute. I say "wasteful", because the long and sometimes bitter history of dispute between the professions over this issue can have done nothing to promote the climate of co-operation and collaboration that is necessary if primary care services are to deliver the best for their patients.
  My predecessors have said to both professions that we will consider sympathetically any joint proposals that they bring to us for tidying up the regulations—provided, of course, that any changes proposed are in patients' best interests. I am happy to repeat that offer today.
  Indeed, I believe that, over the past year or so, there have been increasingly encouraging signs that the leaders of the two professions are beginning to work more closely together on many issues. I am told that, in the East Norfolk health authority area, relations between the professions are generally close and fruitful. Members of both professions have been involved in the development of a successful local health care guide, as part of the

  301
  health authority's charter mark winning commitment to providing people with high-quality information about local NHS services.
  Good relations between the professions are very much to be welcomed. Partnership is one of the four key themes in our vision for a new, modern and dependable national health service. It underpins excellence, efficiency and performance. We took office determined to get rid of the divisiveness of the old national health service and its internal market. Collaboration, not competition, is the key to improving patient care. By implementing our vision of the new national health service, we are breaking down barriers that artificially divide those who need to work together for the health and well-being of local communities.
  The national health service, local authorities and local communities are now discussing the first health improvement programmes—real strategies for local health. Our programme will improve services throughout the country, for people living in rural areas as much as those in towns and cities. By the year 2000, everyone in England will have access to the NHS Direct 24-hour nurse
  302
  advice line. In hospital, all people with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their GPs deciding that they need to be seen urgently. That target will be achieved by April 1999 for suspected breast cancer, and by 2000 for other cancers.
  We have backed up our ambitious programme with the biggest-ever increase in resources for the national health service—an average of 4.5 per cent. over the next three years. Our vision extends equally to community pharmacy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that he will be publishing a strategy document on ways of exploiting more fully the potential for community pharmacy to contribute to better care, close to people's homes.
  That strategy document, like our entire vision for the national health service, will be about harnessing individuals' skills within a context of ever-greater co-operation and shared endeavour. That, surely, is where we should be focusing our energies. Division and dispute belong to the old NHS.
  It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    On-line Government Services
    Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the target of making 25 per cent. of government services available on-line by 2001. [68643]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We intend to publish information about departmental performance every six months, beginning in May 1999. Last year, we set a target for 25 per cent. of services to be electronically deliverable by 2002.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and the encouraging news of future publication of departmental performance. Does he acknowledge that many services that people use are delivered by local government and local national health service facilities, rather than directly by central Government agencies? What targets have he and his ministerial colleagues agreed on the contribution that local government and the NHS can make to the achievement of on-line Government services?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We are looking at targets at the moment. The next list will not be available until May, although we recognise in our target expectation that the vast majority of services are provided not by central Government agencies, but by local authorities and the NHS. The strategy for dealing with those will be published in the spring in the White Paper on better government.

    Government (Modernisation)
    Dr. Tony Wright: When he expects to publish the White Paper on the modernisation of government. [68644]
    Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will report on progress in preparing the better government White Paper. [68649]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): We will publish a White Paper in the spring, setting out our proposals for more strategic policy making and simpler, more effective and responsive public services.
    Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Modernisation is the hallmark of this Government, and must apply to all government. That means that people should have access to public services that they find easy to use, that operate efficiently and
    304
    which put things right quickly when they go wrong. Will he assure the House that the forthcoming White Paper will deliver that?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The three aims that he has mentioned will be the objectives of our White Paper.
    Mr. Chope: Is not the better government White Paper just another of this Government's public relations stunts? Are not public services declining? If that is not true, why have the Government just published a 60-page document entitled, "Public Relations Toolkit for Employers", which invites small businesses to give third-party endorsement to failed Government policies? How much did that document cost? When will the Government follow the advice given on page 17—it will interest you, Madam Speaker—to "Answer the question succinctly", and "don't be evasive"?
    Dr. Cunningham: After such a long, rambling and incoherent question, the hon. Gentleman is the last one to talk about stunts. He knows all about them. I have no doubt that all the users of the national health service, in which we intend to invest £21 billion extra, and all the users of the education service, in which we will invest £19 billion extra, will note his disparaging remarks about public services.
    Ms Margaret Moran: On the publication of the White Paper on modernisation of government, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we encourage service users to take the opportunities offered by new technology to provide regular feedback, so that we can measure the improving quality of public services? Such improvement is a clear objective of the Government, and one on which the previous Administration were a dire failure.
    Dr. Cunningham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's pioneering work in that connection when she was leader of Lewisham borough council. We shall set ourselves a target of delivering 25 per cent. of Government services through information technology by 2002. We want those services to be available not only easily but, where possible, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I notice that, by grouping the questions, the right hon. Gentleman is equating modern with better, but is it either modern or better for a Government to treat a Select Committee of the House as disdainfully as the Government have in the past 24 hours? What place do parliamentary democracy and the work of our Select Committees have in the right hon. Gentleman's ideal of modern government?
    Dr. Cunningham: I have always, personally, had a very high regard for the Select Committees of the House. I was a member of a Select Committee of the House for six years, and in roughly one year as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I agreed to appear before the Select Committee on Agriculture four times. My appearance on the fourth occasion was obviated by my appointment to my present responsibilities.
    We should pay very high regard to the work of Select Committees of the House and their reports, but that does not mean that we should conclude that Governments are always bound to agree with them.

    Social Exclusion Unit
    Mr. Robin Corbett: If he will list the main priorities of the social exclusion unit for the current year. [68645]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The unit will continue to lead the co-ordination of policy development across Whitehall on neighbourhood renewal. It will produce two new reports to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on teenage parents and on 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome and encourage the work that the unit is doing on truancy and school exclusion, and now with teenage parents. The efforts of thousands of my constituents to rebuild their lives, homes and community through the Castle Vale housing action trust are being harmed by the activities of a handful of eight to 14-year-old youngsters who feel socially excluded. Will my right hon. Friend endorse the efforts of the trust, Castle Vale school, the police and community groups to work together to offer those young people better hope for their lives, in a great city where they are lucky to live?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I will endorse that work. My hon. Friend's comments about the work of the social exclusion unit will be widely welcomed by the people who work for it. It is worth pointing out to the House that, as a result of their work, the Government have provided an extra £1.8 billion so far, targeted at schemes that featured in the unit's report, including those such as sure start, which is aimed at helping children who face the very risks that my hon. Friend has just described.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that Home Start is one of the most effective and sensitive of the voluntary organisations which are helping to tackle social exclusion? Will he ask the social exclusion unit expressly to examine the difficulties in Farncombe, in Godalming? Is it his Government's view that disadvantage, isolation and deprivation do not occur in relatively prosperous counties? Such is the effect of the spending decisions on Surrey's health and social services that it is inconceivable that money will be found to start any new projects; indeed, the small amount of joint finance funding already available will have to be withdrawn. Will the right hon. Gentleman expressly ask the social exclusion unit to study what is happening in the home counties and the suffering experienced there?
    Dr. Cunningham: First, I pay tribute to the work that the right hon. Lady has always done in the voluntary sector through her long and effective association with voluntary work. I cannot comment on the organisation that she mentioned, but I am sure that it is, as she says, worthy of support. As for the social exclusion unit considering specific difficulties rather than general issues, that is not really within its remit, but I undertake to look carefully at what the right hon. Lady has said and to see how I can draw that to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key role for the social
    306
    exclusion unit must be to continue to develop policies across government that support social entrepreneurs, the people who provide the drive behind credit unions, community businesses and other forms of social enterprise? Will my right hon. Friend further encourage the social exclusion unit to promote more partnerships between mainstream banks and social enterprises to bring the hard-headed financial skills of the private sector to our work on neighbourhood renewal?
    Dr.Cunningham: Although my hon. Friend makes an important point, it is not currently within the work programme of the social exclusion unit. However, he is right to draw attention to the important work of credit unions and co-operative organisations. Again, I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has responsibility for such matters.

    Annual Government Report
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Who will be responsible for the preparation of this year's annual Government report. [68646]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Civil servants.
    Mr. Hughes: That is the answer that I expected.
    Given that Alastair Campbell and his colleagues in the Downing street communications unit are classed as civil servants, does not the Minister accept that if the Government's annual report—a concept that is welcome—is to have any objective credibility, it should be compiled by the National Audit Office or an independent statistical office, and not by Government spin doctors?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: According to the hon. Gentleman's own words, civil servants wrote last year's annual report. Civil servants will continue to write the annual report, which is a first. It is the first time that a Government have set out what they have done, why they have done it and what they intend to do. Incidentally, it is the first time that a Government have pointed out where they have made mistakes. We have informed people at all levels and we shall continue to do so. I very much look forward to the next publication in July.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: When Liberal Democrat Members are trotting up Whitehall and going through the big gates into Downing street more often than any of us Labour Back Benchers, will my hon. Friend explain why is it that those ragtag and bobtails cannot get the information while they are stuck in there, instead of wasting the time of the House?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend knows, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is one of those at odds with the approach that his leader has taken. Perhaps they are not speaking to each other on these matters.
    Sir George Young: If we are to have another annual report produced at taxpayers'

    307
    expense, may we have an assurance that, unlike last year's report, the Government will not airbrush out of it any reference to any inconvenient events? May we have an assurance that in next year's annual report there will be references to the recession in manufacturing, to the decline in agricultural incomes, to the raid on pension funds, to council tax increases four times the rate of inflation and, of course, to the Sierra Leone fiasco?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I hate to say so, but the right hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. For example, last year's annual report referred to the mistake that was made on lone-parent benefits—the Government were big enough and brave enough to own up to it. The next annual report will record the Government's many successes, including the 169 Labour party manifesto commitments, which have, to date, been implemented in part or in whole.

    Biotechnology and Genetic Modification Ministerial Group
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the membership, work and progress of the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification. [68647]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The ministerial group oversees all aspects of biotechnology policy. It is made up of Ministers from all Departments with an interest in biotechnology. One of its first decisions was to begin an examination of the United Kingdom framework for overseeing the technology.
    Mr. Dalyell: As a well-qualified chemist, and in my right hon. Friend's official capacity, can he do anything to dispel the ignorant hysteria that often surrounds genetic modification?
    Dr. Cunningham: The UK is a world leader in biotechnology, which has huge potential to benefit society by delivering improvements to health, agriculture, food production and to the environment. However, it must do so in ways that gain public trust and confidence. The Government's primary duty is to protect people and the environment. As my hon. Friend rightly says, while it is right for the media and others to probe and challenge and to examine what is happening, they should take care not to alarm or mislead people unnecessarily. It is important that we make clear to everyone that the decisions that we take are based on the best available medical, scientific and industrial advice. I would be the last to complain about criticism from the media, but it is important that we do not undermine public confidence in the potential of biotechnology to bring huge benefits to humankind.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: In accord with the Minister's comments, I acknowledge that the ministerial group has a considerable work load because of the huge backlog left as a result of the previous Government's inadequate attention to those important issues, despite the efforts of Liberal Democrat Members. May I ask particularly that the ministerial group should examine carefully the work of the Rowett research institute in Aberdeen, which has reviewed the results of the research undertaken last year into the impact of
    308
    genetically modified food on the immune systems of rats and by definition, therefore, on humans? That research is obviously extremely important and is funded by the Government.
    Dr. Cunningham: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government understand and act on genuine concerns expressed by the public and by hon. Members. I assure him also that we examine all the available scientific evidence. For those reasons, the Government have taken action on food labelling, for example. We shall shortly publish decisions following consultation with the catering industry. We have taken action to set up an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs. We have set up a Cabinet Committee, as I said, to examine all those matters. We are pressing in Europe for better control in all those areas. None of that was done by the Conservatives when they were in government.
    As we have been speaking about misleading and irresponsible statements, may I say that nothing was more misleading or irresponsible than the Leader of the Opposition saying last week in the House that English Nature had called for a moratorium on these matters? It certainly has not done so. English Nature recognises that it is important to carry out the experimental trials on genetically modified crops, so that we can make a proper scientific assessment of their impact on the environment.
    Joan Ruddock: In its further deliberations on biotechnology and genetic engineering, will my right hon. Friend invite the ministerial group to consider the difference between the application to medical science, where the patient who is carrying the risk hopes to be the beneficiary, and the application to crop production, where the risks are carried by the environment and the public, and those who hope to reap all the benefits are the producers?
    Dr. Cunningham: I can tell my hon. Friend that we already do so. For that among other reasons, I made it clear to the House today that we not only listen to but act on the advice of organisations such as English Nature and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. We study their recommendations carefully. I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that both those organisations believe that it is right and safe for controlled trials of genetically modified crops to take place, precisely so that we can evaluate their impact on the environment before commercial exploitation would be allowed.
    Mr. James Gray: All interested observers agree with the Minister; the last thing that we want is public concern on such matters. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week called for a moratorium, on good advice from English Nature in its written evidence to the House of Lords Committee that is looking into those matters. We simply do not know what effect genetically modified foods will have on human health. Therefore all we want is a three-year moratorium on their commercial use, so that we can find out what the scientific evidence is.
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman repeats the error of interpretation of English Nature's position. I have a letter from English Nature, which states:
    "English Nature is not against genetic modification per se and always gives advice based on sound science. Contrary to what has been reported, we are not asking for a moratorium on commercial release of all genetically modified crops."
    The Opposition may be calling for that, irresponsibly, and damaging Britain's prospects, but they are totally misleading in saying that English Nature supports that call.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: A great deal of the public debate about the risks of GM foods and crops is made more difficult by the complexity of the scientific research which underpins it. An example would be the research at the Rowett research institute, which does not pertain to the risks of GM foods in general but of particular lectins included in GM foods. What is the ministerial group doing to enable the public better to understand the complexity of the science which underpins biotechnology, so that the public debate generates rather more light and considerably less heat? Will my right hon. Friend make that information available to the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly needs a scientific education?
    Dr. Cunningham: If the Leader of the Opposition continues to take advice from the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, it is no wonder that he is in a mess, as he is on many other things.
    My hon. Friend raises an important point. The ministerial group has been considering exactly the kind of strategy that she says we should, so that we can put the facts dispassionately before the British people. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister for Science is carrying out a public consultation on public attitudes to and understanding of bioscience, so that we know exactly people's fears and concerns and are better informed about how to deal with them.

    Better Government (Older People)
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the better government initiative for older people. [68650]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): There is a great deal of interest in this important part of our modernising government programme. Next month we will be setting up a learning network so that many more local authorities across the United Kingdom can share learning and experience on improving services. Well over 200 authorities, including that of the hon. Gentleman, have already expressed an interest.
    Mr. Amess: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my deep disappointment that my constituency was not chosen for the pilot scheme, given that a huge number of elderly people in Southend, West are suffering from the Government's failure to address the bed-blocking crisis there, and the fact that they are struggling on their pensions? How on earth does the Minister expect anyone
    310
    to take as genuine the Government's concern for elderly people when, of a Government of 119, only 11 of those who sit in the Commons are over 55?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Where does one begin? We have put £21 billion into the health service; we have established a royal commission on long-term care; and two of the 11 to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are right here on the Front Bench. The point of the better government initiative for older people is that it looks holistically at the needs of older people, of which there are many, including recreational needs and law and order concerns. Some of our pilot schemes involve them in lifelong learning projects. They do not give up the ghost as simply as some hon. Members seem to think. That is the way in which we enable, empower and involve older people in our communities, and that is to be applauded.
    Ms Linda Perham: When considering the representations on better government for older people, will my hon. Friend say something about the work of the performance and innovation unit on active aging in the Cabinet Office, and confirm that, in our one and three quarter years in office we have done more for older people than the Conservative Government did in 18 years?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The performance and innovation unit is yet another—forgive the play on words—innovation of this Government, which will consider a variety of areas, including active aging, in the longer term. Active aging is very much at the forefront of our thinking in the better government pilots.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the words "better government initiative" ring hollow in West Sussex where the Government grant has been so dramatically cut that many vital services for old people are having to be reviewed? How does that square with a better government initiative directed towards the interests of old people?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The better government for older people initiative is a series of pilots. I am not aware whether West Sussex is one of the pilot areas, but 28 schemes embrace the whole country. They are not intended to provide an instant answer to the problems of every area, but they will disseminate good practice through the learning network which is being set up. As I said in my initial answer, more than 200 local authorities think that the initiative is worth while in spreading good practice in catering for the needs of older citizens.

    Drugs
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on his new targets to encourage closer co-operation between Government Departments to tackle drugs problems. [68651]
    Mr. Clive Efford: If he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government initiatives against drugs. [68652]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government's 10-year strategy has four key targets: reducing young people's drug misuse,

    311
    reducing drug-related offending, increasing participation in drug treatment programmes and reducing access to drugs among young people. Under a public service agreement, all relevant Secretaries of State, and their agencies, are committed to working together to achieve those shared targets.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that police in Wirral believe that considerable progress is being made as a result of that interdepartmental, multi-agency work? The police are concerned, however, that substances such as GHB are increasingly used by young people but, because such substances are not formally regarded as dangerous drugs, those youngsters are not caught by that activity. Will he take note of the views of Wirral police and consider them when those matters are next reviewed?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I will. This is where it is helpful to be an organic chemist: gamma hydroxy butyrate—the substance to which my hon. Friend refers—can cause damage to people and is not licensed for use in the United Kingdom as a drug; nor is it covered by United Nations drug conventions. We are aware that there is a small problem in some areas, which we keep under careful scrutiny. We are working with the Medicines Control Agency and others to ensure that this problem does not grow and get out of hand.
    Mr. Efford: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the concern in many communities about certain addresses that are clearly used for the sale of drugs, but which are not subject to checks by the relevant agencies? Although I appreciate that it takes time to investigate such matters, and that surveillance is often taking place, will he stress to those agencies that swift action often presents a better face to the community than letting such problems drift.
    Dr. Cunningham: Operational matters in connection with investigations into the abuse or illegal sale of drugs are not matters in which Ministers intervene, but if my hon. Friend has a particular problem in his constituency, and if he lets us know about it, we will certainly draw it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary—perhaps he could ask him—has recently written to chief constables, informing them that, in future, 1 per cent. of police budgets can be used for drug treatment purposes? Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend to make certain that precious police resources are not siphoned from law enforcement, so that decent law-abiding people do not have their lives further blighted by drug-related crime and by the unsavoury activities of drug pushers and dealers?
    Dr. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend is present and has heard what the hon. Lady says, but let me point out that, as recently as last autumn, we allocated an additional £217 million for use by drug action teams to add force and resources to the excellent work that they are doing in conjunction with the police and other authorities.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: One of the Departments earmarked by the drugs tsar, Keith
    312
    Hellawell, was the Department for Education and Employment. What will the Minister do to ensure that proper resources are directed towards teachers, headmasters and those who work in schools to ensure that young children get the required message, which is that drugs are dangerous?
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point: it is essential that we get advice and information to schools—teachers and pupils—about the danger posed to them by the misuse of drugs. The Department for Education and Employment was included in the overall package relating to drugs and will certainly gain additional resources, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) a few moments ago.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Stewart: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 February.
    The Prime Minister(Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of land reform in Scotland, from the historic struggles of the Highland Land League to reform crofting laws, to difficulties that the Knoydart Foundation is having in my constituency, where it is attempting to run its own 17,000-acre estate. Does he agree that land reform should be one of the essential high priorities in the new Scottish Parliament, and that the Scottish Parliament does not want separation and dislocation?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the Scottish Labour party's proposals on land reform have been widely welcomed. As my hon. Friend knows, I was delighted that, last week, we flushed out the Scottish National party's proposals for starting independence negotiations literally the day after any success that it may have in the Scottish Parliament elections. People now know that there is a clear choice between devolution and the costs of divorce.
    Mr. William Hague: When the Foreign Affairs Committee describes the workings of the Foreign Office as being like an episode of "Yes, Minister", and the Labour Chairman of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes, he is sitting on the Labour Benches—says that that great Department of state is being turned from the Rolls-Royce of Whitehall into an old banger, whom are we to hold responsible?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that that is the case. We shall respond carefully to the Select Committee's recommendations, as I said yesterday.

    313
    Having studied the report in great detail, I think that the Committee's criticisms of the civil servants were disproportionate and unfair.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister says that he will respond carefully, but the Government were dismissing the report before it had even been published yesterday. The Prime Minister was saying that Ministers should be exonerated before the report had even been published. The answer is that no one will take responsibility. The report describes failures at every level of the Foreign Office, including Ministers dealing in half-truths. It describes how Ministers were unaware of a Customs raid on their Department for three weeks. It says that many of the problems would not have occurred had Ministers explained their policies to their officials. If the Foreign Secretary, not civil servants, is not to be held responsible for the condition of the Foreign Office, who is?
    The Prime Minister: As I have explained, I do not accept that. All the facts to which the Select Committee drew attention had already been covered by the Legg inquiry. The allegations, most ridiculously made by the former Home Secretary, who is now the shadow Foreign Secretary, were dismissed by that inquiry. As I said yesterday, we shall of course respond to the detailed points that the Foreign Affairs Committee has made, but I think that its criticism of civil servants is unfair, because it puts in the context of today, with all the focus on the breach of the arms embargo, events that happened months and months ago when the context was completely different. In those circumstances, the report's criticisms of civil servants were disproportionate and unfair. As civil servants cannot reply, I shall reply for them.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has clearly not studied the report carefully. He said that everything in it was covered by the Legg report, but paragraph 72 of the Select Committee report says:
    "One aspect of the Sandline affair which has worried us is the way in which intelligence information received from the Ministry of Defence was treated with … cavalier disregard by the FCO … It is also extraordinary that Sir Thomas Legg … were misinformed. If they were misinformed about this, then is it … not impossible that they were misinformed in other areas?"
    Is this not a story of incompetence, half-truths, secrecy and contempt for Parliament, for which the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are responsible? It is not a happy situation for the world's top moral and spiritual leader to be presiding over that.
    The report was produced by hon. Members from both sides of the House, who studied the issues at great length. Does the Prime Minister intend to take the report seriously, or to treat the House, its Committees and their reports with complete arrogance and contempt?
    The Prime Minister: As I have already said and will repeat for the third time, we shall consider carefully the points that the Select Committee has made. I emphasise yet again that it did not find that Ministers had engaged in some great conspiracy to breach arms embargoes, and it did not find any of the Opposition's allegations correct. It launched serious and vehement criticisms of the behaviour of certain civil servants. I happen to think that those criticisms are unfair. [Interruption.] I am asked on what grounds. I shall tell the House on exactly what grounds they are unfair.
    314
    The criticisms of civil servants were directed at their conduct in the early months of 1998. At that point in time, the focus in the House was on how we could do more to help the democratically elected regime in Sierra Leone. When we had the debate in the House on 12 March last year, not a single member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee spoke, and the Opposition Front-Bench Members demanded that we did even more to help the democratic regime in Sierra Leone.
    All I am saying in respect of the civil servants is that it is important not to apply, with the benefit of hindsight, counsels of perfection and rules, when that is not fully justified if we take account of the context at the time.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many small firms should do more to meet the challenge of millennium compliance? Will he ensure that the Government make every effort to help them attain the standards being achieved by many larger corporations and by Government Departments?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. The position of larger United Kingdom firms is encouraging, as almost all of them have made proper provision for dealing with the millennium bug. We have trained 11,000 people to help companies deal with the millennium bug, and we are training a further 10,000.
    I give a warning to small and medium businesses in Britain. About 80 per cent. of them will be able to deal with the millennium bug, but a large proportion are not yet in a position to do so. They must ensure that their systems are in order for 2000. We will assist them by giving them free help and advice, but they must ensure that they are millennium compliant for 2000. Britain is now a leader, if not the leader, on this in the world. That will be no good if our small businesses do not follow the lead of larger companies and the public sector and ensure that they are millennium compliant for 2000.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Yesterday's report on Sandline was one of the most damning ever delivered on a Government Department. Is not the more serious issue the fact that, while the Government have been playing pass the parcel with the blame for this matter, in the past year the terrible tragedy in Sierra Leone has repeated itself? The rebels who were defeated by Sandline arms have now been re-armed, apparently with the assistance of another British company. Sierra Leone is again under assault, and thousands have been killed.
    The lessons to be learned from the arms to Iraq scandal, Sandline and the unabated flood of weapons into every trouble spot in Africa are clear. Unless and until we establish a proper international regime for the control of arms, those scandals will not end—they will occur again and again. When will the Government support such a measure?
    The Prime Minister: It is as a result of the Government's actions that we have tightened arrangements for arms sales both here and in the European Union.
    I thought for a moment that, at long last, we were going to reach the real issue, which is not Sandline or even the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, but what we do about

    315
    the situation in Sierra Leone. Whatever the Conservative party may say, I make no apology for the support and help that we have given the democratically elected regime in Sierra Leone. It is rightly fighting the rebels because, if the rebels were allowed to gain control, they would encourage destruction and death on a vast scale. This Government and this country, together with Nigeria, are doing all that they can to help that democratically elected regime. That, I suggest, is the real issue.
    Mr. Ashdown: In that case, the Government have failed, because the rebels who were defeated have now been rearmed—again.
    The Government say that they are in favour of an international regime for arms control. Good. Does the Prime Minister find it odd, though, that, less than two weeks ago, when the Germans in the European Council proposed that we publish the European report on arms sales, the Government declined to support them? Will he now give an undertaking that, when the Germans return on 18 March with a European code for arms brokers, the Government will support them this time?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman we have been leading the way on arms control in the European Union. Secondly, it is true that the rebels have been rearmed, but they have not been rearmed by this country; they have been rearmed by sources wholly outside this country. What is important, surely, is for us to focus on how we can help the democratically elected regime in Sierra Leone, and that is precisely what the Government are doing.
    Helen Jackson: Has the Prime Minister considered that all the enthusiasm for tax-exempt special savings accounts, new retirement pensions, stakeholder pensions and individual savings accounts is making our 10 million existing pensioners feel a bit left out in the cold? Perhaps they feel that their huge voluntary efforts in the community do not count enough. Will the Prime Minister find ways of combining initiatives from all Departments—not least the Treasury—to produce a programme that will give a significant boost to existing pensioners and the quality of their lives in Britain today?
    The Prime Minister: We are giving substantial help to pensioners with the new stakeholder pension schemes, from which up to 5 million people can benefit, and with pension sharing on divorce. Moreover, for the first time, we are introducing a pension for carers. Nearly 10 million pensioners benefit from winter fuel payments, and there is a £2.5 billion programme to help the poorest pensioners over the next few years.
    Yes, we always look for better ways of co-ordinating Government help; but it is this Government who are helping pensioners with their winter fuel, having cut the VAT on fuel that the last Government increased. We are also providing the poorest pensioners with the help that the last Government denied them for decades.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Prime Minister believe that cutting the married couples allowance and now, perhaps, taxing child benefit are ways in which to tackle the country's spiralling divorce and illegitimacy rates? In the light of yesterday's ministerial
    316
    admission that, under the working families tax credit, nearly everyone will be eligible for state-funded child-care payments provided that they are not the actual mother or father of the child concerned, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he sees any role for marriage in his new model family policy?
    The Prime Minister: First, it was the last Government—with the hon. Gentleman's support—who cut the married couples allowance first. Secondly, I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is against the help with child care that we are giving people. We are in favour of helping people with child care, because it is an important part of enabling them to raise their children—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have barracking and shouting.
    The Prime Minister: Helping with child care is an important part of enabling people to balance work and family responsibilities.
    Thirdly, it is this Government who, from April, will make the largest increase in child benefit that the country has ever seen. Surely that is the way in which to help families.
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that crude league tables do not always tell the full story of a school's success, and that the notion of added value, which shows how staff are driving up standards in schools to improve educational quality, is just as valid? At Carr Manor high school in Moortown, Leeds, where recently a new library was opened, the head made it clear that it was reading books and developing literacy that were the keys to that added value, which can so substantially affect a child's future and improve it.
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate all those at Carr Manor high school in my hon. Friend's constituency on the work that they are doing. Again, it is because of the extra money that we have given for school books—£1,000 for every school—and because of the stress on literacy and numeracy that yesterday's Ofsted results showed such improvement in our schools. Yes, there is still a long way to go, but yesterday's Ofsted report shows that, under this Government, significant improvement in all those areas of literacy and numeracy is finally taking place.
    Mr. William Hague: As the Chancellor is preparing the Budget for next month, will the Prime Minister tell the House by how much taxes have increased since he took office?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have set out our proposals in the Budget, but he will be aware that business tax has come down under this Government. Of course, as a result of the national insurance cut, from this April, every worker in the country will get a tax cut.
    Mr. Hague: It was a pretty straightforward question and there is a pretty straightforward answer, which is to add together the figures in the Red Books—the

    317
    Government's own books—on the last two Budgets. They show that the total tax increase for this financial year of the last two Budgets is £6,800 million, which is £260 for every taxpayer in the country in pension taxes, petrol taxes and mortgage taxes. The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of it at all. I hope that he has not done his own self-assessment, or he will be in trouble. If he does not know the actual figure for tax increases, will he remind the House instead of the specific pledges that he made about the level of taxation at the last general election?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is what we have kept to. We said that we would not raise the basic or higher rate of income tax. As for what he quotes out of the Red Book, he will be aware that the projections made by his Government before we took office were the same.
    Mr. Hague: The columns in the Red Book are the changes from previous plans. If the Prime Minister does not know that, he had better have a good look at the Red Book, but he does not even know what he said at the last election. In September 1996, he said:
    "We've no plans to increase tax at all".
    He said in the City in September 1996:
    "We want people to pay lower taxes".
    He said on "The World At One" in January 1997:
    "the programme of the Labour Party does not imply any tax increases at all."
    Now, he cannot remember those things. With a memory such as that, he could get a job in the Foreign Office any day. Is it not time that he started to live up to those promises and instructed the Chancellor to prepare a Budget that will meet them, instead of betraying them, as he has done twice before?
    The Prime Minister: We have met all the promises that we made. We promised that we would cut VAT on fuel and we did. People remember the 22 tax rises under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, in breach of all their promises. However, what he is now saying is that it would be his policy to change all those issues, all those matters—that he would reverse them all. Would he? Of course, he would not. What we have done for the first time is to get rid of the huge national debt that was inherited from the Conservative party. The £28 billion borrowing has gone. We have the lowest mortgage rates for over 30 years. Employment is up 400,000. We have halved youth unemployment—and how have we done it? We have rejected the politics of boom and bust, in favour of a stable economy. [Interruption.] Oh yes! It is not the Government, but the Opposition who suffer from amnesia. We shall remind people at the next election that they can have boom or bust again under the Tories or stability under Labour.
    Mr. Fraser Kemp: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the recent announcement by the Nissan motor company of 800 new jobs in my constituency, giving hope and opportunity to many of my constituents who have been denied them for too long?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome that new investment. I also welcome the commitment to continuing
    318
    inward investment in Britain. As my hon. Friend will know, we are setting stable conditions for industry so that we can come out of this downturn and prosper in future at the same time as tackling structural unemployment through the new deal. That is the best combination of policies for the future of the country.
    Mr. William Cash: In December last year, I called on the Prime Minister to give the British people and the House a White Paper on the constitutional, economic and political implications of joining the single currency. He refused. Is he now aware that there is a early-day motion on the Order Paper signed by Labour Members, Liberal Democrats, Euro-sceptics and Europhiles on both sides of the House and by hon. Members representing the Ulster parties, calling on the Prime Minister to provide the British people with the truth about the constitutional, political and economic questions arising from the single currency? Will he now review the position set out in the White Paper?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a consensus politician after all these years. The position that we set out is the right one. Of course there should be a full and proper public debate, and we look forward to being part of that debate. Whether or not his Front Bench would wish it, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also be part of that debate, but it should cover the whole range of issues in respect of monetary union. Frankly, we can have that debate without White Papers, but it should be based around the facts. However, the hon. Gentleman, and very many now—it is probably the majority position in the Conservative party—have set themselves against monetary union irrespective of the arguments and before the debate has even taken place. I believe that that is wrong and contrary to the best interests of the country.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my right hon. Friend understand the sense of betrayal among the work force at BP in Grangemouth who, having taken large numbers of job losses and redundancies to reach world-class status and attract substantial investment, have been told today that they are likely to face another 450-plus redundancies? Will he ensure that Scottish Office Ministers get round the table with me and the management of BP to ensure that, where jobs are being outsourced and put out to contract, they remain in the Scottish economy for the benefit of the stakeholders who share in the future of that industry?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that there will be discussions between my hon. Friend and the Ministers concerned. The oil industry is in difficulty as a result of the price of oil having dropped quite dramatically. My hon. Friend will know, however, that BP has made it clear that the investment that it announced late last year to create new jobs has not been put at risk by today's announcement. Obviously, we sympathise very much with the jobs that are now at risk and we shall do whatever we can to help, but it is good to know that BP has reiterated its commitment to continuing and further investment in the oil industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Is the Prime Minister aware that the cost of a first-class

    319
    postage stamp is greater than the extra 25p a week—just 25p a week—for older pensioners? Is it not about time that the Government gave a first-class pension to pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is important to do that. It is important also that, when we have proposals from the Liberal Democrats, they are costed proposals.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: They are.
    The Prime Minister: I very much doubt that, based on experience. Regardless, let me not criticise the Liberal Democrats. I should, however, point out to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that, although he talks about 25p per week, our introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners will ensure that a single pensioner will receive at least £75 per week, and that a couple will receive at least £116 per week. When we add on top of that help with winter fuel bills, we are giving at least the poorest pensioners in our society considerably more help than he admits.
    Mr. Phil Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some temporary workers in my Corby constituency experience awful exploitation at the hands of employment agencies, and face penalty clauses of £1 an hour if they fail to complete a contract? Will he ensure me that the Employment Relations Bill will, after it becomes an Act of Parliament, enable a root-and-branch overhaul of the regulations governing those employment agencies, so that we can have fairness for every individual in the workplace?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has listened to the points that my hon. Friend has made. Fairness at work cannot deal with all the difficulties that people face at the workplace. However, it will mean that, for the first time, people will have basic rights that have been denied to them in the United Kingdom but are simply the rights taken for granted around the world. From what was said in last night's debate, we now know that Conservative Members would, if they were elected to power, get rid of the minimum wage, get rid of the family-friendly provisions in the fairness at work Bill, and get rid of the basic trade union rights that everyone else in the world takes for granted.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the Prime Minister agree with the view that wealth creation is more important than wealth redistribution?
    The Prime Minister: I think that both are extremely important.
    Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that, in the next few months, consultation exercises will be launched across the country to examine the implications for localities of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Will he join me in welcoming the enthusiasm with which many of the partners have entered into the work that they have to do? This morning, I was at the launch in King's Lynn of consultations between West Norfolk borough council, Norfolk county council and the Norfolk police. Does my
    320
    right hon. Friend agree that the most important partnership will be between those who serve the community and the community itself? Will he join me in encouraging the public to have their voices heard during both the audit and the development of the crime and disorder strategies that their communities need?
    The Prime Minister: I urge the public to get involved in the consultations on crime strategies in their area. Over the next three years, £250 million extra will be going into crime prevention. The new crime and disorder legislation will allow us to deal with violent and unruly neighbours who are making people's lives hell in estates across the country. I urge people to use the powers, which are available and can make a big difference to the safety and security of our communities. People should know that they have a responsibility to behave properly towards the area in which they live.

    Young People (Oxfordshire)
    Dr. Evan Harris: What estimate he has made of the effect of the 1999–2000 standard spending assessment settlement for children's social services on vulnerable young people in Oxfordshire.
    The Prime Minister: The standard spending assessment for Oxfordshire will increase by 3.8 per cent. next year. If the authority's action plan is approved, Oxford will also receive an additional £586,000 for children's services, through the new quality protects grant. That far-reaching programme of action will improve all local authority children's services and is backed up by £375 million of targeted extra money.
    Dr. Harris: The Prime Minister should be aware that the 10 per cent. cut in the children's SSA from this year to next year, combined with a continuation of the crazy Tory capping rules, are forcing the county council to threaten to close resource centres for disabled children—such as Summerfield, in Abingdon, in my constituency. The Kidlington family centre also is under threat, and there is a threat to community hospitals in my constituency. What does the Prime Minister say to parents of disabled children who fought 18—no, 20—years of Tory cuts, only to see their services face the chop under a Labour Government? Can he justify paying for the political prioritisation of education by cutting services to the most vulnerable in our society?
    The Prime Minister: Let me just correct the hon. Gentleman. Oxfordshire's spending on all services will increase by almost 4 per cent. It is correct that the new allocation formula gives a much higher weighting to the number of people on income support, and that that factor has affected Oxfordshire's settlement. However, the Oxfordshire SSA works out at £97 per child in the county. That is in line with the average for shire counties, and is more than for similar shire counties in the south, such as Buckinghamshire, where the figure is £87 per child, and Cambridgeshire, where the figure is £91 per child. I understand the difficulties that have been caused by changes in the way in which the SSA has been calculated for Oxfordshire, but it still comes out significantly ahead of many other shires.

    Rod and Line Fishing
    Mr. Anthony Steen: What representations the Government have received from the pleasure boat industry regarding rod and line fishing.
    The Prime Minister: We have received a number of representations from the pleasure boat industry regarding rod and line fishing—including, I understand, one from the hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Prime Minister aware that, if he came out angling off the Devon coast, he would not catch one mackerel? The reason for that is simple. EU commercial industrial factory ships are taking all the mackerel, spraying chemicals on them, so that they cannot be identified, and then converting them into feed for European animals. Is he aware of that? Will he tell EU Ministers that fishing for mackerel in a conservation mackerel box has to stop?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation. He has issued so many invitations to me to
    322
    come out on various boats with him in the past few weeks that I am beginning to get worried about us. To be frank, I was not aware of the particular problem to which he has just referred, but I will look into it carefully. I know that he is a strong critic of the common fisheries policy, and I know that there have been a lot of difficulties in its implementation. However, I still believe that we would make a great mistake if we withdrew from it or scrapped it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Tory Front-Benchers say that that is rubbish. I think that our fishermen would lose an awful lot more if we withdrew from that policy.
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Tories signed up to it.
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend points out, it was actually signed by the Tory party in government. I will look carefully into the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and be in touch with him about it.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon. Lady. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? The conversations are far too loud.
Ann Clwyd: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You may recall that in the United States last week, damages of £65 million were granted against the author of a website which listed 200 doctors in the United States who carry out abortions. They were described as "baby butchers" and the damages were awarded because it was considered that the website amounted to death threats. I raise this matter in the House because three doctors on the list were murdered, and there were attempts to murder other doctors. There have been 39 bombings of abortion clinics and 99 acid attacks in recent years.
On a similar worldwide website—entitled "Christian pro-life against abortion and pro-choice murderers"—are listed 62 hon. Members of this House. The implication is that they are all pro-murder. Lawyers have advised me that the comments in which the information is included are defamatory. I would be grateful, in view of the implied threat, if you would investigate the matter.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. These Christian fundamentalists, with their obsessive hatred of anybody who opposes their view, deliberately incite violence against individuals. Many of us, as Members of Parliament, have been threatened and intimidated, including the late and wonderful Jo Richardson. Given that the information is on a worldwide website, can you ensure that the British groups—supported by certain hon. Members—with links with US groups advocating murder and terrorism are properly investigated by the appropriate authorities?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Ladies seemed to imply that this may be a matter of privilege. If they think that, they should put the matter to me in writing. This is the first intimation that I have had of it. I will look into the matter, but if it is thought that there is privilege involved, I urge them to let me have the information in writing, so that I can investigate it properly.

BILL PRESENTED
  WELFARE REFORM AND PENSIONS
  Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. Andrew Smith, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon and Mr. Hugh Bayley, presented a Bill to make provision about pensions and social security; to make provision for reducing under-occupation of dwellings by housing benefit claimants; to authorise certain expenditure by the Secretary of State having responsibility for social security; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 44].

Poverty and Social Exclusion (National Strategy)
3.36 pm
Mr. David Drew: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the production and implementation of a comprehensive, participatory strategy for co-ordinated Government action to reduce and eliminate poverty and social exclusion in the United Kingdom.
In his Sheffield speech at the launch of the new deal, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the scale of the challenge that the Labour Government face to tackle poverty and social exclusion. He said:
"we now face a task of reconstruction as intense as the one that faced the post-war Labour Government and that's why we need an anti-poverty strategy of the same ambition and breadth."
I am proud to say that much has been achieved already the new deals for the young, lone parents and disabled people are already helping to get people back into jobs; the statutory national minimum wage will help to end the scandal of poverty pay; increased spending on education will help to prevent poverty; and the new deal for communities will help to regenerate not only bricks and mortar, but the life chances and opportunities of people living in some of the country's most deprived neighbourhoods.
In addition to all that, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established the social exclusion unit, whose job is to focus on the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and to co-ordinate action across Government. That is an impressive record of achievement from which I do not want for one moment to detract. Indeed, many of us entered politics in the first place to tackle poverty and all its consequences.
Why, then, is there a need for the Bill? Primarily, it provides a framework in which the excellent start that the Government have made can be developed. It is not a framework that I have dreamt up, but one that was agreed at the 1995 world summit for social development in Copenhagen. One of the summit's towering achievements was to bring together Governments from the developing and the developed world to consider the issue of poverty globally. For the first time, the absolute poverty experienced in many developing countries and the relative poverty experienced in countries such as the United Kingdom were considered together. The poverty here may be less extreme than that in some other countries, but it is no less unacceptable or offensive.
At Copenhagen, the then Tory Government signed up to a programme of action that required the development of national strategies to combat poverty and social exclusion; unfortunately, they failed to produce such a strategy. If adopted, the approach agreed in Copenhagen and taken in the Bill would develop the Government's anti-poverty strategy in two key ways. First, the development of policies designed to combat poverty and social exclusion would be participatory. Participatory policy development means that all those with something to contribute to the process are included in it, and implies new forms of democracy to encourage active engagement and empower communities, which is something that the Government are already promoting in their proposals for improving local democracy. In this context, it means that people with direct experience of poverty and social exclusion are at the head of policy making.

325
Participation does not mean consultation with or involving organisations and individuals who speak on behalf of those living with poverty and social exclusion. That may well be necessary, but real participation means taking seriously the proposition that the real experts are those who live daily with poverty and social exclusion. The barriers created by the complexities of the benefit system, the struggle to make ends meet on an extremely low income, the reality of exploitation in the workplace, the burden of crime or, indeed, the additional problems for those suffering from mental illness all go hand in hand with poverty in the United Kingdom.
The social exclusion unit has found to its cost how difficult real participation can be. Although it has made some attempt to include people experiencing poverty and social exclusion in its work, this has not really been a success. Tight deadlines, very short periods of consultation and a lack of resources have all acted against participation. What is needed is a national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion, which includes participation from the outset. Participation should be not an add-on to discussion but a central force in that discussion. The Bill would require that, and it provides a framework in which it could take place.
Some hon. Members may argue that such participation is not possible. To them I would say that it may be difficult, but participatory policy work is already taking place. Every month, members of the UK Coalition Against Poverty encourage men and women who are experiencing poverty and social exclusion to take part in the meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. The ideas and knowledge that these experts bring is invaluable. They are resources that should not be pushed to the margin, but brought into the centre. With sufficient time and support, this small start could be extended to other aspects of policy making. The Bill would require that to happen.
The second key element of the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion included in the Bill is the requirement to set time-bound and measurable targets. We live in an age of targets, and we know how effective they can be in galvanising action towards a particular goal. If we are serious about first reducing and then eliminating poverty and social exclusion in the UK—I believe that the Government are—why should we be afraid of targets? Let us demonstrate our commitment to this goal by saying openly, "This is what we want to achieve, and this is how we intend to achieve it."
In the Republic of Ireland, where a national anti-poverty strategy has been in place since 1997, targets have been set in a range of areas, including unemployment, income adequacy and educational disadvantage. The Bill would require the national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion to include similar targets relevant to the UK.
A Government such as that now in office, for whom social justice is a primary political objective, have nothing to fear and everything to gain from publicly seeking ambitious targets. Indeed, the Government have already set themselves ambitious targets in various ways, whether in the reduction of class sizes or getting unemployed young people into work. In one of the first
326
White Papers of this Parliament, the Government also set themselves ambitious targets for tackling poverty. In her White Paper entitled "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development set out the following target: a reduction by one half of the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. It is a noble and important goal, but if we can set a target for tackling the poverty that blights the lives of our brothers and sisters overseas, surely we owe it to our brothers and sisters at home to do the same.
The setting of targets is, of course, a difficult matter. At worst, targets can be set so low that achieving them is meaningless; at best, they can be a powerful tool for change. Work on establishing common agreed indicators of poverty and social exclusion, such as that recently undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, can be built on to provide targets against which performance can be measured.
It is essential, however, that targets for the reduction of poverty and social exclusion reflect the concerns and priorities of those directly affected. That is why the Bill includes the opportunity for people with direct experience of poverty and social exclusion to be involved in the setting of targets and then in monitoring and evaluating the progress made towards achieving them.
The Republic of Ireland is not the only EU country to have followed up the commitments made in Copenhagen. Last year, a law against exclusion was passed in France. That legislation is designed to help everyone to access and exercise their rights. For people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, the denial of rights that others take for granted is a daily fact of life.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health has made clear, the right to a decent standard of health is a good starting point. The poorest members of society are ill more often and die sooner than their wealthier neighbours, so the national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion required by the Bill would bring forward measures designed to ensure that the rights that poverty and social exclusion too often deny to many citizens are restored to them.
My own experience is based on 12 years as a councillor in the county of Gloucestershire. During that time, I discovered for myself the reality and the pernicious nature of poverty across the spectrum from rural to urban areas. With other councillors, I helped to devise the county's anti-poverty strategy in 1997. Our council joined the growing number of other local authorities adopting such strategies: Suffolk, for example, has done innovative work in rural areas.
Establishing our strategy in Gloucestershire has resulted in some pioneering work to help map rural poverty, right down to enumeration areas. A national strategy would help to provide a real boost to local policies, practices and partnerships, above all because such a strategy would be effective in co-ordinating policy across a range of Government Departments.
The national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion required by the Bill would have that scope. Indeed, it would provide a framework for what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called for at Sheffield—an anti-poverty strategy of the same breadth and vision as that adopted by the Labour Government of 1945.
3.46 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: In this House, we have to decide whether the legislation that we propose and consider is serious, or whether it has become a series of gestures. Having listened to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I fear that his Bill falls into the latter category.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that stringing together enough buzz words will achieve the desired result. Even in the short passage that appears on the Order Paper, he has managed to squeeze in words such as "comprehensive", "participatory", "strategy" and "co-ordinated action" in quick succession, presumably in the hope that that will go some way towards producing the desired result.
I hope that the House will not be fooled by that. The simple repetition of words that sound positive and encouraging is not necessarily the way to achieve what is wanted. That is a real problem, but there is also a methodological problem with the proposals.
More often than not, the concept of poverty is defined in relative rather than absolute terms. It is often claimed that a quarter or a third of the population is in poverty, which is defined by reference to averages, overall incomes, medians or some other measure. The conclusion is that a person in the bottom third of a range of incomes is in poverty.
However, using that definition means that, although the lot of those defined as being in poverty can be improved, poverty itself can never be eliminated. The elimination of poverty might be possible if one were to use an absolute definition, but I do not think most people—and certainly not most Labour Members—define poverty in that way. If they did, we might be able to make some progress.
Then we come to our new friend, social exclusion. That is another term that has appeared in the language and which is supposed to have positive and warm connotations—at least for those who want to eliminate it. However, the hon. Member for Stroud admitted that the Government have already set up a social exclusion unit. Moreover, the Labour rhetoric claims that the problem of social exclusion, so recently identified, is now being tackled thoroughly and comprehensively by the Government.
I do not know whom to believe. Should I believe the Ministers who say that the problem is being dealt with and that the institutional mechanisms are in place? Or should I believe the hon. Member for Stroud, who thinks that an additional Bill—with additional buzz words attached—is needed, the better to deal with the problem of social exclusion? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with Ministers in a quiet corner somewhere to work out whether anything is really being done about the problem and whether the Bill is necessary.
Then we come to the word "participatory". I suppose that some people might think that the more syllables a word has, the more effective it will be, but that depends on their view of English. However, the hon. Member for Stroud tells us that better and more effective policy will be produced if all those with something to contribute are allowed to take part in the process. I wonder. How on earth would the people who have something to contribute be chosen, so that they might be allowed to make their contribution? That is a real problem: if many people have the direct experience that the hon. Member for Stroud
328
described, there must be some way to choose from their number—unless the hon. Gentleman thinks that all of them should be gathered together, according to some ancient Greek method. He would be faced, as we all would, with the problem of selecting who, of all those with a contribution to make, is best able to contribute in order better to promote policy. What he said was not very convincing in that regard.
The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned measurable targets, which may or may not be a good thing. He was honest enough to say that, if set too low, they can be too easily achieved, and if set too high, they might disappoint. Supposing, however, that we set meaningful targets, but they are not met. What would happen if all other mechanisms in the Bill, such as the new comprehensive strategy, co-ordinated action and social exclusion activity, were working splendidly as the hon. Gentleman intended, but the targets were still not met? What would be different, in trying to achieve his purposes, from what happens anyway?
I would certainly not in any way question the motives of the hon. Member for Stroud, which I am sure are the highest, but the House must learn to resist the temptation to give such measures a smile and a nod, to say that it sounds good and that it is the kind of thing that we all feel better at the end of the day's business for having agreed, because we have moved forward by a small step and the world is bound to be a better place. We must take ourselves more seriously. In order to do so, I cannot accept this measure, however well intentioned it is. It demeans the processes of the House and the meaning of legislation.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 16.

Division No. 62]

[3.51 pm

AYES

Alexander, Douglas

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Allan, Richard

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ashton, Joe

Canavan, Dennis

Baker, Norman

Caton, Martin

Ballard, Jackie

Cawsey, Ian

Barnes, Harry

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Beard, Nigel

Clapham, Michael

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clwyd, Ann

Best, Harold

Cohen, Harry

Blears, Ms Hazel

Connarty, Michael

Blizzard, Bob

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Borrow, David

Cooper, Yvette

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Corbett, Robin

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Corston, Ms Jean

Bradshaw, Ben

Cotter, Brian

Brake, Tom

Cousins, Jim

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Crausby, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Burnett, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Burstow, Paul

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Cable, Dr Vincent

Dafis, Cynog

329

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Keetch, Paul

Davidson, Ian

Kemp, Fraser

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Khabra, Piara S

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Kidney, David

Dawson, Hilton

Kirkwood, Archy

Dismore, Andrew

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Dobbin, Jim

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Laxton, Bob

Donohoe, Brian H

Levitt, Tom

Drew, David

Linton, Martin

Drown, Ms Julia

Livsey, Richard

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Edwards, Huw

Love, Andrew

Efford, Clive

McAllion, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McCabe, Steve

Ennis, Jeff

McDonnell, John

Etherington, Bill

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Mackinlay, Andrew

Feam, Ronnie

McNulty, Tony

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Mactaggart, Fiona

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Marek, Dr John

Flint, Caroline

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Follett, Barbara

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Forsythe, Clifford

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Mitchell, Austin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Moffatt, Laura

Fyfe, Maria

Moran, Ms Margaret

Galloway, George

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Gardiner, Barry

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Mullin, Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Norris, Dan

Godman, Dr Norman A

Oaten, Mark

Goggins, Paul

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

O'Hara, Eddie

Hancock, Mike

Olner, Bill

Harris, Dr Evan

Öpik, Lembit

Healey, John

Organ, Mrs Diana

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Heppell, John

Pendry, Tom

Hinchliffe, David

Perham, Ms Linda

Hope, Phil

Pike, Peter L

Hoyle, Lindsay

Plaskitt, James

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pollard, Kerry

Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

Pond, Chris

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pound, Stephen

Hurst, Alan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Prosser, Gwyn

Illsley, Eric

Rammell, Bill

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Rapson, Syd

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Rendel, David

Jones, Ms Jenny

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Roy, Frank

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Ruane, Chris

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ryan, Ms Joan

330

Salmond, Alex

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Salter, Martin

Todd, Mark

Sanders, Adrian

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Savidge, Malcolm

Touhig, Don

Sawford, Phil

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Tyler, Paul

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Skinner, Dennis

Wallace, James

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Watts, David

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Webb, Steve

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

White, Brian

Soley, Clive

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Southworth, Ms Helen

Wicks, Malcolm

Squire, Ms Rachel

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

(Swansea W)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Willis, Phil

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Winnick, David

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wise, Audrey

Stoate, Dr Howard

Wood, Mike

Stringer, Graham

Woolas, Phil

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stunell, Andrew

Wyatt, Derek

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Judy Mallaber and

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Ivan Henderson.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Fallon, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Thompson, William

Hawkins, Nick

Townend, John

Hayes, John

Viggers, Peter

Johnson Smith,

Wilkinson, John

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wilshire, David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Tellers for the Noes:

Malins, Humfrey

Mr. Desmond Swayne and

Pickles, Eric

Mr. John Bercow.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Drew, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. Steve Webb and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION (NATIONAL STRATEGY)
Mr. David Drew accordingly presented a Bill to require the production and implementation of a comprehensive, participatory strategy for co-ordinated Government action to reduce and eliminate poverty and social exclusion in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 May, and to be printed [Bill 45].
Orders of the Day

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
  (Clause 1)
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [25 January].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      REDUCTION IN AGE AT WHICH CERTAIN SEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL
      4.4 pm
      Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after' (buggery);' insert—
      '(aa) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3 (buggery) of Schedule 2 (punishments, etc.);'.
      I am pleased to see that the Home Secretary has joined the Minister of State, Home Office on the Treasury Bench. We are delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber but we are not sure what his presence signifies for the free vote that we on these Benches have been promised on this occasion. We hope that we will still have one.
      I stress that I strongly support the clause. The purpose of the amendment is to explore ways in which the clause may be improved along the lines that I described in my contribution on Second Reading. It must be remembered that the clause deals with equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in sexual matters relating to the criminal code. Amendment No. 1 draws attention to some of the other areas in which there should be equality.
      There has not been a proper debate on such details for years and perhaps decades, if not centuries. Previous debates, especially on sentencing, have often taken place in the dark hours in the other place, at the last minute, and have been on measures tagged on to other Bills. This is the first opportunity in the context of a Government Bill for us to debate properly how equality in sentencing and other matters might be achieved.
      Perhaps the most significant previous debate took place in the 1880s. The Government claim to be undertaking a process of modernisation, which some of us support. It is high time to modernise these laws.
      We understand that it might be thought that some of these matters are covered by the Government's review of sexual offences. However, there is concern about the timetable of that review, first because these are relatively urgent matters, given that we are dealing with unequal sentences and other unequal provisions, and secondly because we are in danger of achieving equality and fairness in one part of a series of offences without making consequent changes in sentencing or in other respects covered by other amendments.
      Amendment No. 1 deals with sentencing and other amendments deal with who can be charged with an offence. Other matters must be dealt with as new clauses and will be discussed in Standing Committee.
      It is important to emphasise that in all these debates we are speaking about consensual offences. When we consider the appropriate sentence for such offences,
      332
      whether heterosexual or homosexual, it is important that we restrict our consideration to consensual offences. Non-consensual offences fall outwith the remit of the clause. I hope that we will be careful to make that distinction.
      We must recognise that when we seek equality, which is the thrust of clause 1, we mean equality as between consensual anal intercourse between men—by which I mean buggery; it is also called other things, but I shall try to stick to the term "anal intercourse"—and unlawful sexual intercourse between a man and girls—in the case of offences that will remain criminal, even when the Bill is enacted—under the age of 16. It is vital that we make that connection when we speak of equality.
      When we speak about maximum sentences, we should not propose such penalties unless we anticipate the courts using them. It is not satisfactory to hope that the courts will use their judgment if the sentence is too steep. It is the job of legislators to legislate and to ensure that when we set maximum sentences, we are prepared to see them carried out.
      If we are not prepared for that, it is incumbent on us to legislate for appropriate sentences and to take the earliest opportunity—which is afforded by the selection of the amendment—to legislate for equality in sentences relating to offences that have been legalised for certain people but remain illegal in other cases.
      Various sentences apply to gay men and their sexual activities, but do not apply to heterosexuals. In the Bill the Government refer to consequential amendments affecting sentences, but they have not grabbed the bull by the horns and tackled all the discriminatory sentences that exist, nor have they adjusted the scheduling of the sentences to the provision that they are seeking to enact, with support from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and across the House.
      If one was decriminalising activities between the ages of 18 and 16 under certain circumstances—what those circumstances are falls outside the scope of the clause—one would expect to see the sentencing schedule amended to replace the word "eighteen" by "sixteen", where it applies.
      If one considers the sentencing provisions that the Bill and my amendment seek to amend, under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, buggery or attempted buggery between a man and a person under the age of 16 is an offence—that is for consensual buggery—punishable by life imprisonment. For the similar heterosexual offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, the maximum sentence is two years.
      There is a provision for a life sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of 13 years of age or less, and that is an appropriate maximum sentence, but there is no similar provision for anal intercourse between a man and a young male under the age of 13, which should also carry a life sentence. That could be on the basis that the age is clearly too young generally, or that the act could not be properly consensual at that age.
      That is something that the Bill does not remedy and I am unable to do so with the amendment either, but I hope that the Government will say what they consider to be the right sort of sentencing framework in that area.

      333
      We therefore still have the discrepancy between a life sentence for consensual anal intercourse between a man and a person under the age of 16 generally, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl, where the maximum sentence is two years.
      A further provision under section 12 of the 1956 Act, relating to buggery, that the Government are not amending is that, where a person is under the age of 18 and the accused man is over the age of 21, there is a maximum five-year sentence. There is no equivalent age provision for unlawful sexual intercourse with a female, so the two years still applies as the maximum sentence, which is lower in this case.
      If the Government were seeking to recognise that the law had changed in respect of buggery and attempted buggery, they might have reduced the age in that clause from 18 to 16. That clause also covers buggery with an animal which attracts a life sentence; otherwise the offence attracts a sentence of two years. That is a hotchpotch, and my amendment seeks to recognise that the Government have not even started to address it in this legislation; it is vital that they do so.
      As drafted, without the amendment, there is no change in the Bill's sentencing provision for buggery, which is surprising, as the age of 18 is written into the schedule. In section 13 of the 1956 Act, which is covered by the clause by virtue of its reference to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which in turn covers section 13 of the 1956 Act, which concerns gross indecency, one can detect another inconsistency in the current law between men and women. First, gross indecency is an offence which can apply only to men. There is no similar provision for unlawful consensual sex short of sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman said that it was vital that the Government should address those anomalies. Will he explain precisely why? I accept that the anomalies exist, but why it is vital that they should be dealt with escapes me.
      Dr. Harris: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree—perhaps he does not—that where there is unjustified discrimination it should be removed at the earliest legislative opportunity. That is why the Labour party's general election manifesto said that, in the context of civil liberties, the party would seek to remove unjustified discrimination wherever it exists. We know that the Government use the words "at the earliest legislative opportunity" as an almost automatic caveat. We on these Benches understand that. This is the earliest legislative opportunity. If we believe that it is vital to correct discrimination that is unjustified—I do, and I believe that that view is shared by other hon. Members—it is clearly vital that this opportunity be taken.
      4.15 pm
      Gross indecency attracts a sentence of two years except where the accused is over 21 and the other party is under 18, when the sentence is five years. The Bill makes the consequential amendment to that provision and changes 18 to 16. The maximum sentence for gross indecency is
      334
      still two years in all circumstances, except where the accused is over 21 and the other party is under 16. There is no equivalent age differential for unlawful sexual intercourse, or sexual activity falling short of that, with a female under the age of 16.
      My amendment would change schedule 2, which relates to section 12 of the 1956 Act, dealing with the offences of buggery and attempted buggery, by substituting 16 for 18. The problem with the amendment, as the Minister will no doubt point out, is that it does not change the discrimination that exists. The Committee may be interested to know that I tabled a much broader amendment that would match exactly, for consensual offences, the maximum sentence for homosexual offences with the equivalent sentence for heterosexual activity. That fell outwith the scope of the clause, however, and cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House today.
      I understand that, but even if the Government had made the obvious consequential amendment and substituted 16 for 18, buggery or attempted buggery of a person under 16 would attract a life sentence. Substituting 16 for 18, however, means that buggery of a person under 16, when the accused man is over 21, would attract a maximum sentence of five years. As the Minister is aware, those two are inconsistent.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): So why table the amendment?
      Dr. Harris: The Minister asks a reasonable question. I had hoped to make it clear that I question why the Government could not have introduced a wider measure to achieve equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals for these consensual offences. People understand that that would be sensible, given that, over decades, we have not had an opportunity to change a law which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree is anomalous and discriminatory.
      Many people think that the law is heinously discriminatory, because people suffer longer sentences for a similar act purely on the basis of their sexuality, not on the basis of whether the sentence is proportional to the offence. Society has moved on. It is time we addressed these issues; and the general concern is that, although the Government have initiated a review of sexual offences, we have no clear timetable for legislation, even with the caveat "parliamentary time permitting".
      It is of grave concern that there may be no such legislation during this Parliament. We may be faced with a more illiberal, old-fashioned Government in the next Parliament. I hope that we will not be; it will not happen if our party is represented among them—although we cannot guarantee that, even to our most avid supporters.
      There is also concern that, if the timetable is such that the only opportunity to legislate arises just before the next general election, the Government may be tempted to decide that there are priorities higher than the much needed reform of sexual offences legislation.
      I have tabled the amendment to give the Minister the opportunity to explain how he intends to tackle the discrimination that exists in sentencing and to accept that, without widening this measure, legislation containing unjustifiable discrimination in sentencing will remain on the statute book. Although I will not push the amendment

      335
      to a vote, I should be grateful if he responded to the points that I have made, as I informed him of them well in advance.
      Mr. Boateng: This is truly a probing amendment, and I shall deal with it in that way.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) presents an amendment that is fundamentally flawed. Its effect would be to create a gross anomaly. He claims that he tabled it to highlight the fact that there are numerous anomalies in current legislation. We have long accepted that there are anomalies in the law relating to sexual offences, which is precisely why we have determined to establish an inclusive review of sexual offences that reflects the broad range of opinions on those issues. The review will draw on academic and legal expertise, on our faith communities and on practical good sense—indeed, common sense—in approaching those issues.
      We must ensure that we have a rational and comprehensive system of law relating to sexual offences with, at its heart, the protection of vulnerable people. The Committee upstairs has spent a considerable time debating that, and we shall address the issue this afternoon. Indeed, that issue motivated us to introduce this legislation. We want to ensure, first, that we have equality before the law and, secondly, that we do everything in our power to protect vulnerable people who are prone to the depredations of those who would abuse their trust. The Bill deals with those two separate issues.
      Clause 1 has a simple objective: to bring about a change based on the principle of equality. It makes the age of consent in England, Wales and Scotland 16, and in Northern Ireland 17, for homosexual as well as heterosexual activity.
      There are anomalies and inconsistencies in the way the criminal law treats heterosexuals and homosexuals. We shall ensure that the review deals with those anomalies and that the protection of children and vulnerable people from those who would abuse them is central to the objectives of the system of penalties. We look to the sexual offences review to guide us on that objective.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon seeks to obtain from the Government an undertaking that we will legislate in the course of this Parliament. He will realise that I cannot give such an undertaking. I am prepared to tell him, however, that we intend to carry out the review within 12 months. It will be done with due expedition and, as I said, in an inclusive way that seeks to stimulate an informed public debate on those issues. We shall then consider the outcome of the review. That, in turn, will be subject to a proper consultation process and, in due course, legislation will be introduced.
      That is how we intend to proceed. It is right that we should proceed in that way—with expedition, but at the same time ensuring that, at every stage, this vital area of the law is subject to proper reflection and consideration. Wide consultation is essential if we are to obtain a public consensus around a rational system of sexual offences law. We must tackle existing anomalies, but above all we must protect children and vulnerable people.
      336
      We oppose the amendment for the reasons I have given. It is technically flawed, and would create yet another unconscionable and unacceptable anomaly. Were the hon. Gentleman to push the amendment to a vote, our recommendation to the House would be to reject it. The House has heard the points that he has made, and he has heard me accept that there are anomalies and say that they will be considered by the sexual offences review. In the light of that, and of the amendment's obvious technical flaws, I hope that he will withdraw it.
      Dr. Harris: Throughout the Minister's reply, he did not accept that the current sentencing provisions are discriminatory: he said that they are anomalous. They are clearly anomalous, but does he accept that they are discriminatory? A 22-year-old man who is convicted for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of 15 faces a two-year maximum sentence, whereas a man of 22 who has unlawful anal intercourse with a young male of 15 can be given life imprisonment. If all the other circumstances of the case are broadly similar, does the Minister think that such disproportionality based only on the different sexuality of the two men is acceptable? Is it not discriminatory?
      I shall give the Minister an opportunity to intervene to explain whether the Government accept that the present sentencing provisions discriminate against homosexuals. If he remains silent, it is difficult for people to have confidence that the review will deal with such unjustifiable discrimination.
      Mr. Boateng: I do not want to be churlish so early in the proceedings, but I thought that I had made it clear that the purpose of the review is to address undoubted anomalies in the legislation. Among those anomalies is the obvious discrimination in the sentencing legislation, and we are addressing those issues. We have asked the review body to deal with them, and we shall reflect on the outcome of the review. It is right that we should do that.
      We should recognise the importance of approaching this matter holistically and rationally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are acting in good faith on this matter so as to ensure a proper debate and discussion of the issues and anomalies that he has identified with some skill.
      Dr. Harris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Dr. Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
      '( ) In section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery)—

      (a) at the beginning of subsection (1), there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1D) below"; and

      (b) after subsection (1C), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(1D) No proceedings shall be taken under this section against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party has at the time of the offence attained the age of sixteen."

      337
      ( ) In section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (indecency between men)—

      (a) at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words
      "(1) Subject to subsection (2) below"; and

      (b) at the end, there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(2) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party had at the time of the offence attained the age of sixteen.".'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 20, at end insert
      ';and after subsection (11) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "( ) No proceedings for any offence under subsection (5) above which consists of committing a homosexual act shall be commenced against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party had at the time of the commission of the offence attained the age of sixteen.".'.
      Dr. Harris: I intend to brief, because other hon. Members want to contribute, and I shall leave it to them to develop some of the points. The amendment deals with discrimination in the culpability, chargeability, prosecutability, convictability, sentenceability and imprisonability of the younger person for consensual, illegal acts.
      Clause 1 seeks to reduce the age of consent for homosexual sex—which we support. It will ensure that, in many circumstances, although not all, homosexual sex above the age of 16 is legal between two consenting people. However, glaring discrimination remains, because the younger person whom we are seeking to protect through these sexual offences measures is made a criminal by virtue of the same Act that makes him a victim. The provisions of the clause could be amended by this or a similar amendment.
      There are significant jurisprudential problems, and it is important that the Government accept the effect of the amendment. There are problems with the philosophy of criminalising a victim. We also have duties under the European convention on human rights. It is difficult to ensure that offenders are appropriately brought to book when the people who may be able to report offences are subject to criminal prosecution for the same acts that have made them a victim. Surely that will deter people from either seeking help or resorting to the impact of the law. The lack of a provision such as the one I suggest is a glaring omission in the Bill.
      4.30 pm
      A girl who has unlawful sexual intercourse committed against her when she is under 16 cannot be charged with the offence. At the end of the last century, the Tyrell case, which is quite well known in case law, showed that she could not be successfully prosecuted—even if she was the instigator—for aiding and abetting the offence. I consider that entirely appropriate: men, especially older men, must take responsibility for their actions, and must not be able to pass off age-of-consent offences as the responsibility of the younger party. It is vital for that anomaly to be removed. I use the word "vital" again for the benefit of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
      In the Sutherland judgment, the European Commission of Human Rights said that part of the problem with British law was the provision whereby the younger party was
      338
      criminalised, and the effect of that criminalisation was disproportionate to whatever society wished to achieve. I think that both sides of the age-of-consent argument will agree that the anomaly must be removed, that we must decriminalise victims of the offence and that this is the right legislative opportunity for such a move. We can act now, in Committee, or at least at some point during the Bill's passage. That will achieve the Government's two aims, which—as both the Secretary of State and the Minister have eloquently conveyed—are equality and the protection of young people. I ask the Government at least to take on board an amendment such as this.
      Mr. David Borrow: Unlike my speech on Second Reading, this speech will be brief.
      I support the amendment for a number of reasons. Since 1967, legislation on this subject has always started from the standpoint that any sexual activity between males is illegal and wrong; it has merely decriminalised activity in certain regards. It has never introduced an age of consent in the sense that is recognised in the case of heterosexual relationships. That applies to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and to this Bill. The amendment would introduce the protections for the younger party in consensual sex between someone below the age of consent and someone above that age that already exist for heterosexuals.
      Twenty-odd years ago, I saw a booklet produced by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, which dealt with the discrimination in the gamut of laws affecting gay men. The issue is complex, and I do not suggest that the Bill is necessarily the right way in which to put things right. I also realise that Ministers are conducting a sexual offences review, during which a number of the problems and anomalies will be examined. However, following the Euan Sutherland decision the Government promised to amend the law in two ways. That is why we are considering the Bill.
      The first way in which the law needed to be amended related to the age at which it became an offence to engage in sexual activity. That is why we are equalising the age of consent at 16 in England and Wales and 17 in Northern Ireland. Secondly—this has not been referred to generally, although the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has referred to it—there was the penalising and criminalising of the person who is under the age of consent. It is essential that, if we are to respond properly to the Euan Sutherland judgment, we ensure that the Bill deals not only with the equalisation of the age of concept, but with the criminalisation of those under the age of consent. I will leave it there.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: I trespass into the minutiae of the discussion with some diffidence because, unlike the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), I have not made a detailed study of the case law and the consequences thereof.
      I have three points to make. The first is that there is a curious ambiguity around the word "consensual" The proper meaning of the word is that there is an equal readiness by both parties to indulge in the behaviour, yet there is an understandable and proper anxiety that, where one party is older than the other—and particularly where the younger one is below the age of 16—there is a serious

      339
      risk of pressure of varying forms being put on the younger one, so that, although the appearance is given of consent, in practice, it is a reluctant consent.
      Mr. Borrow: Given that there would be pressure by the older person on someone under the age of 16 to become involved in sex, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that criminalising the younger party in that relationship would make it less likely that he would feel able to report and to seek the protection of the legislation, and that he would be more likely not to report the offence because of the fear that he had committed a criminal offence and could be charged? Instead of protecting the younger person, the measure would make it more difficult for him to be protected.
      Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps inadvertently, tries to rush me through my remarks. I was going to move on to that matter. It is important to be clear that the term "consensual" carries within it the ambiguity that, where there is a disparity in age, the younger person may appear to have given consent, but, if he had been genuinely free to decide on his behaviour, might have refused that consent.
      On my second point, I share the hon. Gentleman's view that to criminalise the younger party when he is under 16 for such behaviour—which allegedly was consensual, but may not have been—makes it harder for him to seek the protection and advice that we all wish to make available to him. That is the view of most of the professional counsellors and services working in the sector.
      Mr. Swayne: That view must be wrong then.
      Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has a cynical view of the professions. Sometimes he is not altogether unjustified, but if we are to proceed at all rationally, we have to allow that people who have devoted most of their working lives to assisting young people to work their way through the complexities and confusions of their sexual behaviour probably have a superior contribution to make; it is certainly superior to the one that I make. I am prepared to accept their view that criminalising the behaviour of the younger, perhaps reluctant, party does not help to solve the problem. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment.
      The third point is a more general one. It goes back to a debate that the Minister of State, Home Office had in front of what in those days, before the change of name, was called the all-party group for children. The group, of which I am an officer, believes strongly that girls below the age of consent who are engaged in prostitution should be regarded as victims of abuse and not as criminals in some conniving way. I very much hope that there will be a change in the law to that effect.
      From time to time, the law has a useful declaratory purpose, but its interpretation is also important. Today's debate provides an opportunity to improve the law and I support the amendment. Police forces and prosecution services have become much more aware of the dangers of criminalising young people, and only a few prosecutions take place.
      Finally, we talk rightly and properly about protecting young people from predatory behaviour by older people. Sadly, however, there is an increasing number of severely
      340
      damaged young people whose only recourse, when looking for excitement, comfort or whatever, is to try to seduce older people sexually. It is important to put on the record the fact that teachers and other adults are often put in a difficult position by young people to whom they are trying to extend care and affection when, because of the damage that they have endured during their young lives, their response is to try to titillate the older person into going too far. When we talk about protection, we should recognise that older people—particularly when the opportunity for blackmail or damaging someone's career is taken into account—need protection, too.
      Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that he chose his words carefully when he said that it was vital that the amendment should be carried so that the anomaly that he identified would be addressed. I shall use the same word. I think that it is vital that the anomaly should remain and I shall explain why.
      The anomaly that the hon. Gentleman identified is that a girl under 16 who has consensual sex with a man over 16 is not prosecuted for having given her consent and indulged in that illegal activity, whereas a boy under 16 who has consensual sex with a man, or indeed a boy over 16, may be prosecuted for having given his consent. That is an important distinction and an important principle because it shows that the law continues to identify a clear difference between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity—between a girl under 16 exploring her sexual desires and a boy under 16 exploring an unnatural sexual desire. It is important that the law should send a message that for a boy under 16 to explore sexuality in that way is not acceptable, is illegal and carries a penalty. We should send the message that the two life styles are not equivalent.
      4.45 pm
      I realise, that I am now treading on the subject matter of the debate on Second Reading, but I think that we should revisit the principles dealt with in both amendment No. 2 and the earlier debate. In the Second Reading debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House—although rather more Labour Members than Opposition Members—accepted the principle that one's sexual proclivity is fixed and determined, and that one can have no influence over it. I accept entirely the experiences described by Labour Members in supporting the principle. I do not dispute their experience, or say that they are wrong on the principle, but they painted an incomplete picture.
      The experiences that were described in the earlier debate may be a valid description of the experience of some boys, whose sexual appetites and proclivities are fixed. Equally, I am aware of young men—young boys—under 16 who experience particular unnatural desires at a tender age, approaching 16, but are ashamed of those desires. They are appalled by their desires and repress them, and go on to outgrow them and live a perfectly normal life. They are ashamed and appalled by their desires because of the social pressures exerted by their peers, who say that it is not natural behaviour or something of which society approves.
      Maintenance of the anomaly will therefore play an important role in sending a clear message, from the law and from society, that such behaviour is not a normal or

      341
      an acceptable way of life. The anomaly should therefore be maintained—so that the law's clear message is that it is an unnatural expression of human behaviour for young boys under 16 to explore their homosexual attitudes; that it is in no way an equally valid life style; and that young men are protected by the law from such exploration. Some young men will therefore never explore it, but outgrow it.
      Mr. James Clappison: This has so far been an interesting debate. I should make it clear now that my remarks are very much personal ones. For Opposition Members the matters dealt with in amendment No. 2—as with the other matters we have considered in the Bill—are, the subject of a free vote. My remarks are therefore only a personal contribution to the debate.
      I make it clear that my approach to the amendments is guided by a wish to give the strongest protection possible to children and young people. I have judged the entirety of the Bill by that same criterion. As a background to the amendments, I should say that, although the Bill aims to protect youngsters of 16 and 17 from abuse of a position of trust by an older person, it is fast emerging, as we consider the Bill, that that protection is far from comprehensive, that it contains many loopholes and anomalies, and that it could go much further than it does. That is most true of youngsters under 16, who are the subject matter of amendment No. 2. The Bill and its provisions on abuse of trust do nothing at all for youngsters under 16.
      In the previous debate, I listened carefully to the Minister's comments on wanting to protect vulnerable people. I join him in that wish, and shall certainly support him in any reasonable endeavours to realise it. However, he will have to face the fact that those under 16, who are most in need of protection—the younger the person concerned, the greater the need for protection—will receive no protection from the Bill's provision. That is the criterion by which I judge the amendments.
      The Utting report forms the background to today's debate. That catalogue of abuse and misery—which was chronicled by hon. Members on Second Reading—predominantly concerned youngsters under 16. That is the background against which I set the debates on the amendments.
      Will the amendments help to protect youngsters under 16? It is obvious that the Committee is moving towards 16 as the age of consent. I think that it is a mistake, that 18 is more appropriate and that 16 is far too young. However, we must be realistic. This is a serious matter—we are talking about protecting young people—and we must see the best that can be done in the circumstances.
      When the Bill is enacted and 16 becomes the age of consent, sexual relationships involving youngsters under 16 will be unlawful, as they are now. As the law will then stand, it will be unlawful for a person over 16 to have a sexual relationship with someone under 16. As I understand it, where such a relationship takes place, both persons will be involved in the unlawful act.
      The amendment proposes that, in such a case, no proceedings shall be commenced against the party who is under 16. The argument made by the amendment's
      342
      supporters is that the person under 16 should be regarded not as the perpetrator, but as a victim. I know that feelings run high on that matter, and it is perfectly possible to have strongly held and legitimate views on the subject. However, it is important to judge the position of the 16-year-old against the criterion that I set out at the beginning of my speech—the need to protect them from older people.
      The argument from the amendment's supporters is that the removal of any prospect of criminal proceedings for the younger party will make it more likely that the criminal offence committed by the older party will come to light. As has been said, in such cases, the sexual relationship is consensual. If it is not consensual, that is an entirely different matter and other serious criminal charges will be involved. I appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the nature of consensuality.
      In cases where the younger party has been a consensual party in the activity, if he comes to realise that what happened was wrong and unlawful, he has to face the prospect that there is a theoretical risk of prosecution—something that may even be pointed out to him by the older party concerned. I say that there is a theoretical risk of prosecution because it would appear that, in such cases, the younger party is only rarely prosecuted, although the position is not entirely clear.
      I am not sure how much we should weigh that fact in the balance. On the one hand, it could be said that there is no need to change the law as the amendment proposes because such prosecutions are hardly ever brought. On the other hand, there remains the possibility of prosecution, however remote it may be. We must ask whether it is good to have a law in place that is only rarely enforced. For someone under 16, even a theoretical risk of prosecution is something that that party must take into account and be influenced by. I suppose that, the more law-abiding the person concerned, the more they would take that risk into account.
      I would like a strong, credible and well-enforced legal framework put in place to protect young people. I am extremely keen to protect young people from unlawful sexual activity, and anal intercourse in particular, involving older people, especially when the older person is substantially more mature and inclined to exploit the younger person's youth and inexperience. Sadly, there are such people around. For anyone over 16 to commit the offence with an under-16-year-old is a serious matter, but it is even more serious when the older person is perhaps 27, 32 or even in his 40s.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to the case of Tyrell and the well-established legal position in respect of under-16-year-old girls in the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse. I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks on that subject. The low maximum sentence of two years for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of under 16 is a glaring anomaly in our law that has been there for many years. I make no party point, as the anomaly remained under Conservative Governments as well as Labour.
      The Minister's remarks had an especial poignancy for me, as I can remember having exactly the same debate in proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Bill. We put

      343
      exactly the same remarks to the Minister who was in charge of that Bill and he in many ways accepted the spirit of our point that two years was far too low.
      Dr. Harris: I saw the Minister nodding vigorously, as he did in Committee upstairs, at the suggestion that the maximum sentence of two years was too low; but one must be realistic. The offence is widespread, as we can see from the number of pregnancies, abortions and births among under-16-year-olds. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should lock up fathers—irresponsible and law-breaking as they may be—for up to five years, he may be going down a path that is the reverse of what we want to do.
      Mr. Clappison: Given that the law has become so anomalous, with a maximum sentence for indecent assault of 10 years and for unlawful sexual intercourse of only two years, it is hardly surprising that the law is not being as vigorously enforced as it might be. I think that the latter offence is a very serious matter, especially when the older person is much more mature and experienced and is taking advantage of the girl in exactly the way that I have described someone taking advantage of a boy.
      The Minister's predecessor said almost a year ago that there would be a review of the law on unlawful sexual intercourse and that the Government would put it right but that they needed to consider everything in the round and consult the experts. Here we are, a year later, having the same debate, and the law has not changed.
      The legal authority of Tyrell goes back to the late 19th century. That well-known authority established that a girl under 16 cannot be guilty of aiding and abetting an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse, since the offence was created for her protection. I believe that there is merit in considering to what extent it is appropriate to take that approach for offences involving anal intercourse with a boy under 16. That is my personal view. We need to exercise some care in how we explore that approach, but I want to do what is best to protect the young person concerned.
      5 pm
      We have to explore the matter with some care. It is my understanding that the amendment differs from the position established by the Tyrell case. Tyrell established that a girl under 16 commits no offence, whereas the amendment establishes that no proceedings should be brought. I do no more than note that there is a difference between those two positions. We need to be clear how the proposal fits in with other types of sexual offences.
      It would appear that, even if the amendment were accepted, two youngsters who were both below the age of consent would still be liable to face proceedings. That is important, and we need to preserve that position. There should be no question of our moving towards a de facto reduction in the age of consent below 16. We should be concerned about protecting the younger person from abuse by the older person. The law in respect of unlawful sexual intercourse with under-16-year-olds needs to remain in place. The protection aspect needs to be borne in mind when we consider anal intercourse between someone under and someone over 16 years of age.
      344
      We need to be able to deal with every case, and we must think carefully about some of the rare and unusual circumstances that might arise.
      Mr. Swayne: Has not my hon. Friend raised the possibility of a rare and unusual case in which there would be an incentive for a young man under the age of 16, who was seeking to explore his homosexual desires, to select a partner over the age of 16? He would then be absolved from any wrongdoing, whereas, if he selected someone who, like him, was under 16, he would be committing an illegal act.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. In that case, the law should protect the under-16-year-old from himself. The person over 16 should be aware of that and should face condign penalties for taking advantage of an under-16-year-old who was in that frame of mind.
      I am concerned about the message that we might be sending. We must protect under-16-year-olds, not reduce the age of consent any further. As I said, I am concerned generally that we have reduced the age of consent too far and too fast. We have introduced one reduction in the age of consent hot on the heels of another. If the amendment is adopted, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, there has to be vigorous enforcement of that aspect of the law. An amendment like this has to go hand in hand with a vigorous approach and a strong and credible legal framework.
      I am worried about the apparent change in the number of prosecutions brought against people over 21 for offences of buggery with males of under 16 years of age. There is at least a coincidence between a big reduction in the number of such prosecutions and the reduction in the age of consent. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the numbers of prosecutions of over-21-year-olds for buggery with under-16s in 1993 and 1994—before the age of consent had been reduced—were 293 and 291 respectively. Since then, there has been a significant collapse in the number of such prosecutions. In 1995—the first year in which 18 was the age of consent—there were 151 such prosecutions; in 1996 there were 73; and in 1997 there 103.
      Mr. Mike Hall: What has that to do with the amendment?
      Mr. Clappison: It has everything to do with the amendment—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Sedentary interventions from Members on the Front Bench do not help the debate.
      Mr. Clappison: If we are to make a change in such a sensitive area of the law, affecting the legal position of under-16-year-olds, we must make sure that it goes hand in hand with vigorous enforcement of the law against older people minded to have sexual relations with younger people. That is vital. The figures show that a big change happened between 1993–94, when the age of consent was 21, and the period 1995 to 1997, when the age of consent was 18. The number of people over 21 prosecuted for having sex with people under 16 fell from 291 in 1994 to 73 in 1996 and 103 in 1997.

      345
      I want to ensure that any change such as is proposed in the amendment will not be accompanied by a change in the priority given to those prosecutions. If the amendment is accepted, the law must be enforced vigorously, because we should do all that we can to protect those under 16 from the attentions of those over 21.
      Speaking purely personally, I hope that the law will be applied much more vigorously if the amendment is accepted. However, there is merit in exploring the extent to which the amendment would afford greater protection to people under 16. That is the criterion by which I judge it.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): There has been general, although not universal, approbation in this debate for the principle behind the amendment, which was expounded by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Most hon. Members who have spoken have found it unacceptable that the person under 16 who engages in a homosexual act or in an act of buggery, in which the older party is 16 or older, should end up being criminalised, instead of being regarded as the victim.
      I am glad to note that general view. I am also glad to have been informed that a number of children's charities are worried about the degree to which under-16-year-olds, if we leave the law as it is, will end up being considered to have committed a criminal offence, rather than being regarded as victims. I am told by my officials that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnados and the Children's Society have all said—and have allowed me to say in public—that they would support the decriminalisation of the younger party in those circumstances.
      Several other anomalies have been debated, both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Although we are seeking equality in terms of the age of consent, the law starts from very different points for males and females. Also, some aspects of the European convention on human rights, and other factors, mean that we do not start from a position that is wholly symmetrical, and I doubt whether we will end at such a position. We consider that it is appropriate for most of the remaining anomalies to be examined in the review of sexual offences that my hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned earlier.
      However—to return to the amendment and the parallel proposals for Scotland and Northern Ireland—in the interests of protecting children, we think that it would be sensible to take action along the lines proposed, in the course of the Bill's passage through the House. We accept the principle behind the amendment. We also acknowledge the cautious point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who said that we must be careful and fully explore how the amendment would work.
      Therefore, if it is acceptable to the Committee, I propose that we examine the principle behind the amendments between now and the time when the Bill comes back on Report. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have discussions with the hon. Members who tabled the amendment, if they so wish, and those
      346
      discussions may also include the hon. Member for Hertsmere or any other hon. Member who might wish to take part. The aim will be to produce wording that is acceptable and technically competent and meets what I think is the will of the Committee. Those amendments can then be tabled when the Bill comes back on Report. If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon disagrees with them, he can table his own amendments, on which the House will have an opportunity to vote at that stage.
      I hope that that is an acceptable way of proceeding in circumstances of general—not universal—approbation for what is proposed. We must however ensure that the wording is right and that the offences that we are eliminating deal only with this mischief and do not raise other mischief in their wake.
      Dr. Harris: I give the Secretary of State a very warm welcome for those remarks, and thank him for his consideration of the broad principle. I am the first to accept that the drafting of the amendments is almost certainly incorrect. Indeed, we had such trouble drafting an amendment to pertain to Northern Ireland that it was not considered suitable to be selected for debate. So, of course we understand the need to return to the matter on Report. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) will join me in recognising that the work on considering the anomaly and bringing forward suggestions was not really done by us, but by organisations outside the House. I thank them for their work, and in doing so, thank the Secretary of State once again for his words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—

      EXCEPTIONS
      '( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) (offences in England and Wales) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (sexual offences to which part I applies)—

      (a) after the words "(a)(iv)" there shall be inserted the words "and (vii)"; and

      (b) after the word "over;" there shall be inserted—

      "(bb) paragraph (a)(v) and (vi) does not apply where the other party to the offence was 16 or over".'.

      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
      '( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) (offences in Scotland) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (sexual offences to which part I applies) for the word "18" there shall be substituted the word "16".'.
      No. 7, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
      '( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 3 (offences in Northern Ireland) of Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (sexual offences to which part I applies)—

      (a) for "(d)" there shall be substituted "(i) and (iii)"; and

      (b) after the word "over;" there shall be inserted—
      "(bb) paragraphs (b)(ii) and (d) do not apply where the other party to the offence was 17 or over".'.

      Mr. Allan: The Home Secretary gave a very pleasing and gracious response to the previous amendment, which

      347
      I hope will set the tone for debate on another simple group of amendments, which would make changes consequential to the lowering of the age of consent from 18 to 16.
      In preparation for considering this matter, I looked at the words of wisdom of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who spoke for the then Opposition on the Sex Offenders Bill in 1997. He must look back on those debates in Committee as halcyon days compared with working with the internal machinations of the Welsh Labour party. In Committee and on Report on the 1997 Bill, the right hon. Gentleman moved similar amendments to the ones that we are considering in trying to deal with the issue of offences between homosexuals aged 16 and 17 and whether they should appear on the sex offenders register. The response from the then Conservative Minister, Timothy Kirkhope, implied that the amendments should be rejected, primarily because the age of consent had not at that point been lowered. He argued:
      "I am aware of the arguments for reducing the age of homosexual consent to 16, but the fact remains that Parliament has decided that for homosexual offences the age of 18 must remain the threshold. That being so, I am not prepared to lift registration where the offence is committed against someone who is a minor for those purposes."—[Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 241.]
      If clause 1 is agreed unamended, and the Bill subsequently enacted, the lawful age of homosexual consent will become 16. Therefore, individuals of 16 and 17 years old will no longer be minors for the purposes of buggery and indecency offences. I argue strongly that we run the risk of putting on the sex offenders register people who are committing consensual, non-criminal acts. That very much works against the register's principle, which is to be careful about who it targets. It is an active register which targets people who are likely to commit further criminal offences. It would make no sense to register people who have committed acts that are no longer illegal and who represent no danger to the public.
      We hope that the Government will see the logic of the amendments and the risk that they may run if they are not prepared to accept them or similar ones. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), I am perfectly happy to concede that drafting errors may render the amendments unacceptable to the Minister at this stage. I hope that he will consider the principle of the issue: whether a sex offenders register, which I think everyone supports, and which is designed to be active and to enable the probation service, the police and other agencies to monitor people, should include those who have committed an act that is no longer a crime, particularly 16 or 17-year-olds whose acts will be legal subsequent to the passing of the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister will respond positively and at least consider the anomaly, so that the sex offenders register hits the right targets. That was very much the spirit of the comments of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The amendments would boost the sex offenders register and treat people fairly, ensuring specifically that those who should no longer be on the register are omitted from it.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) says. I appreciate the way in which he put his case. Amendment No. 4 would
      348
      introduce further changes to the age limits for exception to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. Clause 1 is about the equalisation of the age of consent, and not about amending other legislation such as the Sex Offenders Act, unless that directly follows as a result of the change in the age of consent. The rationale behind registration under the Sex Offenders Act is based on the age of majority or adulthood, which is commonly accepted as 18 years of age. It is not based on the age of consent. Therefore, I do not find myself compelled by the hon. Gentleman's logic to accept his amendment.
      The Committee will find under offences that attract age-limit exceptions to registration in schedule 1 to the 1997 Act, that offenders who are guilty of indecent assault on a woman and on a man do not have to register if the victim is 18 years old or over and the sentence is under 30 months. Offenders guilty of assault with intent to commit buggery must register only if the victim is under 18 years old. Such provisions relate to girls as well as boys, where the age of consent is already 16.
      The hon. Member for Hallam will see that this matter is not about a form of discrimination between boys and girls, men and women, or their sexuality. It arises from the different bases of the register and of the age of consent. One is about majority and adulthood, the other about the age at which it is possible to consent to a sexual act. For that reason, I am unable to accept the amendment.
      As the hon. Member readily recognises, the amendment is technically flawed. Although we could not accept it for that reason, we cannot accept it anyway due to the separate basis of the Sex Offenders Act. To amend the Act as he suggests would go beyond what is necessary for amending the age of consent, and open up wider issues concerning the Sex Offenders Act. We do not consider this Bill as a vehicle for piecemeal amendments to the Sex Offenders Act, which is already subject to review. To make the age of consent of the other party a determining factor for registration would mark a new departure in the Sex Offenders Act. Although I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, and give an undertaking to refer it in substance to the sex offenders review, I am not able to accept it for the reasons that I have given.
      Mr. Allan: I am grateful for the Minister's final comments about considering the substance of the amendment in the sex offenders review. That is entirely appropriate.
      I sometimes feel that we are talking about entirely different subjects. It is certainly my understanding that there is a distinction between the treatment of men who have had relations with girls aged 16 and 17, and those who have had consensual relations with men aged 16 and 17. To consider that within the sex offenders review may be the most sensible way to proceed, given that hon. Members wish to move on to the clause stand part debate. I want, however, to put on the record that I am not content that we have understood entirely the anomalies, and shall seek to pursue them further with the Minister in his review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I believe that this is the third or fourth time that I have

      349
      spoken on this issue. Our debates on the subject are becoming rather like the open and closed-list debates that we had some weeks ago, and I have a shrewd idea that I shall be defeated in the Division Lobby again.
      I pay tribute to the sincerity of the arguments that we have heard on the issue throughout the debate. I hope that although many of us may disagree with the Government's proposal, we shall not be regarded as antagonistic to the homosexual gay community, because that is not our intention.
      Clause 1 obviously raises the fundamental question whether the age of consent should be reduced to 16. I repeat that Opposition Members will have an entirely free vote on that decision. I shall try to review some of the evidence, but, in doing so, I shall express my personal views.
      In 1994, I voted for the age of consent to be reduced from 21 to 18. Eighteen is the age of majority, and it seemed to me sensible that young men should make up their own minds at that age. I did not go back on that judgment. There are some who think that even that went too far, but I agreed with the Bishop of York, who at the time said that it was a sensible step and allowed the evidence to be assessed. The question is whether, after less than five years, we should move to the next step of reducing the age from 18 to 16. My view is that we should not.
      It is not altogether possible to separate the principle of reducing the age from the protection for young people set out later in the Bill. I say that because, for many of us—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) suggested earlier—the protection of 16 to 18-year-olds is the acid test. If the position of 16 to 18-year-olds is made worse, more precarious, we should recognise that and say so.
      In other words, I do not find the argument on the standardisation of ages for heterosexual and homosexual sex to be remotely the end of the debate. The crucial argument, surely, is that the House must be convinced that, if it takes this action, a group of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 will not be put at more risk. That, it seems to me, is the acid test. That may be an inconvenient argument, and it may not fit in with people's views on standardisation. However, it seems to me that the protection of young people must remain a proper—I would argue, a paramount—concern of the House.
      That is why, in June 1998, I said that I had a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Those concerned abuse by an older person who was in a position—in his terminology—of authority, influence or trust. That is why the Government have now been persuaded to introduce a new offence where a person aged 18 or over has sexual intercourse with a person under that age if the person aged 18 or over is in a position of trust.
      The first question that is raised for someone like myself is whether that protection is adequate. In Committee upstairs, the Minister of State—I have read what he said—has sought to set down four principles on the way in which that protection will be offered. In effect, he has limited the group of young people who are entitled to protection and those who are not. In Committee, and again
      350
      today, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has demonstrated that we believe that there are some worrying gaps and that a worrying number of groups appear to be excluded, including members of youth organisations and members of Church and religious organisations.
      However, a more specific point troubled me when I related the legislation to a case that I knew something about, and which I quoted in June—that of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled "Bishop of Medway", who was convicted in the 1970s of offences against young people. I drew attention to that case in the House of Commons. Then, in 1998, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. In other words, he has been pursuing a career of abuse year after year after year. He is a prime example of the type of person that we are up against and need to recognise. However, it is by no means clear to me that the cover that he gave himself on the last occasion, in the period leading to his 1998 conviction—teaching young people first aid at a sports centre—would remotely have come into the definition of protection that has been provided in the Bill.
      My next point is much more general. We all remember the words of Sir William Utting, the former head of the social services inspectorate at the Department of Health and Social Security. He served with me; he was an outstanding director. He said that persistent sexual abusers were a scourge of childhood. He said that their numbers were difficult to estimate, but that each one who adopted a lifetime career would amass hundreds of victims. However, his main argument was as follows:
      "Their success depends on their ability to ingratiate themselves with adults and children. They establish themselves as trusted friends, colleagues or employees".
      In other words, seeking to obtain trust is the characteristic of their operations. That is what they try to do. That is the threat that they pose. It is very difficult to distinguish one group from another in the way that the legislation seeks to do.
      Therefore, the issue that goes to the heart of the Bill is as follows. We know that some people will want to take advantage of a reduction in the age of consent. We also know something about the extent of the problem. In our last debate, on 25 January 1999—column 33 of Hansard—I referred to a study edited by Donald West of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which found that 12 per cent. of women and 8 per cent. of men reported that they had been sexually abused as children. We are therefore talking about a very large number indeed. My concern is that we risk making the position worse, not better.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I am certain that it is no part of my right hon. Friend's case—or that of any hon. Member—to suggest that every homosexual is an abuser or anything like that, but underlying the statistics that he mentioned is another statistic, which is not often quoted in the House. Although the vast majority of abusers are male, extraordinarily, 40 per cent. of those abused in children's homes in this country are male.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I emphasise what he said at the start of his intervention. I certainly do not wish to make a generalised allegation. I am talking about risk and our responsibility in the House. My question is whether that risk will be increased—whether we are making the position worse by taking the proposed step. I fear that we are.

      351
      Obviously, I understand the argument for equality and standardisation of ages, but I hope that it is our duty to provide maximum protection for young people, and I hope that that duty is also recognised.
      It is not only Members of the House and lobby groups who should be heard on this subject. The public have a right to be heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who I see in his place, made a much-admired speech on Second Reading. It was so good that even Alastair Campbell has publicly praised it. I am not sure whether that is the kiss of political death for my hon. Friend, but there is no question about the quality of his speech, to which I also pay tribute. However, on one point I disagreed profoundly with my hon. Friend. When considering the opinion polls on this issue, he said, in effect, that the slave trade would have been supported by opinion polls. I assume that that meant that we should disregard opinion polls on the issue that is before us. With respect, that is an extravagant use of the tactic of guilt by association. The issues are not remotely comparable.
      5.30 pm
      I certainly agree that we should not try to govern by opinion polls. I say that with authority because no one could accuse the previous Conservative Government of slavishly seeking opinion poll approval. If we did, we were remarkably unsuccessful at it. However, when we find opinion poll evidence pointing in the way that it undoubtedly does in this instance, the House of Commons should at least take pause to consider.
      In 1994, a Gallup poll suggested that 71 per cent. of those polled supported the status quo for the age of consent at 21. However, when the NOP divided the question and provided a choice between 18 and 16, a small majority then favoured 18. Only 13 per cent. favoured the further reduction to 16. That opposition to that further stage has remained clear in opinion polls.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that there is another disparity? In the case of the slave trade, opinions were being expressed about what conduct should or should not be directed to other adults. In this instance, those who are polled are expressing opinions about what should or should not be done to children, in many cases their children, in respect of whom they have rights until they are 18.
      Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I have read what he has had to say in debate. I agree with him and it is a point that I shall come to.
      The opposition to going further from 18 to 16 has remained clear in opinion polls. The most interesting of the later polls was the Gallup poll last August, which was conducted after the House of Commons had voted to lower the age of consent to 16 and the House of Lords had voted the other way.
      When those polled were asked whether they personally thought that the age of consent for homosexual men should be 16 or 18, 65 per cent. said 18 and only 26 per cent. said 16. I now come to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). In my view, when it comes to such issues the public are a sensible judge. I tried to set out the experience that we had at the Department of Health when we were running the AIDS campaign in the late 1980s. In spite of all the
      352
      predictions that there would be a backlash against gays or homosexuals, there was not one. There was none of that. The public accepted, understood and supported the campaign which we undertook. They showed their common sense and maturity on these issues.
      The same public are expressing their views in the opinion polls that are now taking place. We cannot say that they are mature in one respect and then say, when it comes to something that is inconvenient to one's argument, that they show an immaturity and fail to appreciate the arguments. I would take the general rule of trusting the public. In this respect, trusting the public takes on board the fact that the public feel genuine doubt, have a questioning attitude and feel opposition to reducing the age further. It is the same public who are making their views clear about reducing the age further from 18 to 16.
      There is one further point, and it has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East. Many of the people whose views are being sought are parents. They have concerns about their own children, the young people whom they know best. I believe that parents have a right to be heard, and I think that they are right on this issue. Far from rejecting public opinion, we should recognise its strength and sincerity. We reduced the age of consent to 18 years less than five years ago and I do not believe that the case has been made out to reduce it further.
      Mr. Brazier: I was thinking about an old adage when I was sitting in the train earlier. It is the old joke about the man who dreamt that he was making a speech in the House of Commons and woke up to find that he had done so. I ask myself why we are here again in the Chamber debating this issue so fervently. We are here again because the House of Lords gave us a second opportunity to think about it. Despite the overwhelming vote last time round, it seems profoundly right that the House of Commons should think again.
      Those of us who have spoken out against equalisation, as it is called, of the age of consent have been repeatedly accused by Members who have formed a lobby, at least outside Parliament, of prejudice and ignorance. It is curious that we have not only public opinion on our side but a substantial body of scientific evidence, to which I shall return. Above all, we have on our side of the argument all of the world's great religions. In that respect, the most recent contributor to the debate was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who made the profound comment that we must think about the signal that we are sending to the country at large. Of course, we must make up our own minds; we are in the House of Commons to make up our own minds and not simply take account of others' views.
      I have no wish to hate or dislike anybody, or to victimise anybody. The younger brother of my great-grandfather, as a student at Oxford, was a homosexual. He was afraid that he was being pursued by the police. There was no evidence subsequently that that was the case. He went into personal panic, fled across southern England and committed suicide in the most horrible circumstances. I have no wish to see anyone victimised or pursued for any particular reason.
      I believe that it is wrong to lower the age of consent to 16 and that one day views in the House of Commons will change. I believe the country to be right and the views expressed in the previous debate to be wrong.

      353
      I shall allude briefly to the parallel that was drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) with slavery. I believe it to be a disgraceful reflection on the people of this country. In 1863, President Lincoln was fighting a war which cost a far higher proportion of blood and lives in his country than the first world war cost in our country. That war was being fought to abolish slavery.
      The President received a letter signed by thousands of Lancashire cotton workers. The comment was made in the letter that the effect of the American civil war and deprivation in Liverpool, as a result of the disruption to the cotton trade, was causing the most unbelievable hardship, even to the extent that many of the children of those who had signed the letter were dying of starvation. None the less, they, as the working class people of Liverpool, felt so strongly about the abolition of slavery that they believed that Abraham Lincoln was absolutely right to prosecute the war. He was reduced to tears by the letter and abandoned his Government's business for half a day to compose a worthy reply. So much for public opinion in this country on slavery, and back to the business of today.
      I wish to focus on whether homosexual activity is a matter of choice or whether it is somehow pre-ordained. Of course, activity that is consented to is always a matter of choice. However, there are those in the homosexual lobby, supported by a growing group outside it, who are arguing that activity is a matter of choice but orientation is pre-ordained.
      I have considerable respect for the British Medical Association and I have used its reports in many other contexts. However, it is the latest group to write in a rather generalised letter to Members of Parliament that the weight of scientific evidence is that homosexual or heterosexual orientation is decided long before the age of 16, and so it is wrong to focus on a potential change of orientation between 16 and 18.
      There is a substantial body of scientific evidence from all over the world that argues otherwise. I shall quote one study from a British source. As recently as 1992 King and McDonald, writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry, outlined a detailed study carried out on perhaps the most appropriate group of people—identical twins. Across a sample of identical twins in which one of the twins was homosexual, they found that in just under one quarter of the pairs of twins, the other twin was also homosexual. Surely there could be no more disturbing example. If a homosexual twin's own identical twin—genetically absolutely identical—is not also homosexual, how can it possibly be genetically determined whether someone is homosexually or heterosexually inclined?
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend accept that the reality is perhaps neither all one case nor all the other? Does he accept that there may be some people who are genetically predetermined—physiologically, one might say—to be homosexuals when they mature? Does he also accept that although that may be true in some cases, in other cases people's experiences as young boys can determine whether they change from potential
      354
      heterosexuals to potential homosexuals? I hope that my hon. Friend is not committing himself to saying that it is all one way or all the other.
      Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend anticipates my next few sentences. He has expressed the idea so clearly that I shall not repeat it. I am not arguing that no one is ever genetically determined to be homosexual or heterosexual. We do not know, and we probably will not know for decades. However, there can be little doubt that for a significant proportion—how large we do not know—sexual orientation is determined in their teens.
      What the scientists tell us is reinforced by ordinary experience. Most of us know someone who experienced homosexual activity in his teens—I did not, myself, but I know a number of people who did—and subsequently decided not to adopt a homosexual orientation. I can think of one case in which the person is now happily married.
      Many of us will have received the same letters on the issue from former homosexuals who have ceased to be homosexuals. I remember one letter from 15 former homosexuals, one of whom had the courage to come along on the day of the previous vote and sit in the Public Gallery. The testimony that that group provided was clear. Those men were attracted into homosexuality during their late teens by older males, and they want the protection of the law to make it a criminal offence for that to continue. There are always those who will break any law on sexual matters, but let us at least provide that measure of protection for those who are between the age of 16 and the age of majority.
      I shall leave the House with this thought: the word "discrimination" has been used a great deal. Discrimination refers to what someone is. In my view, it cannot be applied coherently to what someone does. It is clearly wrong to discriminate against someone because of his skin colour. If one discriminates against someone because he chooses to do something, surely the onus is on the other side to argue that that discrimination is wrong. If one is recruiting a driving instructor, for example, it would be right to refuse to recruit someone whose driving licence was covered with offences.
      Those who say that it is discrimination to treat homosexual offences separately from heterosexual offences must rest their argument on the basis that homosexual acts are unavoidable. Obviously, the acts themselves are not unavoidable. I have argued that the orientation is not unavoidable in every case. It is right for us to give those aged between 16 and 18 a measure of legal protection to decide where they stand on the matter.
      As the Archbishop of Canterbury and so many other religious leaders in this country—Cardinal Basil Hume, the chief rabbi and the previous chief rabbi—have argued, this is a matter that we should give young males a little longer to think about. I urge the House to vote against clause 1.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Allan: I shall speak briefly in support of clause 1.
      It worries me when I hear the opinion polls argument trotted out on one side or the other. If we believe that something is correct, we must decide whether we are prepared to take a lead and explain the background to our thinking, or whether we back off at the first hurdle because it seems that some people disagree.

      355
      I remind the House that my party secured huge polls of 70 to 80 per cent. in favour of our policy of putting more money into education, but that did not translate into our winning general elections. It merely shows that the people polled say that they are in favour of education. I suspect that in polls on the issue under discussion, people are expressing their views on homosexuality, not giving detailed consideration to any change in the law.
      We are debating not what people do, but changes in the criminal law. We must not become over-ambitious about our influence. We cannot tell people what they should or should not do in their bedrooms. All we can decide is at what point we make them criminals for a particular act.
      No one has ever stood up and said, "My Government made me a homosexual"—to which the standard response, "If I give the Cabinet the wool, will they make me one too?" might be appropriate. At times, the debate verges on the point of saying that the Government are making people homosexual or not making them homosexual. In fact, the Government are deciding the point at which the criminal law starts and ends. We must be clear about that.
      The change that would be brought about by clause 1 is consistent with the religious principles that many people hold dear, and with rational ideas. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an important speech in the previous debate in which he said that he could believe strongly that something was wrong on religious grounds, yet still not wish to make a criminal offence of it.
      We must recognise the distinction between what we personally believe to be right or wrong—we all hold a multiplicity of views on that—and what we as a Parliament and as a nation consider should bring someone before a criminal court.
      The rational grounds for supporting the change are bolstered by the support of many agencies that work with young people. We have heard the British Medical Association cited. Other organisations include the Royal College of Nursing. Barnados and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are unhappy with the existing criminal framework.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the British Medical Association reconciles its support for the measure with the injunction by the National Blood Service that no man who has ever had anal intercourse should be allowed to give blood? Surely there is some contradiction there.
      Mr. Allan: I do not believe that there is any contradiction. We are being tempted, as we were on Second Reading, to speak about issues such as disease. We are discussing the criminal law, which decides what is or is not criminal. It is not criminal for people over 16 to smoke, but they are undoubtedly causing themselves medical harm. The fact that a particular activity may cause medical harm is not a reason to criminalise a person who chooses to engage in that activity. The British Medical Association believes that the present criminalisation of 16 and 17-year-olds makes it difficult to give them the health advice which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would want them to get.
      Mr. John Townend: Why then do the Liberal Democrats support criminalising eating beef on the bone?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) did not pursue that issue.
      Mr. Allan: I am happy not to pursue incorrect interventions.
      We should understand today that we are confining ourselves to a clause which effectively changes the boundary of the criminal law. It will have no significant effect in terms of people's behaviour: we are not creating any more or any fewer homosexuals in our community by dint of this change; we are simply freeing a section of our community, who have reached the age of 16 and 17, who believe themselves to be homosexuals, and who engage in homosexual acts, from the burden of the criminal law which, currently, on no rational grounds, places them under threat of punishment.
      Contrary to an earlier comment by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the last thing that anyone in such a position needs is a short, sharp shock in a young offenders institution. The idea that it is somehow an appropriate form of advice and assistance to threaten any youngster exploring his sexuality with a criminal and custodial offence betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how sexuality develops—a development which we should allow to continue beyond a sensible age of consent of 16. Clause 1 will provide a much more rational framework within which we can engage that debate.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I was much impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He made a considered, intelligent and reasonable contribution on what is, for many of us, a difficult subject. Those of us who hold passionate views on the subject often find ourselves being pilloried. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, we are often accused of prejudice and all the rest of it.
      There is a point in being able, at least in the House, to speak out and articulate one's views. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield particularly mentioned, and on which we should home in, concerns the protection of young people. That has always been of great concern to Parliament, and not just this Parliament. In the previous century, Act of Parliament followed Act of Parliament regulating young people's terms of employment. That has not abated; it has continued through this century. Parliament has always been anxious to protect young people.
      Clause 1 dramatically strips away protection for young boys. I do not know whether you, Mr. Lord, or any other hon. Members, saw a recent television report on child abuse in a children's home in north Wales. A feature of that broadcast was that the victims were often shown in silhouette. Those young people, now adults, told horrific stories about how they had been scarred for life by the abuse that they had suffered, in particular by older men. It may be that when they initially suffered that abuse they were well under the age of 16. I perfectly well understand that. Those hon. Members who did not see the programme should try to do so before they proceed too far in support of the Bill, and they should reconsider whether they are doing the right thing in supporting it.

      357
      The clause will extend the scope for the abuse of young boys. On the 364th day of a 15-year-old boy's life he is entitled to the full protection of the law as devised by Parliament, but the following day, he will be fair game to what I believe the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) calls a fruit. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) might be able to support me on that.
      Overnight, Parliament will decree that at one moment, at a minute before midnight, we protect such a boy, but two minutes later he will be out there on his own. The essential point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was that it is one thing to do that at the age of 18, two years on in a boy's life, but it is quite another thing to do it at the age of 16. We are confronted here with at least the possibility of giving a nod and a wink to those who are interested in abusing young men, and I fear that that is what will happen.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) graciously allowed me to intervene on some medical aspects. I am surprised that he should be so contemptuous of a point that I raised. Of course, this has to do with the law; it would be fatuous to suggest otherwise. But the hon. Gentleman and those who support the measure have a lot to argue for here on the medical front. It is no good him and others simply trying to dismiss the point.
      If the National Blood Authority believes, despite always being in pursuit of people who will give blood, that any man who has ever, even once, had anal intercourse, should under no circumstances give blood, is the House simply to ignore that and dismiss it in a cavalier fashion, as the hon. Gentleman did?
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is it not a fact that people who disagree with my hon. Friend dismiss that or ignore it because it does not fit in with their politically correct view of life?
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting to see how any factual arguments are dismissed, as my hon. Friend suggests. Not only is the medical evidence dismissed, but the opinion polls are dismissed. Our opponents do not simply say, as most wise politicians would, that we should not rely on opinion polls but that they give a broad direction. In this case, the opinion polls point clearly to the fact that the British public do not like what Parliament and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and his friends are doing, and they have made that perfectly clear.
      It is all very well to lead the public. At times, the previous Conservative Government enacted legislation which was not initially popular but which subsequently became so. The Minister of State may raise his eyebrows, but I shall not give a litany of the splendid measures enacted by that Government, the benefits of which are now hugely enjoyed by the public, because you, Mr. Lord, would chastise me if I did and, as I might wish to catch your eye on a future occasion, I need to be careful.
      Homosexual activity, and certainly anal intercourse, increases the risk of HIV. I could put it in rather dramatic and crude terms, although I am not sure that I will, but the House is suggesting that it will protect boys up to the age of 16 from HIV in the sense that it will provide
      358
      draconian sanctions—of course, Parliament cannot stop people from acting in defiance of the law—but the moment they reach their 16th birthday, Parliament is prepared to allow people to makes decisions that could lead to their contracting AIDS, which is a life-destroying disease.
      6 pm
      Mr. Borrow: Can the hon. Gentleman tie in the views that he has expressed with those expressed by those organisations concerned with the sexual health of young people? All those organisations have argued that 16 and 17-year-old males will be protected from the spread of AIDS and HIV because the reduction of the age of consent will be a safeguard for them—it will enable better sexual health advice to be given. The hon. Gentleman's point is completely fatuous.
      Mr. Howarth: That is what we were told when the argument that the age of consent should be reduced from 21 to 18 was put to the House. We were told all the things that those wonderful organisations said and that a reduction would enable the proper advice to be given to children. In fact, that reduction has had the opposite effect. There has been an increase—I have the figures here, but I cannot lay my hands on them.
      I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am concerned, any advice given by the Terrence Higgins Trust is 180 deg out. It is a most disreputable organisation and its literature is absolutely and utterly disgusting. When I was a Member of the House before, I campaigned to ensure that it did not receive a penny of public money. I believe that it now has to rely more on voluntary subscription and is not so readily able to dip into the taxpayer's pocket, in pursuit of producing its disgusting literature.
      The protection of young people goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve in wrestling with this matter. I refer to an article that appeared in The Sunday Times on 24 January, the day before the debate on Second Reading. It is by Melanie Phillips, who is an interesting and challenging commentator. She said of the Bill:
      "It's no longer just about gay sex. Remarkably, it implies that both gay and straight sex are proper activities for children. The government has got itself into this fix because it tried to buy off opposition by promising to protect 16 to 18-year-olds against sex with gay adults in a position of trust, like teachers or scoutmasters."
      But not vicars, of course. Miss Phillips continues:
      "That itself was ludicrous, since it conceded that gay 16-year-olds were in effect still children to be protected from adult sex—but only sometimes."
      That is the essence of the flaw in the case of those who argue for the measure and for the clause.
      Those people are prepared to provide protection for children, but only in certain circumstances. The whole basis of their argument is therefore completely and utterly destroyed. If they felt that there was no need to protect children, they would not have acceded to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which, at the time, I supported. In doing that, those people have given the game away—the measure puts children and young boys more at risk and makes them more vulnerable. That is the effect that

      359
      those people will have to live with. The charge will lie heavily on the shoulders of those who support the measure.
      I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in his measured and interesting contribution. The contributions of those who support the measure have been permeated by the word "equality", and I want to deal with that in a moment. One of the arguments about equality, which was used during the debate on the amendments, is that, whereas young girls are not criminalised if they are abused under the age of 16, boys are criminalised. I welcome the fact that the Government are to consider that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere argued a good case, and removing the criminality may lead to the better protection of children.
      Mr. Swayne: Does not my hon. Friend recognise, however, that there is a severe danger of a creeping reduction in the age of consent? As the Bill stands, a boy under 16 who explored his sexuality and had consensual homosexual sex with a boy over 16 would be breaking the law and could be punished. From the way the debate on amendment No. 2 went, it appears that the Minister will address that issue. It may be possible for young men under 16 to go ahead and involve themselves in that sort of consensual activity—whereupon, in effect, no age of consent will apply at all.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend and I are absolutely united: we do not believe in the reduction of the age of consent to 16. We believe that 18 is the right age. His point is whether it is an additional deterrent to those under 16 that they would be committing an offence by engaging in such activity.
      The honest answer to my hon. Friend is that I am not sure. I have listened to the debate and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made an interesting point. It is certainly one that I am prepared to explore, but I want to explore it on the basis that I want to protect children. Those who support the measure want to make children more vulnerable. That is the difference, and we will have to return to it.
      I do not want to take up too much more of the House's time, but I want to challenge this business of equality. The case of the Minister and those who support the measure is that, somehow, there is huge inequality and that—simply in the pursuit of equality and regardless of the facts, regardless of the medical evidence and regardless of the opinion polls—we have to lower the age of consent for boys from 18 to 16. That is not something that I accept.
      I believe that there are differences between boys and girls. They grow up and mature at different ages. I also do not subscribe to the view that there is equality between heterosexual and homosexual intercourse. One is natural and ordained by the Almighty; the other is not. Those are fundamental and incontrovertible differences which render the whole argument about equality invalid from the start.
      Moreover, if equality became the overriding principle in public policy, as is demanded by the gay rights groups, those who support the reduction of the age of consent would lay themselves open to the argument,
      360
      with which they may agree, that there should be equality in everything else. Should there be equality in pensions? Should there be equality in terms of marriage, so that there could be homosexual marriages? That will be the next thing. Those who support the Bill have to answer this question: is this the end of the line or are they prepared to go further, as those in the militant gay rights outfits want? [Interruption.] Peter Tatchell is going off to Australia, which is good news.
      Those who support the reduction of the age of consent, and argue that they are seeking to achieve equality, also have to answer the accusation that there are anomalies, even as the Bill stands. First, although the age of consent will be 16 for England, Wales and Scotland, it will 17 in Northern Ireland. Where is the equality there? Where is the consistency throughout the United Kingdom? Furthermore, anal intercourse with a 16-year-old girl will remain unlawful, but anal intercourse with a 16-year-old boy will become lawful.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he thinks that anal intercourse with 16-year-old girls remains unlawful. The Bill permits anal intercourse with 16 and 17-year-old girls and boys, and exposes both equally to all the medical dangers of anal intercourse to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. As the Minister is not contradicting my hon. Friend, I must take it that he is absolutely right. If so, I thoroughly deplore that provision in the Bill. I am sorry that I was not aware of it.
      Members of Parliament all have a grave responsibility to protect young people. I have outlined why this measure does not do that. The argument that we must strive for equality is not in itself sufficient justification for bringing about this momentous change, which does not command the support of the British people. It is out of step with public opinion and it threatens vulnerable boys. It will send out the wrong signals to a civilised society.
      Mr. Robathan: There is always a danger in clause stand part debates that the arguments made on Second Reading are repeated. I shall not do that, but it must be said that this clause is the Bill. I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) leaving the Chamber, because he tabled some sensible clauses for addition to last year's Crime and Disorder Bill. The other clauses in this Bill are simply a fig leaf. The provision on abuse of trust is nonsense. This clause is what the Bill is all about.
      I respect the view that homosexual and heterosexual acts are equal, although I do not agree with it. I sympathise with the view that the law should not be involved in personal relationships between two people, although I do not agree with that, either. One must then go on to determine at what stage the law comes into effect.
      I wish to make just three points on this clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, people may argue that heterosexual and homosexual acts are equal, but it is obvious to those who are willing to accept the evidence before

      361
      their eyes that they are not. They are not equal biologically, physiologically or physically. They may be equal emotionally—I do not know—but otherwise they are not. Those who argue that such acts are equal deceive themselves. They are in thrall to their political correctness or to the single-issue pressure group, because it is simply not true and it is nonsense to pretend that it is. One might say that both acts should be allowed, but they are not equal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred to the National Blood Authority, which does not believe that homosexual and heterosexual intercourse are equal. Should I ever have to have a blood transfusion, I will be glad to know that it has taken that position.
      My second point is one that I did not make on Second Reading. Some people have been praying in aid old martyrs to the cause of homosexual equality. Oscar Wilde has been much mentioned.
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman did mention him.
      Mr. Robathan: Only in an intervention. Since Second Reading, I have read a little about Oscar Wilde. I have studied several biographies, which say much the same, including the sympathetic biography by Richard Ellman. We should be careful about romanticising Oscar Wilde, as the placing of a statue of him in the Strand last year did. Clearly, he was persecuted by the father of his male friend, Lord Alfred Douglas, the Earl of Rosebery. He wrote some fine plays and was quite a good poet. However, those who are concerned about paedophilia and sex tourism should know that Oscar Wilde was a paedophile and a sex tourist—[Interruption.]Labour Members shake their heads. Let them read the biography—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] I can quote from memory that Alfred and Oscar competed for Neapolitan boys in 1897. What is that if not paedophilia and sex tourism? Let us hear no more nonsense about Oscar Wilde being a martyr to homosexual equality.
      6.15 pm
      My third point is that the Bill is part of an agenda. It was once a standard joke that people who signed letters, "Yours disgustedly", were retired colonels from Tunbridge Wells. It shows how far this country has changed that on Monday I received a letter signed "Yours in disgust" from somebody to whom I shall refer as Peter from Liverpool. I will not embarrass him by naming him further. All Members of Parliament receive letters from nutters. They are usually heavily underlined, and that letter is underlined all over the place.
      I understand that Peter Tatchell has said that the age of consent should be reduced to 14. That is a perfectly respectable position, although I do not agree with it in any circumstances.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: It is not respectable at all.
      Mr. Robathan: Well, one may hold that view, but I do not. The letter to which I referred, besides being insulting and disgusting, says:
      "We need to move forward and be positive about things and this means equality for all. Legalised marriage for same sex couples is long overdue and"—
      362
      those words are underlined—
      "other benefits already enjoyed by heterosexual couples need to be extended"—
      those words, too, are underlined—
      "to gay couples. They include … adoption rights for same-sex couples, housing rights for same sex couples, pension rights for same sex couples.
      Thankfully, we have a government who are committed to the equalization of the heterosexual and homosexual ages of consent."
      I do not want to labour the point, but this agenda has been pursued within and without the House by the homosexual lobby, which is a very small lobby. Most people do not wake up worrying about this issue and we know from opinion polls that they are opposed to the equalisation of the age of consent. They do not take a homophobic view, but they happen to think that the homosexual case is different—as it is. However, the homosexual lobby has pursued this agenda with single-minded determination and its sustained campaign is now coming to fruition.
      The clause is supposed to be about child protection, but it is about a lack of child protection and about society's position on certain types of behaviour. It is the start, not the end, of the agenda. When the House passes it, as I fear it will, it should be aware of that.
      Mr. Swayne: Ironically, the reason for rejecting the clause is precisely the same as that for protecting it from amendment No. 2 earlier this afternoon. As it now stands, the clause maintains an important discrimination—or rather, an important difference of treatment, if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will forgive me—in that it treats differently girls under the age of 16 who explore their sexuality and homosexual boys under the age of 16 who seek to explore theirs. That is an important distinction.
      However, from what the Minister said, it would appear that that "anomaly"—rather than important principle—may be dealt with on Report. It would therefore be much better to dispose of the entire clause as it now stands than see it amended in such a way.
      The important principle of treating differently sexual activity by homosexuals and heterosexuals under the age of 16 is that the law should reinforce social mores and give the clear message that the two life styles are clearly different. It is not as if life is a supermarket and one can choose life styles that have moral equivalence in the same way as one can choose a breakfast cereal.
      The problem is the extent to which a person has a choice in determining his sexual orientation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. I take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). On Second Reading, Labour Members said that experience clearly showed that the sexual orientation of many people was fixed and they had no role in determining it. I do not question that for a moment: I am sure that that is true.
      However, many people are in a different boat. They experience unnatural sexual desires in their early teens, when they are approaching 16 and beyond, and they would otherwise outgrow those desires because of peer pressure, and are ashamed of them. The law has an important role in making it clear what society expects and what is proper and acceptable. If we take away those social mores—which this legislation does—people will be

      363
      encouraged to explore those sexual desires rather than to repress them. They will be encouraged to adopt a life style that they may regret later on, whereas they may otherwise have led a blameless life.
      It comes down to the question of what one regards as an acceptable life style. I make no apology for the fact that I believe that a homosexual life style is a much less commendable life style. It is a sterile way of life. It precludes giving life to future generations and having a normal, natural family life. The vacuum that is thereby created leads to promiscuity and instability. That in turn leads to the higher incidents of disease among homosexual men, and the state of the blood bank. The determination of the blood transfusion service not to take any blood from men who have had homosexual activity of a particular kind bears witness to that fact.
      On Second Reading, we were told that those who take this view on the clause are akin to the slave traders, and that the debate has a moral significance and equivalence to the slavery debate. I suspect that it is rather different. The consequence of rejecting the clause would be to require boys aged 16 who are seeking to express physically their homosexual desires to hold off for two years. I do not regard that as a huge inconvenience, or a huge impediment equivalent to a life of slavery. On the contrary, I regard it as most expedient for their own good, because it may provide them with the liberty and the freedom to escape a life style that, to many, is cursed.
      Mr. Townend: I approach the Bill from the point of view of child protection. I ask myself why anyone should support the clause. I do not believe that OutRage is particularly worried about 16 to 18-year-olds. I am even more cynical about its attitude. I believe that it wants the clause to go through to allow older men to prey on younger boys. One of the great problems of many homosexuals is that they proselytise: they want to bring more people into their society.
      It is generally accepted that many youngsters, below and above the age of 16, experiment homosexually with other boys of the same age, especially at boys' boarding schools. In the past, they have been under pressure from society to rejoin normal life and become heterosexuals when they leave school. The overwhelming majority of them have done so, and have gone on to lead a normal life, to marry and to have children.
      What worries me about the clause is that, at 17, those boys may be preyed on by older men and may get involved in homosexual society. It is a close-knit society; it has its own social life with its own pubs and clubs. Once they are involved in that society, it is difficult to get out of it.
      The age of consent has been progressively reduced from 21 to 18 and now to 16. Will it be reduced to 14 next year? The debate is camouflaged with an enormous amount of political correctness. The word "equality" is used, but it is not equality. The Bill will put more young people at risk and a prey to evil older men.
      If I had been in the House at the time, I would have voted to remove the criminality from homosexual acts between consenting adults. That is right, but if we go further we will put our young people in danger. Much
      364
      nonsense is talked about political correctness and about society. We should discriminate in favour of marriage and a heterosexual society.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury put many arguments against the clause, but he did not mention religion. It is important that the Christian religion bans homosexuality. I am worried that political correctness is creeping into some of the Churches and that they are giving up that original belief.
      It will be an ill day for this country if we pass this clause. It will put our young people at risk. We see the terrible social implications for young girls who become pregnant before the age of 16. Given what is happening on television, on the internet and on videos, our children need more protection now than they ever did, so I shall vote against the clause.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: Yet again, we have heard arguments against the clause. Significantly, but perhaps not surprisingly, many of them have been made by Conservative Members. It is right that hon. Members should express their views, which I believe are deeply held and genuinely felt. However, clause 1 is not about sex tourists, paedophiles, the exoticism of Neapolitan boys or political correctness. It is about the ability of young men to enjoy the same freedom as young girls. It is about decriminalising activity between two consenting young adults. Under the current law, their crime is not that they have strong feelings, but that they happen to be homosexual.
      My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) referred to sterile relationships. My wife and I have homosexual friends whose relationships are not sterile: they enjoy relationships that are as loving and caring as any between two people who happen to be heterosexual rather than homosexual. I think it monstrously unfair to suggest that relationships between two people of the same sex can only be sterile.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can my hon. Friend tell us, on the basis of his research, the average length of such relationships? I understand that they tend not to last very long. Can my hon. Friend also tell us something about what happens within such relationships when an element of promiscuity is involved?
      Mr. Woodward: I will not detain the Committee by making a detour from my speech. I merely say to my hon. Friend that, in my view, we do no favours to ourselves or anyone listening to the debate by describing relationships between people of the same sex as though they were inferior to relationships between heterosexuals.
      Many heterosexuals could learn from the precautions—safer sex, and the prevention of transmission of HIV—that the homosexual community has introduced. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend takes such a view, but, if some people were not so bigoted and hypocritical, more heterosexual people would be alive today. They would understand that AIDS is not a homosexual disease, but an illness that passes from one person to another as a result of unsafe sexual practices.
      Dr. Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise words. I assure him that, although he may feel

      365
      outnumbered on the Conservative Benches, when the public are asked whether they think that homosexual behaviour is morally inferior to heterosexual behaviour, the more popular view is that it is not.
      Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      Tonight, we are discussing whether the present law is wrong. I believe that it is. We are discussing whether the present law is intolerant. I believe that it is. We are discussing whether it is without compassion. I believe that it is. We are also discussing whether we will allow two people of the same sex to enjoy a relationship that is loving, not criminal. That is why I think it right for Parliament to change the law tonight.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) described the protection of those aged between 16 and 18 as an acid test. He said that the Committee must be convinced that they would not be put at more risk. I ask him of what risk he speaks, and what evidence he has to support what he says. Those who evaluate the risk—organisations that work in child protection, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos, Childline, the Children's Society and countless others—tell us that the risk lies in leaving children unprotected, and that the current law does not protect them.
      Those organisations believe that protection is the central issue. It is because of the work that they have done that I, at least, have decided that it is right to lower the age of consent. I ask hon. Members who believe that the law should be left as it stands whether they have asked those organisations for their evidence. I suspect—his is not a criticism, but an observation—that many of my hon. Friends have continued to peddle a view which, although they hold it deeply and passionately, is not based on evidence for which they could have asked.
      Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does my hon. Friend accept that some homosexuals in the community believe that the age of consent for homosexuals should remain as it is?
      Mr. Woodward: No doubt some members of the homosexual community believe that the age of consent should stay at 18, but the evidence from those involved in the argument about protection—the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield—suggests overwhelmingly that protection will be better served by a lowering of the age of consent. That is a different issue from that of the views of some homosexuals about the age at which they should be allowed to practise a loving relationship, or a relationship with someone else.
      Mr. Brazier: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He asked whether we had studied the evidence. I have worked extensively with the NSPCC on other matters, and have examined its evidence as well as that of others. I find evidence from such organisations unconvincing because of the overwhelming medical evidence from studies—most conducted abroad, although some have been conducted in this country—of the huge medical risks involved in the homosexual life style.
      366
      An example is the incidence of venereal disease in the 50 states of America. There is an almost direct correlation between the incidence of venereal disease and the law on homosexuality, which varies hugely between states.
      Mr. Woodward: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I say merely that I will not set myself above the British Medical Association; I will rely on doctors here who tell us that we would protect young people better by changing the age of consent to 16.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke of the duty to provide the maximum protection for young people. I could not agree more. It is because of that duty that I believe we should hear what the experts tell us, and then apply what we have heard and lower the age of consent. My right hon. Friend referred to the proposition that the public have a right to be heard. He made an important comparison, which was also made on Second Reading: he drew a parallel with the slave trade of the 18th century.
      I raised that issue because, in that instance, the House had to debate a great moral issue and, ultimately, to take action that, at the time, probably did not have much public support. I believe that, when we look at the changes that were introduced post-Wolfenden, we will see that Parliament did the right thing, and that public opinion has moved in the direction in which Parliament moved when it changed the law.
      My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) defended his position, rather eloquently, by saying that slavery involved adults and that this issue involved children. There is a danger in that argument, which is caused by double standards. The law allows a young man of 16 to be a father. What greater duty can any young man have than to be responsible for the life of a child?
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Woodward: No, I will not.
      Anyone who has a child—I have four—knows about the burden of responsibility involved in bringing up children, but the law allows someone of 16 to do so.
      My hon. Friends talk about the need to listen to the public. That means listening to parents, but it also means listening to children and young people. I was the deputy director of Childline for nearly 10 years. Before Childline existed, it was thought that sexual abuse did not happen very much, that it probably happened among the working classes, and that, by and large, it was not a great problem. That was a serious mistake, which resulted from only one group of the public being listened to—adults and, from time to time, the unfortunate children who ended up in court having to be witnesses in cases against those who had sexually abused them. Childline brought about a fundamental change. It brought about the recognition that children and young people have a right to be heard.
      It would be grossly impertinent for the Committee to suggest that the will of a heterosexual majority should determine that we do not listen to the voices of young men and women who happen to be in a minority because they are homosexual. Childline listened to those young people, and has done a great deal to change the environment in which sexual abuse has been able to operate. That brings me to the importance of listening

      367
      to organisations that work with young people. They tell us that the current law is wrong, because they listen to those young people. They tell us that the law fails to protect; they tell us that, in some cases, it hurts; and they tell us that it leads some young people who are desperate to take their own lives. We have a duty in the House to listen to that evidence, too—to listen not only to the evidence of our prejudices and of the majority heterosexual community, but to those young people and the organisations that work with them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked us to focus on whether homosexuality is a matter of choice, or is pre-ordained. There is no question but that that is an interesting scientific debate, which will go on and on and runs the risk of leading the House into a cul de sac for one simple reason. The issue in the clause is not what makes people homosexual. It is whether someone who is recognised by the law as old enough legally to father a child and to take the responsibility of parenthood should, because they have a homosexual relationship, run the risk of a criminal prosecution.
      For socialists, it is an issue of equality and I respect that, but a Conservative should ask: why should we deny a homosexual young male his freedom when we are prepared to give it to a young woman? Why, because he practises his sexuality, often in a loving relationship, with someone of the same sex, should that be criminalised? Crucially, where is the evidence that supports the argument that young people are better protected by criminalising the activities of their early adult years?
      Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but a lot of it is based on assumptions with which I do not agree. He talks about 16-year-olds committing suicide. I do not know how many have done so, but the issue for most Conserative Members—and, indeed, for Members throughout the House—who oppose the clause is not about two 16-year-old boys; it is about older men and 16 and 17-year-old boys. That is a fact. I do not mind what two 16-year-old boys get up to. What I am worried about is 40-year-old men and 16-year-old boys.
      Mr. Woodward: I will come to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a moment or two.
      I do not dispute the fact that some young people who have a homosexual relationship at 17 may go on to have relationships with the opposite sex in later years. That is a matter for them. In so doing, they will enjoy the wonderful experience of having children, but the majority who enjoy a heterosexual life must look closely in their hearts at the consequence of imposing their chosen way of life on those for whom that is either not possible or not desirable. What right does one group, albeit a majority, have to make a misery and a criminal offence of what may be a loving, caring relationship between two people who just happen to be of the same sex? I cannot find it intellectually right and I cannot find it in my heart to be right. It is not compassionate, tolerant, just or based on evidence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke about passion. Passion is an important friend for the politician, but it is also a dangerous friend. It can blind us to the arguments and the evidence and, indeed, lead us to ignore it.
      368
      My hon. Friend said that the measure would expand the scope for abuse of young boys. We are not talking of young boys. We are talking of people whom the law allows legally to father a child and to take the responsibility of parenthood. We are talking of young men. We may be talking of abuse, but I remind my hon. Friend that if we want to deal with abuse, we should not be talking about the relationship between older men and younger boys. By and large, the majority of abuse is not committed by older men on younger boys. It is committed by randy old men in various areas throughout the country who chase after young girls. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not proposing legislation or amendments to the Bill to rectify that.
      The current law makes it harder for young men who are abused. It is important to recognise abuse. The current law makes it harder for young men who are abused between the ages of 16 and 18 because, in reporting their abuse, they render themselves open to prosecution.
      6.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot had words to say about the Terrence Higgins Trust. I disagree profoundly with him. His words were injudicious.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Woodward: I will give way in a moment. My hon. Friend has had his say on the trust.
      The work that the trust, Crusaid, Stonewall and other organisations have done has saved lives and encouraged people to enjoy loving, caring relationships. It does not reflect well on the House to undermine their work not only to save people who have HIV, to help them to lead longer and better lives and to ensure that they do not spread that disease, but, crucially, to stop people getting the illness in the first place. If only the heterosexual community had been as sensible and had raised the money to set up such organisations, far fewer heterosexual people would have HIV and AIDS. As a result of the work of organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, fewer homosexuals have the disease.
      My hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) talked of the Bill being the thin end of the wedge and said that efforts would be made to lower the age of consent even further. No hon. Member makes the case for lowering the age of consent even further. That is not part of clause 1. It is, in itself, a valid discussion. I personally would not support—through the Bill or any other way—lowering for either heterosexuals or homosexuals the age of consent below 16, but that is not relevant to the clause or the Bill. It is yet another distraction.
      I have received a number of letters from the public on the Bill, particularly following the previous debate. There is one that I should like briefly to quote. I do so for one simple reason. When I worked in television and was editor of "That's Life", we found that, by and large, if we went to the people who were affected—the people who suffer because of the way in which the law currently stands—we stood to learn a lot.
      The letter tells me that it is far from the case that homosexual people enjoy only sterile relationships. It does not come from a lobby group. It is not the expression

      369
      of a militant individual. It is from a member of our society, our community, our country who happens to be homosexual. He says:
      "As a gay man now in my late 30s I can still remember how terrified and isolated I felt about my burgeoning sexuality during my teenage years. My discovery from the dictionary that my feelings could be defined as homosexuality and later that such activity had been decriminalised from the age of 21 gave me some hope that I was not totally alone in the world. However the '67 legislation, ground breaking though it was then, felt more like the grudging acceptance of an adult male perversion than any positive affirmation of the adult I was to become. It was meant to. Those that meant it then and those that wish to perpetuate the status quo now have excluded us from society and then heaped criticism upon us for being unconventional. We are forced into life styles with which we are not always happy and then judged for it.
      It is often said…that homosexuality breaks down the nuclear family. It is prejudice against homosexuality which does that. We are products of the nuclear family and many of us wish to remain within its bounds of love and protection but are prevented from doing so by the perpetuation of the atmosphere of hate and prejudice by these people."
      He goes on to say that, in 1978, at the age of 18, he told his parents of his sexuality:
      "I thank God that my parents fought their fears and prejudices and I remain a loved and loving son, brother, uncle and godfather. My family would prefer I were heterosexual but they have totally accepted who I am and I remain as active a member of my family as anyone else within it. I know very many others for whom the same is not true. The fear and prejudice of their families strengthened by that of society and enshrined in the law has resulted in their total exclusion from the family circle. Many others cannot even bear to tell their parents. Their self esteem is so low and their fear of rejection so great that they cannot begin to imagine that the people who should love them most could ever accept them.
      They leave home and disappear into self imposed exile for ever leaving behind an often bewildered and shattered family…Young families are often blown apart in such ways with damaging consequences for the adult, the children, the wider families and society as a whole."
      That letter says more than anything else about why we should ensure that the clause stands part of the Bill. The pain and suffering of younger people mean that we should listen to them and that we are duty bound do something about it.
      This is an opportunity for Parliament to do something good. It may not have majority support in the country at the moment, but we should remember that we are in a majority heterosexual community. We are not inviting people, as a consequence of the Bill, to take up homosexual activities; we are simply ensuring that certain individuals can have loving, caring relationships with people who happen to be of the same sex. There may be some present who do not like it and that is their prerogative, but the House has no right to discriminate because there is no evidence to suggest that young people will be better protected if we leave the law as it is.
      I do not believe that changing the law will send the wrong signals to a civilised society. In fact, Parliament doing the good thing tonight will help to civilise our society. I hope that hon. Members will choose to do that rather than leave in place a law that is patently, evidently and fundamentally unjust.
      Ann Keen: I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Like many of my hon. Friends, I totally associate myself
      370
      with his entire speech. However, it is also important to put on record the manner and style of speeches by Opposition Members. Some expressed concern, but others showed blatant prejudice.
      We must take into account the important work of organisations that care for young people, and have taken the Bill and the original amendment very seriously. The British Medical Association and my own profession of nursing have been involved in serious work for a long time, bringing together all the organisations that care for young people. They are now asking our democratically elected Parliament to take their views seriously. On another occasion, I should like to ask Opposition Members why they feel that they have more wisdom than those organisations.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ann Keen: No. I am making only a short speech. The hon. Gentleman has already contributed to the debate.
      Families involved with all young people in our community are equally important. Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers of lesbian and gay young people. In addition to coming to the House, they have also put their case to the wider media—on television and radio and in the newspapers—and for the first time they are being heard. There is a great deal of ignorance which breeds fear, and many brave people have been putting the case not just for equality, but for humanity. I fear that tonight, this place has let them down, but I am pleased to associate myself with the hon. Members who have stood shoulder to shoulder and said that it is now time for justice, equality, humanity, safety and the protection of our young people.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted to follow the last two speakers. Before they spoke, it appeared manifest that the entire debate on clause stand part would be conducted solely by Opposition Members and from one point of view. I am on the Standing Committee dealing with the other clause in the Bill, and I have noticed a strange phenomenon that has been repeated here tonight. Certain hon. Members who were very vociferous on 25 January when we debated the Bill on Second Reading have been sitting as quietly as mice. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) spoke on clause 2 in Standing Committee—there was just a single speech from the main man on the Labour Benches—and this evening, we have heard one Labour speech—from the main woman. I find that orchestration somewhat unsettling in what should be a debate on an issue of conscience and a free vote.
      I have considerable experience of the way in which pressure groups operate and I have the impression that two pressure groups are operating tonight—an external pressure group in the form of the gay lobby and an internal pressure group in the form of the Government Whips, who seem to have carved a deal on the way in which Labour Members must conduct themselves in these proceedings.
      I shall not be as eloquent as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) because I am not reading out my speech word for word, but I noticed that at the end of the debate on 25 January, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) was kind enough to refer

      371
      to me in my absence. He made various criticisms and imputed many motivations to my speech. Having made those remarks he was gentlemanly enough to observe:
      "When I see him I shall remind him of what I have just said. He needs to be told and have that put in his face."—[Official Report, 25 January 1999; Vol.324, c.103.]
      Strangely enough, when we met later that evening, the hon. Gentleman did nothing of the sort. In fact, he was his usual charming, debonair and carefree self.
      Mr. Tony McNulty: When I saw the hon. Gentleman subsequently in the Corridors beyond the Chamber, the thought of speaking to him turned my stomach.
      Dr. Lewis: That is just one more broken Labour promise.
      In explaining why I oppose the clause, it is necessary to spell out, as I did at the beginning of my speech on 25 January, that what concerns me is not homosexuality, but a dangerous practice that carries a high medical risk—the practice of anal sex. Time and again throughout the debate on Second Reading, I and other hon. Members challenged those on the other side of the argument—including my hon. Friend the Member for Witney—to explain, once and for all and quite clearly, that if the enormously higher incidence of HIV infection and AIDS in our male homosexual community in Britain had not been caused primarily by the practice of anal sex, what had caused it. Answer came there none.
      During today's debate, I and others have made it clear once again that our objections have nothing to do with the rights of adults. If my hon. Friend the Member for Witney had spoken in favour of a minority of repressed adults, I would have cheered him to the rafters, but he spoke in favour of allowing the act of buggery to be committed against young boys and girls of 16 and 17, when that act and the sharing of needles by drug addicts have resulted in a massively increased danger of contracting a deadly disease.
      Dr. Harris: I feel that the hon. Gentleman is on another planet. Even if one accepts that certain acts carry greater risks when they are unprotected, in Britain we do not legislate against actions by private individuals that may be dangerous to their health. We do not legislate against heterosexual intercourse, which also can transmit disease, or against childbirth, although it can be dangerous. We criminalise drug use not because of the physical risks of human immune deficiency virus transmission, but for a series of other good reasons. So the hon. Gentleman has missed the point.
      7 pm
      Dr. Lewis: I was happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and shall be happy to do so again if he will answer a question. Does he approve of legalising prostitution and brothels on the basis that doing so will help to protect people's health, as they will be better supervised and the sex will be safer? Would he care to intervene on that point, too?
      Dr. Harris: I can only barely bother to get up to intervene on the point, which deals with an entirely separate matter. If a matter affects only private individuals
      372
      and hurts no one else—which is what the Committee is judging for the age group we are considering—it should not be a matter in which the state should intervene. Prostitution and brothels are thought to affect society as a whole, and not only private individuals, as in the case we are considering.
      Dr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman was absolutely truthful when he said that I am on a different planet from the other people in this Chamber, whom he represents. But I think that they are on a different planet from the vast majority of British parents, who are worried about their 16 and 17-year-old children—I repeat, children—who are being allowed to engage in a sexual act that will put their health, perhaps fatally, at risk.
      I should like briefly to say a word about whether orientation is preordained, and hope that my words will faintly shine a bit of a spotlight on to my own motivations in opposing the provision. Although I know that Labour Members would like to portray me as some sort of secret hater of gays who does not have the courage to say so—[Interruption.] Yes, that is what they would like to do. I tell both Labour Members and my hon. Friends that my first experience of meeting a young boy who was gay was in my grammar school in Swansea. I remember his name and the great pity that I felt for him, because of the way in which—[Interruption.] Before hon. Members laugh, let them at least hear the story.
      I felt sorry for the boy because of the way in which he was persecuted and shunned by the other pupils. I also remember asking him how it was that he got into that orientation. He did not turn around and say to me that it was a result of the fact that he had always known that he had those feelings. He told me that it was a result of the fact that an older youth had taken him to a bedroom, tied him to a bed and interfered with him. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see that a Labour Member finds this so hilarious. Would she care to intervene and tell me what is so funny about it? I thought that it was a personal tragedy. Would she care to tell me? Evidently not.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman: the debate should flow as fluently as possible. However, I should tell the Committee that every Member is entitled to express his or her point of view and be listened to in the Committee. There are deeply held, opposite views on the question. They should all be heard in the Committee.
      Dr. Lewis: I am particularly grateful to you, Sir Alan, for that ruling, and was appalled by that type of reaction. I still feel sorry for that lad. He was a very nice lad, and I feel sorry for what he went through. I wish that he had not had to go through it. However, in my opinion—and I think also in his opinion—there was no question of his having been born a homosexual.
      I should point out also that, in the attitude that one can have on the matters we are debating, it is possible to have, as I have, homosexual friends. Probably my closest female friend went through a period of a lesbian relationship. I was not happy that she went through that period, and was happy that she came out of it. Nevertheless, I should tell hon. Members who doubt my sincerity in the matter that, had she never come out of it,

      373
      she would have remained my closest female friend. I would go to the ends of the earth for her, and I think that she would do the same for me.
      Therefore, when I express such considerations to the Committee, I do so not out of some hidden homophobia, but because the measure would legalise the seduction by people who are adults of people who are children into a physical act—the act of buggery—whether those children are male or female, putting their lives at risk.
      Everything in this debate has been expressed on the basis of equality. There is an apparent slavishness to the principle of equality. Regardless of what else happens, people who support lowering the age of consent tell us that it must be done in the cause of equality. Such a position comes close to being—I am not allowed to say hypocritical—insincere.
      If there were no way in which the homosexual age of consent could be lowered to 16—if the choice, therefore, were between keeping the heterosexual age of consent at 16 and keeping the homosexual age of consent at 18, or raising the heterosexual age of consent to 18—I would bet that all those hon. Members who have been prating about the supremacy of equality would sing a different tune. To them, it would be more important to preserve the differential as long as it favoured a lower age of consent for some form sexual activity.
      As I said in the debate on Second Reading, it is a mark of a civilised society that it raises ages of consent as it gets more civilised. The fact that the age of consent for heterosexual sex is lower than the age of consent for homosexual sex is not a sign that the higher age should be adjusted to the lower age. If equality reigns supreme, adjust the lower age to the higher age. But let us have enough of an insincere, dangerous and potentially fatal recommendation.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I suspect that there is a sense of exhaustion in the debate, as this is the third time that we have debated the issue. The first time was last year, at the Committee stage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the second time was in the debate on this Bill's Second Reading; and the third is today. I have no intention of repeating what I said in the Second Reading debate, but shall content myself with making one point, on the protection of children.
      I should have hoped—the whole Committee should hope, as it is a rather sensitive matter—that, by the end of this week, we could stop arguing about the issue. However, I fear that the Bill's passage will not be the end of it, as those who promoted the Bill will come back again and again—until they have achieved full equality between heterosexual and homosexual practice, achieved the repeal of clause 28 and ensured that both practices are taught, with equal validity, in our schools. I fear that this is only the start of the debate. However, hon. Members should be concerned primarily not with ourselves, but with the protection of young people—including 16 and 17-year-old children, and particularly very young men.
      The Home Office recently published a report on sexual offences against children—to which the Minister of State, Home Office provided a foreword, and which I quoted yesterday in Standing Committee. Unsurprisingly, the report found that only 5 per cent. of sexual offences
      374
      against children were committed by women. The report makes it clear that boys and girls are much more at risk from men than from women. However, we did not need a report to tell us that. Whatever people might say about equality between the sexes, there is no equality between men and women on that issue. We are talking almost exclusively about men when we talk about abusers.
      The Home Office report tells us that most abusers abuse girls. That is what one would expect, as the population is overwhelmingly heterosexual. The report finds that 60 to 70 per cent. of child molesters abuse girls. The implication of the Minister's remarks in Committee was that those who believe that boys are at risk from homosexual men need not worry because of the statistics. However, the Home Office says that 20 to 33 per cent. of abusers target only boys. That is a staggeringly high proportion. I accept that some of those who target boys will be women, but the report points out that almost all abusers are men. Up to a third of abusers target boys.
      No one has ever suggested that a third of men are homosexual. Academic studies vary, but the Office for National Statistics has said that 1 per cent. of men say that they have only ever had homosexual sex. The supporters of the Bill may believe that a figure of 1 per cent. of the population being homosexual is far too low, but even if that were completely wrong—even if it were 2 or 3 per cent.—how could we have a situation where 1 per cent., 2 per cent. or slightly more men are homosexual, but where they apparently make up more than 30 per cent. of child molesters? This is not prejudice—that is taken from the Home Office report.
      Suppose the exact figure for abuse was 15 per cent. That would mean that boys were 15 times more likely to be abused by a man than a woman. If the Bill is enacted, we will be ensuring that more boys are abused and damaged for life.
      Mr. Woodward: I remind my hon. Friend that we are talking about relationships between consenting adults. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has looked for evidence, but the Bill is dealing with relationships between two consenting people. Child abuse, the abuse of young people, indecent assault or rape will remain crimes, and are not relevant to the Bill.
      Mr. Leigh: I am afraid that they are relevant. My hon. Friend made a long and passionate speech, the purport of which appeared to be that 16-year-olds were adults. They may be adults in bodily form, but in many ways—emotionally and psychologically—they are still children. In many respects, they are still children legally. They cannot vote and they cannot be asked to die for their country. If the Committee is primarily concerned with protecting boys between the ages of 16 and 18—as it should be—it is taking a retrograde step tonight.
      The abuse of trust proposals in the Bill are only a fig leaf because they will not apply to youth workers, vicars and occasional supply teachers—all those people who will come into contact with young people. That is my concern.
      In conclusion, I accept that, in this world, we are all different. Many people are homosexual, and we recognise that. It would be lovely if we were all Conservatives and heterosexuals. It would be lovely if there were no crime or divorce. However, we must show understanding and compassion to those who do not share our views or way

      375
      of life—including those who are homosexual. We reject homophobia, hatred and prejudice as passionately as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). However, we must believe that Parliament has a right and a duty to stand up for something that is right and pure.
      We are not just talking about gratification; sex is not about that. Sex is about raising children in the context of a loving family. So much of the debate on homosexuality is fundamentally sterile in that sense. It is not just that it can be an unhealthy activity; it is not just that it is an offence against many people's religious convictions. We believe that we are sending tonight the wrong message to a society which, again and again in opinion polls, has said that it does not approve of what we are doing. I hope that we will vote against the clause and the Bill in increased numbers.
      7.15 pm
      Dr. Harris: I rise briefly to say that I firmly support the clause. I wish to respond to one of the several points made by Conservative Members to which I was tempted to respond. The allegation that homosexuals are sex offenders in the main or in the minority cannot be sustained. As the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, it is not the case that when talking about consenting acts, we are talking somehow about child abuse or sexual abuse. It may well be that a large proportion, but not a majority, of offences are directed against boys, but those are not by homosexuals necessarily. It is not a heterosexual act or a homosexual act to abuse someone—it is an abusive act. The distinction must be recognised.
      Although I warmly welcome the clause—and thank the Government for proposing it—it would make it much easier to defend the gay community against bigoted allegations of child abuse and sex abuse if amendments to sex offenders legislation could be made, within the Bill, to ensure that those offences that are no longer criminal are removed from the legislation on sex offenders requiring registration. I hope that the Minister will think again on that subject, so that, on Third Reading, we can have a Bill—including this clause—that is complete and fair.
      Mr. Clappison: As has been made abundantly clear, this matter will be the subject of a free vote, and I welcome the opportunity to make my personal contribution to the debate. I do so with a certain caution, because it is not in my nature to lecture people on how they should run their lives. I always exercise great caution in making such statements. However, on a subject of great public importance such as this, we owe it to our constituents to set out our views.
      I have the opportunity to set out my views against the background of what I believe has been a very good debate. On such a subject, we owe it to our constituents to listen to the views of others with a certain amount of tolerance, and to listen to both sides of the argument. We have heard good speeches on both sides of the argument from both sides of the House. That has been of benefit. However, we must exercise a certain tolerance when listening to the views of others.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) observed, we have heard only one speech from the Labour Benches. It was a good, pertinent and
      376
      passionate speech from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)—albeit a short one—although I did not agree with it. She serves on the Committee, and I had been looking forward to hearing rather more of the views of other Labour Members who serve on the Committee this evening. That pleasure has been further delayed for me.
      I did not agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but he has been consistent and he made his remarks forcefully. However, there was a certain element of self-destruction in his exchange with his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The hon. Member for Hallam got it completely wrong when he dismissed the opinion poll evidence which shows that the majority of the public are opposed to a reduction of the age of consent by saying that, in opinion polls, people are expressing their view about homosexuality, not the age of consent. However, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that all the evidence is that the public do not think that homosexuals are inferior. I agree with that, but it cannot be reconciled with the statement from the hon. Member for Hallam, who got it wrong. The public do not think that homosexuals are inferior, but they have a sense of unease about reducing the age of consent still further, from 18 to 16. We have to exercise our judgment on the age at which the criminal law should apply.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I wonder whether it is altogether wise at present for a Conservative Front Bencher to rest his case on opinion polls.
      Mr. Clappison: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been with us throughout the debate, but several contributions have dealt with public opinion and we should take into account what the public have to say on this issue. This is not an occasion for party political points, and he has done the Committee no service by introducing such a note.
      The hon. Member for Hallam spoke about criminalising young people, but he must accept that we are being called on to exercise a judgment. The criminal law has to apply at a certain age, and I believe that that should be 18 rather than 16.
      We have heard many excellent speeches from Opposition Members on both sides of the argument. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who made an excellent speech, that the protection of young people should be of great concern and should go to the heart of what we are trying to do. He made the fair point that the clause takes away a certain amount of protection for 16 and 17-year-olds. We are trying, through our endeavours in the Standing Committee, to give young people protection from those who would abuse a position of trust. We have found that an extremely difficult task, and there may be more problems, but even those who support the clause must accept that it weakens the protection that is available.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) expressed characteristically honest and forceful views. He mentioned Oscar Wilde, and I shall certainly read with great interest the biography to which he referred. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was equally honest when he spoke about the need to protect young people and children. I agreed with him

      377
      when he referred to the innocence of youth and childhood. Whatever the views of "Blue Peter" presenters these days, I seek to protect that innocence as much as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) expressed some forceful views that reflected a substantial element of public opinion.
      I do not agree with the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), but I recognise that he made an excellent, powerful speech which contained a great deal of reason and emotion. He has clearly done a great deal of research and he made a very considered speech. He was right to bring the evidence that he found to our attention. He rightly referred to the importance of the Wolfenden report and the changes that it brought about, ushering in the age of tolerance, but I believe, personally, that he would do well to reflect on what Wolfenden said about the age of consent.
      Wolfenden fixed the age of consent at 21. The report also considered 16 and 18, and some members of the committee were in favour of 18, but the report made it very clear that people of 16 were too young and that young men were not mature enough at that age to engage in homosexual activity. I noted with great interest that, last June, the sole surviving member of the Wolfenden committee, Lord Mishcon, returned to the subject in an excellent debate in another place and once again said that 18, not 16, was the proper age. He still thought that, even in today's society, 16 was too young.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Witney made a moving speech, quoting a letter about the pain and suffering experienced by someone as a result of his homosexuality. It is right to use such moving material and there is no doubt that the subject causes deep emotion and heartache in families, but all that feeling will not be altered one scrap by a reduction in the age of consent from 18 to 16. A person in that situation will still find it painful and harrowing to have to talk to members of his family on the subject, and families will still have problems coming to terms with it. Homosexual acts should not be illegal, but we should be extremely careful about the age of consent.
      The letter illustrated the fact, also referred to by Wolfenden, that we are talking about a decision or experience for young people that will have a profound effect on them for the rest of their life. They should be protected from that decision until an appropriate age of maturity, and 16 is simply too young, as my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said.
      The majority of public opinion shares that view. People do not, by and large, dislike or fear homosexuals, although there may be some who are prejudiced and take that view. The large majority extend toleration and understanding to people of a homosexual disposition, but they still feel a deep sense of unease at the prospect of an age of consent at 16 rather than 18. They feel that, even though young people may grow up faster today, 16-year-olds are still far too young and need the protection of the law until they are 18. We must examine our consciences and ask whether we are doing right by our constituents and the young people of this country.
      Mr. Boateng: This has been a long and wide-ranging debate. It has in many ways resembled a Second Reading
      378
      debate, but, unlike the debate that we had at that stage, it has not always done us much credit. Bishops have been prayed in aid, Oscar Wilde has been traduced and every orifice has been explored. I do not intend to go down that path.
      We have to recognise that this clause stand part debate is about one thing, and one thing only—the equalisation of the age of consent. It is not about the protection of children and vulnerable people. That is something which we have explored upstairs in Committee, and it is something to which the House rightly gave considerable attention on Second Reading and to which it will return on Report. We are talking about equalisation.
      The points made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) deserve attention. They spoke about the welfare of children and the protection of young people. The question that those who support them have not answered is how it serves a 16 or 17-year-old boy to criminalise him for the expression of his sexuality.
      7.30 pm
      Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
      Mr. Boateng: No, I shall not give way.
      That is the question that they have not been able to answer.
      Dr. Lewis: Answer it now.
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. They have not been able to answer that question because they must surely know that such a young person cannot be protected if he lives his life in fear, or if he, his doctor, the school nurse and all those who might have be concerned for his welfare are inhibited in meeting his needs by the fact that he stands in jeopardy before the criminal law. That is the point that we have been debating in our consideration of the Bill, and it is to that point that all hon. Members will need to turn their mind when they come to vote.
      Mr. Brazier rose—
      Mr. Boateng: I shall give way in due course.
      It is a measure on which all Members will have an opportunity to exercise their vote freely. It is a measure to which all hon. Members will have to apply their judgment, and it is the judgment of those of us who support the clause that young people are better protected in the circumstances that we have outlined—by their being enabled freely to express their sexuality without fear of the intervention of the criminal law—than by being criminalised at the age of 16 and 17.
      Mr. Brazier: I know that the Minister is deeply concerned about child abuse and the welfare of young people, but he slightly traduces my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and me by suggesting that our focus is on criminalising young people. The issue is whether it is right for an older man to be able to introduce a 16 or 17-year-old to a homosexual life style to which he may be transitorily attracted.
      Mr. Boateng: The issue is whether it is right to discriminate in those circumstances between heterosexual

      379
      and homosexual acts. The concern of those of us who support the clause is not to do anything that would encourage 16 or 17-year-olds to have sex. That is not something which anyone seeks to encourage. Clearly, childhood needs to be protected and, where innocence can be protected, it should be. However, we do those young people no service by pretending that anything we do in relation to the criminal law will make one jot of difference to whether or not they engage in sexual activity. It will not. Young people of 16 and 17 will engage in sexual activity. Do we do them any favours by criminalising their actions? The view of those of us who support the clause is that we do no such thing.
      The clause is not to be viewed in the way that those who oppose it have on occasions described it. The clause is not a surrender to teenage carnality; it is, however, about recognising the importance of fairness and equality and about making sure, as we have elsewhere in the Bill, that those who have a special relationship of trust with 16 and 17-year-olds, with children and young people, should respect that trust or should face the full sanction of the criminal law. However, that is separate from the matters that we are considering, and hon. Members do no favours to anyone by merging the two. They are quite distinct.
      To suggest that people of a homosexual orientation are somehow more likely than not to be predators is to traduce people with a homosexual orientation. It is also to misunderstand and misinterpret all the evidence available to us about the incidence of abuse of children, which shows clearly and beyond any doubt that it is not possible to say that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children. The message that we have to send out is that abuse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is abuse and that it will result in the full weight of the law being brought to bear on those who perpetrate it.
      It is quite wrong to suggest that those who will tonight vote for equality are somehow soft on child abuse. That is a wicked calumny, and does those Opposition Members who make that suggestion no favours. It is equally wrong to suggest that those who vote in favour of equality do so because they are the prisoners of a homosexual agenda, and that their next agenda will be geared towards homosexual marriage or the lowering still further of the age of consent. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government will have no truck with any suggestion that the homosexual or heterosexual age of consent should be lowered to 14. That is simply not part of our agenda or any agenda, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.
      When we go into the Lobbies, let us be very clear about what we are voting on. We are voting on an issue of equality, on whether we believe that it is right to criminalise 16 or 17-year-old boys because they are expressing a homosexual orientation. If hon. Members believe that it is right to do that, they will vote against the proposition that there should be equality between the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual acts. If, however, hon. Members believe that it is right to respect people's differences and that it is right and proper to ensure that the law is equal as between all people, they will vote for the clause.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall detain the House for a just a moment longer—because the Minister declined to give way to me on a point on which he was demonstrably
      380
      wrong. He said that he had not heard from those who opposed the measure why it was right to criminalise people below the current age of consent that he wishes to alter. It was pointed out time and again on Second Reading, by me and others, that that is a bogus argument because it is an argument against ages of consent generally. The purpose of ages of consent is not to criminalise the people below them but to criminalise those above them and stop them interfering with those below them. He may not like that answer, but he is wrong to say that the question has not been answered. I am surprised that he did not do his homework on that matter.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 330, Noes 126.

      Division No. 63]

      [7.40 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Allan, Richard

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Baker, Norman

      Clwyd, Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Barron, Kevin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cohen, Harry

      Beard, Nigel

      Coleman, Iain

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Connarty, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbett, Robin

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Berry, Roger

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Best, Harold

      Cotter, Brian

      Betts, Clive

      Cousins, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Crausby, David

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Borrow, David

      Dafis, Cynog

      Boswell, Tim

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brady, Graham

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brake, Tom

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Denham, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Browne, Desmond

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Doran, Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Burstow, Paul

      Duncan, Alan

      Caborn, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Canavan, Dennis

      Etherington, Bill

      Caplin, Ivor

      Fabricant, Michael

      Caton, Martin

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Cawsey, Ian

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      381

      Fisher, Mark

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Flint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Flynn, Paul

      Laxton, Bob

      Follett, Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Linton, Martin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Livingstone, Ken

      Galloway, George

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Gapes, Mike

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAllion, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McCabe, Steve

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grocott, Bruce

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hancock, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hanson, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Martlew, Eric

      Healey, John

      Maxton, John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Meale, Alan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Merron, Gillian

      Heppell, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hill, Keith

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Moore, Michael

      Hope, Phil

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hutton, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jamieson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkin, Bernard

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Plaskitt, James

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prior, David

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keetch, Paul

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Radice, Giles

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rapson, Syd

      Key, Robert

      Raynsford, Nick

      Khabra, Piara S

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kidney, David

      Rendel, David

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      382

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ruane, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Todd,Mark

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Salmond, Alex

      Touhig, Don

      Salter, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Sanders, Adrian

      Truswell, Paul

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tyler, Paul

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Vaz, Keith

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      White, Brian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      (Swansea W)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Willis, Phil

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stevenson, George

      Wise, Audrey

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wood, Mike

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Stott, Roger

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Stunell, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Ann Keen and Laura Moffatt.

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Faber, David

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Fallon, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Fight, Howard

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Benton, Joe

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bercow, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fraser, Christopher

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gale, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      Garnier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gill, Christopher

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Butterfill, John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Cann, Jamie

      Gray, James

      Cash, William

      Green, Damian

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Greenway, John

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Chope, Christopher

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Hammond, Philip

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      (Rushcliffe)

      Horam, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Johnson Smith,

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cran, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Leigh, Edward

      Day, Stephen

      Letwin, Oliver

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lidington, David

      383

      Loughton, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Swayne, Desmond

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Madel, Sir David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Thompson, William

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Townend, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend, Michael

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Page, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Paice, James

      Walter, Robert

      Paterson, Owen

      Wardle, Charles

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Wells, Bowen

      Randall, John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wilkinson, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Willetts, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilshire, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Wray, James

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Mr. Gerald Howarth and

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mr. Andrew Robathan.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 1 reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

      Water Industry Bill
      Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    New clause 1

      PROVISIONS FOR WALES
      '.—(1) Sections 1 to 11 above shall apply in England only.
      (2) The National Assembly for Wales shall, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, consider the provisions of this Act and make decisions concerning—

      (a) whether the provisions of sections 1 to 11, 16 and 17 shall apply in Wales; and

      (b) whether to substitute different provisions in the case of Wales in place of the provisions of sections 1 to 11, 16 and 17, dealing with the matters provided for in each section.'.—[Mr. Dafis]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would give the National Assembly for Wales maximum discretion on water policy in Wales. I spoke on Second Reading about the significance of water as a political, economic and ecological issue of major importance to Wales. I do not intend to rehearse the series of arguments that I made; I shall simply recall the main points.
      Water is a priceless asset—we are only just beginning to realise just how priceless it is. As a resource, it will be in increasingly short supply over coming years and decades. Wales should be allowed to utilise that asset responsibly—of course—and in the interests of Wales and its people, in the context of sustainable development, which the National Assembly for Wales has a specific duty to promote.
      The circumstances of water supply in Wales are very different from those in much, if not all, of England. Wales has a plentiful water supply. There is no prospect of Wales suffering a shortfall in water supply, even in the worst-case scenario of increasing demand and a diminution of supply as a result of climate change and other factors. There is, however, likely to be a significant shortfall of supply in parts of England, especially the south-east. Such different circumstances will result in different priorities, as on investment, as I spelt out on Second Reading. That could mean that Wales adopts a different charging system, because charges reflect such issues as the availability of supply.
      I argued on Second Reading that it is unacceptable to bundle together legislation for Wales with that for England, when the Bill makes separate provision for Scotland. The new clause would allow decisions on the Bill's provisions to be delegated to the National Assembly, which would enable it to make different provision on matters such as disconnection, charging, and so on.
      An example of the need for different provision is found in the recent Environment Agency proposals for limitations on angling in rivers in England and Wales. Angling is enormously important socially, culturally and, in large parts of Wales, economically, due to tourism, for example. The Environment Agency is proposing byelaws that impose uniform limitations on angling, such as on seasons, throughout England and Wales. That is a bad

      385
      approach. Such limitations ought to be devised on the basis of river catchment areas. I believe that the proposals have more to do with the Environment Agency's administrative convenience than ecological or economic realities.
      I and other hon. Members have written to the Secretary of State for Wales asking that implementation on this very important issue be postponed until after the Assembly has been able to debate it and come up with appropriate byelaws for Wales—different ones, I dare say. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will listen to what is being said to him on a cross-party basis. It is an illustration of the need for a different approach in Wales that reflects its reality.
      What is the point, one might ask, of devolution, unless we can make our own different policies in Wales? Many might ask what is the point of establishing a National Assembly if it is not able to make decisions on such important subjects as water policy.
      8 pm
      The new clause is not especially about disagreeing with the specific proposals in the Bill. I do not disagree with the proposals in relation to disconnection, although I would have serious reservations about the process of facilitating and promoting metering as a method of charging. The new clause is about the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, and about how legislation in London that affects Wales should be drafted.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said that he does not object to key parts of this provision, because the continuation of rateable value as the basis for unmeasured charging is vital for most of our communities. I trust that he will not cast any doubt on that issue.
      Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for that intervention, and I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I feel that we need a better basis for charging than rateable value, which is well out of date. The best proposal is to charge on the basis of council tax banding; we should adopt that method. The danger of continuing to use rateable value is that, by doing so, we postpone the day when we can adopt such a method.
      However, the issue before us is how legislation that has such an important impact on Wales should be drafted. The Government of Wales Act 1998 gives English Ministries—I suppose that, technically, I should say England and Wales Ministries, but, from the point of view of Wales, they will be seen as English Ministries—specific override powers in relation to water policy in Wales. The Welsh Office guide to the powers of the National Assembly, entitled "Making a Difference in Wales", puts it thus:
      "The Assembly will have all relevant functions to deal with water supply and water quality in Wales."
      That is good.
      "However, if UK Ministers believe its actions in authorising discharges into rivers flowing into England, or allowing water to be abstracted from such rivers, or its actions in time of drought, would have a serious impact on England, they would be able to intervene to prevent the Assembly acting in such a way."
      386
      It speaks similarly about the Environment Agency.
      I do not believe that such override powers are the right answer to what is a reasonable question. The guide does say—rather graciously—on the previous page that the Government do not believe that the National Assembly would wish to prevent people in England from having adequate water supplies. That is big of them; I am sure that the Assembly would not want to do that. However, I do not think that override powers are necessary. Other methods could have been used. There could have been a requirement for there to be consideration—a requirement for meetings to reach a consensus on how any conflict of interest might be resolved.
      I do believe, however, that the National Assembly should be able to override policy proposals in Westminster legislation if it does not agree with them. It should have that power in general terms. Would that we had had such powers many, many times in recent years. Wales would be in better shape if we had had such powers.
      The time will come—the sooner, the better—when the National Assembly will have full legislative powers, as the Scottish Parliament has. I am confident that that day will come. We might as well get it done as soon as possible. However, meanwhile, any primary legislation drafted in London surely must in future give the National Assembly maximum latitude to vary provision by secondary legislation. The Government should surely accept that principle. Legislation should routinely contain such provision when drafted. It should have been done in the case of the Bill.
      The new clause applies to clauses 1 to 11—the clauses that relate to England and Wales—and there are consequential changes to be made to clauses 16 and 17. The new clause would do what the drafters of the Bill should have done. We are merely putting right a deficiency in the legislative approach.
      There has been much debate in Wales and Westminster on the National Assembly's limited legislative functions. Apologists for the Government's approach—giving the National Assembly only secondary powers—would argue that not having primary powers is not a big deal, because primary legislation can be drafted so as to allow the National Assembly, which will have total democratic legitimacy in Wales, to draft legislation to make provision appropriate for Wales, however different that might be.
      I am not arguing for difference for the sake of difference; I am arguing for the right to be different in order to be appropriate to the special circumstances that apply in Wales. In that spirit, and bearing in mind the fact that we merely want to correct a deficiency—that we are doing what the drafters of the Bill should have done—I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. It is an opportunity to show willingness to legislate to empower the National Assembly for Wales, while retaining the primary legislative function in London. I expect and hope—well, I hope—that the Government will accept the new clause on that basis. If they do not, that augurs rather badly for future legislation.
      Alternatively, the Government might like to say that they consider that the issue is serious enough to merit further consideration in what is quaintly called the other place. If the Government were to say that they would consider exempting Wales from the requirements of the Bill by tabling an amendment in the Lords, we would be very pleased.

      387
      However, I want to say something to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff—which one is it?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Cardiff, Central.
      Mr. Dafis: That is right. I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman and other Ministers say that they recognise that future legislation should be universally drafted so that the secondary powers of the National Assembly give it the latitude that it needs if it is to put in place the strategies to enable us to build the new Wales. I look forward to the Government's response.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: When I first arrived in the House, I was instructed that, among the many people whom I would come across, bizarrely, the nicest would be Welsh nationalists. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) is no exception to that rule, and he has treated us to the delightful—and apparently charming—prospect of a slight technical amendment to the Bill to achieve what he described as an efficiency.
      As a matter of fact, the Conservative party in Wales strongly disapproves of the hon. Gentleman's views. [Laughter.] Yes, it is a matter of amusement to us that the Government's actions in these matters will have substantially recreated the Conservative party in Wales and its representation, as Ministers were good enough to admit—perhaps more than the Government originally reckoned on. However, the Conservative party in Wales differs from the hon. Member for Ceredigion on the matter of substance, in that its position is that if this is a good Bill for England, it cannot see why it would be a bad Bill for Wales.
      The Minister for the Environment has waxed eloquent on the Bill's virtues, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and I have never opposed the general principles underlying it, as Ministers know. Therefore we have argued that it is—taken by and large, and with some defects—good for England, and so good also for Wales.
      However, it is not on that matter of substance that I want to argue very strongly against the new clause. The hon. Member for Ceredigion raised, in a short speech, just about every major constitutional mistake that could be made in taking forward the relationship between the House and the National Assembly, and his new clause, alas, accurately reflects that programme.
      Water, as the Minister will very well know, is included as item 17 in schedule 2 to the Government of Wales Act 1998. Hence it is appropriate that it also appears as a subject in the remarkable set of documents that the Transfer of Functions (National Assembly for Wales) Order 1999 and its appendices have become. I do not think that the Minister was present for the entirety of our discussion on the order during the proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill. However, he may recall that there was a great deal of discussion of just what that order would do. No one doubted that its sole intent—the structure of what became the Government of Wales Act ensured that it would have as its sole intent—was to allow Ministers through the order, under the aegis of the House and Parliament, to transfer authorities that now reside with a Minister at Westminster to the Welsh Assembly.
      388
      It is a critical component of the architecture of the Government of Wales Act that there was no suggestion that there would be under that transfer of functions any transfer of powers that resided elsewhere than with the Minister, and certainly no transfer of powers that resided with this Parliament under that order. That would have carried the Henry VIII principles far further than even Ministers in their most daring moments were willing to take them under that transfer of functions order.
      There is a large range of powers relating to water residing with Ministers. They are well covered, if not completely, in the descriptions of all the powers that are to be transferred under the order in relation to the Water Industry Act 1991 and its sequels and accompaniments. Every one of those powers is, as it should be, a power currently with the Minister. There is no suggestion anywhere of the transfer of anything other than a power that resides with the Minister.
      Unfortunately, the power that is the subject of the new clause—this takes us back to section 61 of the Water Industry Act 1991—is not the main power; it is not a power of the Minister—it is the power of the water undertakings to disconnect. The new clause would do something wholly outwith the spirit of the Government of Wales Act. It would arrange things so that the Welsh Assembly was able to legislate on a power that belongs to a third party. It would achieve that effect in another piece of legislation taken through this Parliament and not in the transfer of functions order.
      There are three reasons why that is of the greatest possible constitutional significance. First, there is what we can properly describe only as the ratchet effect. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will not disagree with this part of my analysis, though he will certainly disagree with my conclusion. It is fair to say that although this is hardly a packed Chamber, even some Labour Members present would have been extremely disheartened if anyone had suggested that the Bill and the new clause would be used as a method of doing the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do—that is to diminish rather than augment the powers of the Welsh Assembly. Had that been proposed by myself or my hon. Friends this evening, the hon. Gentleman would rapidly have left his place and shot off to the nearest porthole of the BBC or its Welsh equivalent to start broadcasting vehemently about the appalling attack on everything that matters in the world being perpetrated by Members who were suggesting a diminution of the powers of the Welsh Assembly.
      However, not many days—certainly not many weeks or months—after the passage of the Government of Wales Act, we find the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his entire parliamentary party coming forward with a new clause that significantly augments the powers of the Welsh Assembly. I prophesy—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not mind my so doing—that this will not be the last such attempt. I rather think that for as long as they, with their eloquence and persistence, hold their seats in this place, and for as long as the Government bring forward legislation that includes the words "England and Wales", we shall see on almost every occasion amendments brought forward to augment the powers of the Welsh Assembly in respect of a wide range of legislation.

      389
      The new clause is just the first example. That is why I am strongly labouring the point that it is a ratchet. We shall never be allowed to get away with proposing any diminution, in any other legislation, of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. However, if we are not careful, we shall see before us dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments to every form of legislation seeking insidiously to increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly.
      8.15 pm
      That is not anything that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be ashamed of doing. On the contrary, it is part of their programme. I fully accept that. However, it is important that the House recognises how radical a proposal that is, and that tonight it sets a precedent—I hope very much that my remarks will have the support of Ministers—by refusing to be a party to that sort of ratchet.
      If the new clause is pressed to a Division, and if, by any strange mischance, Ministers should find themselves and their colleagues in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his colleagues, Ministers will have fulfilled in the most unfortunate fashion that dreadful phrase that the former Secretary of State for Wales used when we discussed these matters on Second Reading and in Committee on the Bill that became the Government of Wales Act. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) used to say that devolution was not an end point but a process. In the circumstances that I have described, it will become a process—[Interruption.] I rather thought that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his hon. Friends would not object to that. It will become a process that will lead us ineluctably to the very point that the hon. Gentleman lightly animadverted to when he said—I think that I paraphrase him accurately enough—that in due course, almost inevitably, there will be legislative powers to transfer legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly.
      Apart from the ratchet effect, the second reason why I think that it is of the greatest importance that the House pays serious attention to the new clause, and why I think that it is of the greatest importance that the House rejects it, is that the new clause, if it were accepted, would drive a coach and horses through the very mechanism which the Government of Wales Act sets up and which the Government believe that they have had established in order to get a grip from Westminster over affairs in Wales.
      There is a reason why the transfer of functions order is as it is. There is a reason why it is not cast in a way that mirrors the new clause. The text of the new clause says nothing about transferring functions. Instead, it states:
      "The National Assembly for Wales shall … consider the provisions of this Act and make decisions".
      What relationship does that set up between the House and the National Assembly for Wales? It is a relationship of advice on the part of the House and consideration and decision on the part of the Welsh Assembly. By contrast, the transfer of functions order allows the House to allow a Minister to transfer some Executive authority from himself to another body. These are wholly different constitutional relationships.
      The attempt behind the structure and architecture of the Government of Wales Act was to give Ministers a grip on what was transferred and hence to create a natural
      390
      obstacle to the ratchet effect by ensuring that no new powers would be automatically transferred and that no new scope would be given to the Welsh Assembly, whereas the new clause would obviously militate in exactly the opposite direction. If it were mirrored in a series of subsequent pieces of legislation, the National Assembly for Wales would gradually acquire the powers to consider the provisions of a range of English and Welsh Acts and to decide whether it would implement them. At that point, the distinction between a secondary legislative body and a primary legislative body would have virtually disappeared. That is, of course, the modest intent of the hon. Member for Ceredigion.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, accept that the Welsh Assembly will have the power to change primary legislation with regard to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1997 and some other Acts associated with that.
      Mr. Letwin: I regret to say that, not surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman is right. I and various of my hon. Friends lamented that at an earlier stage, but you will tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not an appropriate matter for us to consider tonight.
      There is no doubt that precedents are already established, but they are strictly limited. The new clause would greatly extend the scope of those precedents and carry them into legislation other than the Government of Wales Act 1998. There is no doubt what that programme is—I would say "game", but it is in deadly earnest; it is a serious constitutional programme.
      The Welsh nationalists are attempting to use the new clause as the basis for getting to the point where the Welsh Assembly becomes de facto a primary legislative body. Unless Ministers were willing, as we would be if the motion were pressed to a Division, to state clearly that that is unacceptable, they would be driving a coach and horses through the structure of their own Government of Wales Act.
      There is a third point. This is a question not merely about the form of what is being done, but about the scope. In new clause 1, it is suggested that the Welsh Assembly should have the power to consider, first, whether the provisions of an English and Welsh Act should apply, and secondly, whether to substitute different provisions. The substitution of different provisions carries us a stage beyond what I have described—not simply into a matter of form, but into a matter of substance.
      The new clause, surprisingly, is a new constitution for Wales in the making. It gives the Welsh Assembly directly, in UK law, the ability to make law. At that point, the distinction between primary and secondary legislation disappears. It is a remarkably cunningly drafted clause. It has been drafted in such a way that as the ratchet effect occurs and as such a provision is introduced for Bill after Bill, a new constitution will have been made without ever having been discussed or declared. Quite apart from whether the Welsh people want a primary legislative body in Wales—they were never asked—that is no way for a constitution to be made. That is my third point.
      Even if it were right that the Welsh Assembly should have the power to consider and decide on the provisions of the Act, and even if it were right that it should, in general, have the power to substitute for Acts new

      391
      de facto primary legislation, it would not be right that that should be introduced in this manner. It should be introduced only after mature consideration, possibly with a referendum and certainly with a White Paper and a great deal of debate and discussion.
      The third reason that Ministers would be acting wrongly if they had the slightest inclination to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his colleagues is that they would be admitting that it was proper to introduce such constitutional change on the sly.
      Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a powerful constitutional point. Has he considered the practical question of what would happen if Welsh Water, by this means, charged or applied regulations differently in Wales and in the large area around Bristol that it supplies? For example, Welsh Water could use the council tax in Wales, but would still have to use the rateable values in Bristol and elsewhere.
      Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right. That brings us to the question of the borders. I treat the subject with some hesitation because there are hon. Members present who remember that it was not my most glorious moment when I mistook the location of certain schools. That was due to a postal address confusion. That episode, shameful as it was in my case, illustrated all too clearly the very problems to which my hon. Friend refers.
      There are issues of great complexity that relate to the borders, and problems might arise in practice if the new clause were enacted and if, as a result of its enactment, the Welsh Assembly decided to take steps that led to Welsh Water behaving quite differently from the English undertakings.
      There is nothing in the new clause—this is what is so remarkable about it—that substantively causes that problem. The clause is drafted in a constitutional spirit. It says nothing about the outcome or about what the Welsh Assembly should or would decide. The hon. Member for Ceredigion made that clear. It is, so to speak, a permissive clause. It is, in other words, a transfer of powers.
      The new clause is a constitutional clause. It is intended to be that and has been drafted well. Unfortunately, it has none of the surroundings that would make it legitimate. If the House has any purpose—especially at 8.26 on an evening when it is hardly full—it is to bring to light the fact that something is being done that has consequences far beyond the apparently modest intent of the clause.
      I apologise to the House for having laboured the point. I know that some hon. Members present would have wished me to be more concise or to say nothing. However, it is of the utmost importance that these matters be put on record. I hope that we will hear from Labour Members who share the constitutional concerns that I have expressed—I see some of them in their places. I hope that it will be established that those concerns are not merely the concerns of the Opposition, but are widely shared in the House.
      I hope that when subsequent Bills are considered, and similar clauses are moved, people will be able to point back to the debate tonight as proof that we were awake and alive to the problems, and that we understood the implications, rejected them and set no such precedent.
      I look forward to hearing from the Minister how much he agrees with everything that I have said and how strongly he will move his colleagues into the No Lobby
      392
      if there is a Division. If that occurs, we can let the Government off the hook of any complicity in this gunpowder plot, little and delightful as it may appear to be.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall be brief, but I shall make some fundamental points. We Liberal Democrats support new clause 1, which would restrict sections 1 to 11 and 16 and 17 to England, and determine that such a decision should be in the ambit of the Welsh Assembly.
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Mr. Livsey: I have just started my speech. I will give way at an appropriate moment. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that this would occur in Bill after Bill. We are considering the Water Industry Bill. He said that arrangements in England and Wales had to be virtually the same, but we have our own water company—Dwr Cymru or Welsh Water—which already behaves differently. It prefers to run a charging policy based on rateable value. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, we want such flexibility because it might, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said, be based on council tax banding, for example. In short, it might be more appropriate.
      8.30 pm
      That brings me to the subject of metering. Welsh Water would prefer to stick with the rateable value. I believe that it is open-minded about the council tax banding issue. But because Wales requires a huge water pipe infrastructure, because the sparsity of population in many places requires miles and miles of piping, different circumstances obtain in Wales.
      New clause 1 says that the Welsh Assembly should have an input into how the matter is proceeded with. I am a keen fisherman, and the issues of compensatory flow, for example, in Welsh rivers, and the abstraction of water from rivers in different places, are important. I have asked many questions in the past about whether compensatory flow is adequate in certain circumstances to sustain the ecology, the fish population and many other matters. Sometimes we must look carefully to see whether rules exist.
      As the hon. Member for West Dorset knows full well, there is a precedent. The Government of Wales Act 1998 acknowledges, for example, that if reservoirs are constructed in Wales the Welsh Assembly should be consulted as to their acceptability.
      Mr. Letwin: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be embarking on a speech even more profoundly inclined to make people sleep than mine, but will he keep the House awake an instant further and tell us whether it is Liberal Democrat policy that a precedent should be set in this case permitting the constitutional transfer of powers—legislative powers—from this House to the Welsh Assembly; or is he merely making the point about this Bill, and is willing to state that it is not his party's policy to allow such a precedent to be set?
      Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Liberal Democrats are federalists and believe that decision

      393
      making should occur at the appropriate level in the Government of the United Kingdom. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman will admit that water, Wales's greatest natural resource, is an important issue to the Members of the Welsh Assembly. They will want to contribute to and influence policy on, for example, water regulations. Water is a politically sensitive issue in Wales, of which the House is surely aware. New clause 1 is a way of satisfying the needs and circumstances of Wales where they differ from those of England.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I beg him to answer the question, which is perfectly fair and clear. Is he trying to establish a precedent, or does he think that this is a one-off measure which should not be regarded as a precedent?
      Mr. Livsey: I do not wish to extend my speech to the length of the hon. Gentleman's. I merely say that we are discussing the Water Industry Bill and I am addressing—
      Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Livsey: No, I shall not give way now.
      We are specifically debating the Water Industry Bill. The hon. Member for West Dorset led me on to other paths, to which I have referred. If the hon. Gentleman insists that we have no influence in Wales on policy governing our greatest natural resource, that is an extreme view indeed.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: New clause 1, proposed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), effectively allows the National Assembly for Wales to pass its own water industry Acts, amending or undoing all the provisions in the Bill which apply to England and Wales. Effectively, the hon. Gentleman wishes to redraft not the Bill, but the Government of Wales Act. I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman would wish to do that. I understand his motivation. I can well understand that many of his constituents who voted for him would sympathise with him.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued at length that this is a major constitutional step and that the real argument is about the Government of Wales Act. I can understand why Plaid Cymru wishes to raise the matter, but I cannot understand why the Tory party wishes to go through the devolution argument at such length on a Bill concerned with the management of water.
      However, the House is well aware that the Assembly will not be empowered to pass primary legislation. The new clause goes well beyond the powers given to the Welsh Assembly in the Government of Wales Act. That Bill allows the Assembly to work within a framework of primary legislation which has been passed here. Thus each Bill needs to reflect the role and status of the Assembly in Wales, and to give it the necessary powers to reflect the needs of Wales. In this case, we believe that we have done so.
      The Bill provides for the industry in England and Wales to operate within a consistent charging framework, providing consistent protection against disconnection and giving the same rights to customers.
      394
      At the same time, the Assembly will have significant powers in this area. We propose that the Secretary of State's powers in clauses 4 and 5 should transfer to the Assembly in respect of water undertakers operating wholly or mainly in Wales—currently Dwr Cymru and Dee Valley Water.
      The Assembly's powers include the power to give its own guidance to the Director General of Water Services in approving water undertakers' charges schemes. The director general must have regard to such guidance. They also include the power to make regulations concerning charges schemes.
      Those regulations may cover, for example, items for which water consumers do or do not have to pay; the way in which charges are calculated and on what basis; alternative methods of charging, which should be made available to customers; a requirement for special provision to be made to assist those whom the Assembly considers to need special protection; and the criteria for entitlement to special provision and the means to establish it. Thus there are powers within the Bill to allow the Welsh Assembly to reflect the different needs of Wales in the management of water resources.
      Mr. Dafis: I ask for clarification; it is better to have it at this stage than later. Is the Minister saying that the Assembly could ensure that a charging policy significantly different from that in England might be pursued in Wales? May we in Wales not implement any proposal that would encourage and facilitate the slide towards metering? Could the Assembly ensure that we move towards a fair system of charging, based on council tax banding, for example? Is he saying that the Assembly would be able to ensure such an outcome?
      Mr. Jones: The Government are still open to considering whether we should move towards a charging system based on council tax banding, but the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Bill allows for free metering to be established on both sides of the border. I am surprised that he would want Welsh consumers not to have the right that would apply on the other side of the border. I realise that his constituency of Ceredigion is not that close to the border, and he might feel a bit more wary about presenting such a policy were he representing a constituency such as Brecon and Radnorshire. Clearly, Plaid Cymru's ambitions do not extend much further east than the Cambrian mountains.
      We consider that—
      Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman had sufficient time to make his contribution, but I will give way.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My question is purely for clarification. Before he took the intervention from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), was the Minister referring to clause 5 and the powers of the Secretary of State by regulations to make provisions for charging? Does he accept that any such transfer would of course be by a transfer of functions order or by the enlargement of the draft transfer of functions order?
      Mr. Jones: As I understand it, there are powers that would allow the Welsh Assembly to make different provision for charging procedures within Wales.

      395
      We consider that these powers represent a significant and appropriate transfer of responsibilities, complementing the many other responsibilities relating to the water industry which the Assembly will inherit. In the light of that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Burns: I had not intended to make a speech at this stage, but the Minister said something so fundamental that it is important to clear the matter up now, so that we are under no misapprehensions as to what he said.
      I understood from our debate in Committee that clause 5 and the words
      "the Secretary of State by regulations"
      apply to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that he, within the ambit of the Bill, will make the regulations and give the instructions to the regulator. It never occurred to me during those debates that there was any intention to transfer those powers to the Secretary of State for Wales or any other individual.
      I would appreciate it if the junior Minister intervened to settle the matter, on a point of information. He will agree, in the light of our debate, that the matter is very important.
      Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: I will, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
      Mr. Rowlands: Through the hon. Gentleman, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether some of these issues will be the subject of a concordat?
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Through me, he invited the Minister to reply. I should be grateful if the Minister replied to my point and then dealt with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I ask the Minister to clear this point up, so that there can be no mistake and no misunderstanding. Will he clarify the reference in clause 5 to "the Secretary of State"? Which Secretary of State is referred to? Are there any proposals to transfer the powers in clause 5 to the Secretary of State for Wales? That is an urgent and important point for the Assembly.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: So that there will be no misunderstanding, I should say that the powers to be transferred will be only secondary powers and powers of the Secretary of State to give guidance. No powers to make or set aside primary legislation will be transferred.
      Mr. Burns: Is the Minister saying that, for Wales, there will be a transfer of functions from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Secretary of State for Wales?
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones indicated dissent.
      Mr. Burns: Will the Minister clarify?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Interventions should come voluntarily: in the other direction, as it were. The hon. Gentleman makes matters untidy by inviting interventions. He should make his point so that we can get on with the business.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that that is untidy, but the Minister unexpectedly made some comments that made the whole subject somewhat untidy and confusing. I thought that the easiest way to tidy it up would be to take that slightly unconventional approach. However, I fully accept your ruling.
      Obviously, we will read Hansard extremely carefully tomorrow morning because a potential problem has unexpectedly arisen with regard to the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State. The problem may not exist and if we can clear that matter up, it will put all our minds at rest.
      Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring this debate to an end. I had not realised what a constitutional can of worms I was opening in moving the new clause. My intention was much more modest than that for which the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gives me credit. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman regards with horror the idea that Wales should be allowed to evolve, for example, its own charging policy. He seems to think it an awful prospect that Wales should be allowed to develop different policies of that sort.
      Such a decision could be important if the Assembly is, for example, to deliver its social justice agenda. For example, it is important for the Assembly to be able to consider what charging policy is likely to be equitable and to favour low-income families who have high water demands—of course within the context of environmental sustainability.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who gives way with his customary courtesy. I want to clarify that I do not view with any horror the making of regulations by the Welsh Assembly, under a transfer of functions order, when, under clause 5 of the Bill, a Secretary of State here would be given that power. That is entirely within the spirit of the Government of Wales Act 1998. I regard with horror the hon. Gentleman's new clause, which goes far beyond that in its constitutional intent.
      Mr. Dafis: If the Government were prepared to table an amendment to achieve what I am trying to achieve in my new clause, but in a less constitutionally earth-shaking manner, I should be happy to hear about it from the Under-Secretary of State. It is terribly important for the Assembly to be able to deliver its own agenda on an issue of this sort.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset said that the Government of Wales Act gave Ministers a "grip"—I did not particularly like the metaphor—on the situation and that he wanted them to retain that grip and not let the Assembly gradually slide into acquiring greater powers and discretion. He spoke at length about transfer of functions and so forth. It was not my understanding that

      397
      my new clause recommended any transfer as such. I was looking for a mechanism to allow the Assembly latitude to work within the functions that it already has. If that cannot be achieved without a transfer of functions, then the case for such a transfer is obviously strengthened. I make no secret of the fact that I want such a transfer.
      It is important to understand that the agenda for the next five years is to establish a useful working relationship between the Assembly and this place to enable devolution to be a success. In its first stages, that will involve give and take on both sides. It involves designing and drafting legislation—without transferring functions—that will enable the Assembly to have as much discretion as possible. It should have considerable discretion in education and other policy areas.
      Mr. Rowlands: That was the whole concept of concordats. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about that?
      Mr. Dafis: Yes, I have, but I will not pursue that issue in detail at this stage, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
      Legislation should be designed in such a way as to give the Assembly maximum latitude and flexibility. I listened carefully to Minister, because I was hoping to have absolute clarification. I asked him whether the Assembly could ensure a distinct charging policy in Wales. I got the impression that that was not the case, and that that could not be done satisfactorily. If it is not the case, I am not satisfied.
      Mr. Letwin: I admire the hon. Gentleman's interpretive and exegetical skills. I was wholly unable to discern any clear meaning in what the Minister said. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would invite the Minister—if your patience would allow, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to clarify what on earth he was on about.
      Mr. Dafis: If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall allow him to do so. I shall not urge him to intervene, however, given what Mr. Deputy Speaker has said.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If it helps the House, I shall reiterate that clause 5 refers to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State is a single entity. The Government of Wales Act 1998 transfers the powers of the Secretary of State to the Welsh Assembly. The National Assembly will have the regulation-making powers in clause 5.
      Mr, Dafis: Right then, I have a further question. Will the Assembly be able to depart from the provisions in the Bill to facilitate metering? I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of metering, but will the Assembly be able not to allow free metering and the right to revoke the arrangement after a year? It is important to have that power. I do not want more and more metering to be encouraged, because the price that those who are not on meters would have to pay would put them at a disadvantage. That would be a regressive social policy.
      My understanding is that such latitude would not be available to the Assembly. I am therefore unable to withdraw the motion, and we shall force it to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 313.

      Division No. 64]

      [8.53 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Livsey, Richard

      Beggs, Roy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Moore, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Oaten, Mark

      Brake, Tom

      Öpik, Lembit

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Chidgey, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cotter, Brian

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Stunell, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Wallace, James

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Webb, Steve

      Feam, Ronnie

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Donald Gorrie and.

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Austin, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Bayley, Hugh

      Colvin, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Connarty, Michael

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Benton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Crausby, David

      Berry, Roger

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Best, Harold

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Betts, Clive

      Cummings, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Borrow, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Browne, Desmond

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burden, Richard

      Denham, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Burns, Simon

      Dobbin, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Doran, Frank

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dowd, Jim

      Canavan, Dennis

      Drew, David

      Cann, Jamie

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Edwards, Huw

      Chaytor, David

      Efford, Clive

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Clapham, Michael

      Ennis, Jeff

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Etherington, Bill

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Fisher, Mark

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      399

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flint, Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul

      Livingstone, Ken

      Follett, Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McAllion, John

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Galloway, George

      McCabe, Steve

      Gapes, Mike

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gray, James

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grogan, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Gunnell, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Maxton, John

      Healey, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Meale, Alan

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Heppell, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mitchell, Austin

      Home Robertson, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hope, Phil

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hurst, Alan

      Norris, Dan

      Hutton, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jenkins, Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Pickthall, Colin

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Pound, Stephen

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prior, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Radice, Giles

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rapson, Syd

      Khabra, Piara S

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kidney, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rooney, Terry

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rowlands, Ted

      Laxton, Bob

      Roy, Frank

      Leigh, Edward

      Ruane, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Letwin, Oliver

      Ruffley, David

      Levitt, Tom

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      400

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Salter, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Todd, Mark

      Sawford, Phil

      Touhig, Don

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Trickett, Jon

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Truswell, Paul

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Watts, David

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wilkinson, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wilshire, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stevenson, George

      Wise, Audrey

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wood, Mike

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wray, James

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mr. David Hanson and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      DISCONNECTION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHARGES
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'excluded premises' and insert
      'any premises specified in Schedule 4A to this Act'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 32.
      No. 13, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) a children's home within the meaning of the Children Act 1989.'.

      No. 14, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) a nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984.'.

      No. 15, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) a premises dedicated to further education within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.

      No. 16, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) a premises dedicated to higher education within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.

      401
      No. 17, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) residential care homes as defined under the Registered Homes Act 1984.'.

      No. 18, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) local authority residential care homes as defined under the National Assistance Act 1948'.'.

      No. 19, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) dwelling—houses for persons of pensionable age (sheltered accommodation) as defined under the Housing Act 1985.'.

      No. 20, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) halls and accommodation for students owned by a university as defined under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.'.

      No. 21, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) prisons for the purposes of the Prison Act 1952.'.

      No. 22, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) daycare centres as defined under the Children Act 1989.'.

      No. 23, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) business premises occupied by doctors as defined under the Medical Act 1983.'.

      No. 24, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
      'or

      (d) business premises occupied by dentists as defined under the Dentists Act 1984.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
      Government manuscript amendment.
      Government amendment No. 35.
      Government new schedule 1—Premises that are not to be disconnected for non-payment of charges.
      Mr. Meacher: I shall speak to all the Government amendments—Nos. 31 to 35, the manuscript amendment and new schedule 1—as they are all essentially part of the same package. They also deal with the substance of the Opposition amendments Nos. 13 to 24, so my remarks will address each of the premises described in those amendments. The Government manuscript amendment, which deals with a minor and consequential matter, should be made at the same time as the other, substantive Government amendments, and, with the leave of the House, I should like to make that correction at the first opportunity, rather than leaving it to be dealt with in another place.
      In Committee, we had a lengthy debate about the extent of protection against disconnection. Our main focus has been to protect household customers, so that vulnerable families and individuals do not face the possibility of being deprived of water, which is harmful to their well-being and damaging to public health. The Government are determined to improve the health of the nation, and this measure will play a part in that overall strategy.
      402
      We recognise that premises other than households also fully deserve extra protection from disconnection and the use of limiting devices to enforce payment. Depriving such premises of their water supply could be harmful to particularly vulnerable groups that are of concern to society as a whole or to essential services. It is obvious that schools and hospitals fall into that category, so we have ensured that such premises could not be faced with the threat of disconnection.
      In debate, the case was put for extending protection to a further range of premises that also provide important services to the community. I agreed that I would carefully and sympathetically consider such cases and would be prepared to table amendments to the Bill to ensure that, where it was necessary for good social reasons, protection would be offered against disconnection and the use of limiting devices, such as trickle valves, to enforce payment. We have done that in amendments Nos. 31 to 35, new schedule 1 and the manuscript amendment, which would offer extended protection, notably in medical care, personal care and education.
      I shall briefly spell out the implications of that wide set of proposed changes. First, on medical premises, we propose to prevent disconnection for non-payment by nursing homes and mental nursing homes; premises used by registered medical practitioners and dentists; premises used as a pilot scheme for primary care under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; ambulance services and other emergency services.
      Much nursing care is provided in hospitals, as they are described in section 11 of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984. A relatively small number of premises fall outside that definition but offer vital nursing care to those who are mentally or physically ill. Those nursing homes provide care for vulnerable members of society and the Government consider that it is right to prevent such patients from being put at risk from the threat of disconnection of the water supply for non-payment of bills.
      We have also considered carefully the case for extending protection to premises used by doctors and dentists. They do not, of course, provide the same degree of residential care as hospitals or nursing homes. However, they can and do provide an essential level of front-line care, and they do carry out a technically important role in the community. Primary care services play a vital role in protecting and improving the nation's health. On balance, therefore, we think that the case has been made for the protection of such premises against disconnection for non-payment of bills.
      For similar reasons, we propose to extend protection also to surgeries—not necessarily headed by general practitioners—under the primary care pilot scheme.
      The ambulance service represents a further crucial component of medical care, particularly in emergency cases. Disconnection of premises at which the ambulance service is based could lead to deterioration in service or in response times, which could put members of the public in danger. I should be the first to recognise that the ambulance service is not the only service which saves lives and protects the public in emergency situations, as

      403
      the same is true of police and fire services. We therefore propose to extend protection against disconnection to ambulance services, police forces and fire brigades.
      Mr. Gray rose—
      Mr. Meacher: I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is always diligent.
      Mr. Gray: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his compliment—I am as diligent as I possibly can be in the circumstances. Perhaps he will enlighten the House by explaining the circumstances in which fire, police or ambulance services could be disconnected. Is the provision not a worthless act? Moreover, he has exempted only premises occupied by the fire brigade but not, so far as I am able to tell from reading the Bill, fire hydrants. Therefore, if the fire service fails to pay its bill, is it not possible that, when it turns up at a fire, it will discover that the fire hydrant has been turned off?
      Mr. Meacher: The issue of fire hydrants—their availability and usability—is covered by other Acts of Parliament.
      Mr. Gray: What about this Bill?
      Mr. Meacher: In this Bill, we are dealing with whether there should be protection from disconnection because of non-payment of bills. We are simply proposing that, in the case of all front-line emergency services, there should not be any risk of disconnection for non-payment. As I said many times when we were discussing the issue in Committee, in my view, the likelihood of such disconnections occurring in the case of the public services that we are talking about—the police service or the fire brigade—is exceedingly unlikely. The history of the past 10 years shows that the number of times on which there have been disconnections in such cases is virtually zero.
      Nevertheless, taking the spirit of what was pressed on me in Committee, I want there to be absolutely no risk that those who could be endangered because of disconnection will be so endangered. It is for that reason that I have now erred on the side of including all institutions that could in any way cause difficulties to members of the public in emergency situations or to those who are vulnerable, disabled or ill. They should be fully protected.
      Mr. Gray: The Minister is, of course, right to say that there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which premises occupied by the fire brigade would be disconnected. Equally, there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which a fire hydrant would be disconnected. The nature of my earlier intervention was therefore to ask why he has decided to specify that the premises occupied by the fire brigade will not be disconnected but omitted to specify that fire hydrants will not be disconnected. My reading of the provision is that if the fire service fails to pay its water bill because of some clerical error, although the fire headquarters will not be disconnected, it is perfectly possible that hydrants in the street will be disconnected. Will he correct my misapprehension—if that is what it is?
      Mr. Meacher: The implication of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that every building—including
      404
      every private sector building and every commercial building—with a fire hydrant should be protected against disconnection for non-payment. That goes a great deal further even than the latitude that I have been prepared to allow. In respect of non-household premises, we believe that water companies should have the right to disconnect on the basis of non-payment. The only cases where I am prepared to consider protection is where members of the public who are vulnerable or in an emergency situation could be disadvantaged or endangered. I am not prepared to go beyond that principle.
      9.15 pm
      I wish to refer to premises providing personal care. In this area, very strong arguments have made for protecting children's homes. I have made clear the importance that we attach to protecting children, and propose to prohibit the disconnection of children's homes. As some hon. Members may be aware, there are processes for local authorities to remove children from homes that do not provide an acceptable level of care. A home which could not provide children with water would clearly be failing in this respect. That provides considerable assurance that these vulnerable members of our society will not have to suffer the consequences of disconnection.
      I am erring on the side of caution, but there are no absolute guarantees that the relevant local authority would become aware immediately that a home had had its water supply disconnected. I therefore consider that it is right to extend protection in this way to provide full assurance on this point to children living in children's homes.
      On due reflection, we propose also to extend protection to residential care homes. By prohibiting disconnection of nursing homes, we shall protect those receiving nursing care. However, there is a wider group of vulnerable people who need the board and personal care provided by residential care homes. These include residents of homes for older people and, for example, residential premises providing personal care for people with learning disabilities.
      There is a process of registration for residential care homes provided by the private sector, similar to that for children's homes. That provides considerable assurance that residents will not experience deprivation where homes fail to secure a supply a water because they would be deregistered. However, for exactly the same reasons that I have outlined, we think that it is right to provide the added reassurance by prohibiting disconnection of such premises.
      I refer now to prisons and immigration detention centres. This further category of accommodation was brought to my attention in Committee. Prisoners do not automatically spring to mind as those among the most vulnerable in society. However, they do not have a choice in where they reside. [Laughter.] We hope that that continues to be the case. A significant proportion of the prison population could be affected if one prison had its water disconnected, requiring the transfer of inmates to other establishments.
      I can, therefore, see that there is a legitimate case for protecting such premises. The amendment therefore prohibits disconnection for the non-payment of bills for prisons, remand centres, young offender institutions and secure training centres. For the same reasons, protection will be extended to immigration detention centres.

      405
      I wish to refer to education and children's day care. In education, we propose to protect premises used for children's day care and premises used for further and higher education—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Schools, where attendance is compulsory, are already protected under the Bill. However, the Government are not focusing our efforts only on children of compulsory school age. The national child care strategy recognises that pre-school provision can have a major influence on children's development through their school years and beyond. Day care centres do not involve compulsory attendance, but we think that the case is made for extending protection in such cases, to ensure that children have appropriate facilities.
      At the other end of the spectrum, further and higher education premises also do not involve compulsory attendance, but it would cause substantial upheaval if they became victims of disconnection through no fault of their own so, on balance, we support the prohibition of disconnection for such establishments, including student halls of residence.
      Mr. Burns: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Meacher: Compared with his continual interventions in Committee, the hon. Gentleman's abstinence has been remarkable, so I am glad to give way.
      Mr. Burns: I cannot remember from our discussions in Committee whether the definition of schools includes boarding schools.
      Mr. Meacher: It includes boarding schools and schools in both the public and the private sector. We have made no distinction.
      I want to add, for the sake of completeness, that I made two important commitments on the clause in Committee. I assured the Committee that the Government would not allow sheltered housing for the elderly to be disconnected and I said that we wanted to protect tenants in bedsits. I want to confirm that the amendments that we have proposed would indeed cover those properties. In line with our general approach on dwellings, disconnection of such premises will not be permitted in the case of properties that are someone's only or principal home.
      We have taken the considered view, following the line of argument so eloquently and determinedly put to me in Committee, that we should provide for increased protection against disconnection and against the use of limiting devices to enforce payment, but I am sure that the House will recognise that our proposals continue to be carefully targeted on homes and premises that provide a vital role in the community.
      We do not seek to inhibit the operations of water companies more than is necessary to meet the key welfare concerns that have been raised. Water companies in England and Wales will still have the ability to disconnect the vast majority of non-household premises for failure to pay bills. We still think that that is right.
      In providing protection against disconnection, we have looked at the purpose of specific premises. We have not discriminated between the private and public sector
      406
      bodies, or charitable organisations, that provide those key services. The Government have emphasised the importance that we attach to the prompt payment of bills for Departments and public sector bodies.
      I do not expect that there will be any adverse impact on water companies' income as a result of the measures, despite the long list of exemptions and protections, but the proposals in the Government amendments are designed to provide absolute assurance to members of the public who may be adversely affected as a result of disconnection and to ensure that, in cases in which we believe as a matter of principle that it is right to protect against disconnection, appropriate measures are put in place.
      I hope that I have listened attentively to all that was pressed on me and that I have responded positively and met the will of the House.
      Mr. Burns: It is an especial pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman. A significant number of amendments were tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends after our discussions in Committee. The Minister generously said in Committee that he would reflect on the points made by Opposition Members on a range of matters.
      If I remember rightly, it was two days ago that the Government tabled the new schedule and the ancillary amendments which, because of the procedures of the House, effectively leapfrogged the amendments tabled by the Conservative party, which urged the Government to adopt this point of view.
      I must confess that when the Bill was first published and when we were studying it in the run-up to Second Reading and the Committee stage, we were puzzled not only that the Government had specified in clause 1 that the Bill would apply to domestic dwellings that were the prime residence of individuals, but that it would apply to two other categories—schools and hospitals.
      As the Minister rightly said in Committee, no school or hospital has had its water supply disconnected because of non-payment of bills. We would all be extremely surprised if that had been the case. Nevertheless, the Government felt that it was important that these two types of institutions should be specified in the Bill so that there could be no confusion about the Government's intention.
      We were genuinely puzzled that the Government should restrict the specified bodies to the two types in question, important though they are. On reflection, we came to believe that there were several other equally important types of institution which, were the water to be disconnected because of non-payment, could cause serious public health risks and other problems. Given that the Government had conceded the point by specifying hospitals and schools, we felt that it was important that, for example, children's homes and registered homes for the elderly should also be mentioned.
      Some of the most frail and vulnerable members of society live in registered homes. By definition, they are not responsible for payment of the water bills, but they could be adversely affected if the owners of residential homes, or those responsible for running those homes, omitted to pay the bills, because of irresponsibility, a genuine mishap or forgetfulness.
      Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that our bewilderment about schools and hospitals being specified in the Bill remains, as there is absolutely no purpose to

      407
      the provision? Does he further agree that the categories set out in the new schedule and, indeed, in our amendments are perhaps much more worthwhile on the ground that there is a greater likelihood of, for example, a privately run care home omitting to pay the bill and being disconnected? There is a curious conundrum in the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Burns: I understand what my hon. Friend says. This is not a criticism, but one can get into difficulty if one starts to differentiate between various organisations on the ground of their supposed importance. However, my hon. Friend's point, which is 100 per cent. valid, is that experience shows that no school or hospital has ever been disconnected because of non-payment of its water bills, or of its water rates under the old system. However, as my hon. Friend correctly identified, there is a greater possibility of someone running, for example, a residential home for the elderly not paying the bill, because of forgetfulness or, in an extreme case, negligence. Prior to the Bill, that failure could potentially have led to the disconnection of the water supply.
      I am grateful that the Minister has been prepared to listen to the arguments deployed in Committee and is prepared to include in the new schedule institutions of further and higher education—universities, colleges and their halls of residence.
      9.30 pm
      Again, it is possible that there could be a problem with halls of residence, if not with the main buildings. However, responsibility under the Bill for halls of residence is restricted to established halls of residence on campus, run by the college or university concerned. It does not include any private, freelance arrangements that students might make to rent accommodation in the town or city. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that analysis is correct.
      We welcome the inclusion of nursing homes in the provision, and we tabled amendments in Committee to that end. I give credit to the Minister for including sheltered accommodation for elderly people. He did so without a fight, and it is a wise decision.
      In Committee, the Minister raised the question of prisons. As he said earlier, prisoners do not usually stay in prison by choice, although—sadly—a small minority probably do. It would be catastrophic if prisons were to have their water supply cut off, but I suspect that the chance of that happening is non-existent. However, it is sensible to adopt a belt-and-braces approach: it means that the Minister will not have to return for extra powers within days of the Bill reaching the statute book if—sod's law being what it is—a prison were to have its water supply cut off.
      Conservative Members pointed out in Committee—as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—that doctors and dentists desperately rely on water to carry out their professional functions. Again, it is possible that, through forgetfulness or inefficiency, a water supply could be disconnected for non-payment, and the difficulties would be especially acute for dentists. Some patients may need urgent treatment, and any delay or postponement would cause inconvenience.
      We tabled our amendments in Committee for those reasons, and we are grateful that the Minister was prepared to listen to our arguments. I do not mean to be
      408
      critical, but it is clear that, when the Bill was drafted, the Minister felt that it would be better if only a minimum number of categories were to be added to that of domestic dwellings.
      On reflection, on the basis of our arguments in Committee, the Minister has clearly been persuaded by the logic and compelling reasonableness of our suggestions. To be fair to the Minister, and to his credit, he has on certain issues—prisons and sheltered accommodation especially—been prepared to go further. He has not been constricted by the language of the civil service and has not taken a narrow and blinkered view. He has decided in one go to accept the arguments.
      Obviously, it would be churlish in the light of my remarks to say that the Opposition do not welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our amendments—albeit more finely drafted. The provisions have been more neatly encompassed in new schedule 1, rather than in a clumsy list in clause 1. I assure the Minister that, given that we are in total agreement on this issue, we shall not be opposing any Government amendment. In addition, for the obvious reason that the Government's drafting of amendments is superior, we shall not be pressing our amendments to a vote.
      Mr. Brian White: In view of the length of speeches, I shall be brief.
      I welcome the Government's amendments and the way in which they are designed to protect individuals. I thank the Minister for receiving representations from people who are part of the Anglian Water experiment in Milton Keynes and Wellingborough, and who feel that they will lose out as a result of the Bill. As customers of Anglian Water with pre-payment meters, they feel that the sanction of the limiting device is the only way in which they are able to budget successfully. They fear that the Bill when enacted will put them back on the slippery slope to a life of debt. The Bill does not address that.
      In Committee, the Minister said that if the Government could find alternative mechanisms that assisted budgeting and did not lead to disconnections, they would be prepared to consider them. However, he said that responsibility for that lay with the water companies. If we are serious about social exclusion, we must protect the people to whom I have referred and find ways of assisting them with budgeting.
      If research is left to water companies, it will be conducted for their benefit. Their finance systems and interests will dictate such research. The Government have a role to play in the research in order to protect the people who are concerned about losing out under the legislation. Although I accept that the provisions apply to a very small minority, I urge the Government to take part in the research, put their weight behind it and find alternative mechanisms that will help to deal with this small but vital area of social exclusion.
      Mr. Tom Brake: I should like to start by claiming a Liberal Democrat campaign success: Government new schedule 1. I was also very flattered to note that, in the past few days, the Conservatives have quite unashamedly retabled many of the Liberal Democrat amendments that were tabled on 15 December, in order to extend the list of excluded premises.
      Mr. Burns: Let me please clarify the situation. I know that the Liberal Democrats will be terribly upset about not

      409
      tabling any amendments on Report. I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that both his party and mine tabled amendments that were debated in Committee, and once the Committee reported and the Minister had given a commitment, it was open to both parties to retable them. We tabled all the amendments as soon as the Committee finished its sittings. The hon. Gentleman still has not done so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow a post mortem on who tabled what. We have amendments before us and we must discuss those amendments.
      Mr. Brake: It is a pity that the intervention was made. I simply respond by saying that Liberal Democrat Members favour a less tribal form of politics, and would certainly welcome a free and unfettered exchange of ideas, but would like to get the credit for it when appropriate.
      Although I welcome the new schedule, I am surprised that, when the Bill was being drafted—I understand that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has mentioned this—the Minister and his massed ranks of civil servants did not believe that it was appropriate to add to the list of exclusions other categories, such as sheltered accommodation, prisons, dentists, doctors, and so on. The Government have now done so, and I am pleased that they have done so; they have agreed to take our suggestions on board. I hope that, in future, attention will be paid to detail at the appropriate moment.
      I must also question the role of some of the Labour Back Benchers on the Committee, who remained silent almost throughout its consideration of the Bill. However, I give them the benefit of the doubt. They may have been twisting the Minister's arm behind closed doors, and it may be for that reason that some of the amendments have emerged tonight.
      Mr. Burns: I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not like confrontational politics.
      Mr. Brake: But I am about to finish on a positive note.
      In Committee, the Government would give no firm undertaking that they would support Liberal Democrat proposals to protect the groups that I have mentioned. I am very pleased that they have listened to our arguments, and to our concerns and those of Conservative Members. This is a refreshing and novel approach to government, and I would commend it to the House. We are very happy to support all the amendments in the group.
      Mr. Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), with whom I serve on the Select Committee on the Environment. He has an inexorable way of congratulating himself under all circumstances—he has that in common with the rest of his party. However, on this occasion, I am happy to congratulate him on the brevity of his remarks, if nothing else.
      I am also pleased to congratulate the Government who, I am glad to say, listened so carefully to what Her Majesty's Opposition said in Committee that they have tabled new schedule 1, which seems to incorporate all the powerful and passionate arguments that we advanced in
      410
      Committee. I only wish that, in some of the other Committees on which I serve, the Government were as ready to listen to the great sense and power of our advocacy as they appear to have been in this case.
      I have severe reservations about whether domestic disconnections should be outlawed. However, if they were outlawed, it would be absurd if some of these very noble and distinguished public organisations were none the less allowed to suffer from disconnections. Equally, it would be absurd if, although schools could not be disconnected, institutions of further and higher education could be; and if, although hospitals could not be disconnected, organisations such as nursing homes could be. I therefore welcome the inherent logic in the Government's accepting our amendments Nos. 13 to 24—or, rather, replacing them with new schedule 1. There is a great deal of logic and sense in that, and Conservative Members welcome the Government's sense in listening to what we said and, to a limited degree, to be fair, to what Liberal Democrat Members said on the subject.
      None the less, a huge absurdity underlies this debate. Several times in Committee, a certain phrase was used—the words escape my mind, but there was a definite absurdity in the way in which the debate took place, for the following reason. Of course those worthwhile organisations should not be disconnected, but there is no circumstance, and no one—in Committee, or in the Chamber tonight—has been able to outline any circumstance, under which any of those institutions would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a hospital would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a fire brigade—the headquarters or the fire hydrants—would be disconnected. None of the institutions listed in new schedule 1 has the remotest likelihood, under any circumstances, of being disconnected.
      There is a curious feel about the debate. We are legislating against something that could not possibly occur. It is a waste of a debate and of a new schedule. The initial exemption of schools and hospitals that led to the new schedule and the debate was in itself an absurdity.
      9.45 pm
      The second absurdity is that if we accept that there is no likelihood that the listed premises will be disconnected, but none the less the Government are to legislate against the possibility that that will happen—this may have more to do with Labour's determination to live with regulation and legislation bearing on every minute detail of our lives; it loves control from the centre and loves saying, "This is what you, the water companies, will do"—and if we assume that it is reasonable that they should do so, and that they should say that schools, hospitals and the other worthy bodies listed in new schedule 1 should not be disconnected, what is the position of all the premises that are not listed in the new schedule?
      For example, what is the position of Government offices? Under the Bill, it is possible that the Treasury or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, at its splendid new building opposite Victoria station, will be disconnected if an obscure civil servant somewhere on some occasion fails to pay the bill. Is that not ludicrous?
      Another example is barrack blocks. It is possible that soldiers in those blocks will be disconnected from a water supply because the Ministry of Defence has failed to pay

      411
      the bill. The Palace of Westminster is not exempt from disconnection. It is perfectly possible under the Bill that the Palace will be cut off and that the water that Ministers enjoy as they sit on the Treasury Bench will therefore not be available.
      Mr. Brake: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain to the House in what way hon. Members in the Palace of Westminster are a vulnerable group.
      Mr. Gray: On reflection, one or two Members on the Liberal Benches might fall into that category. Those with minute majorities may well be looking vulnerable in two or three years' time. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we are not vulnerable groups in proper terms. Nor, indeed, are many of the categories listed in the new schedule.
      My point—perhaps I have chosen a vaguely absurd way in which to make it—is that Her Majesty's Government pay hospitals' water bills, as they do for schools and for most of the categories listed in the new schedule. The only circumstances in which the bill would not be paid would be either if the Government chose not to do so—if, for example, the school or hospital had become roofless or disused—or if, through some minor inefficiency in the lower regions of whatever Department, a civil servant on some occasion forgot to pay the bill. Surely it is reasonable that in those circumstances, the water company would have the ultimate sanction of saying to the Government, "Look here, guys, you have not paid your bill; if you don't pay it we shall cut you off."
      It is absurd that under the new schedule, many Government organisations may not be cut off even if they do not pay their bills, while other perfectly worthwhile Government organisations, such as the Palace and Government Departments, could be disconnected.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that civil servants pay the water bills of hospitals and other such premises. It is the employees of the health boards who do that. There are certainly health boards that I am acquainted with which make a mess of their financial affairs and might well come unstuck in this context.
      Mr. Gray: I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. He is right in saying that, technically, it is not civil servants who pay the bills, although they are public servants. Perhaps that would be the more accurate expression. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is listening to me with such care as to spot the slight slip. I am happy to acknowledge his correcting it.
      These exceptions constitute an absurdity, as do the premises that are missing. The new schedule as a whole is not anything to do with real and important legislation; it is more to do with two other things. First, there is Labour's determination to limit, control and regulate every aspect of our lives. It is determined to write down in law the minutest detail of everyday life. When the Conservative Government introduced a voluntary code of conduct, we found that for many years, the water companies did not disconnect very many domestic customers. Far less have they disconnected any of the worthwhile bodies that are listed in the new schedule. A voluntary code of practice for the water companies has
      412
      worked perfectly adequately for many years, but the Government have now chosen to regulate through the new schedule.
      The second aspect of new Labour highlighted by the new schedule is its love of the politically correct. It is marvellous for Ministers to say, "We care greatly for vulnerable people. That is why we will exempt them from disconnections. It is the fat cats in the water industry—those disgraceful people who are earning large sums of money—who have been cutting off schools and hospitals. We, the caring new Labour Government, are determined to stop that scandalous activity."
      The truth is that no school and no hospital has ever been disconnected. No school and no hospital ever would be disconnected. A school or hospital would be disconnected only if it had failed to pay the bill.
      There are two aspects of new Labour that the new schedule and the amendments highlight. One is its determination to regulate, down to the minute detail of our everyday lives. The second is its determination to be seen to be kind and fair to the most vulnerable in our society. Who would not be? It is a waste of Government time, legislative time and the House's time to legislate against something that by no stretch of the imagination would ever happen.
      Mr. Meacher: I shall reply briefly, as there were two or three points on which I can give a factual response.
      I was asked about the application of protection from disconnection in respect of student lodgings. Halls of residence attached to places of further and higher education will be protected, as will bedsits which qualify as houses in multiple occupation, and private dwellings where students rent rooms. That goes pretty wide.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) raised the important point about limiting devices—trickle valves—to enforce payment. I am aware that a small minority of people regard those as useful for budgeting purposes. I do not think that the retention of limiting devices is the best way to help them, but I take my hon. Friend's point that there is a role for Government to consider whether we should issue guidelines to water companies about ways in which they can assist individuals and families who want help with budgeting.
      The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had enormous fun and made a fairly knockabout speech. He argued that the new schedule was entirely fatuous because none of the institutions listed is likely to suffer disconnection. He is not quite right about that. The figures that we have, which are not complete because the water companies do not always keep such information, show that, over the past five years, for houses in multiple occupation where the landlord is not resident, there have been 16 cases of disconnection, and, for tenanted properties where the landlord is responsible for paying the bill, there have been 17 cases of disconnection. Both types of property involve groups who are vulnerable, and both will be covered by the provisions.
      The hon. Gentleman is being a little unconcerned in failing to recognise that there is a genuine purpose behind the provisions. I hope that we will not have a further

      413
      lengthy discussion of the matter, and that he will accept that such protection is desirable and that he should support it, not mock it.
      Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman is right about houses in multiple occupation and the other worthy cause that he mentioned. My remarks were not directed at them. My point was about schools and hospitals in particular, which are the only two categories that he mentioned in Committee and that were originally mentioned in the Bill. Government agencies could reasonably be expected to pay the bills of both those categories.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 1, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert—
      '(2) After Schedule 4 to the Water Industry Act 1991 there is inserted, as Schedule 4A, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991) to this Act.'—[Mr. Allen.]

    Clause 2

      PROHIBITION OF USE OF LIMITING DEVICES
      Amendments made: No. 33, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'excluded premises' and insert
      'premises specified in Schedule 4A to this Act.'.
      No. 34, in page 2, leave out lines 26 and 27.—[Mr. Allen.]

    Clause 3

      UNDERTAKERS TO CHARGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHARGES SCHEMES
      Manuscript amendment made: in page 2, line 40, leave out 'section 61(7) above' and insert
      'paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4A to this Ace.—[Mr. Allen.]

    Clause 5

      REGULATIONS CONCERNING CHARGES SCHEMES
      Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 3, leave out from end of line 19 to end of line 10 on page 4 and insert—
      '143A.—(1) In making a charges scheme under section 143 above, a relevant undertaker shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the matters listed in subsection (2) below.
      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the following—

      (a) the factors to be taken into account in relation to the fixing, calculating and imposing of charges;

      (b) the making available to consumers of alternative bases of charging; and

      (c) the taking into account of the problems faced by the aged, ill and disabled.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance given by him under subsection (2) above to be published in such a manner as he considers appropriate.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in page 3, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert—
      414
      '(a) prescribe in relation to any premises charged by reference to the volume of water supplied the classes of person for whom special provision is to be made by reference either to the financial circumstances of the consumer and the number of the consumer's dependent children or any person who has their home in such premises and who has a medical condition which requires the consumption of a volume of water in excess of a normal household level;'.
      Mrs. Spelman: In Committee, more of the Government's thinking on the regulation of the water industry came to light. We were disquieted by the Government giving themselves enhanced powers. The force of the amendments is directed at what we see as a retrograde step in restoring more centralised control to a previously deregulated industry.
      I stress that the amendments are in no way intended to lessen a proper degree of protection for vulnerable groups in society. The Government have said that special protection should be available for customers with a metered supply who, regrettably, suffer from certain medical conditions that require a high consumption of water—some of which are quite common, such as incontinence—and for large families on low incomes who, as any mother knows well, have a water consumption just short of that of a small Chinese laundry.
      In an ideal world, the benefits system or the health service would be sufficiently sophisticated to deal with the essential needs of such people, but that seems unlikely at present. The Office of Water Services' national customer council believes that the majority of customers would not be opposed to a modest cross-subsidy within water companies' charging schemes to assist the most vulnerable groups of customers.
      Amendment No. 29 merely restricts the Secretary of State's powers to those for whom special provision must be made in company's charges schemes. It represents simply a finesse of the Government's intentions, as a constructive Opposition might well be expected to produce.
      However, amendment No. 26 reflects our serious concern about the enhancement of the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations as he or she sees fit. We take issue with the rather glib view that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), expressed in Committee that
      "The Government have a legitimate interest in a wide range of charging issues. It must, therefore, be correct for democratically elected politicians to be able to play a role in decision making on the distribution of charges where distribution can have important social and environmental implications."
      Surely that depends a great deal on what playing a role means. Those enhanced powers are a potential area of conflict with the industry's regulator.
      The avoidance of conflict would seem to be possible only if the power and influence of the regulator is diminished in relation to the influence of the state. In case the Minister thinks that I am reading too much into the clause, I quote his defence of the enhanced powers. He said that they were necessary
      "to avoid relying on Ofwat's economic regulation powers to achieve social and environmental aims."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 January 1999; c. 68.]

      415
      That, too, can be found in column 68 of Hansard.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Water Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Allen.]
      Question agreed to.
      Not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed,That the amendment be made.
      Mrs. Spelman: The Bill as drafted means that companies' charging schemes must comply with regulations set out by the Secretary of State. That represents a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. Essentially, it makes the Secretary of State the regulator. The United Kingdom model of utility regulation is based on the principle of regulatory independence and is pioneering in the utilities market. That ensures that a regulator's objectives and duties, as well as those of the regulated companies, are those explicitly given by Parliament through primary legislation.
      The Government's position, as stated in the Bill, appears to be at variance with their conclusion to the first stage of their own review of utility regulation, which was concluded last autumn. They stated that regulators should continue to be independent while having "regard" to the guidance that Secretaries of State could issue on social and environmental matters. Ironically, our amendment better reflects the Government's conclusion than the Bill.
      I digress slightly to pick up an important point that was made when we were debating an amendment tabled by the Welsh National party, which relates to the question of which Secretary of State we are discussing. We learned a new piece of information about the Secretary of State's role in regulating the industry when reference was made to prescribing regulations during our discussion of new clause 1. We learned, to the surprise of Conservative Members, that the Secretary of State in question was the Secretary of State for Wales.
      That is a major constitutional point, and we did not get an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who asked whether that transfer of power would be governed by a concordat. I am reliably informed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that the Minister's clarification was inaccurate in that this Bill post-dates the transfer of functions under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and is not covered by it. The Minister may wish to revisit that issue in his reply.
      Clause 5, if unamended, would fly in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles and it represents a backward step in utility regulation. It will make companies' charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Such regulations will impose on companies and regulators objectives other than those determined by Parliament. That is yet another example of the Government taking back central control and showing their disregard for Parliament.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Not surprisingly, I begin by saying that the Government are against the amendments, which we believe would restrict the protection of vulnerable consumers provided by the Bill. We have made it clear that we intend to specify in regulations vulnerable groups of people with high essential water use that should—as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pointed out—be given protection when they face the prospect of a measured water bill. We have also made clear which groups we intend to protect: large families with low incomes and those with medical conditions requiring high water use.
      We have good reason not to agree with the amendments. Amendment No. 26 would replace the Secretary of State's regulation-making power under clause 5 with a power to give guidance to water companies on the contents of charges schemes. We do not believe that that would lead to a better system of regulation. Indeed, it would not be better for customers because we would not be able to assure vulnerable customers that they would be protected from hardship.
      Of course, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, we could give the water companies guidance about the sort of assistance that they should provide. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) warned, the companies would then decide how, and how far, to implement such guidance. That could well lead to a patchwork of different entitlements and systems of protection throughout the country. For instance, companies might choose to offer no assistance to those groups at all. Such an outcome would clearly not be acceptable. Nor do we believe that it would be better for the water companies. We have made it clear that we believe that, where the Government involve themselves in charging matters to achieve particular aims, they must operate as transparently as possible.
      As drafted, clause 5 would provide the industry with a clear framework of essential requirements in which to work. The proposed amendment could lead to precisely the opposite, as companies seek to interpret the non-binding guidance and set out plans in the light of their interpretations. Therefore, the Government continue to believe strongly that the Secretary of State should have regulation-making powers in relation to charging schemes and we ask hon. Members not to press that amendment.
      Amendment No. 29 would restrict the use that might be made of the Secretary of State's powers to assist vulnerable groups so that protection could be narrowly focused only on those groups and that situation, which the Government have already announced that we intend to protect. Household income, the number of dependent children and a medical condition requiring higher-than-average water use are crucial factors that identify those people who might be particularly vulnerable to a charge based on the volume of water used. The amendment would prevent any other target group being protected on other grounds. We would be unable to offer further protection to the elderly, the sick or the disabled if that turned out to be necessary. On the face of it, that is inconsistent with the raft of amendments tabled by the Opposition to protect a wide variety of groups from water disconnection.
      Furthermore, it is unduly restrictive to say that the factors listed in the amendment are the only criteria on which it would be proper to identify those in need of help.

      417
      The regulations, on which we will consult fully with the regulator, companies, customer representatives and other interested groups, will provide for the details of the scheme to protect vulnerable customers. Clause 5(3)(a) provides the overall framework within which the regulations will be prepared. The framework must provide sufficient flexibility for Ministers to respond promptly if it appears that charging arrangements are causing severe hardship to new groups of consumers.
      In contrast, the amendment would limit special provision to those people who are paying on a measured basis. That would prevent the Government from providing any protection if, for example, some future unmeasured basis of charging by the water companies turned out to cause severe hardship to some classes of consumer. Under present charging arrangements, for instance, we do not propose to provide protection to customers paying unmeasured bills, but, in that and other areas, it is important to provide flexibility to respond through regulation if hardship occurs.
      However, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I can offer some reassurance about the use of those powers to identify groups for special concessions. The Government are conscious of the fact that every concession enabling a vulnerable customer to pay a lower water charge than he or she would otherwise face can be funded only from the generality of charges paid by all other customers of that company. For that reason, we are determined not to adopt a scatter-gun approach to help for vulnerable groups. With a highly targeted approach, we can ensure that the impact of water charges can be softened to a worthwhile extent where it is most needed without imposing noticeable burdens on other water customers.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will agree that the amendment is unduly restrictive and withdraw it.
      Mr. James Gray: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on what I think was her first outing at the Dispatch Box—the first of many, I am certain. It was disappointing that the Minister was unable to accord her a similar courtesy across the Floor. It appears that the Under-Secretary is better at reading from the bit of paper in front of him than he is at making a more informed or amusing speech.
      I resent the Minister for the Environment implying that I was being flippant or having a knock about when I discussed the previous group of amendments. I was not. I was making serious points, albeit light-heartedly. One of the points that I made was that Labour is determined to ensure that every aspect of our lives is written down in the small print of legislation. The new schedule was unnecessary, and one could argue that clause 5 is equally unnecessary and interferes with our way of life.
      Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It gives the Secretary of State powers that currently he does not have. It says, "You, Mr. Secretary of State, are the clever guy. You're the one who will decide which vulnerable category will be exempt from metering. You will decide our futures—not Ofwat, not the water companies, but the Secretary of State." That is why we have tabled these two amendments.
      418
      The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to provide guidance to which the water companies must have regard. Under the Bill, companies charging schemes must comply with the regulations set out by the Secretary of State, which is a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. [Interruption.]
      Hon. Members may say that I am reading my speech. That is quite right, but I hope that I am reading it with more passion, interest, authority and belief than the Under-Secretary. There is no question about it; there is a lot of passion in my speech.
      At the moment, Ofwat is able to use its discretion and to decide what to do, and the water companies can also decide what to do. The clause dictates that the Government will lay down the categories of vulnerable people who will be exempt, and the water companies will be required to live up to that regulation. It makes the Secretary of State the regulator. Ian Byatt, the regulator, has gone to great lengths to say that he believes the clause fundamentally unbalances the entire UK utility regulation.
      The UK model is based on the principle of regulatory independence. The whole notion behind utility regulation is that the regulators are independent. Their objectives and duties, as well as those of the companies, are given by Parliament through primary legislation. Parliament gives the regulator his rights; this clause takes rights back from the regulator not to Parliament, but to the Executive. It is a classic Henry VIII approach. The system of regulation that we set up in the original privatisation Bills is appreciated by all parties because it provides a balance between the Executive and the regulator.
      Clause 5 flies in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles. It makes companies charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. That regulation imposes objectives on companies and regulators other than those determined by Parliament. It ignores the duties and the role explicitly given by Parliament to regulators. That is the first point I want to make about clause 5 in justification of our two amendments.
      The second point is more meaty and concerns the vulnerable groups that clause 5 tries to protect. The Government are asking the water companies to provide a social service through differential tariffs. They are saying that these vulnerable groups will not pay, so there will be differential tariffs, which means that people who are not vulnerable will pay more. That is the clear implication of clause 5, and that is precisely why we are trying to amend it.
      That is not to say that Conservative Members are being less than caring about those vulnerable groups. All we are saying is that the water pricing mechanism is not necessarily the way in which to help them. If the Government are searching for a way to help vulnerable groups, it may be useful to mention the notion of variations in income support. It is a curious fact that water bills vary hugely across England, largely because of the length of the pipework taking water into a person's home. In London, they are low: £180 in the Thames Water area. In the south-west, where distances are much greater, the bills are £300 or £400 depending on the state of the market. Irrespective of the difference in water bills across the regions, however, the income support element is exactly the same.

      419
      10.15 pm
      If the Government are casting around to find useful ways in which to help vulnerable people, especially those who are least able to pay their water bills, let me repeat a suggestion that I made to the Secretary of State in Committee. He said then that he would consider it. May I suggest that the Secretary of State should have another look at regional variations in the water element of income support bills? That would be a real advance in helping those who are less able to pay their bills.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will my hon. Friend speculate for a moment on the principle that is at stake? It seems to me that the principle involves interference by the Government in a privatised company, and that the crucial aspect of that interference concerns the principle that is now being established. How far can that go? If we can interfere with the water companies, will there be interference in the future with other privatised companies in the fields of, for instance, energy or telecommunications? Will my hon. Friend speculate on that?
      Mr. Gray rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendments; he must not deal with what is happening in other utilities.
      Mr. Gray: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not be tempted to respond to what I consider to be an extremely valid point. On Third Reading, we may have an opportunity to say more about the way in which the Bill takes away the water companies freedom to act, and moves them increasingly towards a quasi-regulated, quasi-nationalised status and away from the privatised status that they currently enjoy.
      Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It takes into the centre—into Westminster and into Whitehall—powers that are currently in the hands of the regulator and, through the regulator, in the hands of the privatised companies. The clause is centralising, regulatory and bossy, and our amendments are designed to lessen its effects.
      Mr. David Ruffley: I support the amendment.
      During our debates on the Bill there has been some measure of agreement on core principles, including the importance of a voluntarist approach to the spread of metering. Unfortunately, under clause 5 of the Bill we have no voluntarist consensus: the Government have eschewed the spirit of voluntarism and have introduced measures of compulsion for which there are no obvious justifications.
      My support for the amendment is based on evidence provided by my regional water company, Anglian Water. It is at the forefront of innovative designs of tariffs for vulnerable groups. I think that that is accepted throughout the industry. I am thinking of two in particular. I shall not give details, but they cater for low-income large families, and take account of the fact that they should pay less than the normal meter charges. Pensioners are also able to receive discounts in exchange for not being subject to a standing charge. Innovation of that kind will be stymied
      420
      by the compulsion in the clause, particularly in the way in which power to design and innovate will be transferred from the private sector to the Secretary of State. Under the clause, the Secretary of State has the power to set regulations.
      Many Conservative Members feel that this is an unwelcome move towards centralisation. In the free market world that we all seek to inhabit—even Labour Members seek to do so these days—is it not more sensible for private companies to design and innovate? A regulator or Secretary of State cannot possibly know or understand the particular customer profile or needs in a particular region. Are not private companies better placed to design products and particular tariff schemes to assist vulnerable groups? Is it not also true that the capacity of the 30-odd companies in the industry to promote innovative ideas must be greater than the capacity of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do so?
      It is that drag on innovation, that eschewal—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to come to order? Far too many conversations are going on in the Chamber. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman who is discussing the amendment.
      Mr. Ruffley: The thrust of our argument is that innovation is better secured by the private sector. Conservative Members thought that we had persuaded the Labour party of that sector's disciplines, but it seems not when we consider the wording and effect of the clause, which is why we press the amendment.
      There is the criticism that market failure may occur in the private sector. Perhaps water companies will not design innovative products to protect low-income families and vulnerable groups that we want to protect. What happens if bad water companies are not as innovative as Anglian Water? We do not have to look far to find the answer to that question.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if direction goes to the Secretary of State and he starts to get involved in that matter, a number of companies, particularly in my area, where innovation goes towards assisting disabled groups—people with certain disabilities—encouraging them with their bills and developing the public service, may give up getting involved in that and wait for him to direct, so innovation will go out of the window?
      Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly, as usual. The pressure on the private sector to innovate will be sub-contracted upwards to the state. The private sector will feel little pressure to improve its performance, which is why we find the clause so disappointing.
      I asked earlier, what happens to non-innovatory private sector water companies? It is an obvious and important question. The answer is surely to go down a voluntarist route, which is to say that performance grades should be publicly released and publicised—naming and shaming those private sector companies that are not as assiduous in assisting vulnerable groups with new innovative schemes. We do that in relation to sewer flooding and

      421
      customer complaints. Why cannot we do it in relation to new tariff designs? It is on that basis that I support the amendment.
      Mr. Burns: As the hour is late, I will not detain the House for long, but I should like to make some points arising out of the Minister's comments.
      I can assure the House that we will not press amendment No. 29 to a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, in many senses it was a probing amendment. However, amendment No. 26 has far more serious implications. We made it plain during Second Reading and said vigorously in Committee that we had serious misgivings about the way in which the Government, through clause 5, seek to give the Secretary of State draconian powers to interfere and to regulate by order in a private company.
      I should like to take the Minister back to the problem over which he and his colleagues seem to be completely knotted up and at sea. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), was equally at sea when talking about the provision in the amendment, which is reflected in the Bill, relating to the Secretary of State. Throughout our discussions on clause 5 in Committee, references to the Secretary of State by the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Environment related to the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Wales explained earlier today that all Secretaries of State are one and that the powers to transfer the contents of clause 5 and, in effect, amendment No. 26, would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly through the transfer of functions order. I seriously question whether he was correct in saying that. As he may have discovered by now, the transfer of functions order was laid before the House on 14 May 1998, seven months prior to the Bill being published. How, therefore, can the order be used to transfer functions from clause 5 of this Bill from the Secretary of State to the Welsh Assembly?
      More than a simple transfer is needed because that order has already been made. I stand willing to be corrected, but I do not believe that those powers are included in that order. It would have helped matters if hon. Members had been given the opportunity to debate the order, but, despite demands from Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friends, it was not debated. I dispute whether an order that was published months before the Bill could now be used to transfer to the Welsh Assembly powers under clause 5 and the amendment, if it were made.
      Mr. Meale: It is correct that the clause post-dates the Government of Wales Act 1998, but the Government have made clear their intention to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales most of the Secretary of State's functions relating to water and flood defence. Those existing functions will be addressed in the first Order in Council under the Act. Schedule 2, paragraph 17, provides for new functions on water and flood defence to be treated consistently. The hon. Gentleman should consult clause 14 of the Bill.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the position. His point is interesting and I shall
      422
      read clause 14 and the other document that he mentioned. It would be unfair of me to ask the Minister any more questions because we want to make progress.
      I find it staggering that despite the fact that the Bill is on Report, coming up to its Third Reading before it leaves this House to go to the other place, and despite the Committee proceedings, this is the first time that any mention has been made of the fact that the powers in clause 5 will be transferred, by whatever means, from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, to the Welsh Assembly.
      We had debates in which our speeches, which were not corrected, and those of Ministers were made on the basis that the powers in clause 5 would be used by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We had debates ad nauseam in which we said that those powers were too great to give to a Secretary of State and there should be guidance. At no time did Ministers point out that those powers did not relate only to that Secretary of State because all Secretaries of State are indivisible and are one, so the Secretary of State for Wales would have those powers and they would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly. That is new information at this late stage. I am surprised that it has never been mentioned before. I just wonder whether the fact that the powers will be transferred is new to Ministers, who became aware of it only in the earlier debate on Plaid Cymru's new clause 1.
      We shall not make any further progress on the issue today, so I shall not press it. The other place will be able to try to get to the bottom of it. Nevertheless, the Opposition feel as strongly about the matters dealt with in amendment No. 26 as we did in the debate on Second Reading. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to oppose the Government and to support amendment No. 26.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 317.

      Division No. 65]

      [10.30 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Davis, Rt Hon David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      (Haltemprice)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Day, Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Beresfond, Sir Paul

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fallon, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fraser, Christopher

      Gale, Roger

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Garnier, Edward

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gibb, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Gill, Christopher

      Butterfill, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cash, William

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Gray, James

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Green, Damian

      Chope, Christopher

      Greenway, John

      Clappison, James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      (Rushcliffe)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hammond, Philip

      Collins, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Colvin, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Cran, James

      Horam, John

      423

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Key, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Streeter, Gary

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lidington, David

      Townend, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      (Fareham)

      Trend, Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Luff, Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Wardle, Charles

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wells, Bowen

      Mates, Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Whittingdale, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Norman, Archie

      Wilkinson, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Page, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paterson, Owen

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Pickles, Eric

      Woodward, Shaun

      Prior, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Randall, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cann, Jamie

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Alexander, Douglas

      Caton, Martin

      Allan, Richard

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Allen, Graham

      Chaytor, David

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Chidgey, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clapham, Michael

      Austin, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Baker, Norman

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Barron, Kevin

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Benton, Joe

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clwyd, Ann

      Berry, Roger

      Coaker, Vernon

      Best, Harold

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Betts, Clive

      Cohen, Harry

      Blackman, Liz

      Coleman, Iain

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Colman, Tony

      Blizzard, Bob

      Connarty, Michael

      Borrow, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Brake, Tom

      Cotter, Brian

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Crausby, David

      Browne, Desmond

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Burden, Richard

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Burgon, Colin

      Cummings, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      (Copeland)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dalyell, Tam

      424

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davidson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keetch, Paul

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kidney, David

      Doran, Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dowd, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Drew, David

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Efford, Clive

      Laxton, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ennis, Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Etherington, Bill

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Linton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Livingstone, Ken

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Livsey, Richard

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Flint, Caroline

      McAllion, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Follett, Barbara

      McCabe, Steve

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gapes, Mike

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonnell, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McNulty, Tony

      Gorrie, Donald

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grogan, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Martlew, Eric

      Healey, John

      Maxton, John

      Heath, David (Somerton &

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Frome)

      Meale, Alan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Heppell, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Home Robertson, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hope, Phil

      Moore, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hurst, Alan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hutton, John

      Norris, Dan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jamieson, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Pollard, Kerry

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pound, Stephen

      425

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stott, Roger

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Stringer, Graham

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Radice, Giles

      Stunell, Andrew

      Rapson, Syd

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rendel, David

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Todd, Mark

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Roy, Frank

      Touhig, Don

      Ruane, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruddock, Joan

      Truswell, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyler, Paul

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Vaz, Keith

      Sawford, Phil

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wallace, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Watts, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Webb, Steve

      Skinner, Dennis

      White, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Wicks, Malcolm

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Wise, Audrey

      Soley, Clive

      Wood, Mike

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Woolas, Phil

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Worthington, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wray, James

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mr. David Hanson and

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mr. Keith Hill.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) implied that there had been no debate in Committee about the transfer of functions to the Welsh Assembly. That was a mistake. At column 109 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A on 14 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), outlined the whole debate. Unfortunately—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I had anticipated that the Minister was seeking to correct his own remarks to the House. He cannot, on a point of order, seek to correct someone else's—that is a matter for debate.
      Mr. Meale: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out for the sake of clarity that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for debate. I am sorry, but I misunderstood what the Minister was about.
      Mr. Meale: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister should be, in the circumstances.

    Clause 6

      RIGHT OF CONSUMER TO ELECT FOR CHARGING BY REFERENCE TO VOLUME
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 48, at end insert—
      '(12) When under subsection (4) the Director upholds a water undertaker's refusal to give effect to a measured charges notice the consumer shall have the right to opt to pay as an alternative to the current charge either:—

      (a) a charge assessed by the water undertaker by reference to the estimated volume of water supplied to the premises; or

      (b) the water undertaker's average household charge
      and any dispute between a water undertaker and a consumer as to the application of (a) above may be referred to the Director for determination under Section 30A above by either party to the dispute.'.

      I reassure the House that this is a probing amendment. We are simple seekers after information, which the Minister will no doubt give us.
      As any aficionado of the Bill will know, clause 6 adds new section 144A to the Water Industry Act 1991. It covers homes that currently pay for their water on an unmeasured basis under a charging scheme. It gives these consumers a new right to require their water company to charge them by reference to volume. Anyone who has been following the debate closely will know that, once the Bill becomes law, consumers who currently pay for their water on a rateable value basis will have the opportunity to have a water meter installed in most, although not all, cases. They will then have up to 12 months to decide whether they want to continue on a metered basis or revert to the rateable value basis. I suspect that many households will take that decision according to whether they like the size of their bills during those 12 months.
      Clause 6 also provides that water companies should not have to install a water meter where it would not be "reasonably practicable" or where it would be unnecessarily expensive for them to do so. The vast majority of hon. Members will agree that the Government are right to include that perfectly reasonable qualification. It would place an onerous burden on water companies if there were a blanket requirement in the Bill for them to install a meter in every household that demanded one, even if it were technically feasible for them to do so.
      The Bill makes no provision, however, for customers denied the opportunity to pay on an unmeasured basis—those required to continue to pay on a rateable value basis, which may involve their paying substantially more than if they were paying on a meter and thus paying only for the water that they consumed in a year.
      The Minister looks a little puzzled, so let me elaborate. I understand that it is late and that he has had to work hard. There are a number of properties in multiple occupation—most comprising flats—which share a supply pipe. Also, the internal pipework of some of these properties is such that flats have individual cold water supplies but joint hot water systems. Older, purpose-built blocks of flats—in the local authority and private sectors—may have one supply pipe, which would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for a water company to

      427
      install meters. Ironically, especially with local authority flats in that category, it is possible that residents will include owner-occupiers, elderly single pensioners or families with young children. Clearly, families will consume much more water than single pensioners.
      The scale of the problem varies around the country, but it is widespread in the areas covered by Thames Water and Southern Water. The problem is likely to be greater in large cities such as London than in the south-west or more rural areas, where fewer blocks of flats are owned by local authorities. In such areas, the problem may be negligible.
      A case highlighted on a recent Radio 4 consumer programme involved a Thames Water customer who lived in a flat, where his annual metered bill for both water and waste water services was £122. When he moved to another flat of similar size and value, which could not be metered, he ended up with a bill under the old rateable value system of just over £1,000. His water consumption and use of waste water did not rise beyond what he had averaged in his previous property, but, through no fault of his own, his water bill rose by more than £800 a year. I am sure that the Minister has some sympathy for that customer, whose problem no doubt is replicated elsewhere.
      I am not asking the Minister for instant legislation, and I do not expect a solution tonight. However, by the end of this evening, the Bill will be only halfway through its progress through the House. I ask only that the Minister think about the problem to see whether a system can be devised that is fair to householders who are trapped in the way that I have described and who will not benefit from other provisions in the Bill. It is clear that the Government believe that the Bill will benefit consumers, and any system designed to overcome the problem that I have outlined must be fair to them and to the water companies. I hope that a realistic solution can be achieved.
      I should like to help the Minister by giving him some information about the way in which companies voluntarily try to solve the problem. Their solutions are, by definition, ad hoc. As was noted in Committee, water companies have produced their own unique schemes to try to help people and families who are less well off by lessening the impact of their water and sewage bills.
      I believe that I am right in saying that at least one of the water companies is prepared, if all residents agree, to meter an entire property, such as a block of flats that suffers from a problem, say, with a single-pipe supply, and split the bill equally. That may superficially appear attractive, and might, with some fine tuning and deeper thought, alleviate the problem. I see one flaw at the outset, however, concerning the metering of a block of eight flats, in which all families did not have similar backgrounds or consume similar amounts.
      One could use extremes to illustrate the point, such as a single pensioner who lives in the same block as a young family with one or two young children. Such billing would be disproportionately unfair to that single pensioner. Would one be able to fine-tune a scheme further and reach some agreement with all residents, so that they paid proportions of the bill? Could estimate bills be issued?
      To be frank, I do not know the answers to those questions. To be fair on Ministers, I would not expect them to come up with an instant answer. However,
      428
      would they be prepared to think more about it, and consult the regulator and the water companies to see whether there is any way in which that might be a feasible way forward?
      Would it be possible to allow people who are caught in the traps that I have described to be charged on the basis of an average household bill? Again, I do not expect Ministers to be able to give an instant answer, although it is reasonable to ask them to think about the matter. They may want to consult the regulator and water companies, so that, voluntarily, the Bill's benefits are extended to people who, through no fault of the water companies or the Government in drafting the Bill, may not receive the benefits enjoyed by others who live in less difficult circumstances, such as a property where there is a clear-cut opportunity to install a meter.
      Neither of those ideas is ideal; they may not even, on reflection, be workable. It is however certainly worth the effort of looking into the matter further in order to come up with some other scheme that might seek to benefit further the customers to whom I have referred.
      Mr. Meale: I shall try to be as helpful as possible—certainly on some of the points on which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) required a response.
      As hon. Members are aware, the Government want a water charging system that gives customers increased choice. For some people, that will mean opting to have a meter installed because they would prefer to pay a measured charge. However, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford pointed out, in some circumstances it would be impractical, difficult or very expensive to fit a meter, such as in a block of flats where residents share pipes. We do not believe that it makes sound economic sense to force water companies to spend a disproportionate sum of money on fitting a meter in such instances. However, at the same time, we are concerned to ensure that customers who find themselves in such circumstances are not disadvantaged.
      At present, customers who would benefit from paying on a measured basis may request the installation of a meter, but if that is impractical, they may find that the water company is unwilling to change the basis of their charging from rateable value. In our consultative document, "Water Charging in England and Wales: A New Approach", we recognise that that could be a problem for customers, and propose that in such cases householders should be able to pay on an assessed charge. We therefore strongly support the principle of protecting customers' interests in such circumstances.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford rightly pointed out the rather strange case of Mr. Paul Slawson-Price, who moved from his flat in Kensington, where he paid a water bill of £122 a year, to one in Westminster, where the bill rose as high as £1,055.48. He rightly pointed out that the company—Thames Water—had existing powers to charge in the way that we would prefer, but that, although it had admitted that, it refused to do so.
      11 pm
      The protection that we require for residents can be delivered effectively through the mechanism—which we propose to introduce by clause 4—for the director general to approve companies' charges schemes. Moreover, by contrast with the arrangements detailed in the amendment,

      429
      the use of clause 4 would give water companies flexibility to consider arrangements for assessing charges that meet their customers' concerns.
      I appreciate the offer that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford made when he suggested that the Government should be open to on-going ways in which we can try to help establish better systems for people caught in this way. We would also expect the regulator and the water companies to use that clause to enable satisfactory solutions to be found to the problem. We therefore believe that it would be unnecessarily prescriptive to set out procedures for calculating assessed charges on the face of the Bill. In the light of the assurances and help that I believe that I have given the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister. May I seek clarification? At present, water bills are paid either according to a meter or on the basis of the rateable value system. Given those two systems of payment, would it be legal, at present or after the Bill becomes an Act, for a water company to start charging people for their water on a hybrid version of either scheme? What I—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Meale.
      Mr. Meale: As I tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, there are ways in which assessed charges can be introduced now. The water industry Acts enable that, and it is for the water companies to achieve that. In the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the water company, Thames Water, chose not to do so. I believe that that effectively means that, yes, it could place its own charges that are found to be acceptable, and which, like all other charges, may be open to challenge by the customer to the director general. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct in that assumption.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and his clarification of the role of the regulator in this area. I said that amendment No. 30 was very much a probing amendment. I believe that I have probed enough, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      RESTRICTION ON CHANGE IN BASIS OF CHARGING.
      Mr. Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 33, at end insert—
      '(5) Where a change in occupation of any premises occurs as a result of a change in ownership of those premises, a relevant undertaker may not begin to fix charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume in accordance with subsection 2(b) above unless the purchaser of the premises shall have been notified before the completion of the purchase of the undertaker's intention to begin charging by volume.'.
      I suspect that, given the time, the Minister for the Environment will probably regret an almost throw-away line that he uttered in Committee, which has prompted us to table amendment No. 28. I shall be frank with the House. Until the Minister kindly pointed me in the right direction in Committee, I was unaware—it was total
      430
      ignorance on my part—that a provision in the Water Act 1989 currently allows water companies to determine, at the point when someone sells their house and moves to a house that is new to them but may not be a new house, whether to charge the individual or the household for water and sewerage on a rateable value basis, if that is the existing system, or to change the basis to a metered system of payment.
      I understood from the Minister, in Committee, that that power is rarely used. I think that he said that it is used in about 1 or 2 per cent. of cases, if that. The figure was minuscule. It is a very underused power. However, the power is there. In future, there may be circumstances where water companies, for whatever reason, would like to use it to compel people, when they move house to their new home—it may not necessarily be a brand new home—to change the system of charging from rateable value to metering.
      The majority of people who are buying a newly built house will understand that they will be charged for their water and sewage by meter. For those who place a high priority on water bills, that will be a factor that they will take into account when they decide whether they will make an offer on a new house and buy it. They will have that knowledge as they will know what council tax band the house is in. Like any wise purchaser of a property, before they take a decision on what is a substantial investment, they will have all the information and be able to assess to a reasonable degree of accuracy their household bills and outgoings during the course of a year. That will determine many things such as the size of their mortgage.
      With the power that we are discussing, the problem is that there is no way in which someone who is moving to a home that is new to him or her will know whether a water company will exercise its right under the original Act and decide to change the basis of charging for water and sewage. I suspect that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, were entirely unaware that there is such a power in the original Act. That is because it is so little used. However, as I have said, that does not mean that it will always be so.
      This could come as a rude shock, especially to a young family with two, three or four children, who are moving to a new house. They will have seen the particulars, including the rateable value. They have ascertained roughly what their council tax bill will be. They will have a rough idea, as a result of the old rateable value system, of what the water and sewage demand will be. They will then take a decision.
      The power could come as a rude shock to them on two counts. Let us suppose that they move into the house and the local water company has decided that it will not charge for water and sewage on the rateable value that the family assumed when they bought the house. They suddenly discover that they will have a water meter. With young children, I suspect—this depends on the rateable value of the house—that they could end up paying significantly more for their water than they ever imagined in a month of Sundays.
      That is unfair. It is not the fault of the new owners of the house that they have been caught in that situation. Of course, the water companies are legally entitled to exercise their rights under the original Act and take that

      431
      course of action. It will cause bitterness to those families who are so caught, and I think that basically it is unfair. I think that everyone would agree with the concept that when is someone is buying a house or making a substantial purchase, he should have as many facts as possible available to him before he reaches a decision so he can use that information as part of the formative process of taking a decision.
      Mr. Steve McCabe: I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman expresses, but I wonder why the amendment takes such a tortuous route. It requires water companies to notify potential purchasers before completion of the purchase. If the buyer decided to opt out at that stage, the exercise could be repeated ad infinitum. Why does not the hon. Gentleman accept the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Minister offered in Committee, when he said that he would consider requiring the water company to notify the householder before it levied the first charge? That would address the problem simply.
      Mr. Burns: I know that the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House, but he is experienced enough to know that on Report, the House of Commons has the opportunity, as it does in Committee, to examine the Bill line by line and consider issues of importance to hon. Members and their constituents, and to ensure that the Bill is in the interests of those whom it is intended to serve.
      We were not expecting to get on to the subject in Committee, and I can tell the Minister that it was rather by accident that we did so. Almost in a throw-away line, he unveiled the horror. I was totally unaware of it, I am not ashamed to admit. As the hon. Gentleman correctly reminds the House, the Minister said that he would consider the matter and return to it.
      The right hon. Gentleman, very decently, said the same in response to our amendments to clause 1 with respect to other organisations and types of dwelling that should be included in the powers that apply to hospitals and schools, as we discussed earlier. I am grateful to him for keeping that pledge and drafting amendments for the House to consider tonight.
      This is the last opportunity for us to discuss the Bill in the House, except for Lords amendments. The right hon. Gentleman will not be handling the Bill in the Lords, although obviously his Department will do so. As he did not table any amendments to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), I hoped that our amendment would remind the Minister of what he had said in Committee.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am following with interest what my hon. Friend says, as I was not a member of the Standing Committee and therefore come new to the argument. Does he agree that it might be a difficult process for a water company if it was opportunistically looking to change to metering on a change of ownership of premises, and therefore having to find out when a purchase was being made? That might drive a water company to the greatly preferable system of notifying owners of properties in advance that on a change of ownership of the property, the company proposed to
      432
      introduce metering. That would tend to be disclosed in the course of inquiries made by a purchaser's solicitors before exchange of contracts, not just before completion.
      Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that cogent and sensible point. He has to some extent anticipated what I was about to say. I want to make it clear to Ministers and to the House that it is not the purpose of this probing amendment to introduce some massive, bureaucratic, interfering system with the power of the law behind it, to oblige water companies to notify estate agents or anyone else. That would be impractical and probably impossible to operate, however clever a parliamentary draftsman was.
      11.15 pm
      I repeat that briefly so that no misunderstanding can arise. I am not suggesting, nor would I want in a month of Sundays, some horrendously bureaucratic system backed up by law. This is a probing amendment and I shall not unveil a master plan to the House tonight. But I should like to see—the Minister has woken up, which is encouraging—a system which becomes part of the ethos of buying and selling houses.
      Estate agents always draw up details of properties, which invariably include the appropriate council tax banding, ground rents where relevant, and so on. I should like to see some informal system whereby an estate agent, when approached by a householder to sell his house, can discover from a water company whether a property will continue to be charged on its rateable value, or whether the system will be changed once it is sold.
      Obtaining such information will become part of the natural functions of estate agents when selling a house, and water companies will be expected in a reasonable but short period to supply the information, so that it can go on the house details. Prospective buyers will then know the exact situation.
      The water industry may require some code of practice to ensure that, once a water company gives such an assurance, it cannot go back on it. A system which was not a burden on businesses and not onerous to estate agents could be worked out which would then become part of the ethos of house buying.
      I shall not seek to divide the House on the amendment. I seek only to put forward an idea to remind the Minister of his comments in Committee; and to discover whether he has been able to come up with any ideas in the intervening time—whether such a scheme is not feasible, which would explain the absence before us tonight of a specific amendment, or whether he will use another place to come up with some idea.
      Mr. Meacher: That was a fairly long-winded reminder. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on picking up a comment which I made in Committee—that a water undertaker has a right to impose a measured charge on a new owner-occupier. He has focused on a serious issue. I also pay credit to my hon. Friends, the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), both of whom pressed me on the matter in Committee. I am sympathetic to it.

      433
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford said that he did not want a bureaucratic solution which would be complicated and difficult. His amendment states:
      "a relevant undertaker may not begin to fix charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume in accordance with subsection 2(b) above unless the purchaser of the premises shall have been notified before the completion of the purchase of the undertaker's intention to begin charging by volume."
      That will be quite a bureaucratic process.
      I appreciate that this is a probing amendment. The Opposition cannot be expected to come up with a desirable process; they simply raise the issue.
      I say again that we are in sympathy with the underlying purpose of the amendment, even though we do not believe that it—or any other provision made by the Bill—is a necessary or appropriate means of tackling the problem. I shall explain why. Clause 7 would enable a water undertaker to begin charging a new occupier on a measured basis. That is fair enough, provided that the new occupier has the opportunity to find out the water charging regime that he or she will face in that new property.
      The real problem is one of information rather than powers. Rather than prohibit the undertaker from charging on the new basis, we need to tackle the information gap. That is part of the much wider issue of information for house buyers. We have issued a consultation paper on proposals for making the process of house buying and selling much easier. The consultation period finishes at the end of next month and it will provide another type of information, which we will consider before we introduce our proposals.
      In our view, it would be premature to legislate now, in isolation, on the responsibility for a single piece of information available for home buyers. I assure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that the Government will be discussing information for purchasers with interested parties, including the Law Society, water companies and local authorities.
      I share the hon. Gentleman's wish that arrangements should exist to protect home buyers from having metering sprung on them—we are at one on that—but I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, as it is simply not the best way of ensuring that information is made available to home buyers. I assure him that we intend to identify and promote a better way. I hope that he will accept that.
      Mr. Brake: I will not detain the House for more than a couple of minutes. [Interruption.] I have been issued a challenge.
      I have some sympathy with the amendment, the need for which did not emerge by accident, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, but because the Liberal Democrats asked the Minister about that need in Committee. It is regrettable that the Government have done nothing to address creeping metering, which is one of the key concerns in the Bill that have been highlighted by a number of reputable organisations.
      The amendment could slow that trend, but it is not the most effective way of achieving that. Surely the exchange date would be better than the completion date, if we wanted to go down that route, but the most effective way
      434
      of stopping creeping metering must be to give people genuine choice-to allow them to choose to have a meter and to choose to have it removed, at any point in the future. If the hon. Member for West Chelmsford had tabled such an amendment, we would have been happy to support it, but we could not support this amendment.
      Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his comments. The amendment was clearly tabled to give the House an opportunity to discuss the matter and I certainly will not be pressing it to a vote.
      Like the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, I was particularly puzzled by the latter-day claim by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that, once again, "It was all the Liberal Democrats' doing." It was not.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 10, line 36, after '1' insert
      'and Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991)'.—[Mr. Betts.]

    New Schedule 1
      SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED IN THE WATER INDUSTRY ACT 1991
        SCHEDULE 4A

          PREMISES THAT ARE NOT TO BE DISCONNECTED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHARGES
          1.—(1) Any dwelling which is occupied by a person as his only or principal home.
          (2) In this paragraph "dwelling" means—

          (a) a private dwelling-house (which may be a building or part of a building),

          (b) a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968), or

          (c) a boat or similar structure designed or adapted for use as a place of permanent habitation.

          2.—(1) Any house in multiple occupation which does not constitute a dwelling within the meaning of paragraph 1 above and in which any person has his only or principal home.
          (2) In this paragraph "house in multiple occupation" has the meaning given by section 345(1) of the Housing Act 1985.
          3.—(1) Accommodation for the elderly in which a person has his only or principal home.
          (2) In this paragraph "accommodation for the elderly" means residential accommodation to which sub-paragraph (3) or (4) below applies, but which is not a dwelling within the meaning of paragraph 1 above or a house in multiple occupation within the meaning of paragraph 2 above.
          (3) This sub-paragraph applies to residential accommodation—

          (a) which is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by elderly persons,

          (b) which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons aged 60 or more, and

          (c) where the services of a warden are provided.

          (4) This sub-paragraph applies to any building or part of a building designed or adapted for use as residential accommodation for elderly persons.
          4. A hospital within the meaning of section 11 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.
          5. Premises used for the provision of medical services by a registered medical practitioner.
          6. Premises used for the provision of dental services by a person who under the Dentists Act 1984 is permitted to practise dentistry.
          7.—(1) Premises used for the provision of personal medical services or personal dental services under a pilot scheme.
          (2) In this paragraph "personal medical services", "personal dental services" and "pilot scheme" have the same meaning as in Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997.
          8.—(1) A residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home.
          (2) In this paragraph—

          "mental nursing home" means anything which is a mental nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984;

          "nursing home" means anything which is a nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984 or which would be but for section 21(3)(a) of that Act;

          "residential care home" means—

          (a) an establishment in respect of which registration is required under Part I of the Registered Homes Act 1984 or would be so required but for section 1(4) (small homes) or section 1(5)(j) of that Act (establishments managed or provided by government departments, etc.),

          (b) a building or part of a building in which residential accommodation is provided under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

          9.—(1) A children's home.
          (2) In this paragraph "children's home" means—

          (a) a community home within the meaning of section 53 of the Children Act 1989,

          (b) a voluntary home within the meaning of section 60(3) of that Act,

          (c) a children's home registered under Part VIII of that Act,

          (d) a home providing (or usually providing or intended to provide) care and accommodation for three or fewer children at any one time, other than a home which is (or would, if it provided care and accommodation for more than three children at any one time, be) exempted from registration under Part VIII of that Act—

          (i) by or under any of subsections (4), (5), (7) or (12) of section 63 of that Act, or

          (ii) by regulations made for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section by the Secretary of State.

          10. A school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.
          11.—(1) Premises used by an institution within the further education sector or an institution within the higher education sector for, or in connection with, the provision of education.
          (2) In this paragraph the references to an institution within the further education sector or within the higher education sector are to be construed in accordance with section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
          12. Premises used for the provision of day care for children by a person who is registered under section 71(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 in respect of the premises.
          13.—(1) A prison or detention centre.
          (2) In this paragraph "prison" means—

          (a) any prison, young offender institution or remand centre which is under the general superintendence of, or is provided by, the Secretary of State under the Prison Act 1952, including a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1991,

          (b) any secure training centre within the meaning of section 43(1)(d) of the Prison Act 1952,

          (c) a naval, military or air force prison.

          (3) In this paragraph "detention centre" means any premises which are used solely for detaining persons under the Immigration Act 1971 or the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, but which are not a part of a prison.
          14. Premises occupied for the purposes of a police force.
          15. Premises occupied for the purposes of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Act 1947.
          16. Premises occupied for the purposes of the provision of an ambulance service by a National Health Service trust established under Part I of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990"…'—[Mr. Betts.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
          Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
          11.25 pm
          Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
          At this stage, I will be extremely brief, which will reflect the will of the House. I simply want to say that this is a short, but an extremely important, Bill. It has three main aims for England and Wales. It will promote increased consumer choice, provide protection for vulnerable groups and prohibit disconnection of the water supply for certain groups. As I would be the first to recognise, it has been improved by deliberations in Committee, to which I carefully listened. On that basis, I strongly recommend it to the House.
          Mr. Burns: No doubt, the House will be reassured to know that I will be equally brief. The Opposition did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We had serious misgivings about clauses 4 and 5, which we raised then and, at length, in Committee. As a result of the debate today, we still have serious misgivings about the increased powers of the Secretary of State and his powers to interfere in the whole process, but we will not change our position and oppose the Bill because, as the Minister for the Environment generously mentioned, it has been improved in a number of ways, where the Minister has been prepared to listen and make the necessary arrangements.
          11.26 pm
          Mr. Brake: I merely wish to say that we are happy for the Bill to make further progress.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Christians (Indian Sub-Continent)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
    11.27 pm
    Mr. David Winnick: Like all my colleagues, I am strenuously opposed to all forms of racial and religious discrimination, hence the way in which we have long campaigned—certainly in the Labour party—for tolerance, and non-discriminatory policies and practices for minorities of all kinds, including in Britain in the post-war years in particular, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims.
    I asked for this debate to outline the position for Christians on the Indian sub-continent and to ask the British Government to let the Indian and Pakistani authorities know of our deep and continuing concern about what has been happening there recently. In raising this matter, I recognise—as we all do—that India has maintained democracy while facing far greater social problems than we face in Britain.
    However, more recently, some extremists in India have become more intolerant towards Christians. I shall describe a particularly brutal and murderous case. On 23 January, Graham Staines, a 55-year-old missionary, was murdered with his two sons, Philip, 10, and Timothy, 8, when their vehicle was torched. As they tried desperately to get out of the vehicle, the mob ensured that that was impossible—they were burnt alive. Mr. Staines had worked with leper patients for more than 30 years in India. Surely, no one can dispute the good work that he did for so many people in that time.
    On Sunday, three days ago, two Christian teenagers—a girl and a boy—were murdered and another teenager seriously injured in an eastern state in India. Sadly, those are not isolated incidents. All the evidence points the finger at various extremist groups, some of which are connected with the ruling Bharatiya Janata party.
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: Does my hon. Friend accept that India is a secular state, and that it respects all religions equally and allows everyone to worship equally in that spirit? That has been the case for hundreds of years, and that has been the spirit since independence.
    Mr. Winnick: Yes, and that is why it is all the more sad that these incidents and tragedies have occurred. I accept what my hon. Friend said, and I am sure that he will agree that, against that background, it is unfortunate that such extremist actions have been taken. They are, in the main, carried out by extremist Hindus who do not represent the vast majority of people of their religion in that country.
    Graham Staines's widow has accused an extremist group connected with the ruling party of being responsible for what happened to her husband and children. It is known by the initials RSS and is sometimes referred to as a national volunteer corps of the BJP.
    I am referring to extremist elements; this is not a criticism of the Hindu religion. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised a point of order today about extremist Christians. We should be concerned
    438
    about extremists anywhere, whatever their religion or even if they have no religion. In India, an extremist group believes that its role is to create an atmosphere of hatred against the Christian minority. That is why I am raising this matter.
    Mr. Tony Colman: The debate is about the position across the Indian sub-continent. Will my hon. Friend join with me in condemning the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan? I am sure that the House universally condemns that action.
    Mr. Winnick: Yes, indeed. I condemn all forms of persecution and intolerance. I shall refer briefly to Pakistan, because the subject of my debate is the Indian sub-continent.
    The BJP is the ruling party in India. It is a nationalist, right-wing, Hindu-based party which came to power two years ago. Since that time, there have been attacks on churches, convents, schools and other properties belonging to the Christian community. In November last year, the RSS attacked a church in a village in south India. Members of the congregation were severely beaten up, and the pastor had to be taken to hospital. In September last year, four nuns belonging to the Foreign Missionary Sisters were gang raped by thugs in a state in central India. Those ugly incidents cause the deepest concern in the international community, and certainly in Britain.
    There have been more than 100 reported incidents against Christians in India in the past two years. It is a matter of deep concern that a pogrom atmosphere has been building up against the Christian minority, particularly in the past two years. The position is serious enough without exacerbating it, but sometimes the authorities in India show indifference when dealing with the culprits.
    Mr. John Randall: The hon. Gentleman said that he would refer to Pakistan, and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has mentioned the situation there. Does he agree that, whereas the problem in India is caused by extremists, when it comes to Pakistan, certain laws have been passed by the state that unfairly discriminate against minorities, particularly the Christian minority?
    Mr. Winnick: Certainly I agree, and I shall refer to that later.
    The brutal killing of Mr. Staines and his two sons prompted condemnation from senior Ministers in India. I understand that an inquiry is to be set up, and I welcome that.
    Let me say, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who intervened earlier, that India has a good record—leaving aside the controversial and complex problem of Kashmir—of general tolerance of religious minorities. That was the record for many years—before Britain was involved in any way, during British rule and certainly during most of the post-independence period, owing to good work on the part of the Indian authorities, which has been recognised in this country.
    Let me illustrate the way in which the position has changed. Between 1964 and 1996, 38 cases of violence—38 cases in 32 years—were reported against Christians in

    439
    India. Last year alone, 136 were reported. Some say that is the result of the BJP's winning the election two years ago. They say that the extremists—not necessarily Ministers in the Indian Government, but extremists who are affiliated to the BJP or support it in elections—feel that they have more freedom to demonstrate their intolerance, and to whip up hatred of the Christian minority, than they had before. Christians constitute about 2.5 per cent. of the Indian population.
    Reference has been made to the position in Pakistan. I believe that the blasphemy laws in that country are often used purely for malicious and arbitrary reasons. Given such laws, it is not difficult for those who have a grudge against a neighbour or are in debt to deal with the grudge, or not pay the debt, by reporting the person concerned to the authorities under the blasphemy laws. I believe that, as with the position with Hindus in India, most Muslims in Pakistan oppose the practices that I have mentioned. It is unfortunate that those blasphemy laws in Pakistan can be used, and sometimes are used, to persecute the small Christian minority. I should add that Amnesty International has made clear its disquiet about the position in Pakistan.
    It is not a question—I do not suppose that any of my hon. Friends is surprised to hear this—of trying to take India's side against that of Pakistan, or of taking the side of Pakistan against that of India. It is simply a question of making it clear that we are totally opposed to discrimination and intolerance. We have been against that in our country, even at times when such opposition has not been very popular. Even when it might have lost us votes, we have made our position clear and have stood by our principles. If that is so in this country, we have a duty and a responsibility to defend minorities elsewhere, and we shall continue to do so, even if at times that causes some disquiet in the Indian high commission or the Pakistan high commission, or among others here who feel that we are attacking their native country. Be that as it may, we work on the basis of certain principles, and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend mentioned the Indian high commissioner. The commissioner has written to him stating that the Government condemn the attacks. What more can the Indian Government do?
    Mr. Winnick: I shall ask the Minister to make it perfectly clear that the British Government are very concerned about the change in the position in India, which I have already explained, and want the Indian authorities to do all that they can, first, to bring the culprits to justice and, secondly, not to allow an atmosphere in which it is easy for some thugs to attack the Christian minority. That is more or less what we want in our country and have worked for, as my hon. Friend knows.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Another suggestion might be helpful and find acceptance with both the Indian authorities and those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have had trouble with several religious minorities, not just Christians. The Commonwealth might be able to facilitate some way to support Governments in upholding secular states and rights of minorities, as well as bilateral Government
    440
    relations. The Commonwealth could be helpful both to Her Majesty's Government and to the Governments of our friends in the Indian sub-continent.
    Mr. Winnick: I accept that point, but India and Pakistan are as independent as this country and, if they really have the will to do so, they can deal with the matters that cause us deep concern.
    I reject the notion that, in raising the issue, I am anti-Indian or anti-Pakistani—nothing of the kind. The only thing I am anti in these matters is prejudice, whether that occurs here or abroad.
    I understand that missionary work can sometimes cause offence. I accept that some extremist missionaries, usually—perhaps not surprisingly—from the United States, go about their business in a way that can cause disquiet and offence, but, often, the attacks and the atmosphere that are being created are directed against law-abiding people in India who happen to be Christians and who are seen as a soft target. I understand that the British Government have expressed some protest or concern. As I have said, I hope that they will continue to make known the matters that cause us concern, which I have been speaking about.
    I want to keep my remarks brief, so I say simply that I do not believe that what I have said would have been disputed by the founding fathers of both India and Pakistan. They wanted to establish independent countries where, as has been mentioned, religious minorities would have the same rights as the religious majority. They wanted tolerance. To a large extent, in the post-independence period, that has been achieved, perhaps particularly in India. Therefore, in raising these issues, it is necessary for us to recognise that human rights are a cause for us in all countries.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, earlier today, there was a debate on human rights for women. We want human rights for all. We want people who belong to a religion to have rights and those who do not adhere to a religion to have the same rights. It causes me regret that I have had to raise the matter, but I was right to do so. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in response.
    11.43 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on winning the ballot and securing the debate. His record on issues relating to human rights, freedoms of religious minorities and minorities generally compares with that of any hon. Member. We owe him a debt of gratitude for giving the House an opportunity to discuss a serious issue that, interestingly, has provoked several interventions, something that does not normally happen in an Adjournment debate at this time of night. It is a matter that causes concern here and, of course, in the Indian sub-continent.
    We must deplore religious intolerance, whether it occurs in this country or anywhere else, but it is particularly disturbing that we are debating intolerance in the Indian sub-continent because Britain still has many ties with it. Hon. Members who are present tonight represent thousands of people whose ties with India and Pakistan are still intimate and will be for the indefinite future. Therefore, it is in a spirit not of criticism but of

    441
    genuine fellowship and concern that we express our sorrow at the reports of attacks on religious minorities in those countries.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) said, India has been seen for many years as a model of a successful, religiously diverse and democratic state. It has won high standing throughout the world for the respect for, and even celebration of, religious diversity there. India is one of the great countries of the world and has more than 950 million people, so diversity is inherent in India's identity. Anybody who has travelled across even small parts of India knows that its diversity is enormous and one would normally expect to see such diversity spread across a continent, rather than in one country. The majority of the population are Hindu, but people of all faiths co-exist there, including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists.
    The concept of an Indian state in which all religions flourish was central to the thinking of the founders of modern India, including Mahatma Gandhi, who wrote:
    "Indian culture is neither Hindu, Islamic or any other, wholly. It is a fusion of all".
    Those who grew up when I did certainly felt that the influence of Gandhi and Nehru, and their part in establishing that secular India—home to all its people—was an important statement to the whole world.
    After independence, the right to freedom of religion was enshrined in India's constitution. Article 25 of the constitution states:
    "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion."
    That is one of the most unambiguous statements of commitment to religious freedom to be found in any country's legal system. It is therefore uncharacteristic for India to witness attacks on religious minorities such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has referred. It is all the more disturbing that so many incidents have been reported in the past few months.
    My hon. Friend referred to several examples and I shall repeat some of them to demonstrate the gravity of the attacks. Last July, there were reports of the burning of bibles and attacks on staff at Christian schools in Gujarat. Muslims have also been targeted. We heard reports that, at the end of July, 350 Muslims fled from a village in Gujarat, fearing attack after two Hindu girls had eloped with Muslim boys. My hon. Friend referred to the reports of the gang rape of a group of nuns in Madhya Pradesh and the subsequent looting of the convent.
    At the end of the year, we received reports that, on Christmas day, a rally was held in Gujarat to demonstrate against Christian conversions. My hon. Friend referred to the inflammatory climate and the speeches made against Christians, which led to vehicles being burnt and stones thrown, culminating in injury to three Christians. In another area of the same state, also on Christmas day, reports state that three churches were attacked and a Christian school set on fire, resulting in injuries to the principal. Attempts were made to destroy another school. We understand from press reports that, two days later, four more churches were attacked in the same state.
    My hon. Friend referred to one of the most horrific events—the brutal murders of Graham Staines and his two sons. We know that those murders were committed by a
    442
    mob, apparently angered by missionary activity in the state of Orissa. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is bizarre that Mr. Staines had spent the bulk of his adult life working for the most marginalised people in Orissa, the victims of leprosy. I must simply record that we read of such attacks with dismay. For most of us, it is almost beyond belief that two young children were murdered as my hon. Friend described.
    My hon. Friend referred also to reports being made as recently as this week of the murders of two Christian teenagers in another district of Orissa and an attack on another youth in the same incident.
    The Indian United Christians Forum for Human Rights has claimed that the number of attacks against Christian institutions in 1998 was more than the total number between 1964 and 1997. The claim supports the statistics provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North.
    We have to ask ourselves—not to minimise the situation, as we must not try to minimise such horrendous attacks—whether, in such disparate parts of the Indian sub-continent, there is a single root cause of the attacks. The statistics in a country of 950 million people might be brought into perspective if compared with our own statistics. I therefore tell the House that, although we must be forthright in condemnation, we must not stigmatise all of India because of attacks on Christians in some parts of it. It would not be fair or acceptable to do so.
    Mr. Winnick: I am sure that the terrible attacks and tragedies that have occurred have been condemned by the overwhelming majority of Indians; I have not the slightest doubt about that. We are dealing with extremist groups which have been encouraged by the election of a very right-wing, nationalist, Hindu-based party that is known for its intolerance. We have to recognise that unfortunate fact.
    Mr. Lloyd: I should make it clear that there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself in our view that India generally, and the Indian population generally, are not guilty of the crimes.
    The attack on Graham Staines and his sons has caused anger and anguish in India itself. Significantly, condemnation by the press and major political parties has been unanimous. We should also establish the fact that protest has come first and foremost within India. As my hon. Friend said, the Government of India have responded with a clear denunciation of the attacks and an appeal for a return to India's traditional values of tolerance.
    I should like publicly to welcome the forthright statement by the Indian president, President Narayanan, that condemned all attacks on religious minorities and called the murder of Graham Staines and his sons a "barbarous killing" and
    "a monumental aberration from the traditions of tolerance and humanity for which India is known".
    I also commend to the House the address by the Indian Prime Minister on the anniversary of Gandhi's death, last month, in which he undertook to
    "protect all sections of the people, irrespective of their gender, caste and faith".
    Those are important statements by the most senior figures in the Indian Government.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: As my hon. Friend moves towards the end of his reply, he has been

    443
    concentrating on India. However, the subject of the Adjournment is the Indian sub-continent. Although I am sure that he was about to deal with other parts of the sub-continent, will he accept my assurance that, like many other hon. Members, I have a great many people from Pakistan in my constituency who have Christian families in Pakistan who are today—now—applying for asylum in the United Kingdom because of a real fear of persecution on solely religious grounds? There are at least 1.3 million Christians in Pakistan, possibly more. Like many other hon. Members, I am greatly concerned about the increase in the number of people applying for asylum. I am sure that my hon. Friend was planning to mention the issue, and I apologise for perhaps anticipating him.
    Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall deal in a moment with the situation in Pakistan.
    Over several months, the Government have clearly stated our concerns to the Indian authorities. During his visit to India last November, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed our concerns about attacks on religious minorities to the Indian Home Minister and urged that action be taken to restore the confidence of the Christian minority in India.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently raised the issue of the position of religious minorities in India with the national security adviser and principal secretary to the Indian Prime Minister.
    Furthermore, last year, the high commission raised our concerns with senior figures in the Bharatiya Janata party, including the general secretary and the vice-president. In the context of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, it is important that I should make that clear.
    I am pleased to report that there has been some progress in the Indian authorities' response to the incidents. The human rights commission has been invited to investigate the murders of Graham Staines and his family. That is in addition to the formal commission of inquiry headed by the Indian Supreme Court Justice, which has been asked to report to the Indian Home Minister. We look forward to reading the findings of this and other inquiries. Suspects have already been arrested, and we very much hope that all the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
    The incidents in Gujarat are being investigated by the National Commission for Minorities, and suspects have been taken into custody. I understand that arrests have
    444
    been made in the case of the rape of the nuns in Madhya Pradesh in September. We are encouraged by those developments, and by the determination of the Indian authorities to bear down against the perpetrators of this evil in Indian society.
    The position of minorities, including Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims, in Pakistan is also a cause for concern. Like India, Pakistan's founding fathers were wholly committed to religious tolerance. The founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said:
    "You may belong to any religion, caste or creed … There is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another".
    Jinnah described himself as the
    "Protector General of the Hindu minority in Pakistan".
    Article 20 of Pakistan's constitution makes it clear that there is a right to practise, profess and propagate religion, and that there should be the right to establish, maintain and manage religious institutions. There are constitutional protections, but the rights of minorities there are abused.
    Many hon. Members will have read a disturbing article called "Beyond Belief' which detailed various examples of discrimination against Christians. Accusations of blasphemy can and have led to death sentences. In the most widely known case, Ayub Masih, a Pakistani Christian, was accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death after intervening in a dispute with a Muslim man who wanted to seize land from his parents. Masih was shot and injured as he was being led to court. The Sharia Bill, currently before Pakistan's Senate, has given rise to further concerns over the position of non-Muslims in Pakistan.
    Mr. Colman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has completed a three-day visit to Pakistan. I can tell the House that, on Monday, he raised the issue of religious minorities with Pakistan's Minister of Law. He told the Minister of the great concern in the UK. The Minister made the point that there was concern in Pakistan as well.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at three minutes to Twelve midnight.

DEFENCE

  Task Forces
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62809]

  Mr. Spellar
  As far as bodies composed of independent members are concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 30 July 1998,Official Report, column 451.

  While this Department has not set up any Task Forces since 1 May 1997, information on review panels and advisory groups on which external members serve and which are set up from time to time across the Department is not held centrally. Collecting this information is taking longer than expected. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is complete and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the retention of the 101 Battalion REME in Chorley since 16 December. [68157]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 28 January 1999]Since 16 December 1998, my Department has received 22 Parliamentary Questions on this matter, all from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, five letters from Parish Councils and three letters from members of the public.

  Trident
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work is(a) underway and (b) planned to provide a low-yield Trident warhead able to fulfil Trident's sub-strategic role. [68836]

  Mr. Dog Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 724.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the investigations which(a) have been commissioned and (b) have been circulated or recommended by medical officers in the past 20 years
  216
  concerning the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among serving or former serving members of HM Armed Forces. [67428]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: My Department does not maintain central records of investigations commissioned, circulated or recommended by medical officers on the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among serving or former members of the Armed Forces. However, I am not aware that my Department has commissioned, or has been recommended by medical officers to commission, investigations specifically into the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among serving or former members of the Armed Forces over the past 20 years.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations have been received in the past 20 years from(a) former soldiers, (b) general practitioners or family doctors, (c) prison doctors or chaplains, (d) officers of the court and (e) others, concerning the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder. [67429]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: The information requested is not available as no central records are maintained by my Department of representations received concerning post-traumatic stress disorder.

  RN Base Clyde
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, columns 460–61, on RN Base Faslane, in which year the current civilian system of monitoring started at RN Naval Base Clyde; and what proportion of Navy supervisors were qualified to City and Guilds standards prior to that date. [69087]

  Mr. Spellar
  The use of civilian Health Physics Monitoring Supervisors was introduced at the Clyde Naval Base around November 1989.

  Prior to this date, there were two categories of supervisors in the area of Health Physics, both were Royal Naval personnel. Monitoring Supervisors were in charge of the administration of the Monitors, while Radiological Protection Supervisors maintained an oversight of the Monitoring aspects. The latter were qualified to City and Guilds Stage 2 in Radiation Safety Practice.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he uses in establishing the preferment to be given to(a) UK only and (b) UK/European bids for procurement contracts when the competition is with non-EU contractors. [69469]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD has a policy of open international competition whenever this is possible. A wide range of factors are considered by the MOD when making procurement decisions, including: long term value-for-money, security of supply, UK technological capabilities and the benefits to MOD of potential exports.
  217
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he uses to assess the export potential for UK-designed and produced equipment when considering bids made by competitors for defence procurement contracts. [69468]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD assessments of the export potential of British defence equipment are based on a judgment of the potential requirements in the market place, the level of competition the UK company is likely to face, and the company's own assessment of its export potential, tempered by our knowledge of their previous record of export success.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what skill shortages he has identified within the UK defence industry; and what steps he has taken to address them. [69409]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to each of the Government's public consultations. [69774]

  Mr. Spellar
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to public consultation conducted only by the Ministry of Defence. No single collation and assessment of all public consultation conducted by the Ministry of Defence exists. Our largest public consultation exercise to date was that conducted to inform the Strategic Defence Review. Where consent was given by the authors, copies of submissions made to the Ministry of Defence in the course of that exercise have been placed in the Library of the House. The assessment of those submissions formed part of the Strategic Defence Review, the recommendations of which were reported to Parliament on 8 July 1998,Official Report, columns 1073–96.

  War Memorial (Service Women)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to fund a war memorial to service women. [70174]

  Mr. Spellar
  It has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments that the cost of memorials is usually met not from public funds, but from private donations or public subscription. However, the Government have nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude for those women who served and died in the service of their country.

  We are aware of a campaign to erect a memorial to Service women. Although the Government are unable to assist financially with this project, I have announced in the House on several occasions since 20 May 1997, that if the necessary funds were raised from public subscription or private donation, my Department would be more than happy to provide representation at any dedication ceremony.
  218

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69963]

  (2) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69837]

  (3) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner; [69904]

  (4) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69951]

  (5) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department (a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69986]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Defence Export Services Organisation was made aware on 6 October 1998 of the presence in the United Kingdom of General Pinochet; to which other sections in his Department and beyond this information was relayed; and if he will make a statement. [70242]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The Defence Export Services Organisation became aware of Senator Pinochet's visit in the context of other business; DESO was not involved in arrangements for the visit and there is no record of the information being relayed further. In addition, as my noble Friend Lord Hoyle explained on 11 January 1999, Official Report, House of Lords, column 5, other officials within the central staffs of the MOD had been informed of the Senator's impending visit on 16 September 1998 by officials at the FCO. However, this information was not passed to any other section, and no further action was taken.

  Northern Division HQ
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his decision to close 2 Division HQ in York and create a new northern division HQ in Edinburgh was based on an investment appraisal of(a) complete divisional/district restructuring, (b) that element which involved a choice of locations or (c) other factors. [70126]
  219
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The decision took into account an investment appraisal of options for the location of the headquarters of the proposed northern division.

HEALTH

  New Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if SEAC has been asked for its opinion as to the potential efficacy of pentosan polysulphate in treating nvCJD; and if he will make a statement; [61679]

  (2) what is the cost of an oral course of pentosan polysulphate as prophylaxis against nvCJD. [61680]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 2 December 1998]: It is not yet known whether an oral course of pentosan polysulphate would be effective as a prophylaxis against nvCJD, or what dose or duration of treatment would be required, or what adverse side effects there might be from its use for this purpose. Therefore it is not possible to calculate the cost of an oral course as an effective prophylaxis against nvCJD.

  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) met on 11 January and considered the potential use of pentosan polysulphate as a prophylactic. The Committee is in the process of preparing its advice to Ministers. The Committee on the Safety of Medicines is also considering this use of pentosan. The Government are awaiting the advice from these committees.

  Blood and Blood Products
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of persons who have been inoculated with blood or blood products over the past three years in the United Kingdom. [61681]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 2 December 1998]: It is estimated that about one million people in the United Kingdom receive blood and blood products every year.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who suffer from epilepsy in the UK. [70214]

  Mr. Hutton
  Epilepsy is the commonest chronic neurological disorder and it is estimated to affect between 400,000 and 420,000 people in the United Kingdom.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average pay levels in London for nurses in each grade. [70041]

  Mr. Denham
  Estimated total annual average earnings for nursing staff in London by grade, taken from the Department's August 1997 earnings survey, are shown in the table.
  220

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services nursing and midwifery staff: Estimated total annual average earnings by grade

  London as at December 1998

  £

  Clinical grade

  Annual total earnings 1

  A

  12,900

  B

  14,800

  C

  16,100

  D

  17,800

  E

  20,700

  F

  23,400

  G

  26,000

  H

  27,500

  I

  29,800

  1 Annual total earnings is an estimate averaged across all incremental points. It includes basic pay, elements from flat rate allowances such as London allowance, on call and stand by and elements from allowances that are salary related such as London allowance and special duty.

  Note:

  Data are rounded to the nearest £100.

  Source:

  Department of Health Earnings Survey August 1997

  Medicines (Children)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to make EU guidance on medicines for children legally binding on pharmaceutical companies; [69684]

  (2) what steps he is taking to assess the cost to the NHS of making guidance on medicines for children legally binding on pharmaceutical companies; [69685]

  (3) what steps are being taken by EU member states to monitor the way pharmaceutical companies comply with EU guidance on the licensing of medicines for children; which companies have complied with this guidance; which products are being developed in accordance with this guidance; and when the application of the guidance will be extended to products already on the market, in other EU member states. [69683]

  Ms Jowell
  The European Union guidance came into operation in September 1997. As the development times for medicinal products are relatively long, there will be a delay before trials in children are submitted with all relevant applications for authorisation of medicinal products.

  Where a medicinal product has an anticipated therapeutic benefit in children, the applicant is asked to provide details of a paediatric development plan if this is not already included in the dossier supporting the application for marketing authorisation. Information relevant to paediatric use, based on the availability or not of paediatric data, is included in the product particulars. The EU guidance on the investigation of medicinal products in children applies to products already on the market as well as to new products. Information on those companies which have so far complied with this guidance in other member states is not available, neither is information on those products which are being developed in accordance with this guidance in other member states.
  221
  European guidance is not legally binding on pharmaceutical companies and no steps have been taken to assess the costs to the National Health Service of making guidance on medicines for children legally binding on pharmaceutical companies. If the guidance does not have the effect of increasing the availability of appropriate medicinal products to children, there is scope for the United Kingdom and other Member States to raise with the European Commission the question of whether legislative steps should be taken to strengthen the regulatory framework.

  ME
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work programme of the working group on myalgic encephalomyelitis, and its timescale. [70255]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) on 4 February 1999,Official Report, columns 524–25.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in promoting awareness and understanding of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME among(a) health professionals and (b) the general public; and if he will make a statement. [70160]

  Ms Jowell
  The recent publicity surrounding the announcement of the establishment of the working group on chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and the involvement of many health professionals, academics, patients and carers in its work has already raised awareness of CFS/ME. The best practice guidance that the Group has been tasked with producing will also raise understanding and awareness. In the mean time, we will continue to work with the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Alliance to promote awareness and understanding of this distressing and debilitating condition.

  Under-age Alcoholics
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are made for the treatment of under-age alcoholics; and if he will make a statement. [68648]

  Ms Jowell
  Health and local authorities are responsible for assessing the level of need for all alcohol services locally, and making arrangements to meet that need in accordance with local priorities and the resources available.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of practising physicians are general practitioners. [70080]

  Mr. Denham
  There were 27,100 general practitioners (unrestricted principals) as at 1 October 1997. This figure was 31 per cent. of the total number of doctors employed in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors' and (b) general practitioners' posts are unfilled in (i) England and (ii) Norfolk. [70081]
  222
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average age of retirement for general practitioners was in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 1998; and if he will make a statement. [70083]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average number of working days lost per(a) doctor and (b) general practitioner for psycholkgical reasons in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998; and if he will make a statement, [70084]

  (2) what was the average number of working days lost per (a) doctor and (b) general practitioner for medical reasons in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998; and if he will make a statement. [70085]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centralhy. A survey carried out in National Health Service trusts in August 1998 identified the sickness trusts in August 1998 identified the sickness absence rates for medical and dental staff at 1.6 per cent. The survey did not distinguish between medical and psychological illness.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on monitoring the progress of the Portcullis House project. [70000]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has authorised a mid-term review of progress on Portcullis House.

  The objective of the review, which is part of a continuing programme of supervision of the project, will be to satisfy the Commission that the new parliamentary building can be delivered, to the desired quality, on budget and within the agreed timetable.

  The hon. Lady will be aware that in approving the principle of the new building, the House itself was well aware of the important heritage implications of what will be a major parliamentary development on an internationally important site. While the Commission recognises that Portcullis House needs to be a building of the first architectural quality, it has also been concerned throughout with the need to keep costs in control.

  The review, to be conducted by Northcroft, will analyse cost movements to date and include an independent risk appraisal of outturn costs. It will also provide an opportunity to examine organisational structure and procedures used during the project.

  House of Commons Switchboard
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee for what reason the House of
  223
  Commons switchboard does not have available the fax numbers of Committees and Departments of the House. [69467]

  Mr. Allan
  Action has recently been taken to ensure that the information available to the House of Commons switchboard is consistent with the contents of the internal Parliamentary Phone Directory. However, entries in that directory are determined by the wishes of Members, Departments and Committees and therefore are not necessarily comprehensive.

  It has also been a long-standing policy that the switchboard will reveal telephone numbers to external callers only if expressly permitted to do so by the owner. This complements the restricted circulation of the Parliamentary Phone Directory.

  If Departments and Committees wish their fax numbers to be listed and to be made available to external callers, there is no obstacle to doing so.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism Offices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to assist local authorities with tourism offices. [68470]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: My Department is encouraging local authorities, as major deliverers of cultural services, to produce cultural strategies. These strategies will cover the broad range of cultural services offered by local authorities which relate to DCMS interest (including tourism) and aim to develop their economic and social impact through greater integration.

  Association of British Travel Agents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of(a) travel agents and (b) tour operators were members of the Association of British Travel Agents in (i) 1992, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 1998. [69375]

  Janet Anderson
  The Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) suggests that in 1998 around 95 per cent. of high street travel agents and 65 per cent. of tour operators were ABTA members. Information is not available for 1992 and 1995.

  Campus Radio Stations
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the Radio Authority to produce guidelines for issuing licences to campus radio stations. [69728]

  Janet Anderson
  The Radio Authority published its notes of guidance for low-powered AM licences, intended for use by establishments such as universities and hospitals, on 11 January 1999. Copies of the guidelines have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  224

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the German Government on negotiation of contracts for processing nuclear waste in the United Kingdom. [69158]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the German Government on negotiation of contracts for processing nuclear waste in the United Kingdom. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 547.

  Uranium
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the production of highly enriched uranium for civil purposes is adequate to meet current demand. [69533]

  Mr. Battle
  This is a commercial and operational matter for suppliers of enrichment services and their customers, subject to satisfying the necessary international and regulatory requirements.

  Employment Relations Bill
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has made of the annual increase in awards for unfair dismissal under the provisions of the Employment Relations Bill. [69593]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: While some of the proposals contained in the Employment Relations Bill are expected to increase the number of applications to Employment Tribunals, others could reduce the number of disputes that result in an application to a Tribunal. We expect the net effect on the total number of applications to be very small. We have not made an estimate specifically of the number of unfair dismissal cases, or of how many of these may be successful at a Tribunal hearing.

  British Coal (Canteen Workers)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total cost to public funds of the British Coal canteen workers equal pay claim; and when he expects the case to be resolved. [69896]

  Mr. Battle
  This remains a matter for British Coal. I understand they have settled around 70 claims from UDM and a few NUM canteen workers at an average settlement cost of around £1,300 per claim. In the meantime, the Employment Tribunal has ordered that sample cases be referred to an independent expert, who has been asked to submit his report by March 1999. Subsequent progress will depend largely on the content of this report.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b)the

  225
  agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69943]

  (2) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department (a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69973]

  (3) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69829]

  (4) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department (a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69980]

  (5) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. [69911]

  Mr. Byers
  The executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) sponsored by the Department are actively seeking ways of operating in a more open way consistent with the recommendations of "Quangos—Opening the doors". A number of executive NDPBs already issue summary reports of meetings where practicable and these are in the public domain; these include the National Consumer Council; the Gas Consumer Council; the Post Office Users Councils; the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and the Research Councils. All executive NDPBs with board members have a register of their members' interests and these are available to the public, for example the Coal Authority publishes its register in its Annual Report and Accounts and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission place its register on its website. There is no statutory requirement in legislation for this sort of activity; however it represents good practice and is entirely consistent with "Quangos—Opening the doors".

  In the case of advisory NDPBs, the Council for Science and Technology produces summaries of meetings and issues press notices on its website, which also contains information on meetings, events, and work in progress; it is also due to publish a register of members interest shortly. The Human Genetics Advisory Commission issues summary reports of meetings which are published on its website. It has a register of members' interests as do others, for example the LINK/Teaching Company Scheme Board, the Measurement Advisory Committee, the Spectrum Management Advisory Group, the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the seven Regional Industrial Development Boards. Other advisory NDPBs are taking steps to have registers of interest in place shortly, in line with the recommendations in "Quangos—Opening the doors". As in the case of executive NDPBs, there are no statutory requirements for this.
  226
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has held open meetings at its Dounreay and Windscale sites and also has local liaison committees which have a formal membership drawn from the local community. The Coal Authority's annual meetings are open to the public. The Research Councils regularly hold open days, seminars, exhibitions and public consultations. Other NDPBs, including the National Consumer Council, Gas Consumer Council, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Post Office Users National Council and the three Post Office councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considering whether they might hold open meetings.

  The National Consumer Council and the Gas Consumers Council both have a complaints procedure as part of their draft code. The Post Office Users National Council and the three national councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in the process of establishing their own complaints procedures. There are no statutory requirements in this area.

  The Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property holds public meetings; the Human Genetics Advisory Commission has held its first open meeting and is planning a programme of consultative meetings for this year; the Council for Science and Technology has provision for holding open public meetings within its code of practice and also for the co-opting of third parties onto the sub-group of Council members for particular topics. Several other advisory NDPBs including the Energy Advisory Panel and Measurement Advisory Committee are considering whether it would be appropriate for them to hold public meetings. There is no statutory requirement for them to do this.

  All appointments to the Department's executive and advisory NDPBs are made in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice. The code requires that appointments are made on merit judged against criteria relevant to the responsibilities and duties of each appointment. Each of the Department's Consumer bodies requires experience of knowledge of consumer issues.

  Many of the executive NDPBs have a statutory base: exceptions include the Simpler Trade Procedures Board and the National Consumer Council. The following executive NDPBs are currently under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman: the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service; the Research Councils, the Coal Authority, the Commissioner for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action, and the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. The British Hallmarking Council; Gas Consumers Council; Post Office Users Council; National Consumer Council; Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and the UKAEA are due to be brought within the Parliamentary Ombudsman's jurisdiction shortly by means of an Order in Council which goes before the Privy Council this month.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total number of claims settled for the industrial disease, vibration white finger, before the new scheme was agreed, indicating the(a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average award. [69841]
  227
  Mr. Battle
  As at 4 February the Department has settled 3,572 claims for vibration white finger. Of these 1,968 have been settled by payment, and the remaining 1,604 have been ruled out. The individual settlement payments have ranged from £3,000 to £200, with an average of £1,900. The total cost of settlements to date is £3,646,349. In addition to this the Department has paid £1,033,979 in costs to plaintiffs' solicitors.

  Since November last year Plaintiffs' solicitors have been advised that higher settlement levels were likely to be agreed with the Plaintiffs' Solicitors Group, who represent 60 per cent. of the plaintiffs, and they were asked to advise their clients accordingly.

  Following the agreement reached with the plaintiffs' solicitors on 22 January the average award is likely to be in the region of £6,000 for General Damages (within a range of £500 to £18,000). Additional compensation for special damages will be decided on a case by case basis.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to all the Government's public consultations. [69769]

  Mr. Byers
  I will arrange for a summary of responses to all public consultation exercises carried out by the Department since 1 May 1997 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  EC Copyright Directive
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the(a) European Commission and (b) European Parliament concerning the proposed EC copyright directive. [70113]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The United Kingdom has made clear to all concerned our support for the main aims of the draft copyright Directive. However, we have expressed strong reservations on the over-prescriptive approach on exceptions to rights, many of which exceptions have little or no effect on the internal market. In particular, we remain firmly opposed to a general requirement to impose levies in return for all private copying exceptions, no matter how minor. The Government wish to maintain a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of rights holders and those of users of rights and intermediaries, including network operators and service providers. We have also called for clarification of the provision on technological protection measures, while supporting its general aim, and have welcomed the fact that liability of intermediaries is being considered as a horizontal issue in the draft electronic commerce Directive.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure that the traditional interests of copyright holders are protected in the context of the electronic media under the proposed EC copyright directive. [70114]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that copyright protection across the EU is at least as good as that already in UK law; strong intellectual property rights are fundamental to an innovative economy. Digital
  228
  technology allows data to be more easily disseminated and used or copied, and effective copyright protection for the electronic age is essential. Without the confidence that rights are properly protected worldwide, there would be no incentive for suppliers of information to make works available on-line and therefore no global information society. The Government believe the copyright Directive should prove to be of considerable benefit to UK rights holders in the context of Europe as whole, and we have broadly welcomed it. However, we will also continue to press for more flexibility for member states in the exceptions provisions of the Directive. Rights holders, users of rights and intermediaries are all key players in ensuring the success of the new services of the information age.

  Chargeable Export Services
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what systems are in place for measuring the effectiveness and impact of the major Government chargeable export services. [70941]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have received results of independent surveys conducted among a sample of over 1000 businesses who used Overseas Trade Services in 1997. I am delighted that the results show an average overall satisfaction rate of 88 per cent. compared to an average of 83 per cent. in 1995 and 1996. Furthermore, the positive trend was the same for virtually every individual scheme.

  Last year we reviewed the way in which DTI and FCO monitors and evaluates customer satisfaction and perceptions of the major export promotion services we deliver. As a result, the Quality Management System (QMS) was significantly revised so as to enable us to obtain more detailed information about customer satisfaction levels on a world-wide basis.

  The Quality Management System will be further enhanced in 1999 to take into account comments of the business representatives of the British Overseas Trade Board's Regional Committee, and the tendering process for a new contractor to start work in April is currently underway. The contractor will carry out work to capture data relevant to the new joint FCO/DTI export promotion objectives.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drugs
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to support the parents of young people who abuse drugs. [68653]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government's anti-drugs strategy includes the provision of information, advice and support to parents. Support is provided day to day through the National Drugs Helpline. Locally, Drug Action Teams were asked to consult and to consider the needs of parents and carers when drawing up plans for local action.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how he intends to improve co-ordination of anti-drug measures at local level. [68655]
  229
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Drug Action Teams should take a strategic overview of anti-drugs action including resource allocation and link up with other local and regional partnerships. They have now submitted their provisional local action plans for 1999–2000. These are being assessed.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the incidence of drug misuse among people under the age of 25 years. [68656]

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the incidence of drug misuse among people under the age of 25 years. [68669]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Drugs misuse is most common among people in their teens and early twenties. About half of young people are likely to take drugs at some time in their lives, but only about one-fifth will become regular misusers, with a smaller minority developing the most serious problems.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what initiatives have been taken by the United Kingdom's anti-drugs co-ordinator to combat new trends in drugs misuse. [68670]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government's anti-drug strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", provides a framework for co-ordinated action against the range of drugs problems over ten years. Action is overseen and monitored by Keith Hellawell, to whom the local Drug Action Teams across the country have recently reported with their action plans for 1999/2000. His first annual report and national plan will be produced in the spring.

  Liberal Democrats (Discussions)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many policy areas he has identified to date as suitable for detailed discussions with Liberal Democrat hon. Members using the Joint Consultative Cabinet Committee mechanisms. [68654]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The review of the work of the Joint Consultative Committee, which I am undertaking with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is not yet complete.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the cost of ministerial travel for each Minister in his Department since 1 May 1997. [68657]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Ministerial Code requires Ministers always to make effective and cost-efficient travel arrangements. Figures on the spend by this Government on Ministers' visits overseas were published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on guidelines within his Department for ministerial travel. [68663]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Ministerial Code requires Ministers always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.
  230
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to review ministerial travel regulations. [68668]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  None. Ministers are required under the terms of the Ministerial Code always to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. The rules on ministerial travel are the same as those that applied under the previous Administration.

  Charter Marks
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the charter mark awards scheme. [68658]

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the 1998 charter mark awards. [68659]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This has been another very successful year for the charter mark awards scheme with 508 awards being made—the highest number ever. There were a record number of applications from virtually all types of public service in the UK, and there were 128 second time winners and 18 third time winners. It was particularly pleasing to note that there were 74 winners of the award who had been unsuccessful in the previous year.

  Charter mark is making a real contribution to improving public services and we will continue to develop the scheme to make it even more effective.

  Better Government (Older People)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the better government for older people programme. [68660]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Better Government for Older People initiative, an important part of our commitment to modernising government, has valuable lessons to teach about developing improved services that are more responsive to the needs of their users. Next month we are putting in place a Learning Network so that many more local authorities across the UK can share in this learning and experience. Well over two hundred authorities have already expressed an interest in joining the Network.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures he intends to take to encourage local authorities to become involved in the better government initiative. [68665]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Local Government is a key partner in the drive to improve public service effectiveness and responsiveness and is involved at all levels in the production of the Modernising Government White Paper. For example, Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chairman of the Local Government Association attends meetings of the Ministerial Group on Better Government. I welcome a wide debate on these matters and I recently launched the Modernising Government discussion forum on the Downing Street website, to encourage people to participate in the consultation process.
  231

  Government (Modernisation)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on his Department's agenda for(a) modernising Government and (b) improving the efficiency of public services. [68661]

  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the progress of the modernising government strategy. [68666]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office explained to the House on 21 October last year, the Government will publish a White Paper in the Spring, setting out their programme for modernising government and joining-up public services to respond better to the people that need them. Discussion on the 10 Downing Street website describes the work in hand and invites people to join in.

  Quangos
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will announce further measures to abolish quangos; and if he will make a statement. [68664]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government remain committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to an absolute minimum. Many NDPBs have already been abolished and many more have been targeted for abolition in the near future. All NDPBs which remain are subject to a rolling programme of quinquennial reviews to ensure that the downward pressure on numbers continues.

  Public Services
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on his Department's agenda for improving the efficiency of public services. [68667]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The White Paper on Modernising Government will describe the Government's agenda for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services, and is to be published in the spring. It will build on our current initiatives which focus on promoting partnerships between the public and private sector, investing in new collaborative initiatives, benchmarking, setting and measuring performance standards, and special organisation reviews.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 1999,Official Report, column 405, on civil servants' hearing impairments, if he will list the other circumstances which resulted in large numbers of civil servants not qualifying for a pension. [70245]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The circumstances under which civil servants leave without qualifying for a civil service pension are as follows:

  Prior to 1972

  all those who left unestablished service

  all those who left established service under age 50 or over age 50 with less than 10 years' service

  those women who resigned on marriage and received a gratuity

  232

  Since 1 June 1972

  those who left before 6 April 1988 with less than 5 years' service or since that date with less than 2 years' service

  those who are excluded from the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme by virtue of Rule 1.4 (mainly casual staff, and certain part-time staff before 1995) or who have chosen to opt-out of the pension scheme.

  Civil Service (Fast Stream)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement about future arrangements for recruitment to the Civil Service fast stream development programme. [70942]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Management of the Fast Stream recruitment process was contracted out to the Capita Group plc as part of the decision to privatise the former Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency in October 1996.

  A review of the operation of the recruitment process took place during 1998. As a result I have decided in principle that, on the expiry of the current contracts, the selection stages of the process will return to direct Civil Service management. I expect specialist services including advertising, publicity, response handling and psychology support to continue to be supplied by the private sector following competitive tender.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will be extended to cover all executive non-departmental public bodies and those advisory non-departmental public bodies which have significant dealings with members of the public. [70943]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Her Majesty in Council has today approved an Order extending the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to an additional one hundred and eleven executive non-departmental public bodies and to forty-seven advisory non-departmental public bodies which have direct dealings with members of the public. This fulfils the commitment that the Government gave in "Quangos: Opening the Doors"—published on 29 June 1988—and will substantially increase the avenues of redress available to members of the public who wish to complain about their treatment by a non-departmental public body. It is another example of this Government's determination to ensure that all non-departmental public bodies are properly and fully accountable to both Parliament and the public for their actions.

  The Order will be laid before Parliament on Monday 22 February. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Order will come into force on Monday 15 March.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69967]
  233
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)none of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department admit members of the public to all board and committee meetings.

  (b) public meetings are held by:

  The Better Regulation Task Force

  The Civil Service Appeal Board

  The Committee on Standards in Public Life

  The Women's National Commission

  (c) the following bodies have lay or consumer representatives:

  The Better Regulation Task Force

  The Civil Service Appeal Board

  The Women's National Commission.

  In addition, the Advisory Committee on Advertising is comprised of senior advertising and media professionals who are independent of government and advertising agency suppliers; members are appointed to the Committee on Standards in Public Life to bring a mix of experience and expertise from different areas of public life; and membership of the Security Commission and the Security Vetting Appeals Panel is drawn from a range of people from different professions and backgrounds.

  There is no statutory requirement for the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department to admit the public to meetings or to hold public meetings. However, all advisory non-departmental public bodes are encouraged to do so where practicable and appropriate. Nor is there any statutory requirement for advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department to have lay or consumer representatives. However, all members of advisory non-departmental public bodies are appointed on merit and membership will, where appropriate, include individuals from a balance of backgrounds.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69839]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There is no statutory requirement for the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department to publish the minutes of meetings, the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings, or a register of members' interests. However, all advisory non-departmental public bodies are encouraged to do so where practicable and appropriate. Currently, minutes of meetings, agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings are published by the Women's National Commission. A record of the hearing of Security Vetting Appeals Panel is given to the appellant and the relevant organisation. Reports of Civil Service Appeal Board hearings go only to the relevant interested parties.

  Registers of Interests are either in place, or are in the process of being prepared, in all advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department. These Registers are either published or are made available for public inspection on request.
  234

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations he has received regarding the work undertaken by special advisers; and if he will make a statement. [68671]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I receive occasional representations on the role of Special Advisers. The most recent representations from hon. Members were put to me in a debate on 13 January 1999,Official Report, columns 311–68, on Government Information.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road User Charging
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the first road user charging schemes to be introduced. [69390]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Implementation will be subject to the necessary legislation, which we will introduce when Parliamentary time permits. The preparatory work is underway and we have offered help to local authorities outside London who wish to make early progress. Implementation in London will depend on decisions by the Major following the GLA election in May 2000.

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to visit Hindhead to examine the transport problems on the A3. [69731]

  Dr. Reid
  I have no plans currently to visit Hindhead to examine the transport problems on the A3. We already recognise that there is a serious congestion problem and in December last year announced our intention that an A3 study would form part of a group of road-based studies.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the(a) RSG and (b) RSG per head in (i) Waverley and (ii) Sedgefield for (1) 1999–2000, (2) 1994–95 and (3) 1989–90. [69730]

  Mr. Prescott
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  £ per head

  Waverley

  Sedgefield

  Waverley

  Sedgefield

  Revenue Support Grant

  1999–2000

  0.864

  3.570

  8

  40

  1994–95

  2.114

  3.571

  18

  39

  Block Grant1

  1989–90

  0

  3.009

  0

  34

  1 Calculated under the Rate Support Grant Report 1989–90

  235

  Repossessions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement concerning the case of Ropaighealach v Barclays Bank (The Times, 6 January) and the right of a mortgagor to enter a property and dispossess its owner without a court order. [69693]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the case of Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc (Times Law Report, January 6 1999) the Court of Appeal held that a mortgage lender was entitled to exercise its common law right to take possession of a mortgaged dwelling house without first obtaining a court order. The protection provided to the borrower by section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 applied only where the lender had brought an action for possession.

  There are restrictions on the exercise of a mortgage East lender's common law right to take possession of a mortgaged dwelling. The right must be exercised peaceably. Use of violence would be an offence under the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 provides protection for tenants occupying the property.

  Portsmouth Rail-head
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with(a) Portsmouth City Council and (b) Portsmouth Ferry Port concerning the development of a freight rail-head in Portsmouth; [69673]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the development of a freight rail-head in Portsmouth since 1990. [69848]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that a feasibility study for a sea-rail link at Portsmouth is benefiting from a grant of 18,000 ecu from the European Commission under the Trans-European Network ("TENS") scheme. I met a delegation representing Portsmouth Commercial Port and Portsmouth City Council on 11 January to East Hampshire discuss general investment in the Port. However, the issue of rail links was not raised.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) individuals and (b) organisations that have made representations requesting that council tax Band G be split into two new bands with consequential increases in the proportion of tax due for both the new band and the current Band H in order to reflect better the differential in value between lower bands; and if he will make a statement. [69998]

  Ms Armstrong
  As part of our review of Local Government Finance last year, we invited views on the Telford and the Wrekin operation of the council tax.

  Two councillors and the following organisations made representations requesting that Band G be split:

  Local Authorities (121 Authorities)

  Rother

  Harrow

  Reigate and Banstead

  236

  Sutton

  Durham City

  Forest of Dean

  Mid Suffolk

  Wychavon

  Fenland

  Teesdale

  West Oxfordhire

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Hastings

  South Syropshire

  Wealden

  Harrogate

  Devon

  East Northamptonshire

  Staffordhsire

  Lewes

  Alnwick

  New Forest

  Bassetlaw

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Macclesfield

  Dacorum

  Dudley

  Castle Point

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Shepway

  North Norfolk

  Canterbury

  Eastleigh

  Walsall

  Oadby and Wigston

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Wigan

  Leicestershire

  East Hampshire

  Broxtowe

  Crawley

  Peterborough

  Craven

  East Staffordhire

  Warrington

  Warwickshire

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Cumbria

  Barnet

  West Dorset

  Telford and the Wrekin

  Southend-on-Sea

  Bolton

  Knowsley

  Fareham

  Gloucestershire

  Swindon

  Suffolk

  237

  Ribble Valley

  Bradoford

  Staffordshire

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  Amber Valley

  Wakefield

  Portsmouth

  Derby

  Newcastle upon Type

  Guildford

  Coventry

  Camden

  Calderdale

  Doncaster

  Birmingham

  Greewich

  Forest Heath

  Manchester

  Barnsley

  Bolsover

  Epping Forest

  Aylesbury Vale

  Luton

  Rochdale

  Torbay

  Northampton

  Wear Valley

  Bristol

  Barnsley Central

  Wyre Forest

  Exeter

  Tyne and Wear

  South Oxfordshire

  Ipswich

  Milton Keynes

  Leicester

  Durham County

  West Berkshire

  Dorset

  Gatehsead

  Braintree

  South Lakeland

  North Tyneside

  Allerdale

  Buckinghamshire

  Worcester

  Watford

  Lancashire

  Bury

  Elmbridge

  Liverepool

  Southwark

  Merton

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  St. Helens

  Boston

  238

  Welwyn Hatfield

  Maidstone

  Rutland

  Local Authority Representative Organisations

  Society of Municipal Treasures

  Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities outside London

  Local Government Association

  South Yorkshire Districts

  Police Authorities

  Warwickshire Police Authority

  Lancashire Police Authority

  Parish Councils

  Broomley and Stocksfield Parish Council

  Voluntary Sector Organisations

  Age Concern

  Political Organisations

  Blackburn and Darwen Labour Gruoup

  Woodstock and District Labour Party

  Warwickshire Labour Party Group

  Liberal Democrats Group, Allerdale.

  Three individuals and the following organisations made representation to retain the cuttent valuation bands:

  Local Authorities

  Rushcliffe

  Wandsworth

  Hampshire

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Restormel

  Redbridge

  Cheshire

  Isles of Scilly

  Rugby

  Lewisham

  Reading

  Others

  Local Government Research Unit, Wolvehampton

  Wolverhampton Conservative Group

  We fully considered these representations along with others that we received and set our conclusions in the White Paper, Modern Local Government—"In Touch with the People". We explained that the council tax was generally working well and that we do not plan to make any fundamental changes to the council tax, or carry out a revaluation, during the course of this Parliament.

  Public Consultations Worcester
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to all the Government's public consultations. [69780]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department follows the Cabinet Office guideance, "How to Conduct Written Consultation Exercises". A list of respondents is placed in the Libraries of both Houses and copies of responses are placed in the Department' libraries, except where the respondent has asked that their response remains confidential. Where possible, a summary of responses is produced and made public.
  239

  Housing Steering Group
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there will be tenant representation on the housing steering group on best value. [69736]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The official level Best Value in Housing Steering Group that we established last year to examine the application of best value to housing has two tenant representatives from TAROE—the tenants' and residents' organisations of England. This is underpinned by a tenants' sounding board focus group comprised of local authority and housing association tenant representatives.

  Fur Trade
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what action the Government are taking to ensure the implementation of the ban on furs entering the EU under Regulation 3254/91; [70009]

  (2) what action the Government are taking to press the Commission and EU Ministers to set a deadline for ratification of the humane trapping standards for animals caught in leghold traps; [70008]

  (3) if (a) Russia, (b) Canada and (c) the USA have ratified the agreement on humane trapping standards for animals caught in leghold traps; and what is the deadline for ratification of the convention. [70007]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: I understand that Canada and Russia have not yet ratified the agreement on humane trapping standards for animals caught in leghold traps agreed with the European Community in July 1997. I also understand that the USA has not ratified the agreed minute agreed with the European Community in December 1997. We will look for suitable opportunities to discuss with the Commission and EU Ministers what further progress can be made in pressing Canada, Russia and USA to ratify these agreements.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are responsible for ensuring implementation of the import ban on certain furs into the United Kingdom under Regulation 3254/91. In the case of all measures prohibiting the importation of goods, it is standard procedure for detailed written guidance to be issued to Customs officers as to the manner of regulating legitimate trade and the handling of illegal consignments. This practice was followed in the case of furs caught in leghold traps. I also understand that since the customs entry documents for virtually all commercial imports are processed electronically, and because all imported goods have a specific "commodity code" number which must be declared by importers on those documents, Customs officials are able to identify furs which may be prohibited from entering the United Kingdom under the Regulation.

  Groundwater Regulations 1998
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which EU countries require individual businesses to register under the Groundwater Directive. [69782]
  240
  Mr. Meale
  It is a requirement of the Groundwater Directive (80/68/EEC) that individual discharges to groundwater should be subject to prior authorisation. It is for Member States, in accordance with their treaty obligations, to transpose these requirements into national law. The Groundwater Regulations 1998 complete transposition of the Directive by requiring authorisation of the disposal of listed substances to land, as distinct from a register of businesses.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he plans to issue to farmers with regard to the necessity of registering with the Environment Agency under the groundwater regulations. [69783]

  Mr. Meale
  The Groundwater Regulations 1998 provide that disposals, or tipping for the purpose of disposal to land of listed substances, require prior authorisation. Transitional arrangements provide that applications which relate to an activity substantially the same as one carried out by the applicant previously, and made prior to 1 April 1999 (when the main provisions in the Regulations come into force), will be deemed approved until finally disposed of the by Agency. My officials wrote on 21 December 1998, to draw attention to these arrangements, to those consulted on the draft regulations, including the National Farmers Union, Tenant Farmers Association and the Farming Union of Wales. Draft guidance will be published for consultation as soon as possible.

  Connex South East
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints have been received by his Department about(a) overcrowding, (b) standards of cleanliness and(c)p unctuality on Connex South East trains for each quarter in 1998; and what are the latest available figures. [70110]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  So far in 1999 my department and the Franchising Director's office have received three complaints relating to overcrowding on Connex South East trains; four on the general standard of their trains including cleanliness and 21 on punctuality. The table provides the same information for each quarter in 1998.

  Overcrowding

  Standard of the trains including cleanliness

  Punctuality

  January-March

  29

  12

  65

  April-June

  7

  5

  20

  July-September

  7

  9

  21

  October-December

  14

  17

  101

  Total for 1998

  57

  43

  207

  Planning Permission
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, when a metropolitan borough council has stated in its UDP that a certain piece of land is designated for business use and suitable for general B1 purposes, it can subsequently grant planning permission to use this land for B 1, B2 industry and B8 warehouse use without amendment to the UDP. [70057]
  241
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires local planning authorities to determine applications for planning permission in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is for local authorities to decide whether material considerations justify granting a planning permission that is not in accordance with the plan.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. [69906]

  Mr. Meale
  All the executive NDPBs sponsored by DETR have a statutory base except the British Board of Agrement and the National Forest Company.

  All the bodies are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, with the following exceptions:
  The Audit Commission, the British Board of Agrement (BBA), the five Housing Action Trusts (HATs), the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA), the London Regional Passengers' Committee, the National Forest Company (NFC).

  The NFC will be brought within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration by means of an Order in Council due to go before the Privy Council later this month.

  The HATs and LPFA are subject to investigation by the Commissioner for Local Administrations (CLA)—the Local Government Ombudsman. The Environment Agency also comes within the remit of the CLA for matters concerning flood defence and land drainage.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69961]

  Mr. Meale
  (a) None of the advisory non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings.

  (b) The following advisory non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department hold public meetings:
  Advisory Committee on Packaging, Disabled Passengers' Transport Advisory Committee, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  (c)The following advisory non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department have lay or consumer representatives on their boards:
  Committee on Chemicals and Materials for Use in Public Water Supplies and Swimming Pools, Disabled Passengers' Transport Advisory Committee, Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Sustainable Development Education Panel, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.
  None of these matters is subject to a statutory requirement.
  242
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69835]

  Mr. Meale
  (a) The following advisory non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department publish the minutes of their meetings on the internet or make them available in paper form or do both:
  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Committee on Chemicals and Materials for Use in Public Water Supplies and Swimming Pools, Export Action Group for Building Materials, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sustainable Development Education Panel, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  (b) The following advisory non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department publish the agendas of meetings and documents for their meetings:
  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment Export Action Group for Building Materials, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sustainable Development Education Panel, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

  (c)The following advisory non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department publish a register of members' interests or have it available on request:
  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Advisory Committee on Packaging, Building Regulations Advisory Committee, Committee on Chemicals and Materials for Use in Public Water Supplies and Swimming Pools, Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, Government Panel on Sustainable Development, Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, Property Advisory Group, Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sustainable Development Education Panel, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development, Water Regulations Advisory Committee. All advisory NDPBs have or should shortly have a register of interests in place.

  None of these items is published under a statutory requirement.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69949]

  Mr. Meale
  (a) The following executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department publish the minutes of their meetings on the internet or make them available in paper form or do both:
  Countryside Commission, English Nature, Environment Agency, Health and Safety Commission, Health and Safety Executive, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, North Hull, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Local Government Commission for England, London Regional Passengers' Committee.

  (b) The following executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department publish the agendas of meetings and documents for their meetings:
  Countryside Commission, English Nature, Environment Agency', Health and Safety Commission, Health and Safety Executive, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, North Hull,

  243
  Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), Joint Nature Conservation Committee, London Regional Passengers' Committee.
  1Agendas only

  (c) The following executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department publish a register of members' interests:
  Audit Commission, British Board of Agrement, Commission for the New Towns, Countryside Commission, Docklands Light Railway, English Nature, English Partnerships, Environment Agency, Health and Safety Commission, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, North Hull, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), Housing Corporation, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Local Government Commission for England, Local Government Residuary Body (England), National Forest Company, Rural Development Commission.

  All executive NDPBs have or should shortly have a register of interests in place.

  None of these items is published under a statutory requirement.

  No information has been supplied on Regional Development Agencies as they are not yet operational and are still in the process of making decisions on these matters.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69984]

  Mr. Meale
  (a) The following executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings:
  Countryside Commission, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, North Hull, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), London Regional Passengers' Committee.

  (b) The following executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department hold public meetings:
  Commission for the New Towns, Countryside Commission, Docklands Light Railway, English Nature, English Partnerships, Environment Agency, Health and Safety Commission, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, North Hull, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), Local Government Commission for England, Local Government Residuary Body (England), Traffic Director for London.

  (c) The following executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department have lay or consumer representatives on their boards:
  Health and Safety Commission, Housing Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, North Hull, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), Housing Corporation, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, London Pensions Fund Authority, London Regional Passengers' Committee.

  (d)The following executive non-departmental bodies sponsored by my Department operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure:
  Audit Commission, Commission for the New Towns, Countryside Commission, Docklands Light Railway, English Nature, English Partnerships, Environment Agency, General Lighthouse Authorities (Northern Lighthouse Board, Trinity House) Health and Safety Commission, Health and Safety Executive, Housing
  244
  Action Trusts (Castle Vale, Liverpool, North Hull, Stonebridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest), Housing Corporation, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Local Government Commission for England, London Pensions Fund Authority, London Regional Passengers' Committee, Rural Development Commission, Traffic Director for London.

  None of these matters is subject to a statutory requirement.

  No information has been supplied on Regional Development Agencies as they are not yet operational and are still in the process of making decisions on these matters.

  Deaths at Work
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths at work were recorded in the most recent available year; and if he will make a statement on recent trends. [70053]

  Mr. Meale
  In 1997–98 there were 261 fatalities to workers.

  The fatal injury rate for all workers in 1997–98 was 1.0 per hundred thousand workers, which represents a return to the level seen in 1995–96, the lowest since the introduction of the reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations in 1986. The rate has fallen from 1.4 per hundred thousand five years ago and 1.8 per hundred thousand ten years ago.

  The information for 1997–98 is provisional.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Biosafety Protocol negotiations in Colombia, with specific reference to Article 1; and if he will make it his policy to support the inclusion of the precautionary principle as regards human health. [70346]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 February 1999,Official Report, columns 153–54.

  Housing (Ex-service Personnel)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of local authorities in England and Wales use length of service as the basis for housing allocation to ex-service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [69795]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department does not hold this information. Many local housing authorities require applicants for housing to have been resident in their area for a specified period before they will place them on their housing registers. This sort of requirement can cause difficulties for ex-service personnel and the Department's Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness advises authorities to give sympathetic
  245
  consideration to applications from ex-service personnel who have close connections with their district or lived their prior to enlisting.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a mandatory rate relief system for voluntary sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [70541]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are currently reviewing the arrangements under which non-profit making sports clubs may receive relief from non-domestic rates at the discretion of local authorities. We intend to issue a consultation paper in the near future.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will announce the Government's intentions as to which roads will make up the GLA road network, for which Transport for London will be the highway and traffic authority; [71002]

  (2) what role Transport for London will have in relation to planning applications which affect GLA roads. [71003]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", made clear that we start from the presumption that the GLA Road Network should be based on the primary route and red route networks. This base network is made up of some 220 miles of trunk roads and 105 miles of borough roads. We issued a consultation document last summer on whether roads might be added to or deleted from this base network to form the GLA Road Network. We received 93 responses to this consultation exercise. A summary of the responses has been placed in the Library. Copies of individual responses are available from the library of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  We have carefully considered the representations received and we have concluded that there should be some adjustments to the network as envisaged by the White

  Additions to base network

  Deletions from base network

  Adjustment for new road

  New A13 (West of Heathway to Wennington)

  Old A13 (West of Heathway to Wennington)

  A12 (Hackney Wick—M11 link)

  All (Bow interchange—Green Man Roundabout)

  A1203/A1261 (Limehouse Link/Aspen Way)

  A106 (Lea Interchange—All at Leytonstone)

  A1020 Royal Docks Road

  A117 Woolwich Manor Way (from A13 to A1020

  Deletions of primary routes

  A307 (Kew Green—Richmond Circus)

  A3O8 (Hampton)

  A503 (Waterworks Corner—Tottenham Hale Gyratory)

  Additions within the Inner Ring Road

  A201 Kings Cross—Elephant and Castle (via Blackfriars Bridge)

  A200/A3200/A3036 Tooley Street, St. Thomas Street, Southwark Street, Stamford Street, York Road, Lambeth Palace Road, Albert Embankment

  A3211 Tower Hill, Lower and Upper Thames Street, Victoria Embankment

  Westminster Bridge

  Lambeth Bridge, Millbank (from Vauxhall Bridge to Lambeth Bridge)

  246
  Paper. Those are set out in the table and shown on the two maps which have today been deposited in the Library. In outer London, there are some small adjustments primarily to reflect the construction of new roads. In central London, we propose the addition of roads which act as key distributor routes for the area within the Inner Ring Road.

  The resulting network gives Transport for London a clear and coherent set of roads to manage. The Mayor's Integrated Transport Strategy will set the framework within which Transport for London and boroughs will work. It is important that the Mayor, through Transport for London, should be responsible for key roads to help facilitate improved co-ordination in the movement of people and goods. In particular, direct involvement in roads in the central area will help the Mayor ensure there is a balanced approach to accessibility and traffic management not only to and from the City and West End but also for the developing south bank of the Thames.

  This GLA Road Network is broadly the same size as the base network and the transfer of about 220 miles of trunk roads from the Highways Agency to Transport for London represents a significant shift of responsibility from central Government.

  Subject to Parliamentary procedures, we intend that the network will be formally defined by Order to come into effect when Transport for London is brought into being. In defining the network, we are minded to include those small sections of side roads which are necessary to ensure that the main road is managed safely and efficiently.

  We have looked carefully at the powers Transport for London should have as highway authority in relation to planning applications which affect GLA roads. Our conclusion is that Transport for London should be consulted by the local planning authority where the proposed development would materially affect the volume or type of traffic on a GLA road; require direct access to a GLA road or be likely to prejudice the improvement or construction of a GLA road. We do not envisage that the Mayor should have the power to direct the planning authority over highway related matters.
  247

WALES

  National Assembly
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what leisure facilities are planned to be made available for members of the National Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [69218]

  Mr. Michael
  I have asked for a review of leisure facilities available to Welsh Office staff in Cardiff and elsewhere. Most of the staff to be employed by the Welsh Assembly will transfer from the Welsh Office in Cathays Park where the leisure facilities available to staff are quite limited. There is a fitness suite in Cathays Park, known as the Welsh Office Crown Building Fitness Centre, opened in May 1992, on the initiative of a number of staff. The suite is run as a private club by a committee of staff and its use is restricted to club members. The Department provides the accommodation in the mezzanine of Cathays Park but the equipment is funded by members' subscriptions and loans from the Civil Service Sports Council.

  There is also a Welsh Office Sports and Social Association (WOSSA) funded by subscription from staff, for which the Welfare Department provides the secretariat. However this has not been very active in recent years and any social and sporting activity carried on within the Department is generally organised by individual staff members, sometimes with the help of grants from WOSSA. Other than the support given in the form of basic accommodation, in the case of the fitness suite, the Department does not provide staff leisure facilities in Cardiff or elsewhere.

  Members and officials working in Crickhowell House will be provided with an induction pack which will list the leisure facilities in the Bay and surrounding area. There is no room at present in Crickhowell House to provide any facility similar to that at Cathays Park, but as additional space becomes available, in due course, it may be possible to provide leisure facilities. Following the review, recommendations will be prepared for consideration by the Assembly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 549, on the National Assembly, when he expects to lay the draft of the Order relating to disqualification of persons from membership of the National Assembly before Parliament. [69690]

  Mr. Michael
  Section 12 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 deals with disqualification from membership of the National Assembly. It provides that certain individuals and classes of person may not be members of the Assembly:by applying section 1(1) of the House of Commons (Disqualification) Act 1975, judges, civil servants, members of the armed forces, members of the police forces and members of foreign legislatures;
  those disqualified from being a member of a local authority;
  the Auditor General for Wales and the Welsh Administration Ombudsman;
  criminals in detention and those who have escaped; and
  Lords-Lieutenants and High Sheriffs for areas in Wales who are disqualified from representing those areas in the Assembly.
  248
  Section 12 also provides for an Order-in-Council to designate further offices and employments, the holding of which would be incompatible with membership of the Assembly. A consultation exercise invited views on the offices and employments that might be covered by the Order.

  Having considered the comments received, I have set out in a draft Order-in-Council which has today been laid before both Houses of Parliament, a list of the proposed disqualifying offices and employments. The draft Order-in-Council is subject to affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses before being put to Her Majesty in Council.

  The draft Order proposes the following disqualification from membership of the Assembly:

  (a) Members of

  National Park Authorities in Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Rent Assessment Panel in Wales

  Registered Inspectors Appeal Tribunal

  Sianel Pedwar Cymru

  Arts Council for Wales

  Audit Commission for Local Authorities and National Health Service in England and Wales

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Channel Four Television Corporation

  Commission for Local Administration in Wales

  Competition Commission

  Council of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  Countryside Council of Wales

  Environment Agency

  Forestry Commissioners

  General Teaching Council for Wales

  Independent Television Commission

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

  Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  Pensions Compensation Board

  Radio Authority

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales

  Sports Council for Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Welsh Language Board

  Council of the National Library of Wales

  Council of the National Museum of Wales

  (b) Members(not also being employees) of

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

  Welsh Development Agency

  Certification Officer or assistant certification officer

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Health Authority in Wales

  NHS Trust in Wales

  Special Health Authority in Wales

  249

  (c) other disqualifying offices

  Chief Adjudication Officer appointed under section 39 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992

  Chief Child Support Officer appointed under section 13 of the Child Support Act 1991

  Civil Service Commissioner

  Commissioner for Public Appointments

  Commissioner for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action

  Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Commissioner or assistant Commissioner of the Boundary Commission for Wales

  Director General of Electricity Supply

  Director General of Fair Trading

  Director General of Gas Supply

  Director General of Telecommunications

  Comptroller and Auditor General

  Governor of the British Broadcasting Corporation

  Health Service Commissioner for Wales

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  Member of a Medical Appeal Tribunal appointed under section 50 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992

  Member of a panel appointed under section 6 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 of persons to act as chairmen of Child Support Appeal Tribunals

  Member of a panel appointed under section 6 of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act 1992 of persons to act as chairmen of Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals

  Member of a panel of persons appointed under section 6 of the Social Security Act 1998

  Member of a panel of persons who may be appointed to serve on a Vaccine Damage Tribunal

  Member of the Council of the National Library of Wales

  Member of the Council of the National Museum of Wales

  Staff of the Auditor General for Wales

  Staff of the Forestry Commissioners

  Staff of the National Audit Office

  Pensions Ombudsman

  Staff holding politically-restricted posts in local government and National Park Authorities in Wales (unless exemption is obtained under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989)

  President of appeal tribunals appointed under section 5 of the Social Security Act 1998

  President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals

  Regional or other full time chairman of a child support appeal tribunal established under section 21 of the Child Support Act 1991

  Regional or other full time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Medical Appeals Tribunals or Disability Appeals Tribunals

  Rent Officers appointed under the Rent Act 1977

  Returning Officers in Assembly elections

  Social Fund Commissioner.

  There will be separate arrangements outside the Order-in-Council to cover the disqualification of members of the Boards of Training and Enterprise Companies in Wales, Career Companies in Wales and the Welsh European Programme Executive Ltd.

  I have decided not to take forward the suggestion contained in the consultation paper that staff of the bodies listed in the draft Order should be disqualified. However,
  250
  where an employee of such a body is elected as a member of the Assembly, I would expect that person to resign their paid employment immediately following election.

  Economically Active People
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of economically active people in Wales between the ages of (i) 25 to 34 and (ii) 35 to 49 years(a) currently, (b) in 1992 and (c) in 1997. [70068]

  Mr. Hain
  Estimates of the economically active in Wales, from the Labour Force Survey, are shown in the following table.

  Economically active, Wales (not seasonally adjusted)

  Age 25–34

  Age 35–49

  September to November 1992

  326,000

  467,000

  September to November 1997

  331,000

  478,000

  September to November 1998

  323,000

  487,000

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Office for National Statistics

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates his Department has made of the percentage of(a) five year olds, (b) six year olds and (c) seven year olds that were in classes of 30 or less in January 1997. [70059]

  Mr. Hain
  As I informed the hon. Member in my reply on 3 February 1999,Official Report, column 609, information on the number of pupils in classes of 30 or more was not available prior to 1998. Until January 1998, data were collected centrally only for the number of classes, by size of class, not for the number of pupils in each class.

  In January 1997, 24 per cent. of ordinary classes in primary schools had more than 30 pupils.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Registered Housing Associations
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the procedures which his Department's officials will follow in taking formal action in relation to registered housing associations, their committee members and members of staff; when these procedures were agreed to and by whom; and what actions have been taken to date under these procedures. [69721]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The formal actions available to the Department are set out in Schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1996 and are:

  power to appoint a new committee member

  power to direct an inquiry into the affairs of an association

  power to require an extraordinary audit of accounts and balance sheet

  where an inquiry or audit establishes misconduct or mismanagement, to remove or suspend officers, employees or agents, to freeze bank accounts or to restrict transactions.

  251
  The Department has taken no action under these procedures.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency (Telephone Calls)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of telephone calls made to Benefits Agency offices which are not answered within the target times; [69003]

  (2) how many complaints concerning the failure of Benefits Agency offices to answer telephones promptly he has received in each of the last three years; [69004]

  (3) what targets he has set the Benefits Agency concerning the answering of telephone calls. [69005]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 9 February 1999:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking, what estimate has been made of the proportion of telephone calls made to Benefits Agency (BA) offices which are not answered within the target times, how many complaints concerning the failure of BA offices to answer telephones promptly he has received in each of the last three years, and what targets he has set the BA concerning the answering of telephone calls.

  The information is not available in the format requested. At present the Agency does not have a national target covering telephone response times, although each individual District sets and publishes its own target.

  The BA introduced a series of measurement checks last year which included telephone call response times. The first year's checks will be completed by the end of March 1999 and figures reflecting this period of measurement will be available by the end of April 1999. The measurement checks will produce figures, including average telephone response times, which are statistically valid within each of the Agency's 17 Area and Benefit Directorates.

  The Agency does not maintain national records of the number of complaints received in respect of telephone response times although individual Districts maintain complaints information which is analysed and used to improve services locally.

  The BA is currently piloting new complaints handling procedures, designed to ensure that all offices which deal with the public, record and collate complaints in a consistent way. Once the results of the pilot exercise have been evaluated we will consider how best to introduce the most effective system.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Benefits Unit
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent the Disability Benefits Unit has been completing review decisions during the current year in line with the targets which have been set. [69640]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  252
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 9 February 1999:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking to what extent the Disability Benefits Unit has been completing review decisions during the current year in line with the targets which have been set. The Disability Benefits Directorate's published targets for 1998/1999 for clearance of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) reviews is 60% in 55 working days and 80% in 75 working days.

  The actual year to date achievement of DLA review clearances is, as at 31 January 1999, 70% in 55 days and 86.05% in 75 days.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Efficiency Gains
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to express efficiency gains as a percentage of his departmental budget; and if he will make a statement. [69632]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department's interim Public Service Agreement which was published in the Government's White Paper "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability" in December 1998.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the average number of hours which a non-main earner in a couple receiving family credit benefits works per week. [69681]

  Angela Eagle
  As at August 1998, in those couples where both members of the couple work, it is estimated that the non-main earner works, on average, 18 hours per week.

  Note:

  Figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Family Credit claimants.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount that the main earners in couples receiving family credit work per week. [70216]

  Angela Eagle
  As at August 1998, the average number of hours worked by the main earner in couples receiving Family Credit was 33.5 hours per week.

  Note:

  Figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Family Credit claimants.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average family credit award in 1998. [70278]

  Angela Eagle
  A complete set of data for the whole of 1998 will not be available until April 1999. The latest information is for August 1998 at which time the average award of Family Credit was £59.82 per week.

  Note:

  Figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Family Credit claimants.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1998.
  253
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's report on Family Credit. [70863]

  Mr. Darling
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate was asked to study the working practices and procedures at the Family Credit Unit to see what further improvements could be made in tackling Family Credit fraud. I am now considering the Inspectorate's findings. A copy of the Inspectorate's report is being placed in the Library.

  Lone Parents (Working Hours)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average amount that lone parents work per week. [70279]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director for the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 10 February 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the hours of work of lone parents.

  The latest estimates available from the UK Labour Force Survey are that in autumn 1998 46 per cent. of lone parents with dependent children were in employment. They worked an average of 29 hours per week.

  This average is defined using total usual hours, that is, hours usually worked including paid and unpaid overtime and excluding meal breaks. The estimate is based on respondents' main jobs and is not seasonally adjusted. Dependent children are defined as those aged 0–15 and 16–18 year olds in full-time education.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69978]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992 when the previous Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the Authorised Practitioners Scheme.

  The Answers in respect of the Legal Aid Board are:

  (a) no

  (b) no

  (c) yes

  (d) yes, but not under a statutory requirement.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the
  254
  agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69945]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992 when the previous Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the Authorised Practitioners Scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board does not publish either the minutes of, or the agendas and documents for, meetings.

  It does have a register of interests, which is published.

  There are no relevant statutory requirements.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69960]

  Mr. Hoon
  For the advisory non-departmental public bodies listed under my Department in the Cabinet Office publication 'Public Bodies 1998', the answers are as follows:

  (a) none

  (b) none, but the Civil Justice Council will be holding annual open meetings.

  There is no statutory requirement for these bodies in these areas.

  (c) the following bodies have lay or consumer representatives:

  The Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct has lay members: the Lord Chancellor must by statute have regard to the desirability of appointing persons who have experience in, or knowledge of, consumer affairs.

  The Civil Justice Council and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee have lay and consumer representative by Statute.

  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI) has both lay and consumer representation. The relevant Order indicates the attributes required for membership.

  All the Advisory Committees on JPs have at least one lay member as do most of the Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. [69909]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department sponsors two such bodies: the Legal Aid Board and the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board. However, the latter has been inactive since March 1992 when the previous Lord Chancellor announced his decision to postpone implementation of the Authorised Practitioners Scheme.

  The Legal Aid Board has a statutory base and is subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his
  255
  Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69831]

  Mr. Hoon
  For the advisory non-departmental public bodies listed under my Department in the Cabinet Office publication 'Public Bodies 1998', the answers are as follows:

  (a) none, although the Advisory Council on Public Records and the Civil Justice Council publish summary reports.

  (b) none

  (c) the Advisory Council on Public Records and the Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI) have registers of members' interests. Registers for the other bodies are at various stages of preparation, except where the body is due to be wound up soon.

  There are no statutory requirements in these areas.

  Worshipful Company of Scriveners
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to end the monopoly in London of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners. [70040]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have concluded that the monopoly of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners over notarial work in the central London area should be ended. An appropriate amendment will be moved to the Access to Justice Bill.

TREASURY

  Public Sector Research Establishments
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals for developing the commercial potential of the output of public sector research establishments. [70900]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am very pleased to announce that John Baker, who is Chairman of Medeva plc, has agreed to investigate the commercialisation of public sector research establishments (PSRE) outputs, with the view to making recommendations for increasing the rate of their exploitation. The study takes forward a commitment made in the Competitiveness White Paper, published last December. Mr. Baker will be working closely with HM Treasury and the Office of Science and Technology, who are collaborating on the initiative.

  It is time we took a close look at how we maximise the commercial potential of the high quality research that is carried out by the PSREs, where it is possible to do so. We need to identify the barriers to commercialising research and make sure that the PSREs share the best ways of overcoming them. The results should be of great benefit to the PSREs and the Departments that sponsor them.

  The intention is that the study will look in particular at the coverage of commercialisation in research contracts between PSREs and their sponsors, the organisation of the knowledge transfer process and incentives for PSRE staff.
  256
  John Baker will begin this work very soon; seeking the views of key people in the PSREs and sponsor Departments. He is expected to report later this year.

  The terms of reference of this study are as follows:
  To investigate the commercialisation of research in the Government's public sector research establishments (PSREs) and make recommendations for increasing the rate at which PSRE research outputs are successfully commercialised, consistent with other Government objectives for PSREs, with reference in particular to:

  the role of sponsor departments/Research Councils in promoting the exploitation of research in the PSREs;

  progress in improving the culture of entrepreneurship within PSREs—particularly through the adoption of new guidance on exploiting Government assets;

  the organisational capacity and expertise for managing and exploiting Government IP effectively;

  specific institutional barriers, and possible new incentives;

  spreading best practice;

  the scope for closer co-operation with the private sector.

  Electronic Capital Equipment
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will introduce fiscal incentives to encourage recycling of electronic capital equipment; and if he will make a statement; [68630]

  (2) what fiscal incentives are available to industry to encourage recycling of electronic capital equipment. [68631]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no special fiscal incentives to encourage recycling of electronic equipment. Businesses make a commercial judgment on whether or not to recycle any equipment. Where they do so the cost of recycling is treated for tax purposes in the same way as any other business cost. However, tax relief already exists for firms that give gifts of trading stock, or equipment they have used in their trade, to recognised educational establishments.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to implement in full the recommendations of the HM Customs and Excise Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review; and which of the recommendations have been implemented. [69554]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have already implemented major recommendations of the review by making available resources to enable Customs to deploy additional staff to tackle the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco. Sixty-six new staff were in post at the south-east Channel Ports by the end of November 1998, and the remainder will be in post at other ports and inland by the end of February 1999, taking the total number of new staff to over 100.

  Customs are currently undertaking a wide-ranging consultation exercise with the trade to establish the cost to industry of implementing the many review recommendations which involve procedural changes to tighten up on fraud. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, a final decision will be taken on how and when the measures are to implemented during 1999.
  257
  Some of the remaining recommendations require the participation of all EU member states.

  Rec. number

  Recommendation

  2

  Government to consider making available additional resources to adopt a high impact approach at the Channel ports

  3

  Government to consider making available additional resources inland to tackle the sale and distribution and sale of illicit excise goods

  4

  Government to consider making available additional resources to enable Customs Solicitors Office to progress cases arising from the deployment of additional resources

  40

  Government to consider making available increased Customs anti-smuggling resources to combat the risk of cigarette smuggling

  44

  UK to continue joint action with other member states to tackle cigarette smuggling by air

  45

  The participation of Customs officers in Police roadblocks

  46 and 47

  Customs to amend the regulations for the holding and movement of duty suspended goods

  48

  Customs to review its prosecution policy for excise smugglers

  51

  Customs should ask the courts to disqualify smugglers from driving for set periods

  52

  Customs should apply for curfew orders in all appropriate excise smuggling cases

  53

  Customs should ask the Lord Chancellor's office to advise on publishing guidance on sentencing for excise smuggling

  54

  Customs to seek compensation orders in addition to any other sentence imposed by courts

  55

  Customs to explore with the Police that targeted checks be made on hired vans and cars

  57

  Customs to adopt a tougher policy on seized vehicles with high restoration charges

  58

  Customs should continue to arrest, charge and prosecute persistent offenders where large quantities of excise goods are involved

  60

  Customs should seek the confiscation of assets of excise smugglers

  69

  Customs to take up vendor control problems with relevant fiscal authority

  76

  Customs should incorporate promiscuous checks on warehouses in assurance plans

  79

  Customs should continue blitzes of high risk traders

  81

  Customs should further develop a national task force approach involving closer working with other agencies

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Quantum Project
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the conclusions of the Prison Service's review of the Quantum project. [70899]

  Mr. Straw
  The Prison Service's six-month review of the Quantum project announced on 10 August 1998 has been concluded. I have seen the review report. The Director General and the Executive Committee of the Prison Service endorses the recommendation made in the report to take the project forward by means of a framework agreement in partnership with one of the two short-listed suppliers. The contract will cover an Information Technology infrastructure service, joint development of a strategy for Information Technology-based business change and an agreed mechanism for implementing business change on a partnership basis.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for legislation on freedom of information. [68642]

  Mr. Straw
  Freedom of information is an essential component of the Government's programme to modernise British politics, as set out in our manifesto. This programme of constitutional reform aims to involve people more closely in the decisions which affect their lives. Giving people greater access to information is fundamental to that aim.

  The effect of a Freedom of Information Act will be that for the first time, every citizen in the country will have
  258
  ATFR recommendations which have been implemented are shown in the following table:

  the right of access to information held by bodies across the public sector. I believe this will radically transform the relationship between Government and citizens.

  The Government published their proposals for Freedom of Information in December 1997 in a White Paper entitled, "Your Right to Know". The Home Office took over responsibility for Freedom of Information legislation from the Cabinet Office in the Summer, to enable the policy to be developed alongside other constitutional measures, such as human rights and data protection. Since then, we have devoted a great deal of effort towards translating the White Paper's proposals into a draft Bill. That process is very nearly complete, and the Government will publish a draft Bill as soon as it is ready.

  There are those who feel that the Government should have produced a Bill sooner. I must emphasise, however, that any delay is not an indication of a lack of commitment on the part of the Government. It is quite the reverse. Indeed, we have devoted additional resources to work on Freedom of Information. This is a complex subject. There have been a great number of issues to resolve; for example the need to address existing legislation which impinges on freedom of information, including that which arises from our international legal obligations; the need to consider the implications of devolution; the practicalities of the enforcement mechanism. These are just a few of the issues which have occupied us for some time, but I am convinced that we are right to take the time to get the detail right. If we are to achieve our aims then we must have an Act that is realistic and workable.

  We therefore look forward to a thorough and informed debate when we publish the draft Bill. There will be a period of public consultation, during which the Bill will receive pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee for Public Administration. We hope and expect that this

  259
  process of scrutiny will lead to a more effective Bill. Following this period of consultation, the Government are committed to introducing the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows.

  A Freedom of Information Act will radically change the way Government conducts its business. Government alone cannot bring about the cultural change necessary in public sector bodies for a more open approach in their relationship with the public. It will be for a wide variety of public bodies to implement the legislation, and cultural change must take place in all of those bodies if the Freedom of Information Act is to succeed. During the consultation period, I will set out my proposals for delivering this cultural change.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure on his Department's crime prevention initiatives, in cash and real terms, in each of the last three years; what is the planned cash and real terms spending in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [70325]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over the last three years, (1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99) £12.4 million, £16.1 million and £9.4 million will have been spent in cash terms on crime prevention initiatives. In real terms at 1998–99 prices this is £13 million, £16.5 million and £9.4 million.

  In July 1998 the Government announced a new £250 million crime reduction programme. Over the three years from April 1999 the planned cash expenditure for this programme and other crime prevention initiatives is £42.1 million in 1999–2000, £101.8 million in 2000–01 and £111.8 million in 2001–02. In real terms at 1998–99 prices this is £41 million, £96.8 million and £103.8 million.

  These figures are in addition to public expenditure on the police service, one of whose key functions is crime prevention.

  Crime (European Union)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has undertaken on the relative levels of crime in European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [70322]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is published annually in Criminal statistics, England and Wales on the levels of crime recorded by the police in most European Union countries. In addition, we have participated in all three sweeps of the International Crime Victimisation Survey, which provided comparative data on crime levels for most European Union countries. The latest results relating to victim's experience of crime in 1995 were published in Home Office Research Findings No 57.

  Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost of(a) issuing and (b) serving the arrest warrant for General Pinochet; and what was the breakdown of costs; [70251]
  260
  (2) what out-of-hours costs were involved in the issuing and execution of the arrest warrant for General Pinochet. [70252]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The costs incurred in police operations are a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contacts his Department had with journalists concerning the incorrect reports of General Pinochet's death in October 1998(a) before and (b) after the story was published. [70253]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: My Department has no knowledge of any contacts with the media about this matter.

  Town Centres Working Party
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects that the Working Party on Town Centres will report. [70404]

  Mr. Boateng
  A small working group is being established by the Association of Town Centre Managers to look into the development of "Speakers Corners" in town centre areas. The Home Office and other departments will contribute to this work. I understand that the first meeting will be held around the end of February and the group hopes to report in the summer.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners have been held in prison in England and Wales and had a child or children with them in each of the last 10 years. [69175]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the average female prison population in England and Wales over the last 10 years is given in the table. This information is also published (up to 1997) in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 1.4 of the 1997 edition), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on the number of women who had a child or children with them in prison in each of the last 10 years is not collected centrally. However, on 1 February 1999, there were 51 women occupying places in the four mother and baby units within the female prison estate.

  Average
  population of females in prisons in England and Wales, 1989–1998

  Year

  Average population

  1989

  1,767

  1990

  1,597

  1991

  1,561

  1992

  1,577

  1993

  1,561

  1994

  1,811

  1995

  1,979

  1996

  2,262

  1997

  2,675

  1998

  3,105

  261

  English Hooligans
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on action taken against English hooligans attending the World Cup. [70264]

  Mr. Boateng
  The French authorities have provided the National Criminal Intelligence Service with information about all those arrested or deported from France. For those convicted of criminal offences in France, the French authorities have provided the Home Office with the court judgments in accordance with the bilateral agreement reached with France before the World Cup. We have requested further details in a number of cases with a view to determining whether there are sufficient grounds to apply to the domestic courts for the issue of a restriction order to prevent the offenders travelling to future matches abroad.

  Police (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of police numbers in Hampshire. [70065]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend has made no assessment of police numbers in the Hampshire Constabulary. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for the chief constable to determine the number of police officers in the force, within the resources available to him or her.

  In its latest annual report on police performance, published on 28 January, the Audit Commission concluded that success in solving crime does not depend solely on numbers of police officers available.

  Police (Avon and Somerset)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) police civilian employees there were in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary on (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the most recent date for which figures are available. [70170]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on police numbers is collected at the end of March and September of each year. The statistics for the period requested are set out in the table.

  First degree graduates in medicine/dentistry in the UK

  Medical students

  1993–941

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Number of graduates

  4,600

  5,700

  5,700

  6,000

  5,900

  of which, those with known destinations2

  4,400

  3,900

  4,400

  4,300

  n/a

  of which, those entering full-time permanent employment in the UK

  4,200

  3,700

  3,900

  3,800

  n/a

  of which, those entering medical occupations3

  n/a

  3,500

  3,700

  3,600

  n/a

  1 Figures for 1993–94 are not directly comparable to those for later years because of a change in the data collection process

  2 Destination six months after graduation.

  3 "Medical occupations" covers general practitioners and doctors, and hospital house officers.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of first-year medical students failed to become a fully qualified doctor in the five most recent years for which figures are available. [70086]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on non-completion rates analysed by subject of study is not compiled centrally.
  262

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Date

  Police Officers

  Civilian support staff

  Traffic wardens

  31 March 1997

  2,989

  1.439

  108

  30 September 1998

  2,966

  1.435

  101

  Brian Parsons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 70, on Brian Parsons, what are the salary costs of the officers on the inquiry; and if they will be charged to the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. [70109]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the overall cost to date of the investigation and associated work by Hampshire Constabulary on this case is £430,000, of which salary costs account for £320,000. The salary costs are not being charged to the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to each of the Government's public consultations. [69776]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department follows the Cabinet Office best practice guidance on consultations including publicising and making available the results of consultation exercises wherever practicable. For individual consultations this can take the form of a press notice or ministerial statement, and the detailed results are made available on request.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment over the last five years, how many medical students completed their academic studies; and how many, having completed their studies, did not become practising doctors. [70087]

  Mr. Mudie
  The available data are shown in the following table:

  Adult and Community Learning Fund
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the second round of bidding to the Adult and Community Learning Fund. [71001]
  263
  Mr. Mudie
  Nearly 500 applications were received in the second round of bidding to the Adult and Community Learning Fund which closed on 30 November 1998. Following consideration by the Department's independent Advisory Panel we are today announcing funding of £3.5 million for 96 projects covering a wide range of local activities to involve more people in learning relevant to their lives. A list of the successful projects has been placed in the Library.

  New Deal
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the New Deal in(a) London and (b) other regions. [69557]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Clive Soley, dated 10 February 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question asking for a statement on the effectiveness of

  Annex A: New Deal for 18–24 year olds

  ES region/country

  Number starting New Deal

  Unsubsidised jobs

  Subsidised jobs

  FTET option

  VS option

  ETF option

  East Midlands and Eastern

  16,881

  3,436

  825

  1,977

  483

  410

  London and South East

  50,024

  9,214

  1,866

  5,200

  1,312

  744

  Northern

  15,222

  2,447

  1,137

  2,871

  616

  595

  North West

  29,343

  5,250

  2,230

  3,597

  628

  899

  South West

  12,021

  2,539

  1,007

  1,525

  647

  412

  West Midlands

  19,444

  3,643

  861

  2,328

  419

  492

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  24,720

  4,296

  1,603

  3,557

  900

  963

  Office for Scotland

  21,438

  3,889

  1,680

  2,294

  1,033

  792

  Office for Wales

  12,965

  2,428

  1,252

  1,642

  440

  701

  National Total

  202,058

  37,142

  12,461

  24,991

  6,478

  6,008

  Notes:

  1. The figures above are from the Government Statistical Service (GSS) First Release for period ending November 1998.

  2. It should be noted that the Government First Release national figures also include those outcomes where a Regional Office is not known. For this reason, and also because of rounding up or down, the national total above will not necessarily equate to the figures shown in the First Release. The variations are however small.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reports he has received from (1) Fernley Employment Service and (2) Pelcon on their delivery of the New Deal. [69234]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 10 February 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question asking if he has received any reports from Femly Business Services or Pelcombe about New Deal. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  264
  the New Deal in London and other regions. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The New Deal for young unemployed people is developing well in London. The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of November 1998 show that in the London area of the Employment Service London and South East Region, over 31,000 young people have joined the New Deal for 18–24 year olds. While most are still on the Gateway phase of the programme, over 5,000 have found unsubsidised jobs; 950 have been placed into subsidised jobs; over 3,000 have joined the Full-Time Education and Training option; nearly 750 the Voluntary Sector option; and some 330 the Environment Task Force. A comparison with other Employment Service Regions in England and with Scotland and Wales is set out in the table at annex A.

  More generally, the effectiveness of New Deal is being assessed through a comprehensive evaluation strategy within which a number of qualitative and quantitative surveys are being carried out. The findings from these surveys, as and when they are available, form part of our continuous improvement strategy in that they help identify those aspects of our processes which are working well and those that are capable of being improved. Findings from the evaluation surveys are communicated within the ES and to our partners who form part of over 40 partnerships in London responsible for New Deal delivery. Each partnership will draw up an action plan for performance improvement over the next 12 months, based on the evidence from local management information and evaluation findings.

  If you would like to discuss the progress of New Deal in the London area in more detail, Stephen Holt, the Director for the Employment Service London and South East Region, would be happy to do so. He can be contacted on 0171 211 4395.

  I hope this is helpful.

  The Secretary of State has received Delivery Plans from both Fernly Business Services, in respect of their delivery of New Deal for 18–24 year olds in Leicestershire, and from Pelcombe in respect of the New Deal 25 Plus pilot in Leicestershire and South Humber.

  Fernly took over delivery of New Deal from July 1998 and Pelcombe implemented the 25+ pilots on 30 November 1998. Under the terms of their contract for the delivery of New Deal both Fernly Business Services and Pelcombe are required to submit monthly management information reports on their performance. These are discussed on a monthly basis with the Employment Service and any issues are highlighted and addressed.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that the New Deals for(a) lone parents and (b) over 25s meet the needs of the ethnic minority community. [69233]
  265
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are ensuring that the Employment Service develops effective links with local communities. In many locations lone parent advisers and community organisations work together to offer New Deal outreach services, and publicity materials are produced in ethnic minority languages. The New Deal personal advisers are trained in equal opportunities awareness, and given guidance on the problems facing people from ethnic minorities. I am monitoring the participation of ethnic minorities within all the New Deal programmes to ensure they are treated fairly.

  PGCE Applicants
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of applicants for PGCE courses in (i) primary and (ii) secondary teaching obtained either a first or an upper second class honours degree for the latest period for which figures are available. [69794]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: No information is available about the degree class of PGCE applicants.

  The following table gives information about the degree class of PGCE intake.

  Number and percentage of first-year trainees on postgraduate initial teacher training courses with either a first or an upper second class honours degree in England, 1996–97

  First-year trainees with a first or 2:11

  Number

  Percentage

  Primary

  2,480

  49

  Secondary

  6,277

  46

  Total

  8,757

  47

  1 Trainees with an undivided second class degree are classified as upper second class

  Source:

  TTA Survey under the Framework for the Assessment of Quality and Standards in ITT

  SATS (Financial Allocations)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the extra money allocated to each local education authority for the improvement of year 6 SATS results in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [70119]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: A new £18 million programme will support the teaching of literacy and numeracy for year 6 pupils outside normal school hours. The programme will start in the February half-term to the end of the Easter break and into the early part of the summer term. The grant allocation to Local Authority for two financial years requested is as follows:

  £000

  Number

  LEA

  Total allocation for LEA maintained schools 1998–99

  Total allocation for maintained schools 1999–2000

  201

  City of London

  0.8

  0.2

  202

  Camden

  34.4

  9.8

  203

  Greenwich

  62.6

  18.1

  204

  Hackney

  50.9

  14.7

  266

  £000

  Number

  LEA

  Total allocation for LEA maintained schools 1998–99

  Total allocation M maintained schools 1999–2000

  205

  Hammersmith

  31.6

  9.2

  206

  Islington

  47.4

  13.5

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19.5

  6.1

  208

  Lambeth

  50.9

  17.2

  209

  Lewisham

  63.4

  18.4

  210

  Southwark

  56.9

  17.9

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  65.7

  18.8

  212

  Wandsworth

  48.1

  15.2

  213

  Westminster

  31.7

  9.0

  301

  Barking

  40.3

  11.5

  302

  Barnet

  71.5

  21.3

  303

  Bexley

  58.6

  17.3

  304

  Brent

  52.2

  16.5

  305

  Bromley

  60.2

  19.5

  306

  Croydon

  75

  22.5

  307

  Ealing

  64.9

  19.4

  308

  Enfield

  66.4

  19.2

  309

  Haringey

  54.9

  15.7

  310

  Harrow

  45.6

  13.0

  311

  Havering

  58.5

  16.7

  312

  Hillingdon

  48.1

  16.2

  313

  Hounslow

  51.3

  14.7

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  29.3

  8.7

  315

  Merton

  28.3

  8.1

  316

  Newham

  69.2

  19.8

  317

  Redbridge

  54

  15.4

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  33.4

  9.5

  319

  Sutton

  36.6

  11.1

  320

  Waltham Forest

  51.4

  15.1

  330

  Birmingham

  294.4

  85.4

  331

  Coventry

  89.7

  25.6

  332

  Dudley

  84.7

  24.6

  333

  Sandwell

  92.3

  26.4

  334

  Solihull

  57.5

  16.8

  335

  Walsall

  78

  23.3

  336

  Wolverhampton

  75.4

  21.5

  340

  Knowsley

  58.8

  16.8

  341

  Liverpool

  137.1

  39.5

  342

  St. Helens

  55.7

  15.9

  343

  Sefton

  83.4

  23.8

  344

  Wirral

  95.8

  27.4

  350

  Bolton

  89.7

  25.9

  351

  Bury

  56.6

  16.7

  352

  Manchester

  132.3

  38.1

  353

  Oldham

  78

  22.3

  354

  Rochdale

  66.5

  20.5

  355

  Salford

  74.3

  21.2

  356

  Stockport

  84.6

  24.2

  357

  Tameside

  70.8

  20.2

  358

  Trafford

  61.3

  17.5

  359

  Wigan

  101

  28.9

  370

  Barnsley

  70.8

  20.2

  371

  Doncaster

  93.5

  26.7

  372

  Rotherham

  81.4

  23.3

  373

  Sheffield

  122.5

  36.5

  380

  Bradford

  116.0

  34.2

  381

  Calderdale

  61.3

  19.5

  382

  Kirklees

  110.6

  31.6

  383

  Leeds

  207.9

  59.6

  384

  Wakefield

  96.9

  27.7

  390

  Gateshead

  60.3

  17.2

  391

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  67.6

  19.3

  392

  North Tyneside

  50.1

  14.7

  393

  South Tyneside

  47.2

  13.5

  394

  Sunderland

  87.2

  24.9

  420

  Isles of Scilly

  1.1

  0.3

  800

  Bath and NE Somerset

  48.2

  13.8

  267

  £000

  Number

  LEA

  Total allocation for LEA maintained schools 1998–99

  Total allocation for maintained schools 1999–2000

  801

  City of Bristol

  97.5

  27.8

  802

  North Somerset

  49.0

  14.0

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  74.6

  21.3

  805

  Hartlepool

  30.5

  8.7

  806

  Middlesbrough

  46.6

  13.3

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  47.3

  13.5

  808

  Stockton-on-Tees

  58.1

  16.6

  810

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  81.2

  23.2

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  98.4

  28.6

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  48.1

  13.8

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  50.0

  14.3

  815

  North Yorkshire

  218

  62.4

  816

  York

  46.4

  13.3

  820

  Bedfordshire

  69.8

  22.1

  821

  Luton

  40.1

  14.0

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  113.7

  35.3

  826

  Milton Keynes

  51.5

  15.4

  830

  Derbyshire

  227.9

  67.4

  831

  Derby

  56.0

  17.2

  835

  Dorset

  85.5

  25.5

  836

  Poole

  26.3

  7.7

  837

  Bournemouth

  26.9

  8.2

  840

  Durham

  172.1

  49.2

  841

  Darlington

  28.2

  8.1

  845

  East Sussex

  127.8

  36.5

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  50.2

  14.3

  850

  Hampshire

  306.9

  91.4

  851

  Portsmouth

  37.9

  11.7

  852

  Southampton

  48.5

  13.8

  855

  Leicestershire

  167.6

  50.2

  856

  Leicester

  78.5

  22.6

  857

  Rutland

  11.3

  3.5

  860

  Staffordshire

  241.7

  70.0

  861

  Stoke-on-Trent

  74.5

  21.3

  865

  Wiltshire

  126.7

  41.1

  866

  Swindon

  49.5

  15.0

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  27.2

  7.8

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  30.5

  8.7

  869

  West Berkshire

  46.4

  13.5

  870

  Reading

  34.8

  9.9

  871

  Slough

  19.5

  8.0

  872

  Wokingham

  40.5

  11.6

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  148.2

  44.2

  874

  Peterborough

  48.7

  14.2

  875

  Cheshire

  214.3

  62.2

  876

  Halton

  44.9

  12.8

  877

  Warrington

  62.8

  18.0

  878

  Devon

  228.7

  65.4

  879

  Plymouth

  70.2

  20.1

  880

  Torbay

  29.4

  8.7

  881

  Essex

  305.4

  105.5

  882

  Southend-on-Sea

  29.9

  10.4

  883

  Thurrock

  37.9

  11.3

  884

  Herefordshire

  62.5

  17.9

  885

  Worcestershire

  120.3

  35.7

  886

  Kent

  353

  109.9

  887

  Medway Towns

  68.9

  19.7

  888

  Lancashire

  404

  116.6

  889

  Blackburn with Darwen

  49.7

  14.6

  890

  Blackpool

  34.6

  9.9

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  220.7

  63.6

  892

  Nottingham City

  79.3

  22.7

  393

  Shropshire

  94.4

  27.9

  894

  Wrekin, The

  47.0

  13.7

  908

  Cornwall

  174.1

  49.9

  909

  Cumbria

  165.5

  52.5

  916

  Gloucestershire

  165.3

  52.8

  268

  £000

  Number

  LEA

  Total allocation for LEA maintained schools 1998–99

  Total allocation for maintained schools 1999–2000

  919

  Hertfordshire

  299.4

  88.9

  921

  Isle of Wight

  26.1

  7.5

  925

  Lincolnshire

  187.1

  61.4

  926

  Norfolk

  210.3

  63.9

  928

  Northamptonshire

  167.4

  52.0

  929

  Northumberland

  68.9

  19.7

  931

  Oxfordshire

  171.9

  49.3

  933

  Somerset

  143.2

  41.7

  935

  Suffolk

  165.7

  47.3

  936

  Surrey

  199.9

  62.5

  937

  Warwickshire

  136.5

  49.4

  938

  West Sussex

  169.0

  48.8

  England

  13,532.1

  4,000.0

  Note:

  GM schools have been allocated £470,000 for financial year 1998–99 which will be administered through the Funding Agency for Schools, and thereafter through the Local Education Authority.

  Primary Schools
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has commissioned into the effectiveness of(a) integrated curriculum work and (b) subject specialist teaching in improving children's learning in primary schools. [69793]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The Department has not recently commissioned research on the effectiveness of integrated curriculum work. But the current guidance on Key Stage 2 curriculum planning produced by the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority (now QCA) in 1995 addresses this issue. The frameworks for teaching literacy and numeracy produced by the Department, together with model schemes of work give the flexibility to plan through integrated themes based on the programmes of study.

  The Teacher Training Agency has recently published reports of research on both effective teachers of literacy and effective teachers of numeracy. These reports and evidence from primary school inspections suggests that subject knowledge is a significant factor in improving children's learning, but that this need not always be taught through subject specialist teaching or by subject specialist teachers.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will reduce the distance between primary schools which is used as the criterion for considering provision of additional accommodation; and if he will make a statement.[70192]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department will shortly be seeking views from local education authorities on the arrangements for the schools capital expenditure programme in 2000–01. One of the areas likely to be covered is Basic Need.
  269

  Grants (Devon)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants have been made, or are planned to be made, by his Department to Devon County Council in addition to revenue support grant in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [69365]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the grants, in addition to revenue support grant, made available, by the Department for Education and Employment to Devon County Council in 1997–98 and 1998–99 and planned to be made in 1999–2000 are shown in the following tables. From 1 April 1998, Torbay and Plymouth became separate unitary authorities, the figures across the first two years are therefore not directly comparable. The allocation of the grants for New Deal for Schools and the reduction of class sizes for 1999–2000 have not yet been made. For the Standards Fund the figures shown include the grant made by the Department and the contribution made by the local education authority.

  Grants made available to Devon County Council in 1997–98

  Allocation

  Grant title

  £

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  2,805,300

  National Curriculum Assessment—Verification KS1

  117,900

  National Curriculum Assessment—Supply Cover KS1

  228,400

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  131,300

  KS3 Non-core Teacher Assessment

  43,100

  Primary Teachers' Subject Knowledge

  354,400

  Special Educational Needs

  369,900

  Qualifications—GNVQ Provision

  270,900

  Qualifications—Part One GNVQ Pilot

  159,500

  Truancy

  137,000

  Disruptive and Disaffected Pupils

  246,200

  Pupil Behaviour and Discipline

  246,700

  Bilingual Pupils

  45,300

  Drug Prevention and Schools

  80,000

  Training for Careers Teachers

  15,000

  Youth Service

  31,600

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  87,600

  School Security

  436,300

  Child Protection

  26,800

  Specialist Schools

  626,400

  Specialist Teacher Assistants

  56,900

  Baseline Assessment

  193,900

  Private Finance Initiative

  75,000

  Primary Performance Tables

  11,700

  Books for Schools

  497,589

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  965,716

  Total

  8,260,405

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Devon County Council

  Allocation

  Grant title

  £

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  2,093,331

  School Leadership: NPQH

  125,043

  School Leadership: Serving Heads

  53,590

  Induction for Newly-Qualified Teachers

  72,938

  Early Years Training and Development

  199,325

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes

  1,000,000

  Capital Work to reduce class sizes

  523,479

  Baseline Assessment

  147,796

  Assessment: Verification KS1

  41,344

  270

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Devon County Council

  Allocation

  Grant title

  £

  Assessment: Supply Cover

  160,334

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  89,691

  Effective use of National Curriculum Results

  91,155

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  741,622

  Summer Literacy Schools

  20,000

  Family Literacy

  42,000

  Special Educational Needs

  273,004

  Qualifications: GNVQ, AS/A Level, Key Skills etc.

  167,986

  Qualifications: Part One GNVQ Pilot

  55,000

  Work Related Learning at KS4

  50,000

  Improving Attendance

  161,650

  Improving Behaviour

  185,650

  Improving Attendance and Behaviour

  148,400

  Behaviour and Discipline Projects

  94,300

  Drug Prevention

  88,844

  Youth service

  24,549

  School Security

  291,753

  Specialist Schools

  646,100

  Specialist Teacher Assistants

  19,825

  National Grid for Learning

  978,576

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  9,975

  Beacon Schools

  25,000

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  12,000

  Specialist Educational Needs Regional Coordination Pilot Projects

  55,000

  Books for Schools

  346,045

  Children's Parliament

  840

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  228,748

  Numeracy Consultants and Leading Maths Teachers

  9,350

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  972,035

  Energy Management

  175,450

  Portable CD-ROM Systems for Special Educational

  Needs Coordinators

  44,000

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  1,287,500

  Total

  11,753,228

  Grants made available to Devon County Council in 1999–2000

  Allocation

  Grant title

  £

  Standards Fund

  School Improvement

  3,308,308

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  276,170

  School Leadership: Serving Headteachers

  118,359

  Local Recruitment Measures

  130,540

  Early Years Training and Development

  202,970

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  608,061

  Summer Literacy Schools and Literacy at Key Stage 3

  122,500

  National Numeracy Strategy—Primary

  774,653

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  20,000

  Family Literacy

  42,000

  Family Numeracy

  20,000

  Lifelong Learning Development Plans

  94,081

  Qualifications

  187,519

  Work Related Learning at Key Stage 4

  37,500

  Special Educational Needs

  407,639

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  420,308

  Drug Prevention

  98,133

  Youth Service

  25,945

  National Grid for Learning

  1,212,754

  School Security

  308,352

  Beacon Schools

  37,500

  Travellers and Displaced Persons

  259,208

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  17,597

  Access Fund for Post-16 Pupils in Schools

  43,412

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  65,357

  Total

  8,838,866

  271

  Male Teachers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to encourage male teachers to teach in primary and junior schools; and if he will make a statement. [69807]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government recognise the problem of under-representation of men in primary teaching. The Teacher Training Agency has asked all providers of initial teacher training courses to set themselves targets to focus their efforts to recruit more men into teacher training, and to produce action plans stating how they will work towards that goal.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1998,Official Report, columns 385–88, if he will list the values of the bids made by local education authorities before 20 November 1998 for capital expenditure to meet the Government's class size pledge. [70281]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The values of applications for capital funding to meet the class sizes pledge are listed in the following table by local education authority. These figures refer to the 1999–2000 bidding round.

  Applications for capital funding to reduce infant class sizes: 1999–2000

  £

  Local Education Authority

  Grant applied for

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,021,950

  Barnet

  75,280

  Barnsley

  903,398

  Bath and North East Somerset

  699,773

  Bedfordshire

  1,982,910

  Bexley

  176,000

  Birmingham

  1,817,919

  Blackburn

  956,063

  Blackpool

  1,018,480

  Bolton

  1,650,877

  Bournemouth

  4,145,060

  Bracknell Forest

  511,985

  Bradford

  —

  Brent

  74,116

  Brighton and Hove

  1,343,140

  Bristol, City of

  17,137,900

  Bromley

  1,307,750

  Buckinghamshire

  2,379,512

  Bury

  187,014

  Calderdale

  383,040

  Cambridgeshire

  936,968

  Camden

  177,660

  Cheshire

  1,847,270

  City of London

  —

  Cornwall

  2,451,424

  Coventry

  375,237

  Croydon

  1,719,140

  Cumbria

  1,061,200

  Darlington

  354,468

  Derby City

  847,369

  Derbyshire

  14,646,713

  Devon

  838,741

  Doncaster

  702,320

  Dorset

  745,674

  Dudley

  1,001,566

  Durham

  2,131,524

  Ealing

  720,000

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,475,600

  East Sussex

  1,154,895

  Enfield

  1,130,631

  Essex

  2,074,491

  272

  Applications for capital funding to reduce infant class sizes: 1999–2000

  £

  Local Education Authority

  Grant applied for

  Gateshead

  27,000

  Gloucestershire

  1,536,092

  Greenwich

  319,641

  Hackney

  —

  Halton

  360,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  Hampshire

  1,422,390

  Haringey

  —

  Harrow

  —

  Hartlepool

  213,625

  Havering

  305,257

  Herefordshire

  1,560,742

  Hertfordshire

  1,059,636

  Hillingdon

  1,140,800

  Hounslow

  712,247

  Isle of Wight

  983,156

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  Islington

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  Kent

  2,939,900

  Kingston upon Hull

  488,911

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,172,532

  Kirklees

  1,778,839

  Knowsley

  77,784

  Lambeth

  1,237,999

  Lancashire

  4,643,666

  Leeds

  1,442,077

  Leicester City

  805,207

  Leicestershire

  1,022,431

  Lewisham

  —

  Lincolnshire

  947,600

  Liverpool

  395,115

  Luton

  795,000

  Manchester

  602,412

  Medway Towns

  434,769

  Meiton

  2,225,845

  Middlesbrough

  —

  Milton Keynes

  1,655,500

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  820,230

  Newham

  987,500

  Norfolk

  1,298,079

  North East Lincolnshire

  684,275

  North Lincolnshire

  220,036

  North Somerset

  350,875

  North Tyneside

  454,537

  North Yorkshire

  5,325,000

  Northamptonshire

  1,297,585

  Northumberland

  1,404,162

  Nottingham City

  497,382

  Nottinghamshire

  4,172,246

  Oldham

  1,722,164

  Oxfordshire

  3,535,063

  Peterborough

  1,612,494

  Plymouth

  —

  Poole

  492,330

  Portsmouth

  1,163,659

  Reading

  424,837

  Redbridge

  1,576,000

  Redcar and Cleveland

  402,000

  Richmond Upon Thames

  1,690,345

  Rochdale

  888,260

  Rotherham

  2,985,060

  Rutland

  —

  Salford

  336,772

  Sandwell

  294,467

  Sefton

  918,283

  Sheffield

  54,000

  Shropshire

  265,000

  Slough

  918,120

  Solihull

  1,545,500

  Somerset

  2,799,840

  South Gloucestershire

  1,790,718

  South Tyneside

  —.

  273

  Applications for capital funding to reduce infant class sizes: 1999–2000

  £

  Local Education Authority

  Grant applied for

  Southampton

  204,333

  Southend on Sea

  1,293,700

  Southwark

  1,242,500

  St. Helens

  1,152,256

  Staffordshire

  1,255,580

  Stockport

  2,064,682

  Stockton on Tees

  258,200

  Stoke on Trent

  1,859,575

  Suffolk

  1,000,500

  Sunderland

  292,980

  Surrey

  1,316,980

  Sutton

  421,525

  Swindon

  —

  Tameside

  1,378,675

  Telford and Wrekin

  116,580

  Thurrock

  452,798

  Torbay

  1,801,628

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  Trafford

  526,663

  Wakefield

  1,234,946

  Walsall

  690,854

  Waltham Forest

  825,280

  Wandsworth

  249,375

  Warrington

  1,996,116

  Warwickshire

  478,859

  West Berkshire

  1,574,513

  West Sussex

  1,348,275

  Westminster

  —

  Wigan

  1,244,728

  Wiltshire

  1,439,440

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  519,600

  Wirral

  938,966

  Wokingham

  1,083,470

  Wolverhampton

  1,710,044

  Worcestershire

  1,304,523

  York, City of

  434,730

  Grant Maintained Schools

  4,007,398

  National Totals

  192,118,323

  Northumberland County Council
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants have been made by his Department to Northumberland County Council in addition to revenue support grant in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [70217]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the grants, in addition to revenue support grant, made available, by the Department for Education and Employment to Northumberland County Council in 1997–98 and 1998–99 are shown in the following tables. For the Standards Fund, the figures shown include the grant made by the Department and the contribution made by the local education authority.

  Grants made available to Northumberland County Council in 1997–98

  £

  Grant title

  Allocation

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  1,082,600

  National Curriculum Assessment—Verification KS1

  64,100

  National Curriculum Assessment—Supply Cover KS1

  78,300

  Training for Key Stage 2 Teacher Assessment

  41,200

  Key Stage 3 Non-core Teacher Assessment

  13,500

  274

  Grants made available to Northumberland County Council in 1997–98

  £

  Grant title

  Allocation

  Special Educational Needs

  103,600

  Qualifications—GNVQ Provision

  131,400

  Qualifications—Part One GNVQ Pilot

  34,000

  Disruptive and Disaffected Pupils

  125,800

  Bilingual Pupils

  7,800

  Drug Prevention and Schools

  20,000

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  42,000

  School Security

  168,400

  Child Protection

  5,100

  Specialist Schools

  286,900

  Specialist Teacher Assistants

  27,400

  Baseline Assessment

  64,800

  Primary Performance Tables

  5,000

  Books for Schools

  194,081

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  496,250

  Total

  2,992,231

  Grants made available in 1998–99 to Northumberland County Council

  £

  Grant Title

  Allocation

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness

  1,209,921

  School Leadership: NPQH

  76,918

  School Leadership: Serving Heads

  25,639

  Induction for Newly-Qualified Teachers

  42,158

  Early Years Training and Development

  47,250

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes

  324,000

  Capital Work to reduce class sizes

  224,000

  Baseline Assessment

  71,674

  Assessment: Verification KS1

  27,648

  Assessment: Supply Cover

  79,989

  Training for KS2 Teacher Assessment

  48,010

  Effective use of National Curriculum Results

  52,334

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  295,894

  Summer Literacy Schools

  17,000

  Family Literacy

  13,960

  Special Educational Needs

  93,621

  Qualifications: GNVQ, AS/A Level, Key Skills etc.

  145,950

  Qualifications: Part One GNVQ Pilot

  12,000

  Work Related Learning at KS4

  50,000

  Improving Attendance

  43,100

  Drug Prevention

  42,939

  Youth Service

  12,961

  School Security

  168,630

  Specialist Schools

  325,100

  Specialist Teacher Assistants

  3,100

  Travel to Study Support Centres

  1,880

  National Grid for Learning

  489,288

  Early Excellence Centres (Revenue)

  48,820

  Beacon Schools

  64,000

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  60,000

  Books for Schools

  193,472

  Children's Parliament

  100

  Year 6 Literacy & Numeracy Booster Classes

  68,901

  Numeracy Consultants & Leading Maths Teachers

  3,300

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  237,455

  Energy Management

  102,500

  Portable CD-ROM Systems for Special Education Needs Coordinators

  24,000

  New Deal for Schools

  New Deal for Schools

  1,881,600

  Early Excellence Centres (Capital)

  34,700

  Total

  6,663,813

  275

  Competitive Bidding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many of his Department's initiatives relating to schools announced to date for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000 include opportunities for competitive bidding by(a) education action zone, (b) the Funding Agency for Schools and (c) others, excluding local education authorities; [63536]

  (2) how many of his Department's initiatives relating to schools announced for the year 1997–98 included opportunities for competitive bidding by (a) education action zones, (b) the Funding Agency for Schools and (c) others, excluding local education authorities. [63657]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: In 1998–99 education action zones were able to bid for funding for work related learning and the special early years programme. From 1999–2000 these programmes will be incorporated within the education action zones budget and bid for as a separate competitive exercise. Education action zones did not come into existence until after the 1997–98 bidding round.

  Since 1997–98 the Funding Agency for Schools has been able to bid for phases 1 and 2 of the Early Excellence Centre pilot programme.

  Information on the number of competitive bids open to other bodies is not held centrally.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of the initiatives in 1998–99 involving competitive bidding from local education authorities, including education action zones, and the equivalent initiatives from 1999–2000, how many bids by each of the education action zones were(a) made and (b) successful. [63311]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There have been no programmes in which Education Action Forums (EAFs) have competed with local education authorities. Unlike LEAs, EAFs do not bid for Standards Fund grant, or for New Deal for Schools capital. Of course, schools within EAZs can still benefit from these programmes through LEA bids. EAZs have been able to bid for work-related learning and Early Years in a separate exercise funded from the EAZ programme budget. In future years these activities will be funded from EAZs' own budgets.

  Working Time Directive (Playgroups)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with playgroup associations on the Working Time Directive; what help he intends to provide for such groups in obeying the directive; and if he will make a statement. [69504]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]I have been asked to reply.

  Ministers at the DTI have not had discussions with playgroup associations about the Working Time Directive, although Ministers have received a number of letters from playgroups. DTI published guidance for all employers and workers on the Working Time Regulations in August 1998.
  276

SCOTLAND

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government are taking to improve the(a) co-ordination and (b) promotion of crime prevention initiatives. [69403]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office Crime Prevention Unit has responsibility for co-ordinating crime prevention in Scotland. This is done in collaboration with Scottish police forces, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and a wide range of national agencies.

  On 16 June 1998, I announced to the Scottish Grand Committee a new community safety strategy for Scotland—"Safer Communities Through Partnership—A Strategy for Action". The Strategy for Action, which was jointly agreed by The Scottish Office, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, is designed to reduce crime and improve community safety through well co-ordinated partnerships between public, private and voluntary bodies.

  I welcome the fact that a number of partnerships have already been formed. To support this, The Scottish Office will publish, in May, comprehensive guidance to assist in the development of such partnerships. It will include examples of current good practice.

  The Scottish Office constantly promotes crime prevention initiatives. The latest example is a renewed campaign against domestic violence.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Police
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department has issued concerning arrangements for consultation between the police and the local community in each police force area; and if he will make a statement. [69626]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Justice Charter for Scotland requires police forces to consult their local communities and take their views into account when setting standards of service and deciding priorities. In addition, guidance was issued to police forces in March 1998 about the way in which "User Surveys" should be designed to measure public opinion on the police service. I am satisfied that police forces in Scotland fully appreciate the value of local consultation; have the necessary arrangements in place to engage with the public; and use the consultation process to inform their decisions on policing policy and priorities.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the annual cost of reducing class sizes to 30 or under for pupils in primary years(a) four, (b) five, (c) six and (d) seven; and if he will make a statement. [69415]
  277
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The table provides an estimate of the additional marginal annual primary teaching costs of reducing classes in primary schools by stage.

  Education authority primary schools in Scotland Marginal annual recurrent teaching costs associated with reducing the maximum single stage class size to 30 by each additional stage, September 1997

  Additional Stage 1

  Marginal Costs (£ million)

  P4

  2.9

  P5

  3.7

  P6

  3.2

  P7

  3.8

  1 Based on the number of pupils in each school, as recorded in the September 1997 School Census.

  These figures show the cost of employing an additional teacher for each new class likely to be created because of a reduction in the class size maximum. In each case, the figure assumes that all earlier stages have been reduced to a maximum of 30 pupils and that current general arrangements in place with respect to composite classes continue. These figures do not include an assessment of the additional capital costs of providing new classrooms.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Specialist Colleges
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account he has taken of the conclusions of the Sutherland report on the funding of smaller and specialist colleges in England when deciding on the funding allocation to (i) Edinburgh College of Art, (ii) Glasgow School of Art and (iii) the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama. [69740]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Allocation of funding to individual Higher Education Institutions including the Edinburgh College of Art, Glasgow School of Art and the Royal Academy of Music and Drama is a matter for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. The Council was aware of the findings of the Sutherland Report in making decisions on funding. However, as the report related to small institutions in England, and the SHEFC unit of resource for Arts, Design & the Performing Arts is substantially higher than that for Drama, Music and Art in England, the Council decided it would not be appropriate to award a funding premium.

  As from 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Modern Studies
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish secondary schools do not offer modern studies as a subject. [69734]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information available is based on the actual take-up of modern studies in schools rather than the number of schools that offer modern studies. Information on the latter is not held centrally. The table shows the estimated number and proportion of publicly funded secondary schools in which modern studies was not taught in September 1997. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  278

  Total number of schools

  Proportion 1 of schools in which modern studies was not taught %

  Estimated1 number of schools in which modern studies was not taught

  S1

  400

  39

  155

  S2

  400

  33

  130

  S3

  390

  29

  113

  S4

  390

  26

  100

  S5/S6

  380

  17

  63

  1 Based on response rates of 82 per cent, for SI to S4 and 49 per cent, for S5/S6

  Primary Schools (Consultants)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to phase out visiting specialist teachers in primary schools and replace them with consultants. [69735]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We have no such proposals. The deployment of teachers in primary schools is a matter for education authorities.

  As from 1 July this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Fiscal Fines
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines are given to procurators fiscal about the use of fiscal fines. [70187]

  Mr. McLeish
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who is responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland, informs me that guidelines have been issued to procurators fiscal to ensure a consistent approach to the use of fiscal fines and to encourage them to make more extensive use of this alternative to prosecution in the district court. The details of those guidelines form part of prosecution policy and are confidential.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what change in the guidance about which cases should go to the Sheriff Court and which to the district court has been issued in the last five years. [70188]

  Mr. McLeish
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is responsible for the prosecution of crime in Scotland. Guidance to procurators fiscal has been issued following legislative provisions which have introduced variable and increased levels of fiscal fines; extended the jurisdiction and powers of the courts; and created new offences and penalties. Further guidance has been issued to procurators fiscal to ensure a consistent approach to the use of fiscal fines and to encourage them to make more extensive use of this alternative to prosecution in the district court. He informs me that the choice of court is determined by considerations of jurisdiction, the gravity of the offence, the offender's record and the likely penalty. The details of the guidance issued to procurators fiscal about prosecution policy are confidential.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  279
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the overall number of fiscal fines in each of the sheriffdoms in Scotland in each of the years since they were introduced. [70186]

  Year

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  Lothian and Borders

  North Strathclyde

  South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  1988

  2,393

  1,210

  860

  1,984

  1,809

  1,048

  1989

  2,359

  2,363

  1,912

  3,450

  3,509

  1,963

  1990–91

  2,091

  3,898

  1,875

  3,614

  3,163

  2,188

  1991–92

  1,908

  3,048

  2,191

  2,955

  2,918

  2,038

  1992–93

  2,221

  4,101

  1,714

  3,142

  3,242

  3,934

  1993–94

  1,785

  3,098

  1,859

  2,437

  3,123

  3,278

  1994–95

  1,946

  3,370

  1,442

  2,003

  3,517

  3,768

  1995–96

  1,863

  2,367

  1,538

  1,570

  2,862

  5,854

  1996–97

  2,330

  2,565

  1,253

  1,839

  3,589

  3,562

  1997–98

  2,136

  3,003

  1,582

  2,651

  4,088

  5,501

  1998–99

  2,280

  2,172

  1,104

  2,032

  2,938

  3,580

  Notes

  1. The figures for 1988 and 1989 are for calendar years.

  2. The figures for the first quarter of 1990 are not included.

  3. Prior to April 1996 inconsistencies in the method of recording statistics for fiscal fines existed.

  4. The figures for the financial year 1998–99 relate to the period to December 1998.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Eye and Dental Check-ups (Charges)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual cost of abolishing charges for(a) eye and (b) dental check-ups in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [70352]

  Mr. Galbraith
  NHS sight test are available free of charge to eligible patients. It is estimated that the re-introduction of universally free NHS sight tests in Scotland would cost a minimum of £14 million annually. Free NHS sight tests for people aged 60 and over will be introduced from April

  At present, patients who are not eligible for free NHS dental services or for help with the costs of these pay 80 per cent. of the examination or treatment fee directly to the dentist. It is estimated that the re-introduction of universally free NHS dental examinations in Scotland would cost a minimum of £4.5 million

  From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  NHS Trusts (Wage Rises)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are, for each NHS trust in Scotland,(a) the amount budgeted for wage rises for the next financial year, (b) the percentage increase for staff not covered by pay review boards, by category and (c) the amount which will be required to fund the new salary levels; and what plans he has to provide additional funds to ensure trusts are able to provide salary increases and protect planned projects. [70349]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on individual trusts' pay assumptions is not held centrally. No specific sum has been provided for wage rises in the NHS in Scotland for the next financial year. However, the uplift of 4.25 per cent. in general allocations made available to health boards in
  280
  Mr. McLeish
  The number of criminal reports concluded by way of a fiscal fine in each of the sheriffdoms in Scotland are as follows:

  1999–2000 is sufficient to meet the costs of providing health care including pay. The cost of meeting the Review Bodies' recommendations is estimated to be £89 million. No additional funds have been made available for pay. However, an additional tranche of modernisation funding amounting to £20 million has been made available. The NHS in Scotland has been fully funded to meet the costs of the pay awards and to continue with the modernisation agenda. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate his Department's expenditure on overseas travel for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [69252]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Information on overseas travel in The Scottish Office is not held separately and cannot be disaggregated from total expenditure on travel without disproportionate costs in staff time. Overseas travel for future years is not estimated separately.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tacis (Unpaid Invoices)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received about problems caused to United Kingdom companies by unpaid invoices to the EU for work undertaken as part of the Tacis Programmes; and what initiatives she is taking to resolve these problems. [70094]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Late payment of Tacis invoices is a serious problem for UK companies, which the Government are working to help solve.
  281
  My department maintains a regular dialogue with the British Consultants Bureau (BCB) on this subject. I met BCB representatives at the end of last year. The Chief Executive of the Association of Consulting Engineers wrote to me about the issue two weeks ago. Individual companies have also contacted my department, the DTI and the FCO.

  Ministers and senior officials raised the issue with the European Commission on numerous occasions in the latter part of last year. We have received some indications that the overall situation has since started to improve. This is a Commission management issue, and immediate improvements in efficiency should be possible. In the longer term the Government are supporting the Commission's plan to bring forward a harmonised contracting regulation simplifying procedures for all external aid programmes, and pressing for reform to the EC Financial Regulation, which sets out procedures for the payment of invoices which are unduly onerous in some cases. We will continue to monitor this situation closely.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish her Department's collation and assessment of responses to each of the Government's public consultations. [69766]

  Clare Short
  My Department held for the first time last year a series of Development Policy Forums, with wide participation from outside groups across the UK. We are about to publish a report on the process as we promised. This will include consolidated comments and recommendations from participants and a Departmental response.

  We have also consulted widely in preparing all our Country and other Strategy Papers, which set out how we aim to contribute to achieving the International Development Targets through our work with partnership countries and international institutions. All these papers have been or are being published—18 have been published to date—and include a record of the individual consultation processes. Country strategy papers have not previously been published by the predecessor department.

  Additionally, we have undertaken a review of our relationship with Civil Society, involving discussion with a broad range of groups in the UK and overseas. A copy of the report of the process is about to be sent to all who contributed as well as being made available more widely.

  TB
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department currently gives to help developing countries combat TB. [70169]

  Clare Short
  TB accounts for a significant proportion of the global burden of disease, particularly amongst the poorest. Its control is a crucial component of the Department for International Development's (DFID) health strategy. Over the last two years, DFID has programmed nearly £26 million directly for TB work. This has been primarily at country level to establish well functioning Directly Observed Treatment Shortcourse (DOTS) programmes and to develop the contribution of 282
  the private and voluntary sectors to TB prevention and treatment. Priority countries include India (where a commitment of £20.5 million was made in 1998), Malawi, Russia, Nepal and Uganda. DFID has contributed £1 million to the World Health Organisation Global TB programme, and funded approximately £1.5 million of UK research.

  Western Sahara
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid is given by the European Union to Western Sahara; and what is the cost to the United Kingdom's European Union budget contribution. [69900]

  Clare Short
  The European Union plans to spend 10 million euro from July to December 1999 on humanitarian aid to Saharawi refugees. The exact UK share of EU spending is determined retrospectively but the estimated forecast UK share will be approximately 1.97 million euro, or £1.46 million.

  Morocco
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom's European Union budget contribution of European Union aid given to Morocco in the last year. [69899]

  Clare Short
  In 1997, the latest year for which figures are available, the cost was £18.37 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  Operation Desert Fox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the letter from his private secretary of 20 January, to the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, what discussions he has held with the UN on the impact of military action under Operation Desert Fox on the humanitarian situation. [68684]

  The Prime Minister
  As my Private Secretary said in his letter of 20 January, the UN, in a briefing to the Secretary Council on 14 January, confirmed that the impact of Operation Desert Fox on the humanitarian situation was limited.

  On 30 January the Security Council agreed to the establishment of 3 Panels to discuss Iraq issues. One of these will address the humanitarian situation in Iraq. We hope that the Government of Iraq co-operates with the UN's humanitarian work.

  Engagements
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 February. [68689]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.
  283

  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the appointment of a new Commissioner for Public Appointments. [70769]

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty in Council has today approved the appointment of Dame Rennie Fritchie as Sir Len Peach's successor as Commissioner for Public Appointments. Dame Rennie, who will also be appointed as a Civil Service Commissioner, will take up office from 1 March 1999.

  Sir Len Peach will continue to serve as Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. I am sure that all Members of the House would wish me to express their appreciation for the manner in which Sir Len has carried out his responsibilities over the past three years. He has made a major contribution to raising standards in public appointments.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the flights taken by(a) himself and (b) other ministers on Concorde since 2 May 1997. [67984]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer I February 1999]: The Ministerial Code requires Ministers to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.

  In line with this guidance and the practice of the previous Administration, I and 8 of my Ministers have taken scheduled Concorde flights on a total of 14 occasions. This compares with 11 Ministers on a total of 13 occasions during the last two years of the previous Administration.

  In addition, as accounted for in answers to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 14 July 1997, Official Report, column 46, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on 13 March 1998, Official Report, columns 366–67, I have also chartered Concorde, as did my predecessor.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Insley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list Government expenditure on ministerial overseas visits at current prices(a) for the financial years (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96 and (iv) 1996–97 and (b) over the period (1) 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998 and (2) from 1 April 1998 to date. [70189]

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on Ministerial overseas visits for the periods requested is estimated as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  6.5

  1994–95

  6.6

  1995–96

  6.9

  1996–97

  7.8

  1 May 1997–31 March 1998

  6.1

  1 April–31 December 1998

  4.0

  The figures for 1993–94,1994–95 and 1995–96 do not include some expenditure falling to the Scottish Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Office where the information is not available. Full costs are available from
  284
  1996–97 onwards. All figures are in 1997–98 prices. The figure for the period 1 April to 31 December 1998 reflects payments made so far for travel undertaken in this period.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the division of responsibilities between(a) the Minister for the Cabinet Office and (b) the Secretary to the Cabinet. [69492]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office assists me and Ministerial colleagues in the implementation and co-ordination of Government policy and its effective presentation. He is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's policies against drug misuse; for discharging, on a day-to-day basis, my responsibilities as Minister for the Civil Service; and for delivering the Modernising Government agenda. He oversees the work of the five Cabinet Office Agencies and the Central Office of Information. As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he is responsible to Her Majesty the Queen for the general administration of the Duchy.

  As under previous Governments, the Secretary of the Cabinet is principal official adviser to the Prime Minister, and supervises official support for the collective decision-making process. He is also Head of the Home Civil Service.

  Former Soviet Union (Nuclear Reactors)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assistance the Government are giving to former Soviet Union countries to ensure that their nuclear reactors are millennium compliant. [69789]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: Last year, the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned a report specifically with a view to helping Central and Eastern European and former Soviet Union countries achieve millennium compliance in their civil nuclear power reactors. That report, entitled The Millennium Problem—Raising the Awareness of Nuclear Power Station Operators and Regulatory Authorities in Central and Eastern Europe, was translated into Russian and distributed to every nuclear plant and regulatory authority in the region. In addition the DTI has, so far, offered £62,000 towards the International Atomic Energy Agency's extra budgetary activities this year specifically pursuing the international effort to assist the countries concerned in their efforts to avoid Year 2000 problems and to carry out contingency planning.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Risk Material Controls
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to pass on the costs of specified risk material controls to producers. [68737]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 291. The charges would be levied at slaughterhouses and cutting plants. The extent to which

  285
  these costs are passed on to primary producers is a commercial matter for the industry. The industry already bears the cost of removal and disposal of Specified Risk Material. We see no reason why the tax payer should bear the cost of enforcing these activities.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research the Government have commissioned into genetically modified grasses to be used for animal grazing; when the research will be completed; and if the results will be made public. [68772]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry has not commissioned any research into the production of genetically modified grasses to be used for grazing. However, the Ministry has commissioned a desk study to assess the possible implications for agriculture should genetically modified grasses and legumes be introduced. The work is due to be completed in July 1999 and we would hope to make the final report available soon afterwards.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for a levy to fund the Food Standards Agency from chain stores or stores over 10,000 sq ft. [69150]

  Mr. Rooker
  The proposals that we published for consultation on 27 January envisage a levy that would apply to all food retail and catering premises required to register under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991 (as amended), with the exception of premises dealing in wrapped confectionery, soft drinks, crisps and similar wrapped products. While chain stores and stores over 10,000 sq ft. that fall within this definition would be liable for payment, the proposals do not contain any specific provisions relating to these types of premises.

  FEOGA
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the UK contribution in the current financial year to the FEOGA budget. [69323]

  Mr. Rooker
  The UK contributes to the EU budget as a whole and not to one particular part. For the 1999 EU Budget, the UK's gross financing share before abatement is 18.15 per cent. FEOGA accounts for around 47 per cent. of the 1999 EC Budget. Of the FEOGA budget, just over 2 per cent. is spent on tobacco regime.

  Green Top Milk
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the basis for calculating the price to be charged to bed and breakfast outlets for testing green top milk; [70262]

  (2) what representations he has received on the impact of the cost of testing green top milk on small bed and breakfast outlets. [70263]

  Mr. Rooker
  The objective is to recover the full cost of carrying out this statutory microbiological sample testing work. The charges are expected to cover the costs of 286
  obtaining representative samples, laboratory analysis, IT and administration including invoicing and any debt recovery.

  I have not received any representations about the impact of charging on bed and breakfast outlets.

  Farmers (Bankruptcy)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of farmers have become bankrupt in each of the past five years. [69309]

  Mr. Rooker
  The table sets out the number of bankruptcies in the agricultural and horticultural sectors in England and Wales between 1993 and 1998. During this period the total number of farmers, partners and directors in England and Wales has been in excess of 200,000. In each of these years therefore bankruptcies represented less than ½ per cent. of this total.

  Number of bankruptcies in the agricultural and horticultural sectors: England and Wales 1993–98

  Year

  Bankruptcies of self-employed individuals

  Company 1 Insolvencies

  Total

  1993

  277

  157

  434

  1994

  231

  166

  397

  1995

  218

  99

  317

  1996

  168

  89

  257

  1997

  155

  51

  206

  19972 (January to June)

  88

  23

  111

  1998 (January to June)

  71

  30

  101

  1 Including partnerships

  2 Last 6 months figures unavailable for 1998. For comparison purposes half yearly figures for 1997 have also been provided

  Source

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Honeybees
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the import of honeybees of the Italian sub-species, apis mellifera ligustica. [69488]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: No. Apis mellifera ligustica is one of the most successful and commonly used honey bee strains in the commercial honey producing world. Since 1955, and probably earlier, thousands of consignments of ligustica have been imported by beekeepers into the UK each year.

  Abattoirs
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the impact on small abattoirs of the increased charges for specified risk material audit; and if he will make a statement. [70260]

  Mr. Rooker
  A number of representations have been received in response to the consultation document which was issued on 14 January. Final decisions on the proposed arrangements for recovering from industry the cost of enforcement by the Meat Hygiene Service of the controls on specified risk material will be taken once the consultation period ends on 12 February.
  287
  Copies of all the responses received will be available for public scrutiny in the main MAFF Library in Whitehall Place in due course, as is our normal practice.

  Quarantine
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent public consultation on quarantine reform; what changes he proposes; and when they will be introduced. [69373]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are considering the results of the public consultation on the recommendations made by the Kennedy Group. There has been a large number of replies (more than 3,700).

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the cost of meat inspection was increased in each 12 month period since the Meat Hygiene Service became operational; and what estimate he has made of cost to the industry for 1999. [68127]

  Mr. Rooker
  The total cost of the Meat Hygiene Service to the industry since the launch of the Agency in April 1995 has been:

  Year

  Cost (£ million)

  Percentage increase/decrease

  1995–96

  128.9

  —

  1996–97

  26.0

  11% decrease

  1997–98

  29.8

  15% increase

  1998–992

  33.1

  11% increase

  1 The total cost of the MHS in 1995–96 was £31.4 million. However, £2.5 million concerned transitional relief funded by government for the set up of the new Agency.

  2 Latest forecast

  From 1995–96 certain MHS enforcement costs, such as those for Specified Risk Material controls, were met by Government.

  The MHS budget for 1999–2000 is currently being prepared. Figures for 1999–2000 are therefore not yet available. However, after careful consideration, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 14 January 1999, Official Report, column 291, that the Government can no longer defer the introduction of charges to industry to cover the costs of SRM controls. It is proposed that these costs should be transferred from the taxpayer to industry from 29 March 1999. A consultation package on this proposal was issued on 14 January.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during what hours Ministry officials were in attendance for the transport of mink on 22 December 1998 from Ponteland to Devon; and what charges were levied for their attendance. [68145]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials attended the mink at Ponteland on 21 December from 9.45 am to 11.00 am and from 12.30 pm up till their departure at 1.45 pm the same day. Officials also met the mink on arrival at the premises 288
  of destination at 11.55 pm, inspecting them for about 45 minutes. A further inspection was carried out at 1 pm the following afternoon (22 December). The work is not chargeable. Under the arrangements for licensing mink farms, the premises of destination are regarded as being in Cornwall.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long the mink transported on 22 December 1998 from the mink factory farm at Ponteland remained in the lorry which transported them. [68144]

  Mr. Morley
  The journey was on 21 December. The time from loading the first mink at Ponteland to unloading the last animal at the premises of destination was 19 hours. The animals had access to water in each compartment and food was also carried in case of delay.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have been allocated by Her Majesty's Government to opposition groups in Iraq. [68818]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have given humanitarian assistance to Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and Shia groups in southern Iraq.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many licences for the export of armaments to Indonesia have been agreed for each of the last five years. [68638]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 9 February 1999, Official Report, column 202.

  Cossacks (Repatriation)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on public access to Public Record Office files relating to repatriation of Cossacks at the end of the Second World War. [69710]

  Ms Quin
  All FCO files more than 30 years old relating to repatriation of Cossacks are available for access at the Public Record Office.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to each of the Government's public consultations. [69778]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The FCO does not as a matter of course collate and assess responses to the Government's public consultations. To do so in order to reply to this question would involve disproportionate costs.
  289

  Burma
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to raise concerns about the situation of(a) the Karen and (b) other ethnic groups in Burma at the forthcoming session of the UN Human Rights Commission. [69809]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UK, with EU Partners, will work for a tough resolution on Burma at the forthcoming session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, to highlight the abuse of ethnic minorities, including the Karen and press the military regime to stop violating human rights.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to encourage the Association of South East Asian nations to expel Burma from its membership. [69810]

  Mr. Fatchett
  ASEAN members are fully aware of our deep concern about the appalling human rights and political situation in Burma. We encourage them to use their influence on Burma.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to encourage the Thai Government(a) to permit the entry of refugees from Burma and (b) not to repatriate such refugees forcibly. [69808]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Embassy in Bangkok is in close touch with the Thai authorities, who are aware of our concerns about Burmese refugees on the Thai-Burma border. We welcome the agreement reached with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees which includes arrangements for admissions into refugee camps. The Thai authorities assure us that no refugees have been forcibly repatriated.

  Customs and Excise Searches
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times his Department's premises have been searched by HM Customs and Excise officers in connection with their investigations in the last five years.[69814]

  Mr. Fatchett
  HM Customs and Excise have never used their statutory powers to search FCO premises. There have been occasions during the course of HMCE investigations when they have examined FCO documents with the consent of the Department. But no central record of such examinations has been maintained either by HMCE or the FCO.

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1999,Official Report, columns 214–15, on arms embargoes, when each of (a) the listed UN resolutions and (b) the implementing Orders in Council were first circulated to the relevant British ambassadors. [69815]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK Mission in New York transmits the texts of United Nations Resolutions on adoption to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and relevant overseas posts.
  290
  As stated in my reply of 26 January, it was not normal practice prior to July 1998 to circulate details of the Orders in Council to the relevant High Commissions or Embassies.

  Western Sahara
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he has taken in pursuance of the implementation of the United Nation resolution relating to Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara, with particular reference to the provision for a referendum of the Saharawi people. [69897]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We fully support the United Nations' policy of holding a free and fair referendum in the Western Sahara. We are working to this end with our EU partners, within the Security Council and at the Friends of the Western Sahara Group in the UN. We urge the co-operation of all the parties involved with the UN Secretary-General's present initiative. We also regularly raise the Western Sahara in bilateral meetings, emphasising the need for achieving a just and lasting solution.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings and (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69972]

  (2) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner; [69907]

  (3) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department (a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69983]

  (4) which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and whether in each case this is under a statutory requirement; [69834]

  (5) which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish (a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69948]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The answer for advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the FCO is shown in the tables.
  291

  Executive NDPBs

  Diplomatic Service Appeals Board

  Advisory NDPBs Government Hospitality Fund

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  (a) Admit members of the public to all Board or Committee meetings?

  no

  no

  no

  (b) Hold public meetings?

  no

  no

  no

  (c) Have lay or consumer representatives on their Boards?

  no

  yes

  yes

  (d) Under Statutory requirement?

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Diplomatic Service Appeals Board

  Advisory NDPBs Government Hospitality Fund

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  Publish

  (a) Minutes of meetings?

  yes

  no

  no

  (b) Agendas for meetings and documents for these meetings?

  yes

  no

  no

  (c) A register of members interests?

  yes

  yes

  no

  (d) Under statutory requirements?

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  British Council

  Britain Russia Centre

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  Commonwealth Institute

  GB China Centre

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  (a) Admit members of the public to all Board or Committee meetings?

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  (b) Hold public meetings?

  no1

  no

  no

  no

  yes2

  no

  no

  (c) Have lay or consumer representatives on their Boards?

  yes

  no

  yes

  yes

  yes

  yes

  yes

  (d) Operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure?

  yes

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  no

  (e) and if so, is this under a statutory requirement?

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  no

  n/a

  no

  n/a

  1 Only the AGM is an open meeting

  2 Held once a month: the AGM is also open to the public

  British Council

  Britain Russia Centre

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  Commonwealth Institute

  GB China Centre

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Publish

  (a) Minutes of meetings?

  no

  no

  no

  no3

  no

  no

  no

  (b) Agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings?

  no

  no

  no

  no3

  no

  no

  no

  (c) A register of members interests?

  no

  no

  no

  no

  yes

  no

  no

  (d) Is it a statutory requirement?

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  no

  n/a

  no

  n/a

  3 Available for public reference in the Commonwealth Resource Centre

  British Council

  Britain Russia Centre

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  Commonwealth Institute

  GB China Centre

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  (a) Which of the executive NDPBs have a statutory base?

  no

  no

  no

  yes

  no

  yes

  no

  (b) Which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner?

  yes

  yes

  no

  no4

  no4

  no4

  no4

  4 These NDPBs are due to be brought within the Parliamentary Ombudsmans jurisdiction by means of an Order in Council to be laid in February 1999

  Venezuela
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby, who are imprisoned in Venezuela, in the last three months. [70001]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, received a letter from my hon. Friend in December 1998 about his constituent James Miles. My noble Friend replied on 5 January 1999.
  292
  Officials in the Consular Division of the FCO are in regular contact by telephone and letter with James Miles' and Paul Losebys' parents.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) the British Ambassador to Venezuela and (b) a representative from the British Embassy last visited Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby. [700021]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Ambassador to Venezuela has not visited James Miles and Paul Loseby. UK based Consular staff visit James Miles and Paul Loseby at least
  293
  every quarter and last did so on 2 February, when James Miles declined to see the UK-based member of staff. Other consular staff visit more frequently and have seen both on numerous occasions.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of(a) the conditions in which Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby are being held and (b) their medical and dental situation. [70003]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Consular staff at our posts overseas monitor prison conditions to satisfy themselves that British prisoners are not discriminated against, that their basic human rights are met, and that illnesses are treated.

  Consular staff have interceded with the Venezuelan authorities whenever James Miles or Paul Loseby have requested medical or dental treatment.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings representatives of the British Embassy in Caracas have had with Venezuelan Government officials in respect of Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby. [70004]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Consular staff at the British Embassy in Caracas meet regularly with Venezuelan officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Prisons to discuss consular aspects of their imprisonment. The most recent meeting was on 3 February 1999 between the Vice Consul and an official from the Prisons Directorate at the Ministry of Justice.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the inauguration of the new Venezuelan President on the case of Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby. [70005]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The new President of Venezuela was inaugurated on 2 February. It is too early to say what, if any, policies might be introduced which will affect foreign prisoners.

  Maldives
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on allegations that the Government of the Maldives imprisoned seven Christians because of their beliefs. [70213]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We attach importance to the right to freedom of religion and expression. We were therefore concerned to learn about the deportation from the Maldives in July 1998 of nineteen foreign nationals for alleged proselytising activity and the detention of several Maldivian citizens who had apparently converted to Christianity. We understand that all those detained have now been released. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what levels the four reports despatched to his Department by the British Embassy in 294
  Madrid, relating to the investigations by Judge Garzon, were read, and when; which desks these reports were forwarded to for information within his Department and to where outside his Department; and what action was taken as a result. [70284]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: The reports of 12 November 1997 and 23 January 1998 were read at desk level in the Department; the former was sent to our Embassy in Santiago; the latter to our Embassies in Santiago and Buenos Aires. The reports of 15 and 16 October were read at senior official level in the FCO, passed to the Home Office on 16 October, and drawn on in briefing the Foreign Secretary on 16 October before Senator Pinochet was detained.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature of the informal indication to the British Embassy in Santiago in early September 1998 that Augusto Pinochet was to visit the United Kingdom; what reports were sent to his Department as a consequence; what reference was made in internal communications to potential legal and diplomatic difficulties that might ensue; and if such reports were brought to his attention. [70285]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 February 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ruislip Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 29 October 1998, Official Report, columns 273–74, and to the answer my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, gave to the nobel Lord Lamont of Lerwick in another place on 11 January 1999, Official Report, House of Lords, column 3. The reports subsequently circulated with the FCO made no reference to potential legal and diplomatic difficulties. This was reported to me over the weekend 19/20 September.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contents of the note faxed to his Department on 9 October 1998 by the British Embassy in Santiago relating to reports of General Pinochet' s death; at what level in his Department this was read; and what action was taken in response. [70287]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our Embassy in Santiago telephoned the Resident Clerk late on 9 October following inquiries from the press about reports that Senator Pinochet had died that afternoon in London. The Resident Clerk obtained confirmation from the Chilean Embassy that the reports were untrue and informed our Embassy. The Embassy's subsequent note to the Department recording this exchange was received after Senator Pinochet was detained.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what (i) minutes and (ii) other documents are held by his Department relating to telephone calls made by representatives of the Chilean Embassy concerning the departure from the UK of General Pinochet prior to the issuing of the arrest warrant; what was the nature of the discussions; at what time of day those discussions took place; and if he will make a statement. [70289]
  295
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 February]: For details of the telephone calls between the Chilean Ambassador and Foreign Office officials, 1 refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 25 January 1999, Official Report, column 149, and on 1 February 1999, Official Report, columns 496–97. As I have already made clear, both conversations took place before the receipt of the request from the Spanish authorities for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet.
  296

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to co-ordinate Government policy on the future development and status of the Cornish language. [68662]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are discussing with colleagues in home departments the impact of the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on the Cornish language. This is, ultimately, a matter of domestic rather than foreign policy.

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

Farm Incomes
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What benefits they expect British agriculture to gain from the reform of the common agricultural policy under the European Union's Agenda 2000 dossier.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government consider that the Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy will reduce agriculture's dependence on price support and make it more robust and competitive in the face of increasingly open world markets.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he expect general agreement on the Agenda 2000 proposals to be reached before the March summit meeting? Beyond that, what overall effect does he expect these proposals will have on British agriculture? Given that there is now talk of a one-third cut in direct payment to farmers and the money being diverted instead to low-income farmers or to schemes that are more environmentally friendly, in his judgment, at the enc of the day, will the average British farmer be better off or worse off?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is difficult at this stage to forecast the degree of success. The Germans, who hold the presidency, are committed, as we are, to achieving agreement. The process is that the Agricultural Council meets next week, to be followed by a meeting of the Council in March. Everyone is committed to achieving agreement. However, we know from past experience that matters can become tricky, especially on small items.
As to the effect on British farmers, overall, reform will be very good for European farming. British fanning is particularly well placed to benefit. It is more efficient and capable of taking an open view of world markets. In terms of specifics, we calculate the cost to British farmers as being within the range of £200 million to £300 million. That represents a decline in incomes. However, we estimate the gains to consumers to be upwards of £1 billion. There will be some loss on our budget. We shall certainly look to see that British farmers do not suffer.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in his reply to me yesterday about the increased burden of charges being placed on abattoirs, the Minister stated:
"The effect of these increased costs will be to reduce producer incomes and to encourage further rationalisation in the primary production and meat slaughtering sector"—[Official Report, 9/2/99; col. WA 21.]
204
If farmers are to lose out as a result of Agenda 2000 and in this respect, where on earth are they to get any income from?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have made clear from the beginning that some restructuring must take place in British agriculture and that the meat sector is an obvious area. However, we are convinced that in a more open food producing market British farmers will find new ways of earning their incomes more competitively and will be less dependent on production support. It is also our commitment to direct more funds into agri-environmental schemes and rural development. Farmers will benefit from that approach.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in that case, what preparatory work has been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government for the implementation of the rural development regulation? Also, what account has been taken of best practice, as learnt in Objective 5b areas, LEADER programmes and Rural Development Commission areas?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we do whatever preparatory work we can. It can be a waste to do such work in advance of deciding the final details. The noble Baroness will be aware that what is being agreed, we trust, in Europe on the rural development side is a matter of structure concerned with simplifying and merging existing regulations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an undertaking that that part of the common agricultural policy which has resulted in the payment of millions of pounds to a small number of individuals for producing nothing at all will be eliminated?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am reluctant to give that absolute guarantee to my noble friend. Like all of us, he is aware that the common agricultural policy has particular quirks. However, I believe that the process of reform that we have embarked on and which is being contemplated is only a small step. We are constantly pushing and shall push further, after these reforms have been agreed, towards a situation in which there are no supports for production even when they are not wanted and no controls over supply regardless of the market. We wish to move towards a more market-sensitive agriculture. When we reach it, some of the matters of which I detect my noble friend may not wholly approve will diminish.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Lord Hylton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I believe the feeling of the House is that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, should ask his question. There will still be an opportunity for other noble Lords to intervene after that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I wish to put two points to the Minister. First, he rightly says that British

205
agriculture is more efficient than much of the agriculture on the Continent. That derives partly from the fact that British farms are considerably larger, in general, than French farms. Does it therefore make sense to discriminate against the larger farmers and in favour of the smaller ones? Secondly, can the Minister say whether he expects that restrictions on milk quotas will be abolished in order that British producers will be able both to satisfy our own market and export to the Continent?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as regards size, the noble Lord is correct. British farms, of about 65 hectares on average, are considerably larger than those on the Continent. I shall not mention the extent of farming with which my noble friend who intervenes is connected. He obviously finds the figure I quoted too small for him to contemplate. The whole drift of the reform, except on modulation, where mere proposals are involved, is in the direction of rewarding the larger farm. That leads some of us to worry about the small and family farms. I thought that the noble Lord might ask that question.
It is absolutely our position to press for the abolition of milk quotas; we are now urging a termination date for them. That is not in the Commission's proposals. I agree wholly with the noble Lord about what is desirable to assist our very efficient milk producers. They are limited under the present arrangements.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government's aims include an expansion of organic farming and food for which there is an unsatisfied demand? I declare my own interest in that area.
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords. Since coming into office this Government have pressed to improve support for organic farming. The basic situation now is that the demand for organic food products is increasing at 20 per cent. a year. Our food producers who did not position themselves early enough are not able to supply that. About 70 per cent. of organics sold by food retailers are imports. We want that corrected. We have announced a significant increase in aid to organic farmers and to assist people to convert to organic farming.

Human Rights Training for Police Recruits
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to train police recruits in human rights, with special reference to good race relations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, all police officers receive training in community and race relations as part of their probationer training at police training centres. Minimum effective training levels in equal opportunities
206
and community and race relations were incorporated into the probationer training programme last September. There is also a specific input on the Human Rights Act and its implications for police constables. The Metropolitan Police Service runs its own training programme which incorporates the minimum effective training levels.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Does he agree that policing in Britain depends on trust between the police and the community and that there is a real crisis of trust at present with the black community in Britain and the police? Can he further say what steps are being taken to investigate the disturbing statistics in the 1998 study of race relations under Section 95, which has just been published? It indicates that stop and search is five times more likely in the case of black Britons than in the community of Britain as a whole.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, undoubtedly no policing system in a civilised society can operate effectively without the trust and confidence of all citizens or all people who live in these islands. The noble Baroness is quite right, overall the statistics show that black people were five times more likely to be stopped and searched. Indeed, there are internal variations within those figures: it is three times more likely in Bedfordshire, on the one hand, and, on the other, seven times more likely in Leicester and Hertfordshire. Noble Lords will know that in days rather than weeks the Home Secretary expects the report deriving from the murder of Stephen Lawrence. He is holding a conference on 14th April in Southampton to take forward the worrying themes which the noble Baroness has identified.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a great majority of police officers do an extremely good job under very difficult circumstances? Does he further agree that training is required for all officers, particularly at the junior level?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time, of course, I pay willing tribute to the quality of most police officers in this country. Training is very important and I take the noble Lord's point. It is not simply training on entry to the police force but continuous training in awareness of difficult matters. We must aim to get more police officers from ethnic minorities, particularly in the context of retaining and promoting them after they have been recruited.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that my experience as a Member of Parliament for a West London constituency was that the senior officers of the Metropolitan Police concerned with community relations were absolutely first-class and that often the problems arose because some of their more junior colleagues were not as enlightened? Does he agree that that underlines the importance of training not only for recruits but also for those rather older people who still hold positions in the service?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point absolutely. In all walks of life it is important to have continued training. To revert to his specific indication, it is the fact that most complainants from ethnic minorities will have dealt with that category of police officers who are perhaps not as enlightened as they should be. The answer to that is training and monitoring.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, training in race and community relations as they affect the police has been going on for the past 25 years. Will the Minister undertake an independent evaluation to see how effective such training has been? I have in mind the figures cited by my noble friend relating to stop and search. Is he aware that one of his own Home Office senior race and community relations advisers has been stopped by the police on at least 44 occasions and to a great extent is responsible for providing training for police officers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, these are difficult and continuing problems. It is no good pretending that racially discriminatory views, whether deliberately known or unknown by those who hold them, do not exist That is a part of our society that we must recognise and deal with. We need more police officers from ethnic minorities. In many areas of authority, power and privilege in this country, it is the fact that ethnic minorities are rather under-represented, not least perhaps in this House.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, how can police forces recruit more from the ethnic minorities when many of them cannot afford even to replace retiring officers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if they have the will to do so—the Home Secretary has determined that they shall—they can perfectly well cast the net widely, properly and fairly to get first-class probationers from all ethnic groups. We owe that to ethnic minority groups and to our own civilised society.
Lord Knights: My Lords, about 14 to 15 years ago the Association of Chief Police Officers, with the Home Office, established a special unit, which was housed originally at Brunel University, to design courses and develop training in race relations and race awareness matters, not simply for recruits but all ranks in the service. Can the Minister inform the House whether that unit still exists? If not, can he say why it was discontinued and where responsibility for such work now lies? More importantly perhaps, can he also say who is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of this training particularly in the light of the comment by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to a Select Committee of another place in December of 1998:
"We have said firmly that race and community relations training has been marginalised compared with other training"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, to deal first with the latter question, I believe that the noble Lord refers to the 1997 report. I am sure he will be pleased to learn that the author of that report will revisit his conclusions to see what, if anything, has changed. As he rightly says, the specific unit to which the noble Lord refers was set up in 1983 at Brunel. That contract expired in 1988. A further contract was granted in 1989, which expired in December 1998. A new contract was granted in January of this year to Ionann Consultancy. We recognised one of the defects to be that the older schemes trained trainers who then went back to their own forces. It was felt, rightly I believe, that the services should be delivered directly to individual forces. I am sure that the noble Lord will, in light of his own experience, bear in mind that that is a significant advance.

Concessionary Fares: the Disabled and Pensioners
2.54 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to provide free public transport for the disabled or pensioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are committed to the introduction of a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fare schemes in England. This would entail half-fares rather than free fares for pensioners on buses on the purchase of a £5 bus pass. Local authorities would remain free to offer wider or more generous schemes if they so wished. Implementation of the minimum standard will require primary legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also announced that he expects local authorities to provide the proposed minimum standard from April 1999. The aim is to move to free fares for pensioners in Wales over the next two to three years.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that if Wales is anything to go by concessionary travel is ludicrously piecemeal? When will the Government honour their commitment to establish nationally a minimum half-fare scheme for pensioners and the disabled? Is it not time that we caught up with the Republic of Ireland, where free transport for these groups is available on road and rail?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated, the situation in Wales is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has reached agreement with the Welsh authorities that a minimum scheme covering Wales will be in place by April of next year. He would hope, with statutory powers, to move to a free bus pass system in Wales subsequently. The situation in the Republic of Ireland, as in Northern Ireland, is somewhat different, but in Wales substantial progress is being made. I hope

209
that the noble Lord's characterisation of the Welsh situation will, within just over 12 months, prove to be wrong.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government take into account that some physically disabled people cannot use buses and find railway stations very difficult, and that, for them, public transport is not an option? Does the Minister agree that, instead, they need access for their Motability cars or other vehicles in which they are able to travel as passengers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I wholly appreciate that situation. I believe that a large number of local authorities also recognise the need for special access for disabled people and their vehicles.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as far as concerns able-bodied people, there is a danger of creating the impression that once people reach pensionable age they become automatically dependent on the state and must look to the state even for assistance with transport?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept the point that is put in those terms. It is reasonable to recognise that many pensioners rely on public transport more than the population as a whole and that therefore they are entitled to provision at both local authority and national level to ensure that they have access to public transport. That has been recognised by local authorities of all political persuasions up and down the land.
Lord Addington: My Lords, if it is accepted that in two months' time we will have a scheme that allows concessionary fares, can the Government confirm that it will cost only £25 million to introduce? Can the Government provide an approximate date on which they intend to extend that scheme to the disabled? As it is such a small increase in cost, surely it would not cost very much more to extend it to the disabled.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should correct the noble Lord on two matters. First, the reference to April 1999 relates to the voluntary scheme in Wales. We shall require statutory provision to introduce a mandatory minimum scheme in England, and in Wales if it applied there. Secondly, the £25 million cost is related to the intended introduction of the concessionary half-fare scheme in England. Clearly, any widening of the scope of the scheme will involve greater cost, but local authorities have the right to extend the scope as well as the generosity of their provision.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. Does the Minister agree that it is absurd to force local authorities by law to provide concessionary fares and ultimately free travel to everybody over the age of 65 irrespective of their financial background?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in a large part of the country local authorities of all political persuasions have regarded it as part of their job to ensure access to public transport for our senior citizens.
I am surprised at the approach of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I believe that it is recognised as a good thing throughout the country. However, a few areas have no such scheme. We felt it right, therefore, to introduce a minimum level concessionary scheme, as we announced in our White Paper in July.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people throughout the country think that local government autonomy is important?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is a well-established principle between central and local government that central government frequently sets minimum standards and local authorities have the ability to improve on them. That is precisely the situation we propose to introduce in this area.

Local Authority Elections: Voting System
3 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the introduction of a new voting system for local authority elections.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government's plans are in our recent White Paper. We do not propose to change the local government voting system other than the possible introduction of the supplementary vote for the election of directly elected mayors.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat disappointing reply. Is the noble Baroness aware that when the Nolan Committee considered standards in local government it found that, irrespective of political persuasion, abuses were by and large associated with an excessive degree of one-party dominance.
Against that background, would not one of the best ways to improve standards in local government be to introduce some form of proportional voting, as the Government have done for the new Parliament of Scotland, the Welsh Assembly and now the European Union elections?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will wish to join me in paying tribute to the large number of councillors and officers who do excellent work in majority as well as minority authorities. However, it is true that we have studied carefully the issue of possible corruption in local government. For that reason we shall publish soon a draft Bill which will include a new ethical framework

211
which we hope to achieve following consultation, including consultation with the Local Government Association.
In one authority where corruption was found to have occurred, the fear of losing majority control led to the corruption.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many people would welcome the Answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in particular as, contrary to what the noble Lord seemed to suggest, all forms of proportional representation tend to lead to an increase in power for the party apparat at the expense of the individual voter? That applies as much to local government as to national elections.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as always, the noble Viscount makes an interesting point. As he knows, for example, with regard to the European parliamentary elections, the Government's position is that different systems may be appropriate for different types of election. However, on behalf of the Government, I welcome his support for the position we take on local government.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, when considering systems of proportional representation, will the Minister take into account the background to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson? It may he less to do with the purity of democracy but more about seeking to increase Liberal Democrat representation on local authorities. Will my noble friend also take into account the behaviour on the doorstep of Liberal Democrat councillors which bodes ill for the integrity of councils in which there are more of them?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend has in mind a specific experience. It is my experience in local government that candidates and councillors in all parties behave with scrupulous integrity on the doorstep when they seek support. Occasionally other types of people become involved despite the careful scrutiny of the political parties. I should not like to hazard a guess or to demonstrate any personal bias by attributing percentages to the different parties.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many independent members are still elected to local authorities? That is an advantage which the Government should do their best to maintain. Proportional representation would prevent it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, some systems of proportional representation fully allow the local electorate to choose freely to support an independent candidate in local elections. When I was chair of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales, a wide range of views was held by independent candidates from the Principality. In some cases they fully reflected the views of their local communities.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, it is politically naïve to believe that a change in voting system will
212
prevent people who are intent on operating corrupt practices from being elected. Can proportional representation distinguish between an individual who will be corrupt and someone who will be pure?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. No political system of election can do that. But we believe that a new ethical framework, which will implement the policy that after a single strike of misbehaviour one is out, is to be welcomed by all parties.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Freyberg set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Earl of Listowel to two-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Arts
3.7 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg rose to call attention to the case for a change in the way in which the arts in this country are governed and managed; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to introduce this afternoon's debate on the case for a change in the way the arts in Britain are governed and managed.
My pleasure arises chiefly from the fact that this Government appear to take the arts seriously, are on occasion prepared to make more resources available for them, and believe that the arts in general have a vital role to play in Britain's economy and social wellbeing. Such a view is a quantum leap from that of their predecessor, whom many have described as having a "policy vacuum" towards the arts—and indeed no government in the past 20 years have set forth their policy objectives for the arts or guidelines for the cultural sector as a whole. I therefore welcome the recently published Cultural Framework, following the DCMS comprehensive spending review. This is, moreover, the first occasion it has been possible to discuss the ideas contained in it since its publication on 14th December 1998.
Many of the proposals strike me as sensible and practical, including the streamlining of bodies that share similar briefs, for example on architecture, museums and the arts in general, and the introduction of a three-year funding plan. It is an impressively wide-ranging survey of funding and organisation. However, its very nature and scale mean that new problems are inevitably thrown up as well as solutions to current shortcomings. While remaining positive in

213
general, I should like to take this opportunity to examine several areas which I believe contain potential pitfalls, and to discuss the implications of some proposals which need to be addressed with caution and an open mind. The areas I should like to address are regionalism, best value and the turning of museums into independent trusts.
Regionalism is one of the most dominant themes of the Cultural Framework along with the proposed increase in English regional powers (under devolution, Scotland and Wales will make their own arrangements). The nine regions form a layer of bureaucracy between central government and local or county administration. Labour's longstanding commitment to devolving administration to the regions is understandably regarded with caution by the quite separate counties and metropolitan districts that already exercise considerable powers over quite large areas. Furthermore, regional loyalty in England is on the whole weak. Most people identify either with their locality or with the whole country and not much in between.
The current regional cultural bodies include Government Offices for the Regions (created in 1994) and unelected bodies such as tourist boards, regional arts boards and area museum councils. The Cultural Framework proposes establishing a new strategic body in each region to provide a strong voice for all cultural interests. At first glance, it seems a good idea to create bodies to champion the arts: it is also an undeniable fact that when local authorities are hard pressed it is all too often arts funding that suffers. Only last week, Westminster City Council drastically reduced its funding to such major arts institutions as the ICA, English National Ballet, English National Opera and the Serpentine as a way of offsetting the cost of looking after large numbers of refugees. The Orchestra of St. John's Smith Square and the Photographers' Gallery lost their grants altogether. It would be interesting to know whether a strengthened regional arts board would have had any effect on this or similar decisions.
The precedents are not encouraging. During the last Labour administration, in the late 1970s, greater regionalism did not prove to be a noticeable success. Simply moving decision-making to a town closer to local authorities did not appear radically to alter or improve the nature of decisions made to anyone's satisfaction. The same dilemmas exist now as existed then; namely, the lack of demand for regional government, the problem of what functions should be allocated to the regions, and the boundary issues.
It should also be remembered that stronger regional representation for the arts counts for nothing if funding at local level remains static or even decreases. This appears to be the case for the next few years. In July 1998, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that government resources to local authorities in three years 1999 to 2002 would increase.
"above estimated inflation by an average 2.3 per cent.".
214
However, he also revealed that the,
"standard spending assessments for environmental, protective and cultural services would increase by only 1.3 per cent. in real terms in 1999 to 2000 and then be cut by 0.6 per cent. and 0.95 per cent. in the following years".
What kind of message does that give? Not that the arts are important, certainly. Rather it puts cultural services under ever more pressure, which cannot be a good thing.
Gathering reliable data on local authority expenditure on cultural provision is difficult because of lack of comparable and consistent data. However, there is no question that cultural services have over the past two decades been given relatively weak financial support by local authorities. For example, just over half spend less than 0.5 per cent. of their total net revenue on the arts and 84 per cent. spend less than 2 per cent. The size of these budgets may well reflect the perceived importance of the arts among elected members, but one could argue that this is because the arts are usually in the charge of members elected on the basis of their political preferences rather than those who have a particular interest or expertise in the arts per se.
Local authorities have endeavoured to save money on cultural services in a number of ways: by restructuring departments, which is almost an annual event in some authorities; by leaving vacant posts unfilled and merging others. The level of service has inevitably suffered. For example, small branch libraries with low issues have frequently been targeted for closure, opening hours reduced and specialised services come under threat. There has also been a corresponding drive to increase income from both "unearned" sources such as grants, and "earned" sources, such as retailing and catering. Between 1982 and 1992, self-generated income as a part of local authority museum expenditure rose from 5 per cent. to 18 per cent., though the growth plateaued out after 1992 suggesting that museums found it hard to improve on this performance.
Part of the problem is that most local authority cultural services are discretionary, although library services are statutory. The enormous pressure on discretionary services has forced many local authorities drastically to slim down or abolish specialist committees, leaving fewer knowledgeable parties to argue the cause of each specialism. Since the reorganisation of local government in 1974, libraries and achives, museums and art galleries and the performing arts have increasingly been grouped together as similar services and this has led to tensions.
Even more unsatisfactory has been the amalgamation of cultural services with leisure services. Cultural committees therefore have to deal not only with libraries, theatres and museums, but also with parks, sports centres and other leisure facilities. Cultural services have even on occasion been split between education, environment and a central administrative grouping. The result has been a miserable diminution of standards and provisions at a local level. Local authority cultural services have the disadvantage of not being independently governed; most members are elected because of political preferences not because of interest

215
in the arts—yet these are the people who make decisions in that field. As Stuart Davies of the University of Leeds puts it:
'The level of interest in and knowledge of cultural provisions, let alone the quality of decision-making on that committee, is purely a matter of chance.'
What would a regional board be able to do when faced with this kind of destructive restructuring? Such a question is nowhere dealt with in the Cultural Framework and there seems to be no mechanism that would make a difference. Ultimately, the power of government in this context is limited. What it can usefully do is state its belief in the social and educational benefit, of the arts, and encourage local government to take a more strategic view.
Another worrying trend is the increasingly impatient attitude of central government to the local variety. The White Paper of August 1998, Modern local government—in touch with the people, offers an exciting vision for local government, but also expresses distrust and threatens penalties and sanctions if local authorities do not comply with what central government think is appropriate. The tension between local and central government is intensified by suspicions that government Ministers are more sympathetic to the idea of regional government than the reality of local government.
The Cultural Framework states that existing regional cultural forums—essentially communication bodies—are to he strengthened by the establishment of strategic bodies in each region. This raises some critical issues about the place of regional agencies in cultural development. What will the relationship between regional and local strategies comprise? What underlies the assumption that it is appropriate to have a cultural strategy at regional level? There may be a great deal of sense in being able to determine regional priorities for funding if government, or other funders such as lottery boards, provide a regional allocation—especially if it is significantly level and free of pre-determined decisions. But in the absence of substantial research on regional cultural mapping (the incidence of "culture" and the audiences for it) it may be difficult convincingly to move away from the historical priorities of, for example, the Arts Council of England.
Another trend in which local authorities are taking a keen interest is that of turning museums into independent trusts, thus relieving the authority of some of the museum's financial burden. This has worrying implications. While the move has many attractions—giving museum directors greater freedom to manage and other incentives such as being allowed substantially to increase sponsorship income—it can also seriously impede programmes not dependent on earned income and renders social and educational agendas less likely. A particularly alarming example is that of Buckinghamshire County Museum, opened by Buckinghamshire County Council in 1996 after a £4 million redevelopment. Visitor numbers leapt up—66 per cent. more in 1998 than in 1988—and an award-winning Roald Dahl's Children's Gallery was also opened.
However, after the creation of a new unitary authority at Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire's tax base was greatly diminished and led to considerable pressure on
216
discretionary services. In January 1998, the County Museum's budget was reduced by £250,000 (about 35 per cent.) in 1998–99, with further cuts forecast for the following year. There were six staff redundancies, admission charges were introduced and increased at the Roald Dahl's Children's Gallery and, in May 1998, the former museum director was given six months to explore the possibilities of transferring the museum to a charitable trust.
Another cautionary tale is that of the Museum of Kent Life, operated by Kent County Council, and founded in 1983, which became a charitable trust in 1993. Its revenue went up from 25 per cent. of its total income in 1992 to almost 75 per cent. in 1997–98, but at the same time the county council support was cut. Its revenue grant fell by 50 per cent. over four years, and its capital grant disappeared altogether. The cut in the museum's revenue grant was 12 per cent. greater than the average for the council. These two examples demonstrate that unless there is either an endowment for the trust, guaranteed fixed revenue grant, or support from the local authority (always hard to secure) the independent trust option will always be high risk.
The problem of funding museums has grown enormously in the past 30 years. Some 75 per cent. of England's 2,000 museums have been created since 1970, and many have persuaded local authorities to support them with grants. They are competing with each other for visitors and resources. This is a continuing problem, with many of the new institutions falling short of the traditional criteria of a museum.
But what has really bedeviled the arts divisions of local authorities is the obligation to focus on cost-cutting rather than what people want or need from a service. It has also, in the past two decades, been a major factor in preventing local authorities from taking a strategic view of the arts. To counter this short-term tendency, the Government are introducing one of its most interesting concepts, that of "best value".
"Best value" considers the effectiveness and the quality of local services alongside their cost. It was developed by the Labour Party when in opposition and its 12 guiding principles represent an attempt to consult with people on what they want from a particular service, while maintaining high efficiency—hence "best value" in the delivery of local government services. It is to replace compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) as the guiding criteria for individual services.
Many of the ideas of "best value" come from the private or business sector and in general local authorities have been obliged to follow more corporate goals. Those who have resisted have suffered heavily in annual allocations. Cultural services have had to reinvent themselves in corporate terms or be relegated down the authority's ladder of priorities. The language of the Cultural Framework suggest that the Government also believe in redefining the arts, in their case as a social and educational tool.
There is no harm in this per se, for the arts are wonderfully multi-purpose and the more people they give pleasure and sustenance to the better. If the Government can find a way to work out the complex

217
balance between regional and local arts strategies, while retaining their belief in the important and magical qualities of the arts, they will be on their way to changing for the better the way the arts in this country are governed and managed.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate and for tabling his Motion in fairly wide terms so that the House will have an opportunity to deal with different aspects of this important subject. I should like to congratulate him on his wide-ranging, eloquent and perceptive speech. I should also like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Cultural Secretary on obtaining from the Treasury an extra £290 million for the arts over the next three years.
In the limited time at my disposal, I wish to speak about the problems concerning the export of works of art and the effect that that will have on our national heritage. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to accept the Sherborne Missal in lieu of some of the inheritance tax on the Northumberland estate. The missal is one of the greatest masterpieces of medieval art and had been on extended and generous loan by the late Duke of Northumberland to the British Library where, I am glad to say, it will now be able to remain permanently.
That important national treasure has been retained in this country but, notwithstanding that, there is still a constant flow abroad of works of art. According to the latest report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, only about 50 per cent. of items for which the committee has recommended that an export licence be deferred in order to give museums the opportunity to raise funds, stay in this country.
The Heritage Lottery Fund's grants for items of over £100,000 in value are awarded at up to 75 per cent., leaving a museum to raise at least 25 per cent. of the cost. That can be quite substantial. For example, on a £5 million painting, which is not unusual, the museum would have to raise £1.25 million from its own resources, which is often impossible. I suggest that there is a case for changing those terms and for allowing the Heritage Lottery Fund to contribute up to 100 per cent. for important art works which are under threat of export.
The National Art Collections Funds does sterling work but its funds, which are provided by its members and by legacies, are somewhat limited. Nevertheless, the NACF contributed nearly £263,000—half the price—to the purchase of Hugh Douglas Hamilton's marvellous 18th century pastel of Canova in his studio, which is a wonderful souvenir of the Grand Tour. It met all three of the Waverley criteria and is now, I am glad to say, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, having originally been destined for the Getty Museum in California.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund, which is a fund of last resort, has suffered from annual raids by the Treasury and has been cut from £12 million in 1993–94 to only £2 million in 1997–98. I am glad that the
218
Government intend to increase that by £1 million per year for the next three years. Even so, it will still be only half what it was five years ago.
Non-charging museums, when making an offer for a deferred item, must include 17.5 per cent. to cover VAT. That puts them at a disadvantage against overseas buyers who do not have to pay VAT. Those rules are governed by EU directives and I hope that the Government will press for changes, including the well-meaning but totally misguided proposal on droit de suite. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, is to speak on that in the debate. He and I have spoken on it on various occasions beforehand and I shall leave that to him.
The inheritance tax concession for conditionally exempt items, allowing the owner of a small house to give public access by prior appointment, has been withdrawn, I am sorry to say. In these difficult times there will be problems for the owners of small houses in relation to security if there is to be open access at any time. It is right that if owners of valuable works of art are able to escape the tax due on them and still keep them in their homes, it gives them a distinct advantage over other people who must pay the full amount of tax. The least they can do is to provide access. Therefore, I do not hold any particular brief in that respect. Nevertheless—and this is the point I submit—the effect of open access on small households will be to drive more objects onto the market and no doubt for export.
The reviewing committee believes that the Waverley system works well on the whole, but times have changed since that system was set up nearly 50 years ago. I agree with the committee that there is a need for new legislation. I hope that my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government will consider that.
I do not suggest that we should initiate tighter controls. As regards the EU, that would be impossible and many of our art treasures are deeply appreciated, particularly in the United States. But there should be a level playing field and we suffer from the handicap of the various measures that I have attempted to outline. I hope that the Government will consider how some of those might be mitigated so as to work less adversely against the retention of so much of our patrimony.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is a pleasant and almost perverse experience to start my contribution to this welcome debate by actually thanking the Government for helping the living arts at last.
My own cultural life started with church choirs and the radio hero, Dick Barton—whom all your Lordships are too young to remember. The former were consistent; the latter and his pals usually escaped from a terrible fate a minute or so before the show ended. Life in the funded arts system is much more Dick Barton than Thomas Tallis or Vaughan Williams. But with one bound the Secretary of State has allowed us to break out of what I described in your Lordships' House when I was chairing the Arts Council of England as a "mad hatter's tea party" and, last year, as,
"the worst crisis facing the funded arts in my adult lifetime".

219
Thanks are due to him, to the present council and its chairman and to the Prime Minister. An unsung hero—perhaps "the" hero—is Sir Dennis Stevenson who led a distinguished posse to No. 10 when things were at their bleakest.
If I may drop names for a moment, the present Prime Minister shares with his predecessor great good manners and generosity with his time. As Leader of the Opposition he gave me the opportunity to tell him that when push comes to shove, as the Americans say, only 10 Downing Street can protect the minute but vital budgets: culture, the BBC World Service and the British Council. It was certainly so when I was arts Minister. The Treasury said "No" as it is paid to do. My noble friend, the then Prime Minister said, "Yes, dear, so long as you do not crow about it and irritate the colleagues". I discovered that if I attacked the arts establishment in Cabinet and in the press, I was cheered and given more money to give to that same establishment. Dick Barton ran a fifth column.
The huge sums distributed by the council in my time through the infant National Lottery put paid—or rather unpaid—to most schemes transparent or full of guile for current funding. However often we said so, the public, the press and Parliament, and sometimes the Government themselves, refused to believe that the Arts Council was not rolling in money. This was the mad hatter's tea party. We could buy expensive porcelain and teapots in terms of capital projects, but we could not buy any tea or cakes.
It damaged the then Prime Minister's sublime vision. The unsung villain was the otherwise saintly Sir Terry Burns. He and his colleagues loathed the lottery: backdoor hypothecated taxation; a sin against the fiscal equivalent of the Holy Ghost. The present Government, admittedly after pinching a sixth of the lottery loot for other purposes, have given the council control—as we asked—over the totality of lottery allowance and grant-in-aid; and that is good.
I am afraid that having thus far said to the actors—the Government—'Darlings, you were wonderful!", I do have to criticise quite a lot of the play. In spite of the good news, living arts funding remains a good 10 per cent. lower in real terms annually than six years ago. This is part of a national pattern. Governments wait until the funded arts system is on the verge of collapse—in spite of self-help, philanthropy or the huge rise in business sponsorship, which I am proud to say I initiated with the "pairing" scheme—and then bail out the system but not back to level pegging terms.
The living arts in this country are not Oliver Twists; they never get more. They are not scroungers. They earn domestic and overseas revenue, international acclaim (look at the Oscar nominations only last night) and they employ hundreds of thousands of people both directly and in terms of ancillary workers. It is not realistic against a backdrop of public concern for the health service or the nurses for the arts to receive more. They do deserve to break even and keep on doing so. The year 1993 was in no sense a bonanza year for the arts, yet it would be a triumph for the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to get back to it. "Come on Tony;
220
Come on Chris; Come on Gerry; one more heave in the lifetime of this Parliament." And, dare I say, "Come on Ffion"? Admirable, independent arts professional though Miss Jenkins is, she does, after all, have unlimited access to the Leader of the Opposition.
I shall turn quickly to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. In my time there was and still is excellent management within the arts funding system. In London alone (there are more outside it) we have the London Symphony Orchestra, the Serpentine Gallery and the Almeida Theatre—a whale, a salmon and a minnow. At last both major opera houses appear to be in consistently reliable hands. Let the Government and the council now turn attention to better funding for the great Welsh National Opera and Opera North. All our orchestras have been on a four or five year pay freeze at base levels of sometimes less than £25,000 a year: those who fund them, departmental and Arts Council officials, have not. You need as much training to be a good orchestral musician as to be a medical specialist or a surgeon; but not a general practitioner, however worthy.
There has been poor and mixed management. Let us draw a veil and get on with improving it. I remain unconvinced that there is a better way of arts funding than the ministry giving part of its voted expenditure to an arm's length body. There are always arguments about the lengths of the arms. But it is true that the scale of the lottery success did implicate the department and the Treasury more than is healthy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that insufficient attention is paid to the role of local government—essential co-funders within the natural system. After food, shelter and basic healthcare, the quality of life and the plural excitements of our multicultural society are essential to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is rubbish to say that opera is more "élitist"—well done Rory Bremner for coming out in its favour—than rap or reggae.
I close with two quick questions to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am in favour of a mayor for London but the Greater London Authority Bill, where culture is concerned, is a cat's cradle of duplicated bodies, duplicated consultancies and duplicated strategies. It makes little sense in English and less on the ground. This House must look at it closely when it comes here. However, can the noble Lord shed a little intermediate light on what is to be the relationship between the mayor, the London Arts Board and the City of London Corporation?
London is a global attraction and the most valuable farm on the national estate. It must think as a world city. Alas, my political friends at Westminster City Council appear more benighted even than Gowrie—a place in Iowa once chosen by the New York Times as an archetypically boom dock town. Finally, has the noble Lord any information on the progress of cross-border touring between England and Scotland? Devolved Scotland may be, but the voteless English taxpayer still pays the piper for his tune.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I do not share the concern that so many noble Lords connected with the arts have expressed that the Government are not doing enough for

221
the arts. However, having heard the three previous speakers, I recognise, perhaps for the first time, compliments from all sides of the House to the Government on what they have already done. Of course, it is not perfect. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned the matter of the arts receiving support from local authorities. Because local authorities are tremendously squeezed to find money for essential local needs, they try to cut the contributions given to museums and so on. It is difficult to see how the Government can influence that. They can, perhaps, only augment the sums given with their own resources.
Nevertheless, the country is blessed with a Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who is truly enlightened. He has done a great deal for the arts in this country and I believe will do a great deal more. I regard the arts as having "won the lottery" in every sense of the phrase. If we consider the fact that the arts lottery fund will have £2 billion to distribute—it has already distributed a great deal—and the millennium lottery fund will also have another £2 billion, of which half will probably go to the arts, we can see that a tremendous amount of money has been, and will continue to be, contributed to the arts. Ten years ago, nobody would have believed that to be possible.
I must declare an interest—not for the first time here—as a member of a small fund-raising group which is working for the Tate Museum of Modern Art on the South Bank. It is just a mile or two down the road, as I am sure many noble Lords will know, opposite St. Paul's Cathedral. I believe that it will be the most important and exciting of all the millennium fund ventures. I have not forgotten the dome. I am sure that for 30 years or so the dome will be recognised as quite extraordinary. Nevertheless, I believe that the Tate Museum of Modern Art will still be recognised as extraordinary in 300 years' time. It will be one of the four greatest museums of modern art in the world. Of that, I have not the slightest doubt.
The museum will attract at least 2.5 million visitors per year. I am sure that many additional visitors will come to this country, no doubt for the first time, to see that great building and the works it contains. The cost of the whole venture is £134 million. I am pleased to state publicly for the first time that we have now raised £120 million; there is just £14 million to go. I am confident that that sum will be raised by the end of the year. The museum is due to open next year. It is on time and on budget. I believe that it will be an achievement of which we can all be very proud.
Noble Lords may think that if all is going so well with the project, why have I risen to speak about it? Perhaps to boast about it, yes, but there is, unfortunately, a problem. That problem is not in the construction of the museum but will start from the day it opens. From that day onwards it will be faced with financial problems. The museum does not intend to charge admission fees. That is the Government's policy but it is also the policy of these Benches. We believe that free entry to museums is very desirable. The museum will raise revenue from its restaurants and bookstall, but that will be insufficient to cover the cost of employing the 100 or so people (at least) who will be required. Therefore, from day one the
222
museum will begin to incur a deficit. That is a real problem. The deficit in the first year will probably be between £5 million and £6 million. We are naturally hoping that the Government can find the extra money to cover that—in which case our position will not be too bad—but we cannot be certain that they will.
I turn from the particular to the general. There are several hundred lottery-funded arts projects across the country—some from the millennium fund and some from the arts fund—which, from the moment they open, will run at a significant loss. I am concerned that no attention has been paid to that issue. The regulations of various boards entitle them to provide endowment funds for such new projects. They have chosen to do so, as far as I can understand, on only one occasion. Although the boards of the arts fund and the millennium fund have done a very good job, nevertheless, I think they are guilty of having used all the money and spread it too thinly to cover as many projects as possible, rather than ensuring that the key projects are sufficiently funded to cover their operating costs. When many of those projects open next year, the Government will be faced with immediate demands for between £100 million and £150 million to ensure that they do not lose money.
Finally, I have two questions for the Minister. That seems to be the appropriate number. First, is it possible for the Government to approach the arts board and the millennium board and ask them at least to investigate all the projects they have approved to ascertain the likely level of profit, break-even or loss? The Government could then at least have some understanding, ahead of time, of the financial burden involved.
Secondly, could the Government also discuss with the two boards the question of whether some of the unused funds could be applied to provide endowments and foundations? While it is nice to have more and more new projects, the fact is that hundreds of loss-making projects would be a burden round the country's neck and certainly round the Government's neck.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I welcome this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Freyberg, but in echoing a call for change in the way the arts in this country are governed and managed I might well be accused of sour grapes. Some of your Lordships may recall that in 1993, having served for nearly eight years, I resigned from the Arts Council and as chairman of its drama panel in protest at the council's self-imposed cuts in drama and the increasing erosion of the so-called "arm' s-length principle" which is an oxymoron for he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the calls from successive Ministers were becoming increasingly audible. Frankly, I do not find that particularly surprising or altogether objectionable. Indeed, we of the drama panel became the villains of the piece as far as the Royal National Theatre and the RSC were concerned. We imposed strict limits, sometimes standstills, on their annual grants, attempting thereby to provide sufficient funds to obtain local authority matching grants, thus sustaining our regional theatres, while at the same time offering help to our smaller, innovative and new writing companies. It was a delicate balancing act, with Sir Peter Hall and others

223
concerned with our national theatres constantly calling for direct government funding and, frankly, I could not blame them. Nevertheless, I was not too unhappy when I finally left 14 Great Peter Street.
However, I was very sad at leaving one particularly worthwhile Arts Council project. The Arts and Disability Monitoring Committee was established under my chairmanship soon after I joined the council in 1986. As might be expected, progress was slow and in 1991 we decided that action was urgently needed to promote the participation and employment of disabled people in the arts. At the time, approximately 650,000 people were working in the world of arts and culture but there was absolutely no information regarding the number of disabled people employed in these areas. We could only guess at a figure of less than 100.
Why were so few disabled people employed in the arts? To find out we decided to establish a disability employment initiative and our research revealed a number of fundamental problems: discrimination and segregation in education and training: access barriers in buildings; transport; communications; and, above all, attitudes. There was also, of course, a lack of knowledge among arts employers and the employment service of the creative talents of the disabled people.
One of the major recommendations arising from the initiative was that the Arts Council should set up an apprenticeship scheme with arts organisations to create arts professionals for the future. The scheme began just before my resignation and, I am happy to say, has been a great success, although on a pathetically small scale. Twelve disabled people have completed apprenticeships and 10 are still employed in the arts. The Arts Council is now seeking funding to develop the scheme nationally. However, this really is a case where the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should stop excusing itself by quoting the suspect "arm's-length principle" and have a word with its chums in the lottery, the Department for Education and Employment and the DSS to persuade them to provide the opportunities—including the development of the apprenticeship scheme—and the money to enable disabled people to work in the arts where they will grow and develop both as creators and participants.
As president of MENCAP I shall be forgiven, I am sure, if I dwell for a moment on the participation of learning disabled people in the arts. There are probably some noble Lords who believe this to be an impossibility. I am happy to disabuse them. For many years MENCAP has held an international arts exhibition of works by learning disabled people from all over the world. Entries pour in, and I have met such artists it the middle of Kenya, Calcutta, Woollongong and Wellington. The pleasure they get from their framed certificates of participation is almost as rewarding as the money they receive from the sale of their works, which are often of quite exceptional quality. But running such an exhibition demands resources, both financial and human, and frankly we could do with a helping hand.
What about my old stamping ground, the theatre? Well, of course, there is our splendid biannual Gateway Festival which brings together amateur groups with learning
224
disabilities from all over the United Kingdom who give quite remarkable and often moving performances at the Festival Hall in London or the Symphony Hall in Birmingham.
There are a number of extremely popular professional performance companies as well. One of the first I ever saw—and very good it was, too—was also one of the first of its kind: Kaleidoscope Theatre, founded in 1980, has an integrated cast of 30 players from all walks of life, many of whom have Down's Syndrome. They are welcome visitors with their productions and drama workshops to such prestigious venues as the RSC Swan Theatre as well as international festivals in Edinburgh, Hungary and Japan. They have broken down many cultural barriers.
Another national touring group is the long-established Strathcona Theatre Company, employing eight professional actors with learning disabilities, assisted by two directors. One of the first companies into Europe, Strathcona is now involved in an extensive educational programme, including workshops with medical students and a programme targeted at special schools dealing with drug awareness as well as the problems facing people with learning disabilities in the criminal justice system.
Then there is Chickenshed, which links mainstream and special schools in joint performances. It did not take the company long to recognise the closed-door policy that operates throughout the arts world towards those with physical, sensory and learning disabilities, especially the young. I am happy that many of your Lordships support the Chickenshed enterprise.
Finally, there is Heart'n'Soul, a national touring company of 10 professional actors and musicians with learning disabilities who have forged a name for themselves on the international stage, writing their own music and lyrics, expressing with startling clarity the way they see the world. In the past year, they have been working with MENCAP and we are seeking funding for this work to continue.
"Ay, there's the rub". Arts funding is devilishly difficult to come by at the best of times. For enterprises specialising in disability arts, it is even worse and for those with a learning disability, the bottom of the funding barrel is scraped again and again. To help matters, distributors of lottery funding, including the Heritage Lottery Fund, should be required to adopt best practice in access for disabled people, already developed by the Arts Council of England. Further, disabled people should be represented on all lottery boards and new national and regional cultural organisations. There needs to be continuous monitoring of disabled people's participation in the arts so that our goal of opening up cultural activities to all members of our community, in urban and in rural areas, can become a reality.
I trust that this timely debate will ensure that the arts generally, and disability arts in particular, are wisely governed, expertly managed, and generously supported in a manner truly worthy of the 21st century; otherwise, I fear that those,
"enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry And lose the name of action".
3.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, when I saw the terms of this Motion I thought that perhaps I would hear a general onslaught on the system of management and governance of the arts in this country. However, when I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, I was immensely relieved to realise that I was mistaken and that the noble Lord was essentially drawing attention to the shortage of money at different points.
I believe that we have the right engine in place. We may have to improve it every now and again and to invent new things, but the system itself is not the trouble. The trouble is that, like a good engine, the arts cannot run without a plentiful supply of fuel, in this case funding. Funding input for the arts in this country has been noticeably smaller than in many other countries which do not do half as well as we do. I do not excuse of blame any particular government when I refer to our niggardly approach to the arts. Furthermore, the local government level of funding has not been good although some individual local authorities have done very well and have shown that, if local authorities put their minds to it, they can do very good work for the arts.
I am defending the present system which I think has worked pretty well under different governments. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey seems momentarily to have disappeared from our Front Bench although my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale is present. I shall be interested to hear the Government's reply to this debate. Generally speaking, I recognise the need for a regional approach, but I should like to know how it will be funded. How can we be sure that it does not add to the requirements rather than to the resources? That is why I believe that the general scene can be improved.
Before leaving that point, perhaps it is worth drawing the House's attention to the immense prestige which British arts enjoy internationally. As noble Lords will know, the United States' view of our actors is one of immense approval. Our films gain both support and awards.
Incidentally, that excellence provides us with some financial input. It cannot be said that the arts are only a drain; they play an immense part in our tourist trade. It has been calculated that, including the input from records, the total input from the arts exceeds the total expenditure of government at all levels. We are not considering something which merely draws out money, but something that we should nourish because not only does it increase our prestige in the world, but it is also profitable in the narrow sense of that word.
I had not intended to say anything on this occasion about droit de suite but, as it has been mentioned, perhaps I should point out that my attitude to all artistic matters stems from the fact that I began my involvement with the arts in the organisation Equity. I look at the arts from the point of view of the performer, the creator, the painter or the writer. If one looks at the matter from the point of view of the painter and the writer, then droit de suite is the same provision as we are asking for in favour of the artist, the painter and the sculptor. We have received that benefit in favour of the writer in the public lending rights. There was the same argument against
226
public lending rights. It was thought that it would be a disaster. That measure was opposed very strongly by the libraries. But in practice it has been found to work perfectly well. None of the dreadful things which were forecast came about. Public lending rights are now part of the justifiable income of writers. Droit de suite would be an acceptable addition. Perhaps on some other occasion it will be possible to develop a full argument in favour of droit de suite because I do not believe that such a debate has been heard in this Chamber, but this is not such an occasion.
I am in general agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said on a couple of matters. He spoke about the necessity of the arm's length principle. I agree with him when he said that that principle must be maintained. The dead hand of government has never been placed directly on the arts. There must be a body between the Government and the recipient in the arts world. The arm's length principle is extremely important. The Arts Council should be maintained fully and it should be the body which funds the arts generally.
I am President of the Theatres' Trust and, in fairness, I should declare that. It has done a wonderful job. If it had not existed a number of theatres which are still flourishing would have been torn down. It is a body which was created to meet a need and it has done very well. The lottery has helped considerably. Here is something which was done off the cuff to meet a necessity, and it is done very well.
Those are one or two further points. I have not yet come across an answer to the regional problem, but I am sure that we shall find it eventually, and I hope that we shall do so in the reply to the debate. We can take a certain amount of pride in what has been achieved, although there are faults in many directions. On the whole, we can be pretty well satisfied with what has been done. But the arts must be given enough life-blood so that they can continue to bring wide credit to us throughout the world, which they have been doing during the past few years.
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate and also to congratulate him on what I thought was a very informative speech. I wish to make one suggestion to the Government, which I think implies an idea of government and management which is perhaps less to do with centralised control and more to do with knowledge, with the simple desire to find out what is actually happening within the visual arts in the UK.
This idea is a scheme for curatorship. One of the most fundamental situations that exists in the contemporary arts in the UK is that virtually the whole of that market is based in London, some would say in the hands of one person. That is not entirely true. There are other buyers and also buyers from abroad, as well as other forms of promoters. But if, from the start, an artist, for whatever reason, eschews London, then he or she inevitably eschews that commercial possibility, that livelihood. Yet that does not also preclude the majority of artists from

227
carrying out interesting work—in some cases very interesting work—as I know from my years in Sheffield. Yet they remain on a very low income and in a position of relative isolation. That means in effect that their work is not taken as seriously as it might be if they were located at the centre.
The conventional wisdom is that the "cream"—the so-called "excellent." artist—rises to the surface. We ought to ask: the surface of what? The argument, I think, that the "best" is always discovered is a false one. It is, to a large extent a circular, self-fulfilling argument. It has been reported, for example, how a relatively recently-established major contemporary London art dealer acquired his own artists through them being initially friends, and then friends of the artist, friends of friends and so on. Artists groups—however loosely knit, as in Britain—and thereby many individual artists, do not in this sense emerge from a vacuum, but from a political, cultural and economic environment which is able to sustain them, as, for example, the highly confident artists groups with quite separate distinctive characters which emerged in different German cities in the 1980s.
But in the UK we have the particular situation of a large city, London, with the whole of the rest of the country as a hinterland, both in a political and cultural sense. There is a feeling, I believe, that this situation will change as individual cities and regions within the UK achieve greater autonomy. But it will take a while yet. Indeed a certain degree of commercialism would not be at all a bad thing for artists working in the regions outside London, if in London artists have the opposite problem.
I would like to see initiated a scheme for what I would call roving curators. The prime function of these curators would be investigative. Their mission would be to travel the length and breadth of the UK, turning over as many stones as they can, searching out artists of all ages; investigating their work, in part simply to make contact., to find out what they are doing. They would be looking for art then, and at art, making contact with the artists rather than being curators in the more passive sense of simply letting the art come to them. It is important that these curators are independent, not based in institutions, but having links with them which could be facilitated through a project co-ordinator. They should not be independent in the sense of being primarily motivated by the commercial instinct. I do not see them as talent-spotters, but more as facilitators, surveyors and mappers. They should be based on-site, except that the whole point is that the sites have yet to be discovered. Perhaps one could say that they should be based on the road. I imagine a team of curators, but all acting individually. An individual curator should not be confined to a particular region, otherwise the project would become provincial or parochial. In practice I imagine them spending much of their time visiting studios or wherever else the artist may be working; developing long-term relationships with artists; facilitating links with other artists, region to region, artist to institution and so on.
Such a scheme could give a new meaning to the idea of the exhibition as a survey.
228
It would be making a survey in the truer, more objective sense of showing the artists who are sought out as much as those who are already known. It could be for a co-ordinator to guide the project so that it covers as many areas within the UK as possible. In the larger sense, as an overall project—and I believe that this is a very exciting point—we are talking about creating a cultural map of the UK, which could prove to be a wonderful and appropriate project for the start of the new millennium. This project could perhaps be funded on a trial basis out of the Millennium Fund, although the main benefits of such a scheme, which might well include commercial ones, would be appreciated chiefly in the long term. Perhaps the most important aspect of such a cultural map is how it might change and develop over time.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Hindlip: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for giving your Lordships the opportunity to debate the Government's policy for funding the arts in which, I, as chairman of Christie's the auctioneers, must declare an interest. I begin by saying that as regards the commercial art world we receive strong support from the Government on a number of important issues. I personally wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his part in that and to congratulate the Government on their continued support for the system of acceptance of works of art in lieu of tax, which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned. This has further enriched our national collections. Ministers and their advisers have been both imaginative and generous and deserve our thanks.
It was not my intention to speak about droit de suite today. However, I wish to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. Droit de suite would be much easier to support if it benefited a wider group of artists. The problem with it is that the cost of collecting it restricts its benefits to a small group of the well-off heirs of about seven continental painters. I do not think it is in artists' best interests if the market-place is driven away from London.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's paper, A New Cultural Framework, contains some good ideas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on that. The majority of people who deal with it would applaud its efforts to streamline its structures, and the merging of English Heritage and the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments must be sensible. The paper is extremely easy to read, unlike the briefing paper which we received from the new Arts Council which seems to have escaped from the pages of "Pseuds Corner" in Private Eye.
It needs to be said, too, that whatever else their failings, the previous Conservative government, through the National Lottery and its various distributing bodies, left the arts better funded than at any time since the post-war government of Clement Attlee. I know from his charming quote from Lewis Carroll in your Lordships' House two weeks ago that the Minister does not like repetition. Therefore I shall try not to go over too much old ground. However, two of the Government's actions have diminished the previous government's legacy. As has

229
already been mentioned this afternoon, the sixth good cause has taken a substantial amount from the heritage lottery funds and the voracious appetite of the Millennium Dome—I cannot share the enthusiasm for that of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs—has made further inroads into funding. I wish the Government had dropped this project, handsome building though it is. But it is too late for that. Will the Minister give some assurance that the visual arts will be represented in the dome and also that great Christian art will be represented, which has made such a vital contribution to man's culture over the past thousand years?
Any suggestion that exhibiting great paintings would not be popular must be dispelled by watching the hundreds, nay thousands, of people queuing up to get into the Monet exhibition at the Royal Academy. The record of 600,000 people who visited the previous Monet exhibition in 1990 looks set to be beaten. It is quite possible that this exhibition will draw even more than the 1.5 million people who visited the Cézanne exhibition in Paris, which I believe took place last year. The only problem associated with these hugely successful and hugely popular exhibitions is that the sheer numbers make looking at the pictures difficult. It must be everyone's dream to be able to have a private view, to ring the academy and ask, "Can I come with a friend next week and see the pictures when the galleries are closed?" Of course, for the majority of people this simply is not possible. However, it has been possible in a great many private houses in Britain which contain a significant number of worthwhile works of art. However. as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has already mentioned, last year's Finance Act abolished the practice of viewing of exempt works of art by appointment.
As the Minister may remember, I have mentioned this point in your Lordships' House before. However, since doing so, I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of people involved in this matter and to assess the effect of the new rules. I am convinced that as a direct result of the changes of last year—here, again, I echo the words of the noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi—important works of art will be sold. Perhaps I should rejoice in that because a substantial number of these sales will be entrusted to my firm. But, from the standpoint of national heritage and arts policy generally, I cannot rejoice. As many noble Lords have pointed out, even the Government's own agencies admit that they are going through a period of consolidation; less money will be available to museums to make acquisitions. It cannot therefore be a good time to confront owners with a choice which will force a significant number of works of art onto the market coming from houses which simply cannot open full time to the public. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made that point.
As has been said often, where tax has been postponed or public money spent, benefits must accrue. If the principle were not already accepted that those in receipt of the benefits should accept certain constraints, this Government have made the case crystal clear. I have no sympathy with owners who will not accept that. However, I say to your Lordships, one more time, that viewing by appointment provides public benefit in an
230
extraordinarily sensitive and attractive way. It protects the core heritage of works of art in private hands. It prevents a flood of works of art coming onto the market—which will lead to export—at no cost to the Government. It also encourages private owners to act responsibly as curators, keepers and collectors for the future. New technology can guide the public to explore what is where and what is worth making an effort to go to see. By asking visitors to make appointments and to identify themselves, owners have at least some security against theft. No government surely want assets stolen in which they have a substantial stake.
The measure also avoids hard-pressed museums being asked to find temporary homes for works of art they do not want. Here the new rules have already shown themselves to be unfair. I hear that one owner, in an effort to comply with them, handed a group of pictures to a local museum which accepted them but declined to put them on view. That luckless owner has now been assessed for tax. This surely was not what the Government intended when they introduced the rules last year. If they did, it signals the end of exemption as we know it and would give the lie to the Arts Council's propaganda about the bright new future.
Despite the jargon of the briefing paper, I think that the future is bright; it is not grim. By conceding that they might think again about viewing by appointment, the Government can only gain. If they cannot do that, at best they will seem stubborn and at worst spiteful and doctrinaire. I know that the Minister is none of these. Will he then give your Lordships an assurance that he will at least ask his colleagues in another place to give viewing by appointment a second chance to prove its worth? I am sure that neither he nor they will regret it.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate. I am particularly grateful to have the opportunity of speaking in it.
I must declare an interest as I wish to ask the Government to embark on a new project and establish something that I believe is overdue; namely, a museum of photography in London. There is an enormous interest in photography. A large proportion of people take photographs, if only as a record of their holidays. This can pave the way to a deeper interest. There is a parallel in the way in which people with only a few square feet of garden of their own love to visit the great gardens of this country. Similarly, people with even a minimal experience of using a camera themselves can derive a particular pleasure from looking at photographs that rise to the level of art.
Although there is a national museum of photography in Bradford, there is virtually nothing in this field in London. I would like to suggest that a photographic museum be founded in London that would be to photography what the National Gallery is to painting. However, unlike the museum of photography in Bradford, which is part of the Science Museum, it would either be independent or come under the wing of the Victoria and Albert Museum, although ideally it would

231
be housed in its own building. The V & A has a huge photographic archive and, although it has recently opened a room at the museum dedicated to the display of photographs, it has insufficient space for the display of more than a tiny fraction of its collection. The India Office library also has a valuable and fascinating collection of old photographs that are hardly ever seen. I am convinced that the public would find the display of these photographs both revealing and highly enjoyable.
As to costs, I feel sure that a large proportion could be raised from the photographic industry. It is perhaps worth mentioning that curatorial costs would be far lower than in a picture gallery. Paris has two museums devoted to photography; it is surely high time that London had one.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for raising the subject of the arts and I congratulate him on his speech. However, I want to challenge his Motion in general terms. I believe the evidence shows that in the past 21 months the arts are well set to be better governed and better managed than ever before. With the increase in the length of life that we are promised, and the increase in leisure, they need to be. They are vital capital for our future.
At last the arts in Great Britain are poised to build on the superb platform of opportunity constructed by Jennie Lee in the 1960s when boldness was our friend and we saw the arts as a Promised Land. In that seminal decade, the arts bloodlessly and seamlessly embraced liberty and equality, quality and fraternity—very heaven. Now it has come again. Without question, there is much to do, but much has already begun.
There is much that is not yet right. Companies which hoped that Chris Smith would slip into a telephone box and emerge as a Superman instant fixer have often been disappointed. Telephone boxes, perhaps, are too transparent for that these days. It takes time to clear up some of the silt of 18 years; it takes time to dig new navigable channels; and it takes time, once a course is agreed, to make it clear to all. But from what I see the will, the vision and increasingly the means are there. The question, as always, is how to fit the amplitude of a visionary landscape into the frame of political possibility.
I believe that the Government have made an impressive beginning, the more impressive because they have worked within budgetary constraints and against a Bleak House inheritance, which of course notched up achievements, but also left neglect, bungle and cynicism—a tradition which Conservative councils like Westminster carry on regardless, trampling over the arts with loutish indifference.
If I seem to contextualise too dramatically, it is because I believe that it is essential that what the Government are doing now is seen in context; otherwise they will be most unjustly accused of debts and failings not their own. We cannot be dragged down by a past created by others. Today, vitally, the arts need the commitment of confidence; a new start is, in itself, an agent for confidence. It has been badly lacking.
232
One growth industry in the Conservative years was the culture of complaint. I know; I was part of it. We all knew that the high road to applause at any arts gathering was to attack the Government. The attacks had reason. But then it became an addiction, and the complaints clique has observed no alteration. But now, I submit, the tune has changed; the show has moved on. Complaint must take a look at evidence.
In a fraction of the total time which will, I trust, fall to their lot, the Government have already stabilised, organised and revitalised the arts, both now and the future prospects. Of course there have been omissions, errors and failings, but they are as nothing compared with what went before, and they are as nothing compared with the successes of the last mere 21 months.
Let us look around the estate at the first crop. It is a fair time to take stock: in education, £180 million over three years for music funding and £30 million for the Youth Music Trust. Out of that will come a country in which all children will have access to musical instruments at school, to music teaching and to the riches of music. We will play and sing as never before. We now know that it has been proven—in America, but it was a good study—. that listening to Mozart when you are young makes you smarter, not only at music but at all learning.
Dance and drama students will now enjoy new schemes of support which will radically reinvigorate those two great arts, lately dying at the roots from a thousand cuts. The academies were threatening to become finishing schools for the wealthy only. These and other measures will unlock dreams and talents which can change society.
Access is another pillar of Labour policy. The sum of £5 million a year is to go into the new audiences fund; there is to be free access for children and old age pensioners to museums, and more to be hoped for; and all the Arts Council grants are linked to wide access.
As to excellence—which is the third part of the core, with access and education—there will be large increases, to use a shorthand, for the National Theatre, the London Symphony Orchestra, The Art Angel, which gets a 100 per cent. increase, the orchestras in Bournemouth and Birmingham, and so it goes on. In broadcasting—the most interesting for me—the Government are setting the legal framework for digital. Digital could, among other things, bring the full harvest of the arts to the British public. Niche channels will, I believe, proliferate for poetry, painting, opera, dance, classical music and golden oldies—a thousand channels could bloom—and at last the best would be available to the most, when we want it and in depth. It will be a new found land.
As to the Arts Council, it has brought the Opera House (that rather sad symbol of arts governance over the past decade) under control—a remarkable feat. It had been "a shambles" according to the former chairman of the Arts Council, my noble friend Lord Gowrie. The Arts Council has now pointed it in a good direction.
The Arts Council gained a huge overall increase in funding—£125 million over the next few years—and there is more regional funding and increased power for the regions. For me, that is most important. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on this issue. Of

233
course the regions have to be run with enlightened efficiency, but so does everything. My friends in Northern Arts and the other nine regions have warmly welcomed the radical changes of Gerry Robinson and Peter Hewitt of the Arts Council. I believe that this will encourage local authorities to release money and release enthusiasm, which, so far, has very largely been not present. So welcome to Gateshead Music Centre; welcome to Keswick's Theatre by the Lake; and welcome to the same story which is being unfolded elsewhere and which will gather in force over the years.
I have argued this case because I believe that it is right that what is now so positive should be stressed, and these are just a few headlines. We must throw off what Richard Hoggart called "the poverty of ambition". He meant the working classes in the 1930s. Over the past two decades, I fear, it has infected the whole. Internally, individually, where it matters so much to each of us, the arts can be revolutionary. We as a nation can grow into Shakespearean ambitions. Why not? The foundations are laid; the game is afoot. I hope that Jennie Lee is looking down at her old party and perhaps even raising a glass as she sees her soul go marching on.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I speak as a one-time chairman of the Arts Council—some may say it was a very long time ago, but to me it seems like just the other day. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who was Minister for part of the time that I chaired the council, has the same recollections. We had happy times together, despite an occasional disagreement.
As I look at the council today, I am concerned that it seems to me, in spite of the optimism—not to say euphoria—of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, to be squeezing itself out of existence. On the one hand, it is devolving to the regions almost all decisions about grants to the arts. I am not against that process; my own instincts are very much the same. We started the regional arts associations in my time. But it is a matter of extent. I just hope it turns out to be practical and for the best. On the other hand, the Arts Council is left with the national companies as regards which Government Ministers increasingly seem to feel the need to intervene.
I am not sure whether that is a very happy process. I sometimes wonder whether the Government intend the Arts Council ultimately to become a purely advisory body. I hope not because I strongly believe, as most noble Lords have underlined this afternoon, in the arm's length principle and I deplore any trend away from it. We used to set great store by it. It was the reason for our creation and the basis of our operation. It was the whole reason for our existence. It was considered a great achievement. I think it is still considered a particularly British way of doing things.
When I chaired the Arts Council I was invited by the French Government to go to France to have a look at the way they subsidised the arts, and by German city governments—Munich, Hamburg and Berlin—to do the same there. I enormously enjoyed it. It was very instructive and I learnt a great deal. But I came away
234
envying the size of subsidy more than the system and I came to recognise that the larger the subsidy, inevitably the greater the political involvement in the arts. I did not want us to adopt that system here. I thought we had the best. I think that what I saw in France and Germany is beginning to happen here.
In a sense it is inevitable. When I first chaired the Arts Council the subsidy was about £10 million. When I left, five years later, it was about £18 million, which was not a great deal more, bearing in mind the rate of inflation in the 1970s. The subsidy is now more than £200 million and there is also the lottery money. The total is of an entirely different dimension. Although many of us wish that it were more—I echo the plea of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that at least level pegging with inflation should be achieved—nevertheless it is a sum that is large enough to have, as it were, a political dimension apart from the high profile character of the arts themselves. So it is not surprising that Secretaries of State and Ministers find it rather hard to stand back.
I urge the Government to distinguish between the broad question of the allocation of resources—geographically and so on—which is a political matter, and perfectly legitimately so, and interference in the internal organisation and administration of some of the companies, particularly the national companies. I do not believe it is a good idea for the Secretary of State to be quite so closely involved with the Royal Opera House. I do not want to underestimate his helpfulness to the Royal Opera House. I do not have any special knowledge of what goes on at the house nowadays, but I feel grateful for the £5 million that he has secured for it. Things there are going very much better. However, if there is to be an Arts Council at all, it should be the Arts Council which does the intervening, if intervening is necessary.
Stories continually reach me—they may be incorrect and I hope very much that the Government will deny them if they are—that the Secretary of State, naturally distressed by the poor administration at the Royal Opera House in recent times, has insisted that in future the head of the artistic side of the house shall not be the boss and that the artistic director must either be subordinate to or at the most co-equal with the administrator. There is one prerequisite for the successful development of any artistic company; in fact, almost any organisation. It is that there should be one pair of hands at the executive top of the organisation. The head of an opera house can either be an administrator, who is respected throughout the house by the staff and all the artists for his or her artistic sensitivity, or the head can be the artistic supreme, who nevertheless is ultimately responsible for budgetary control and for the administration of the house. The set-up very much depends on the personality and experience of the characters involved. The only basic rule is that there must be no doubt over who is in ultimate charge. Divided control means that the chairman and the board will intervene more often than is desirable and in the end it is a recipe for disaster.
It is 12 years since I retired from the board of the Royal Opera House and I have no special knowledge of what goes on there now. But I beg the Secretary of State to let the board appoint the right man or woman to lead the house without divided control. I have not had the

235
pleasure of meeting the new chief executive of the Royal Opera House, Mr. Kaiser, but if he is anything like as good as everyone who I meet says he is, he is the man who ought to have the undivided control. It would then be his task to find an artistic director to be responsible to him.
I just hope the Minister will tell us today that the Royal Opera House board is not constrained in this matter and that if there is to be an Arts Council, the council shall in future be the point of reference for the opera house and not the Minister. There is an alternative, which is to adopt a continental system. It then becomes the Minister's job to intervene. But I hope that we will not allow that to happen. I hope we will not do that. If we did, we at least would know, second best though it would be, who is responsible for what and to whom.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for the opportunity not only to speak in this debate but also to listen to the fascinating earlier speakers. I did not realise that it was going to be a political debate, so before I start my prepared remarks I feel that I must set one record straight.
I have been chairman of the Geffrye Museum in the middle of Hackney since 1990 when there was another government. We have had the most marvellous support and help to develop really exciting educational programmes for adults with special educational needs, for the community, many of whom do not speak English, and for all the schools around. I should also say in passing that when I took over as chairman of the museum from the Inner London Education Authority we needed to do an enormous amount of upgrading of the curating. So the present Government do not have a monopoly on exciting and innovative ideas in museum organisation.
When I was at school my art teacher told me that I was hopeless at art, but I think I developed an eye later on by studying at university classical archaeology, especially architecture, Greek vases and sculpture. For the past 25 years I have been privileged to be, first, a trustee of the National Gallery, then a governor of the Museum of London and, as I said, from 1990 chairman of the trustees of the Geffrye Museum. I am a commissioner of the Museums and Galleries Commission. I have, I trust, learnt something over the years not only about the arts themselves but also about the workings of museums and galleries and, most important of all, about the dedicated and professional experts whose quality is renowned throughout the world: the directors, keepers, curators, attendants, designers, conservators, security advisers, researchers and lecturers.
I wish to make a plea to the Government to preserve the quality and high standards of the best of our arts management and to think carefully before rushing into an artificial merger as is now proposed between the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Libraries Commission. It is such an unnatural union that it can be explained only by a desire to save money.
236
Library and archive services are statutory functions for local authorities, while museums are discretionary. Therefore, museums will always tend to have a lesser allocation of money and resources. The reality is that the majority of local authority funded museums in the country are struggling to survive, let alone provide a modern, efficient and effective service. Is the decision to merge the commissions simply an expedient to save money by creating one body rather than two?
Many local authorities are currently considering ways of transferring their museums to trusts. That trend is likely to gather pace over the next few years. It is my view that it is to be welcomed, given the Geffrye experience, provided that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure continuity of funding by the local authority.
I agree that there is a need for some change in the management and administration of the arts. However, I am worried that the Government are trying to change far too much far too quickly. I have three worries. It was last July, nearly eight months ago. when the Government published the DCMS comprehensive spending review consultation document identifying concern that the national museums need some co-ordination. No details of its plan have yet emerged. The nationals may need some co-ordination and rationalisation; they do not need a nannying control to curb their creativity and initiative.
I have mentioned the need for more funding of the arts in the regions. My third worry concerns the Museums and Galleries Commission. I wonder whether the Government really do recognise the essential work that the commission is doing to ensure that the experienced and professional departments are supported and encouraged. Moreover, staff morale must be considered.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the role and some of the functions of the MGC. It was founded in 1931 and has operated under Royal Charter since 1987. It had as one of its most able chairmen the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, whom I was pleased to see in his place earlier in the debate.
The Museums and Galleries Commission sets standards for museums. It provides advice to government and others on issues affecting museums and galleries. Its registration scheme is a great success. The scheme was introduced in 1988 and has become the benchmark of acceptable minimum standards for museums. More recently, the MGC has developed the Designation Scheme, which has recognised the quality of collections by identifying and celebrating pre-eminent collections in non-national registered museums. There is a new scheme called Cornucopia, which will provide an authoritative database of UK museum collections. I do not have time to tell the House about collection care and management, conservation, the register, and the work that the commission does in the field of museum education, particularly through its support for the Group for Education in Museums. It is the MGC that runs the Acceptance in Lieu and Government Indemnity schemes; it provides security and environmental advice; and it has a popular publication on pest control.

237
Finally, I wish to emphasise that there is much to be proud of in the management of museums in this country. Thoughtful and considered support from government is needed—I emphasise "thoughtful and considered"—building on the best practice that exists.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing this interesting debate. I declare an interest in National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside—through my wife, who is a trustee—to which I shall confine my remarks.
The picture is good. NMGM has won 18 national and international awards in the past 10 years. Last year it won the European Museum of the Year award for its new conservation centre. Those achievements have been recognised and rewarded by government, who provide a grant-in-aid of £13 million a year. On top of that, the National Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded £24 million for the project called NMGM 2001, which involves a major expansion and rebuild in, mainly, the Liverpool Museum and the Walker Art Gallery. That £24 million is the largest single grant ever made to a museum project.
So NMGM has a bright future, and the city of Liverpool has a bright future. Government have been generous and I am the last person to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do not regard this as a political debate. However, I know that there is one area of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty; namely, admission charges. NMGM does charge, and admission figures have fallen—although not by the colossal 38 per cent. that was asserted by the noble Lords in their letter to the Independent last August. Nevertheless, I should like to explain the purpose of charging, and its nature on Merseyside.
It is simply to reclaim VAT. Without a charge, costs would rise by 17.5 per cent. To indicate how serious that is, this huge project, NMGM 2001 (which is now costed at £34 million) would cost £40 million if VAT had to be paid. Government have made additional funding available to let school parties and senior citizens in for free. That is good. Fortunately, a partly free gallery can still reclaim VAT. But of course the big question is: why do government not allow VAT exemption on entirely free museums?
The Minister has told me that the Treasury will not allow it. That follows the path trodden by Hacker and Sir Humphrey in "Yes, Minister". That series depicted the Treasury as quite sovereign and quite unaware of which party was in power and who was Prime Minister. It was fiction. The First Lord of the Treasury is the Prime Minister, and surely if he told the Treasury to make all museums and galleries exempt, they would have to kowtow. I, too, remember the distant days when my noble friend Lord Gowrie was Minister for Arts and Heritage, and that he went to see the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, in Downing Street and asked her, as he has just told us, to restore a particular grant—and it was done, by the Dick Barton technique.
238
Now to the method of charging. It is called Eight Plus, and I suggest that it is the least bad method. A payment of £3 gives free admission for one year to all eight museums and galleries. The trustees had to impose this, and DCMS opposed it in the summer of 1997. However, in a way I was pleased to see that in its publication in summer 1998, not only did the DCMS praise it, the department even cited it as a major achievement of its own. This is not a party-political debate at all. It is standard Whitehall practice, and standard human nature, to claim that any good idea has been yours all along.
The DCMS published a paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred, called A New Cultural Framework. Two points worry me. It proposes to establish a quality, efficiency and standards team whose acronym is QUEST. It is meant to be some kind of watchdog and I always quail when I hear of such things as it smacks of too many generals. I should be pleased to hear from the Minister what exactly QUEST is about and whether it has relevance to Merseyside.
There is also the question of introducing legislation to give trustees greater autonomy. There is no need for it as regards NMGM, it has autonomy enough already. Perhaps it is more for the regional museums. What the NMGM trustees require is recognition that the Eight Plus pass is excellent value and there are high hopes that it will bring the number of admissions back to the old pre-charging days.
Finally, I return to the big scheme, NMGM 2001. To make the Government's grant of £24 million up to £34 million, NMGM needs to raise £10 million by August. It is urgent. Should it fail, the lottery award will be forfeit. At the moment, it is a mere £1.8 million short of the target and I hope that every noble Lord in the House will wish NMGM all success in making the target at the last moment, just like Dick Barton.
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing the debate. I start by echoing or supporting my noble godfather and kinsman Lord Gowrie who initiated the debate. He asked the Government—who started extremely well in their funding for the arts—to go that extra mile over the next 12 months so that the arts will be brought up to the standard which the previous government so unwisely and injudiciously allowed to slip through lack of funding.
I voice one strong concern. I hope I am proved wrong, but I am concerned that the Government may introduce a centralised, bureaucratic control over museums and galleries. I suspect that the present Government regard the Arts Council as inefficient. They are trying to use it as a vehicle for imposing their authority. There has been a tendency over the past 18 months in all areas of government to see too much centralisation. Currently we have trustees and directors of our galleries, museums and institutions. That has worked well. I maintain that the independence of the governing bodies is of fundamental importance to the success, health and future prospects of our museums and galleries.

239
Perhaps I may give an example of a gallery with which I am most familiar: the National Portrait Gallery. The chairman happens, by no accident, to be a businessman of immense distinction, Mr. Henry Keswick. He gave his counsel during the preparation of the four-year corporate plan, a document which, as I am sure the noble Lord's department will agree—and will have studied—is a microcosm of how a small gallery is organised. The board of trustees, comprising 14 individuals, contains a former head of the Diplomatic Service, the editor of a national newspaper, a former chairman of a standing committee of the arts, three professors of distinction in their historical fields for different centuries, a sculptor, a banker and four ladies who are eminent in their fields of journalism, welfare and charity work. They come from diverse backgrounds and give their time and expertise to advise, warn and encourage, rather like a constitutional monarchy. The system works well.
One interesting point is that there are three ex officio directors, one of whom is a busy, senior Cabinet Minister. It is unlikely—indeed, I do not believe it has ever happened—that the Minister has attended the meetings of the board of trustees. Perhaps the noble Lord will encourage those Ministers who are trustees either to alter their diary plans so that they can attend meetings of the trustees or be allowed to send a deputy instead; or even relinquish their positions so that another individual who could give a little time and expertise could attend as a trustee.
I understand that there are about 1,500 trustee positions on museum and gallery hoards up and down the land. Many are appointed or are in the gift or patronage of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. No doubt he Secretary of State delegates his authority at times and seeks advice. However, in this day and age when I understand the Government wish more people to be involved in decision-making, I do not believe that it is right for the Secretary of State to have so much patronage
I have three questions for the Minister. Does he agree with me that a greater openness in the appointment of trustees to our galleries and museums should be introduced? Would not the Secretary of State prefer to see his own patronages handed over to a group of professionals who know the problems of maintaining galleries, with their priceless art treasures and an insufficient budget? Will the Government look at the entire trustee situation?
I am concerned that an accounting officer has been appointed to the British Museum. To whom is that accounting officer responsible? Is it to the Department of Culture or to the director of the British Museum? If I am right that the department has an influence over the budget within the board of trustees, that appointment seems to me to be a retrograde step which I hope will be reversed.
Perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who mentioned the disabled. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that, so far, he is the only noble Lord to have done so in the debate. About eight months ago, I took a group of young people from the Blue School, Wells, round the House. They were
240
studying for politics, A-level. They came up the stairs of the Victoria Tower and as I took them up, I noticed that one of the young girls was blind. To my joy, on the right of the Robing Room, there is a tactile model for the visually impaired. I took the young lady over there and she told us what we were going to see. She was delighted; indeed, enchanted. It made her visit, which made our visit. Perhaps we could have a tactile model for the visually impaired in Westminster Hall.
Only 28 per cent. of our museums have a disability policy; only 23 per cent. have an action plan. In 1988, only I per cent. of our museums had Braille. Ten years later, it is only 4 per cent. There are certain measures that the Government could take to help. I should be delighted if they would withhold money from galleries which did not do more for the disabled, in particular the blind and visually impaired. I hope that the Government will encourage and reward those museums such as the National Portrait Gallery, which are doing just that.
5 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. He drew attention to the dangers of the overhead cost of too much regionalism and, perhaps even more important, funding starvation at local government level. I should like to add only one illustrative point that has concerned me for some time in that area. I refer to the problem of the conservation of works of art and buildings in the care of local authorities. Noble Lords will recall that this time last year the Royal Academy hosted a magnificent exhibition of the treasures of regional museums and galleries. Some of those pictures have not been seen for many years because of funding problems. A number of them have had to undergo considerable restoration. All of the reports I hear indicate that the conservation problems of works of art at local government level are rather serious.
To return to the main thrust of the debate. I have often felt, perhaps rather flippantly—although the debate so far has tended to support me—that a rather better funding regime would do wonders for many of the perceived management and governance problems. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that most of the debate has been about funding. As a nation we appear to have a peculiar resistance to arts funding. It does not matter which administration we have; we do not like spending money on cultural activities. I remember the days of Jennie Lee, about which the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, reminded us. For example, two weeks ago we had a debate on the British Council from which it appeared that our main European colleagues, France and Germany, spent about twice as much per head as the UK on cultural diplomacy. Ninety per cent. of their spend is governmental whereas in our case it is only half.
The story is much the same on the wider arts front. I came across a survey conducted by the Arts Council last year. It showed that in 1994 public spending on arts and museums in Germany was £56.50 and in France it was £56.80 while in the UK it was a mere £16.60. One may argue that that was in 1994 and that we now have a new government. We have heard about the increases. I suspect, however, that they would not make much

241
inroad into that difference. Perhaps the lottery can be prayed in aid but, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, reminded us, there are considerable problems in that respect. I believe he made the sensitive and important point that there will be great problems and a lot of tears over future running costs.
Our philistinism is most apparent in the performing arts and reaches its peak—as referred to by a number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Gibson—in the opera of which we are enormously suspicious. Adequate funding is the first key principle for the state's relationship with the arts. The second is Keynes's arm's-length principle that government should not be involved in direct funding. We should note the remarks of my noble friend Lord Gibson with his immense knowledge and experience on that point. In this country we have the British Council as a tier and the NHMF, to which I shall turn in a moment, which administers the Heritage Lottery. We also have English Heritage which has a rather different status. I believe that these structures are of enormous importance for the simple reason that Ministers, and increasingly the Treasury, always want to interfere.
Another area in which the relationship with government is important is taxation. Many organisations who operate in the arts and heritage world are charities and VAT bears heavily upon them. We have heard examples of that. I do not believe that so far anyone has mentioned the problems for some charities of the abolition of advance corporation tax. For example, the National Trust will lose some £2 million a year when the phasing-out arrangements come to an end. The Government agreed 18 months ago to consider the taxation of charities in the light of these developments. Perhaps the Minister can confirm my understanding that they expect to report on this matter shortly before the Budget. Inevitably, that being the case the Minister will not be able to tell us very much more except possibly a date.
I should like to flag up two points. First, a number of noble Lords have made reference to the acceptance in lieu provisions. It now appears to be confirmed that no change will take place. I hope that that is correct because I believe this to be enormously important. Secondly, we come to the old chestnut that surprisingly has not been touched on so far this afternoon: the anomaly of having to pay full VAT on repairs to listed buildings while alterations to those buildings are VAT-free. This bears very heavily particularly on the Church and private listed house owners. The under-funding in recent years of English Heritage merely exacerbates the problem.
I conclude with some brief observations on the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The NHMF is now dwarfed by the Heritage Lottery Fund which it administers. This country has been extraordinarily lucky to have as its chairman my noble friend Lord Rothschild who has built up from scratch the structures and staffing needed to vet applications. For example, last year there were some 4,500 applications and the NHMF committed over £350 million. We should also congratulate my noble friend on some of the initiatives that have been taken, for example the imaginative Urban Parks
242
Programme. The Heritage Lottery is often accused of being overly bureaucratic. I do not believe that it should be so criticised. One cannot responsibly distribute these sums of money in an even-handed way without a considerable volume of paper work. Some of its projects are exceedingly complex financially and legally and also rather politically sensitive. I particularly commend the resolution of the future of the main buildings at Stowe—here I declare an interest—which was finally completed under the new chairman Mr. Eric Anderson. That was a very complicated operation.
In marked contrast the NHMF proper has seen its grant drop from £8 million in 1996–97 to £5 million last year. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, went into that in some detail, and I support everything that he said. The figure of £5 million is half a loaf while we had only a crust before. Frankly, I believe that it should be brought up to its proper level. There appears to be a lack of appreciation as to what the NHMF proper does. It does what the Heritage Lottery is not allowed to do. I have in mind its ability to make grants towards endowments which can be crucial. I should very much like this important area to be looked at. I shall leave it at that.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord. Lord Freyberg, for introducing this interesting and timely debate. It began with three speeches from hereditary Peers, was continued by a number of others, and has included contributions from one or two who, like myself. have not attained that distinction.
Unlike nearly all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I have never had any connection with the administration of any of the arts—museums, galleries or anything of that kind. I wish to tackle what has emerged as a central question, first mooted by someone I should like to call my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, (I cannot call him my noble friend) and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It is the general question of the money we spend on the arts.
The money spent. whether through government, local government or donations to charities, depends on the importance which the electorate is believed to attach to the object of expenditure. My worry is that respect in this country for the major arts has been evidently declining. I am in that respect a cultural pessimist.
As my own interest is in the opera, and not in soap operas, I rarely watch television. However, in order to cheer myself up, I manage to watch one series of programmes almost every year: the contest between young musicians culminating in their festival in Leeds. When one watches that, one understands that there is an element of hope. That hope is the musical talent which appears to be widespread among our young people. If I were in a position to spend money, which I am not, my plea would be that we make the most of that talent.
Giving children lessons at school in instrumental music, vocal music and participation in orchestras or chamber ensembles has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. However, he seemed to have a totally erroneous picture of what has been going on. All the

243
authorities in the music world—our leading musicians and leading critics of music—have repeatedly pointed out to us in the past few years that there has been a massive falling off in the allocation to schools by local education authorities for peripatetic music teachers for lessons in school. I find it extraordinary that in a speech which was so upbeat he should be so misleading. I can only think that his general attitude of being upbeat must reflect the fact—I know not whether it is true—that for the past two years the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, has been in residence abroad and not in this country where he could have observed what was going on. Perhaps he has been somewhere fashionable like the Seychelles. Who knows?
The issue is important. It must be given importance in schools. Every talent must be given the opportunity to develop. It is more than a matter of private interest. As other noble Lords have pointed out, despite the falling off in our expenditure on the arts, Britain has maintained a major place in the world. Reference was made, understandably, by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to our achievements in our theatre and cinema. But the orchestras, and the opera houses of London, despite their current difficulties, attract and have attracted worldwide attention. Music could be the art in which Britain can again excel itself, as it did when Mendelssohn came over to teach piano to Queen Victoria, and as it has done at other times in our past.
I do not expect much from central government, but what one could receive—and we are not getting it at present—is some indication that the Government believe in the importance of the arts. If they had held that belief, they would not have created a department which links the arts with sport, leisure, the media, and goodness knows what. They would have had a proper Secretary of State for culture and, perhaps united with culture, education. After all, responsibility for what goes on in schools lies with the Department for Education and Employment. it gives employment to bureaucrats. I am not altogether clear what the department does as regards musical education.
The Government are headed by a Prime Minister who frequently tells us that his only interest in culture is what I believe is called pop music. Therefore not much leadership will com., from Downing Street. But I hope that other Ministers will give a lead. If it can be made plain to the growing generation that the arts are important, there will be no difficulty in raising funds to pay for what the country needs.
5.16 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is always a hard act to follow. Before his speech, I was minded to follow the upbeat tone of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. In fact I shall continue with that upbeat tone, but while the matter is fresh in my mind perhaps I may refer to an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about consensus in the electorate. I had always shared his view until a week ago when I had to provide a piece for French television on the choice of a poet laureate here. I mentioned to the French producer how wonderful it was that in France literary prizes and other such cultural matters were
244
greeted with enthusiasm by the French populace. He said, "Don't believe a word of that. It is true that we subsidise our cinema and it is assumed that we have a consensus for that. And people take an interest in the vast number of literary prizes here". I told him that in our country literary prizes, and the choice of the poet laureate, are of general interest only if they are accompanied by the lists of odds published by Ladbroke's and William Hill. I have no objection to that. However, the French producer also told me that in a recent poll of television viewers the great majority preferred game shows and quizzes. If one considers the weekly returns on cinemas in France, American major films are always at the top for attendance figures rather than the excellent smaller scale French films. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is always so challenging. It is hard to resist following on that point.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for presenting to us in a level-headed way the position of the funding of arts in this country. I tend towards the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I believe that it is the right engine. The engine needs tuning from time to time; and perhaps even a major service. I believe that we have had that.
To continue on the upbeat trend, I think that the arts today are extremely healthy. Much credit must fall on the Secretary of State. He has done an excellent job so far. I disagree somewhat with some of his published words, but his actions speak louder than his words. The amount of money which has gone into the arts, and the way in which it has been directed, require our admiration.
A large amount of money has gone into cinema, a particular interest of mine, which has perhaps overloaded the production side. However, the Government now appreciate that to continue to subsidise production through the lottery without attending to other aspects, such as distribution, is heading for trouble, and corrections have been made. Therefore, I am also upbeat and optimistic about that aspect. The additional £290 million is an enormous fillip to the arts in general.
Many people are writing and painting. Even script writers are writing more and better scripts because the film industry has been revitalised. We hope that more of the profits from that industry will come to us rather than go to America. Only time will tell.
In this wide-ranging debate there have been a number of interesting contributions. I take on board in particular what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda. I believe that the need for a national photographic collection is an absolute priority. Those of us who like collections of photographs and skulk around the bookshops looking for old pictures of village life in the area in which we grew up often wonder why such photographs are not exhibited in galleries, as described by the noble Earl.
Looking around the estate, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, the estate is in pretty good order. I was intrigued by his remark about Mozart making you smarter. Yesterday, an American lady came to have tea with me and asked politely whether I could provide another pot of tea because tea makes you smarter.

245
Having had an entrepreneurial background, I believe that there might be a future for tea and Mozart, possibly located next to a gymnasium so that people can develop not only their brains but their bodies. I believe that the situation in that respect is good and that the arms' length principle has been supported by your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was light on the Westminster Council. In the fine tuning, or even a major overhaul, which needs to take place, it will not do for a council which has within its area so many artistic activities to cut the art budget by 28 per cent. Cutting the arts budget is one thing, but then to say that it is being done because of the enormous burden of asylum seekers within your patch is insulting to the intelligence and to the arts activities within your area. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is young and polite, but I am now old and rude. I should like to register a protest that such petty bureaucrats can wander so oafishly around the artistic arena. I wish the noble Lord had been even more outspoken about that, but perhaps the Minister will be able to comment.
Perhaps I may mention in passing what is happening in Trafalgar Square. London is unlike Paris; we do not have monumental architecture. We have subtle, scaled, domestic architecture, often in village conglomerations. The monumental architecture of Paris is absent in London, which is better for it. Trafalgar Square is the only heroic square in London. It is admirably sited, looking down Whitehall with its early 19th century neo-classical buildings and past the Cenotaph. However, the absence of a statue on the plinth is causing a great deal of anxiety in some circles. The decision of the Secretary of State will play a major part. It really will not do for political correctness to tell us that we need something on the plinth to diminish what is already there and which represents our past. Whether we like it or not, it is an heroic area and it needs an heroic or imposing statue on that plinth.
I congratulate the cookery writer, Pru Leith, on raising the prospect of having a statue, but the suggestions which have been made for a small transparent replica of the empty plinth on top of the plinth, for example, is frippery and triviality of an extraordinary degree. We should ignore it; we should return to common sense. Surely we do not have to be so politically correct that we must deny Trafalgar Square, with Nelson's Column, the statues and wonderful collection of architecture, ecclesiastical and monumental.
That was one of the bees in my bonnet; the other bee in my bonnet is a personal one. I have several relatives who are professional painters. I am lucky enough to have one or two paintings which are not masterpieces but are good paintings several hundred years old. They have lasted exceedingly well within a family which has had more ups and downs than most. The reason is that the paintings were beautifully prepared. The painters of the 17th and 18th centuries knew the mastery of paints, the techniques of applying paints on other paints and of drying. They knew all the techniques to use for preparing surfaces.
246
Yesterday I was told by a leading restorer that many of the paintings which he sees after 25 years are almost beyond repair. I believe that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should get together with the Department for Education and Employment in order to ensure that the art schools pay attention to the preparation of surfaces. Indeed, the art schools brought back drawing, which sadly lapsed for a long period. A great deal of important painting now being undertaken will be lost. Those techniques were second nature to the painters of bygone centuries, but, sadly, they have been neglected. I am supported in that by David Hockney, but it is a particular point that I wish to raise and I hope in such a wide-ranging debate your Lordships will forgive me for doing so.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the problems facing the government and management of the arts today and to explore the changes which could be made for the benefit of all.
I have been in post for only two months, but I have already been able to meet some of those who are involved in the management of the arts. Like my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, I pay tribute to their long-term commitment and dedication.
There is a delicate balance between the power of the donors of subsidies who may be individuals, charities, companies or government, as against the independence of the artist. I believe that during the past 21 months that delicate balance has been tipped towards the power of the Government. The Minister often says that this is an enabling government and I wholly accept that he believes that, but the reality of government action often falls short of that ideal and I believe now looks dangerously like working to undermine it.
I do not in any way call into question the Minister's passion for the arts. He has proved that by both word and deed, and he is much respected in this House for it. But I do wonder whether his Government's interest in the arts is less passionate than calculated. It is one thing to recognise the power of the arts in society, and quite another to seek to harness that power to a political agenda. It is not for politicians to make aesthetic judgments. Governments should operate on an arms' length principle, to which so many noble Lords have referred. That can be achieved only if intermediary bodies such as the Arts Council act independently of government while remaining accountable to the public, not all of whom will be taxpayers. My noble friend Lord Gowrie pointed out that there will always be arguments about the length of the arms in an arm's length policy. The basis of my argument this evening is simply that those arms have grown shorter recently.
The statement made by the Secretary of State at the Tate Gallery in December demonstrated the contradictions within the Government's arts policy. On the one hand, there is a sensible desire to ensure that as much money as possible reaches those organisations which provide public services so that there is a reduction

247
in what is described as the "landscape of quangos". On the other hand, the means which has been found to achieve that result is to create larger and more heavy-handed intermediate bodies. That is likely to reinforce a strongly centralising move towards increased Treasury control. I question whether that is desirable.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke referred earlier to the merger of the Museums and Galleries Commission with the Library and Information Commission. I concur with all her remarks and echo her concerns on that matter.
Reference has also been made to the establishment of QUEST. QUEST has been inserted into the system in a way which endangers the arm's length principle. The very existence of QUEST makes one pose the question as to what is the Government's view of the long-term role of the Arts Council. Bereft of experienced staff and shorn of power, it now faces a challenge from QUEST—an organisation which will monitor standards and efficiency in the arts and answer directly to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
I am concerned also that the Arts Council, in compliance with the Government's strategic objectives, is meekly, if chaotically, dissolving itself into cultural annexes of RDAs. There can be only one outcome of that; that is, a massive dilution in the quality of knowledge which informs decisions about who gets what. I am concerned about an Arts Council which sees what the Government are doing and yet remains silent.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred earlier to the question of raids on the National Lottery. I cannot let this debate pass without commenting that the real raid which occurred on the lottery happened last week and it was carried out by this Government. The National Lottery Order, which passed through this House on Thursday evening last week, means that the original lottery good causes of charities, sports, the arts and heritage will have their share of the proceeds cut from 16.67 per cent. to 5 per cent. for the three months from 15th February. Together they stand to lose £200 million, which they otherwise would have received. That is the amount being diverted to the New Opportunities Fund to pay for projects which are indeed very worthy in themselves but which I believe should more properly be funded from taxation.
Even when the lottery funds are used for their original purpose, things can still go badly wrong. I refer to the failure of Musicworks. That is the Government's flagship inner city music teaching project which has been forced to close with £50,000 debts. That is just one year after receiving £1.1 million in lottery grants. The Secretary of State had described the project as,
"personifying everything which New Labour is trying to achieve in music".
Indeed, it was an extremely valuable project. Musicworks ran programmes for the unemployed and for young offenders, as well as teaching children aged five to 11 to play instruments and sing. Will the Minister tell the House whether a rescue plan is now in place? Is Musicworks working fully according to its original plans? Did the courses for 170 young students start on 18th January as promised?
248
I wonder whether the announcement yesterday of the launch of local cultural strategies is too late to save Musicworks. Is it too late to rescue the dozens of libraries which are being closed by local authorities around the country? Indeed, a spokesperson for the Library Association, Sherry Jespersen, pointed out:
"There is a huge gap between the government's vision for libraries and the reality of closures, reduced opening hours and cutbacks".
Let us hope that the local cultural strategies have some better function than comparable organisations had in the 1970s, referred to earlier by the noble Lord. Lord Freyberg. Perhaps those strategies are merely a re-run of an old idea that failed. Perhaps that should he the subject of a detailed debate on another day, when we see the results of those projects.
My noble friend Lord Hindlip referred to the damage which will be done by the Government's changes to the rules governing access to tax exempt works of art. I hope that the Minister will agree to re-examine that issue.
I turn now to the question of what could be the future of management and government of the arts. I believe that the taxpayer should continue to act as patron of the arts. But what more can be done to encourage an increase in direct funding, and with what impact upon the management of the arts? Those are questions which we shall need to examine in detail over the coming year and I undertake to raise those matter through Unstarred Questions.
I am impressed by the approach of the Royal Opera House's Michael Kaiser whom I met recently. He asks whether its 16,000 friends who currently pay £45 per year for the benefit have ever been asked for £46. Indeed, could the role and support of "friends" be increased generally? Are there ways in which to simplify the tax system to make giving more attractive'? There were reports last year that the Secretary of State wants to switch gift tax relief from institutions to donors. We shall look forward to seeing whether there is any progress on that issue hut, like other noble Lords, I recognise the inhibitions upon the Minister in commenting on matters which may be in the Budget next month.
Is it also right that the future of so many arts organisations should lie in the hands of people who have no financial stake in them? How can we, or should we, build upon the excellent work of ABSA to generate yet greater awareness among corporate sponsors of the mutual benefits which accrue from forging links with arts organisations?
There are many matters that we shall need to examine. The question has arisen about the participation of disabled people in the arts, the matter of endowments and my noble friend Lord Mersey raised the issue of VAT. There is also the important but precarious position of local authorities. They will all have to be considered.
Finally, as the old Left knew perfectly well and as the cultural Right has always known, there is nothing elitist about great art and great thought. They are and should remain at the heart of society. "Elitist" is not a bad word in itself. For, of course, nothing is too good for the

249
working woman and man. On these Benches, we shall continue to keep that belief at the forefront of our considerations as we scrutinise the Government's arts policy over the coming year.
5.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing this debate and to virtually all noble Lords who have taken part in it, I have some difficulty because I am really quite shameless. I believe that what we have seen over the past 21 months is an astounding success story. We have a turn-round in government attitude towards the arts, and governance and management of the arts, which is quite astonishing.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said that the arts had won the lottery. The arts has certainly benefited from the lottery, but it has had a great deal more in the period for which this Government have been in office. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and his godson referred back to a golden age of 1993. I thought that that was rather undermined by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, reminding us that he resigned from the drama panel of the Arts Council in exactly that year because of under-funding. I shall not give a statistical series of funding for that period.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the Minister. I said that 1993 was hardly a bonanza year for the arts, but nevertheless it would be considered a triumph for this Government if they could recover in real terms the level of funding that was then available. I am talking about current funding, not lottery funding.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, and the godson ditto.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear both the godfather and godson responding as they have done. But as a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Government have found an extra £290 million for the activities of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, of which £125 million is extra funding for the arts. That has happened after a number of years—I will not specify 1993 or any other year—in which it will be generally recognised that there were, at worst, cuts in arts funding from government and, at best, a standstill in arts funding. If I thought I could satisfy my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney on the financial side, I would die happy. But I know that it is not possible to do that.
Let me face the matter head on. Of course this level of government spending comes with strings attached; but let me explain those strings and seek to respond directly to the noble Lords, Lord Gibson and Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who seemed to think that what is involved in those strings is political interference.
The new focus on output and outcomes applies across all government departments; they must all produce a public service agreement. We have not heard much
250
about that yet. It was published in December. It will become apparent that this is an increasingly important aspect of the way in which this Government operate. It will show how each department's spending will deliver government objectives alongside increased efficiency and improved effectiveness.
Before I go any further into government objectives, against those who seem to think that there is something sinister about delivering government objectives, let me set out the objectives of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and see how many noble Lords think it to be wrong. First, there should be access for the many and not the few to arts in this country; to culture generally and to media and sport. Secondly, we should promote excellence. We should provide those who are providing the arts with an opportunity to excel and give them the opportunities for innovation which will in turn bring excellence.
Thirdly, there should be educational opportunity. I shall come back to that because it was referred to by a number of noble Lords. That means educational opportunity both in education in schools and of course professional training for those who work in the arts. Fourthly, we should enable our creative industries, which this Government identified as being enormously important for the economic as well as the cultural life of this country, to achieve their artistic and economic potential. If anybody thinks there is anything sinister about those objectives, let them tell me about it; I do not believe that that is the case.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides almost no direct services; it relies on sponsored bodies. Is it wrong that the department should seek to secure that those sponsored bodies to whom it gives money—not just for one year, but now for three years—are achieving their objectives? Is it wrong that, having given this three-year funding, we should require them to plan effectively for a three-year period or for longer? Does that in itself constitute an attack on the arm's length principle? The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seems to think so. I am reminded of my mother who, as she got older and long-sight afflicted her, said that there was nothing wrong with her eyesight; it was just that her arms were too short. I suspect that the noble Baroness thinks that there is nothing wrong with her eyesight; and I suspect that she is wrong.
As a result of the spending review—remember, we are going back somewhere close to zero budgeting over all departments, not just the DCMS—the DCMS will become more strategic, but it will have to ensure that those objectives are properly held to. We have therefore set up funding agreements with all of our bodies which will provide explicit and challenging statements of the underlying outputs and levels of performance requirement. They will reflect our own public service agreement target. They will be the key sponsorship and planning documents linking DCMS and its non-departmental government bodies. For the first time this year the funding agreements, in particular with the 18 national museums and galleries, will be concluded and published before 1st April and not, as under the previous government, half-way through the financial year. That is managerial responsibility rather than irresponsibility.

251
Let me turn to museums and galleries. There will be £99 million extra for museums and galleries over the next three years. That is a huge increase after years of cuts. There will be a £15 million challenge fund to provide support for the 43 designated museums. We will introduce a new national museums body for museums, libraries and art galleries. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said and I simply do not agree with her. This is not an attack on the Museums and Galleries Commission; this is an opportunity to have funding agreement:; which cover the whole range of interlocking activities of museums, libraries and archives—archives which have never been represented on a national level before. This reflects the way in which local government actually deals with museums and libraries and I believe it is an advance because this is an advisory body, not a fund-giving body.
I could go on about museums, but I want to concentrate on just one issue; that is, the issue of access to which I referred as a strategic objective of the department. By the Secretary of State's announcement on 14th December we have ensured that there is enough money, first, for those museums and galleries which have free access at the moment, to continue to provide free access; secondly, to achieve a situation whereby those who at the moment charge for admission will not need to charge admission for children from 1st April this year or for pensioners on 1st April 2000. There will also be enough money for those national museums and galleries who wish to offer universal free access in 2001–2002 to do so and discussions will continue with them with that in mind.
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, about Merseyside. Indeed, I endorse what both he and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said about the conservation centre there. We are pleased that we have been able to offer this free access package to the national museums and galleries on Merseyside and the Secretary of State will be visiting Merseyside in March in order to discuss that with the trustees. So I do not believe we have anything to be ashamed of in relation to museums and galleries.
A number of noble Lords—no; a few noble Lords—notably the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, expressed doubt about the Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team (QUEST). I want to emphasise that QUEST will be a watchdog looking at all areas of DCMS responsibility, and at DCMS itself; in other words, we are prepared to take our own medicine. It will undertake a mix of studies: some about individual institutions; some cross-cutting and some learning from the experience of one institution to help another. There will be a very small core team. Studies will draw on expertise from outside, including sponsored bodies, the private sector and local authorities. QUEST will report directly to the Secretary of State. It will have its own identity. It will issue independent advice. Its budget for the first three years is £500,000 a year. If we were going to be instituting Big Brother in the menacing way that some noble Lords seem to think, we would be funding it a good deal more generously than that.
252
But the team will be concerned with identifying good practice and seeing where good practice can be transferred from one part to another part of the DCMS's activities. It will work in collaboration with the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. Its activities will include a review of targets and indicators and of administrative structures; a study of second-tier delegation; a study of the private-public partnerships; a look at the cost of commercial innovation: and a look at the cost of making lottery applications. All of those are objectives which are thoroughly in line with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, when introducing the debate today.
I turn to the particular points raised. I accept that it is possible, by selective quotation, to justify the charge made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about local authority expenditure over a period of time. It is certainly true that some local authorities have been less generous than others—if I can put it in that way—in funding the arts. This year there has been the most generous settlement for local government for many years in which the block for recreational activity and cultural services has achieved an increase of 3.8 per cent. That is no justification for local authorities to impose cuts on any area of the arts. Where the department has responsibilities, as it does under the Public Libraries Act, we shall ensure that those are fulfilled.
Noble Lords have questioned whether our devolution to regions, which is part of the policy of and for the Arts Council for England, will result in wise and efficient decisions. I thought that my noble friend Lord Bragg adequately answered that point with his example from the north of England. The criticism of Westminster City Council which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, shows the obstacles that we have to overcome, but we do not believe that they can be overcome by increasing centralisation. Of course, we do not approve of the cuts which have been imposed by Buckinghamshire in the past, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. We believe that the money is there if councils are willing and able to use it.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi and the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, referred to the Acceptance in Lieu Scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, expressed the fear that works of art would be forced on to the market as a result of the restrictions on viewing by appointment and the insistence under the Finance Act 1998 that there should be publicly announced hours for viewing. I simply do not believe that that will take place. The Acceptance in Lieu scheme provides that if there is any good reason why the works of art should not be viewed where they belong, so to speak, they can be seen in museums and galleries. The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, referred to hard-pressed museums. He spoke of the possibility that they might decline to put the works of art on show and that the people concerned might lose their tax exemption. If he would be good enough to write to me about that matter, I shall certainly take up. My understanding is that there is generally not any difficulty on that score. That is the key to the success of the Conditional Exemption Scheme. However, I must

253
insist that this is a tax concession and in return for such, as the noble Lord generously acknowledged, there must be proper opportunities for public viewing.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, referred to lottery funding and to the need for that to be more flexible so that it would cover revenue as well as capital. I entirely agree with him on that point. That is what we provided for in the National Lottery Act 1998. We may not have gone as far as he would like but we have gone a good way to achieving greater flexibility.
He asked whether it was possible to encourage more endowments and foundations which would secure the long-term viability of projects funded by the lottery. He is quite right; lottery projects need to show financial viability. There has to be a long-term feasibility plan. I believe that his objectives are also those of the Government. He asked about the Millennium Commission. I can assure him that no projects will be funded by the Millennium Commission which would allow deficits. A proper business plan will be encouraged.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, referred to the needs of the disabled. We are very sympathetic to those needs, but I do not think that we would go as far as the noble Earl in suggesting that we should withhold money from galleries who do not provide for the disabled. There are sometimes reasons which make such provision difficult. However, I certainly take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, about representation of the disabled on committees.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkins about droit de suite. He defended droit de suite, against the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, and others, by saying that it would go to artists. Where droit de suite operates, 80 per cent. of the money goes to 20 per cent. of the artists. I do not see the heirs of Picasso and Matisse as being a particularly worthy cause.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a valid and interesting point about roving curators which Neil MacGregor of the National Gallery has, indeed, discussed with Alan Howarth, the Minister for the Arts. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, made a similar point. It is true that there is a problem for artists outside London and a problem of availability of experienced and skilled curators in our museums. We shall be taking forward the suggestion which has been made.
I shall, if I may, pass over the matter of the Dome which is perhaps peripheral to our discussion. I was interested in the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, about having a museum of photography in London comparable to that in Bradford. There are a number of museums of photography. I think he would agree that it would be better to start a new museum from an existing one rather than to start from scratch.
My noble friend Lord Bragg asked us to pay tribute to Jennie Lee, the first effective Minister of the Arts, and I am glad to do so. I do not think it matters that she was placed in the Department for Education and Employment, whereas our Minister for the Arts is in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is not where you are, it is what you do that really matters.
254
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, puzzled me. He seemed to think there was a danger of too much ministerial control over the Royal Opera House. I should have thought that the experience of the past six months shows that Ministers have successfully brought together what would otherwise have been warring parties to what I believe and hope will be a successful conclusion.
I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said about the Geffrye Museum although I must insist that the museums, libraries and archives council, which is planned, is not an attempt to save money and is certainly not a merger. We propose a new powerful advisory body which would give advice to government over a range of services and activities which have natural links.
I have come to the end of my allocated time and I apologise to noble Lords who I have not answered. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who accused my noble friend Lord Bragg of being absent from the country, that throughout the period to which he refers, my noble friend has had a season ticket to the upper east stand in row P at Arsenal Football Club, even if the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, did not have the opportunity to see the "South Bank Show" during that period.
I think that we have a great deal to be proud of and that the majority of speeches this evening have encouraged that view. I am grateful, again, to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing the debate and for an opportunity to set out the Government's position on these matters.
5.59 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I am aware that he has had to answer a lot of points—I gave notice to his office of two specific questions of importance. Perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall be glad to do that. I realise that the noble Earl talked about cross-border touring, but the matter was too complicated to deal with in the time that I had available.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this afternoon's debate on such a wide range of subjects. I note with interest the Minister's comments and I look forward to a further discussion on some of the topics raised. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Homeless Young People
6 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel rose to call attention to the case for an appropriate range of effective services to meet the needs of homeless young people under the age of 25; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank my fellow Cross-l3enchers for allowing me this debate. It is important and timely. The number of 16 and 17 year-olds making use of Centrepoint's emergency London shelter in Soho for 16 to 25 year-olds has increased by 10 per cent. in the past five years. Over 50 per cent. of its residents in 1997 were under 18.
My experience of working with young people has been on housing estates in the boroughs of Southwark, Greenwich, and Kensington and Chelsea. Since Christmas, I have worked as a volunteer one evening a week in a winter hostel for homeless people under the age of 25.
Who are the young homeless, and why are they homeless? They are the young people who sleep rough on the streets, who live in short-stay hostels, bed-and-breakfast or other temporary accommodation, or who sleep on friends' floors. They are homeless because they have come out of care, the armed services or prison without a home to move into or are too institutionalised to keep one. They are homeless because they have been sexually or physically abused by their families or because a step-parent does not feel obliged to house a step-child past the age of 16. They are homeless because they are mentally ill or have behavioural problems which make living with others hard. They are homeless because they are political or economic migrants or because their family has difficulty supporting itself or because they have no academic qualifications to enable them to find the work to pay the rent. Some are homeless because they have had one of those family arguments that are part of adolescence and should simply return home. For others, those family disputes are insuperable.
In addition to the various particular reasons for homelessness among young people, there are three widely agreed general factors: the availability of housing, employment and benefits. The availability of affordable accommodation has plummeted since the 1950s. The private sector has shrunk from 25 per cent. of the housing stock in 1966 to 8 per cent. in 1991, a problem which has been increased by the flight from rentals to young people following the introduction of the single room rent. Many homeless people have difficulty in reading and writing and have few skills that are useful in the modern labour market. The Social Security Act 1988 removed automatic benefit entitlement from 16 and 17 year-olds and reduced benefits to those under 25. The consequence of those factors is that young people are chasing too few homes with too little money.
Fortunately, government and volunteer organisations are rising to the challenge posed by youth homelessness. The previous Conservative government began the Rough Sleepers' Initiative in the early 1990s, funding charities to increase the capacity of their hostels, to go out to help homeless people on the streets and to help to establish them when homes are found. As a consequence, the number of rough sleepers in London has fallen from 2,000 a night at the start of the decade to about 400 today.
Voluntary organisations have originated a varied range of effective services. Sixteen year-olds who run from their family or care home can be referred to one
256
of three national refuges. Those are run by charities such as Centrepoint, National Children's Home and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. They are tightly regulated and immensely costly for the charities to run. On arrival, the residents are put on a police list so that they are known to be safe. A child then has 14 days' breathing space before he or she must be either returned or referred on. One refuge manager explained that 10 per cent. of his charges had merely had a family row and were easily returned home; that 80 per cent. had more serious problems and might need professional counselling for themselves and their family to improve their situation; and that about 10 per cent. had been sexually or physically abused.
Listening to the child and trying to improve the family situation is indispensable; otherwise children will often make repeated flights and then become homeless after 16. The Children Act 1989 recognises that children should be listened to and their views taken seriously. However, it can take weeks to arrange an interview with a social worker. Will the Minister consider issuing a protocol to social work teams to ensure that children in refuges are seen well before those 14 days have elapsed?
At 16 and over, short-stay shelters are available in London and other cities. They provide young people with a bed, help with finding work, applying for benefits and obtaining temporary accommodation.
The Foyer has grown up to provide one helpful next step to independence. Eighty-one foyers provide accommodation for 4,200 young people nationwide. Their aim is to help young people who have been homeless or are at risk of homelessness into work and a permanent home. They achieve this by offering something akin to a student hall of residence, combined with a training and education centre and an employment agency. Residents sign a licence agreeing to obey the rules of the establishment and an agreement to meet certain training, education and employment goals.
The capital funding comes from various sources, including the Housing Corporation and the lottery while rent and to some extent services are met by housing benefit. The funding of training and education is the hardest to raise; the European Social Fund has been generous but will stop funding in 2002. One foyer manager made this plea: think about proper funding for staff, training and education before building new foyers. Managers are having to act as receptionists, clerks, and carers in addition to their all-important managerial role.
I should like to make the following important point. The average age for young people to leave home is 22. Most young homeless people exit well before this. They are still not full grown, no matter how tough they may pretend to be. Often they will have had unsatisfactory family relationships. Such young people benefit immensely from a good long-term relationship with a responsible adult. Where there are insufficient appropriately trained and experienced staff those trusting relationships cannot grow. It is very hard to explain to a young person who expects to be disappointed that one is too busy to see them.
The Social Exclusion Unit's very welcome report Rough Sleeping, of July last year shows that the Government appreciate the importance of those

257
relationships. The report suggests working with voluntary organisations to produce mentoring schemes, schemes by which an older person makes available his or her experience to a younger homeless person. Perhaps the Minister could say what response there has been to this suggestion.
The importance of such good supportive relationships is apparent in the excellent schemes for ensuring that when a flat is found for a young homeless person they manage to establish themselves there. In one London "floating support scheme", a new tenant is visited for a couple of hours each week by a settlement worker and helped in budgeting for expenses, advised on how to keep house, and reassured. Such support is necessary because young people often feel very lonely, removed from their friends of the street or hostel. They are also faced with the responsibility of running their own home for the first time. Without assistance, sometimes the blanket across the window and the broken pane remain permanent fixtures; rent is not paid and the young person returns to the streets with the added burden of rent arrears and a sense of failure.
There are many other services which have grown up to serve young homeless people. Here a medical practice geared to their needs; there a counselling service to help with depression to which young people can be prone. In London there is a drugs help project which not only offers assistance in its Soho premises but has its workers patrolling the streets persuading drug users that they should take help. These workers also regularly visit hostels to make themselves available to give advice to residents and are called on by the management of hostels to suggest ways of dealing with drug use. Similarly, family planning agencies provide an information service which visits hostels on a regular basis.
All these services need to be co-ordinated to be of effective good to their clients. The voluntary organisations realise this and have already begun working together. That is why, again, the Social Exclusion Unit's report on rough sleeping, was so very welcome. It recommended the formation of a body for London which would co-ordinate the work of government, local authorities and the voluntary sector. It recommended means for local authorities outside London better to co-ordinate services, which the new homelessness action programme is now providing. It also emphasised the need for a strategic approach to the problem of street homelessness and announced that Hilary Armstrong, the Minister responsible for local government and housing, would lead a ministerial committee to supply that.
The Government have also set up the youth homelessness action partnership to bring together senior members of central government, local government and the voluntary sector. Its purpose is to thoroughly understand the problem of youth homelessness and to ensure appropriate action. It is most helpful that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be working with charities in this area to produce better, more authoritative statistics. Realistic figures for youth homelessness are notoriously difficult
258
to obtain. Furthermore, the Government's New Deal scheme has also been made especially accessible to young homeless people. The normal waiting period of six months for the jobseeker's allowance has been waived for them.
It is certain that some will benefit immensely from the combination of advice, training and employment experience that the New Deal offers. Another initiative, the release of some capital receipts from the sale of council homes to build 60,000 new ones each year for the next three years, will also help some formerly homeless young people finally to establish themselves. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to reform the single-room rent which has driven so many private landlords away from renting to under 25 year-olds, so that more homes still can be made available?
The consultation paper Supporting People is also welcome for the possibility it offers of consistent funding for youth homelessness charities. Perhaps the Minister could reassure them that those whose residents come from many different local authorities will have to deal only with one regional authority for their area. The alternative is a costly administrative quagmire for those charities.
To conclude, young homeless people need all the support that we can give to see them through to their independence. As the Prime Minister said,
"The most vulnerable should not he left simply to fall through the cracks in the system or have the odds so heavily stacked against them".
I sincerely hope that the Minister will do all he can to ensure the provision of adequate services for the young homeless to reverse the current trend before it is too late. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, one of the most vulnerable groups of young people comprises those who have been in care. They often face great difficulty in finding suitable and affordable accommodation. Between one-third and one-quarter of rough sleepers have been looked after as children by local authorities. Young people who have had contact with the local authority care system are hugely over-represented in the homeless population. At a time when most young people are still receiving full family support, many 16 and 17 year-olds are leaving care with no safety net to fall back on. Some local authorities will not grant tenancies to 16 and 17 year-olds. Many are reluctant to give them priority on the waiting lists. Although legislation exists to protect homeless young 16 and 17 year-olds who are at risk, it often does not work. Young people often do not know where to go for help. They can and do end up falling through the net of advice and provision.
Services tend to be reactive and crisis based. Emergency housing placements are met which are inappropriate and break down quickly. This can be devastating for young people who have been in care, precisely because they usually do not have support networks to call upon.
The homeless legislation tends to be regarded as relevant primarily for families. But it is relevant to individuals. Most young people leaving care with no

259
family or other back-up are vulnerable. They should be recognised as being in priority need. Too often that does not happen. Local housing authorities need to be reminded of their responsibilities in that respect.
These are responsibilities not only to provide housing. Housing departments must work with the social services and other agencies. Above all, advice and assistance must he provided in order to prevent homelessness. It is vital that everyone—young and not so young, including those who are single and who may not be in priority need or whose homelessness may not be deemed unintentional—should have ready access to the best information and advice about homelessness from local authorities and from services such as Shelterline. Authorities should adopt strategies to map out positive steps to improve access to help and services for young people, covering all their needs.
With the right help vulnerable young people, including care leavers who may not have a supportive family to fall back on in times of trouble, can not only obtain suitable accommodation, but also retain it and live independently and successfully. Providing the right sort of support to such young people is an important part of the process which will help them to participate fully in society. The recommendations in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on rough sleeping must be adopted. I am confident that the code of guidance on homelessness and allocations will be strengthened accordingly.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for bringing this very important subject to the House tonight. We have not discussed young people for quite some time. To have a new young Peer instigate the debate is right and fitting.
I must declare an interest. I am not a young person, but I have had a great deal of experience dealing with young people. With my late husband I started a charity 33 years ago which I called Crisis at Christmas. Some noble Lords may have heard of it. It was started by young people for young people and other lonely people at Christmas. For 32 years we have looked after up to a thousand people for a whole week at Christmas time. We think that we have perhaps been able to make their Christmas happier than it would otherwise have been. I take a great interest in the charity and I am its life president. I try to keep as much in contact with it as I can.
I wonder how many noble Lords watched the programme on BBC2 last night. It is extraordinary that that programme should have been broadcast last night because we so rarely have the opportunity to see what people are doing on the ground to help people of all ages. It was an excellent programme. I could have watched it for some time. However, tonight we are discussing the age group which comprises people who are the most vulnerable of all in our society, and that is the under-25s and the over-16s. They are vulnerable because it has been established that they have spent their formative years in local authority care. That is not to
260
decry the help that is given to them by local authorities, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that so many young people have nowhere to live. They have been thrown out of their homes for various reasons and they have nowhere to go.
I know that local authorities do their very best to bring up those people in a caring society. However, about 10,000 young people annually leave care. They have to leave when they are 17. It is estimated that in 1996 nationally the 16 to 21 age group were among the homeless. That is a great number of people. Why did they leave home? They did so because their parents had split up or because they were in trouble with the law. Over three-quarters of young homeless people are unemployed. Most of them are without qualifications. In these days when a piece of paper means that one is more likely to get a job, a qualification is an absolute essential.
Having left local authority care and having no parents to turn to, having lost the interest of local authority social workers, and having no job, where do people in this age group go when they have no accommodation? There is always a long queue of youngsters to take their place in doorways, under bridges and in cardboard boxes. We must show future generations that we care. We, the older people, must show that we care what happens to the youngsters. The Government must do something positive. The other day the Minister, Mr. Dobson, said that,
"children who have spent a significant time being looked after by the local authority should afterwards be given the kind of support that decent and responsible parents would give to their own children".
That was a wise and caring remark. I hope that he bears out what he says and acts soon. We have the snow and the ice outside. How many people are sleeping rough under bridges in the snow and the ice tonight? I hope that some of us, through the agencies that we represent, will be able to help these young people.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I also would like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his thoughtful introduction to this debate. It is absolutely right that we should be reminded that even as we discuss these matters there are young people out there who are homeless, and some who may be spending their first night alone in a big city, and some who may be fearful about their safety. However, the noble Earl has also reminded us that there are a number of people of good will who voluntarily give their time and energy to make contact with these young people and to offer them practical help and advice. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will agree that our society is the richer because of the contributions of so many volunteers and we warmly acknowledge the part that they play.
The noble Earl and others have set out clearly the problems of homeless young people. In the time available I wish to concentrate on the special difficulties of young people leaving public care and support all that has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Macleod. It is significant that the first four

261
speakers in the debate this evening have made special mention of the needs of young people leaving care. Tonight there are about 55,000 children and young people in public care who for a variety of reasons are not being looked after by their parents but by local authorities. For the time being each of these young people has to look to the state to be a good parent to them. Many of these young people will have experienced a great deal of disruption in their short lives. Some will have been abused and most will understandably be angry that they have been let down by the adults they looked to for care and protection.
As has been said, most of these young people will leave care at 16, or younger. Most will have no educational qualifications, limited personal skills, and probably no one to stand by them. Even the most educated and confident young people often need to fall back on their families for help and support, be it a word of praise or encouragement, a good meal or a clean shirt. The reality is that we expect the most from those young people with the least. Is it any wonder that young people leaving public care are among the most vulnerable members of our communities, exposed to danger, drug and alcohol abuse, exploitation and delinquency?
As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, the Secretary of State for Health in another place established a ministerial task force to tackle this problem. I commend to your Lordships most warmly the report on children's safeguards. I hope that as many noble Lords as possible will be able to study this report. At the launch last November the Secretary of State said,
"Children in care make up 0.5 per cent. of the child population. Young men who have been in care form 22 per cent. of the prison population. They make up 39 per cent. of prisoners under 21 years old. I in 3 of the people sleeping rough in London were once in care".
That helpful report emphasises that when a local authority takes on the parental role this should be its first responsibility. An effective leaving care plan is a vitally important part of that task. The report sets out a large number of recommendations. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us an assurance that action is being taken especially by the departments of government with lead responsibilities in these areas.
I should declare an interest in that I chair an advisory group on a leaving care project which is a partnership between the Prince's Trust and the Camelot Foundation. This project is developing and supporting mentoring schemes for young people leaving care. It has been a real joy to see the response from people of good will across the whole of society, and covering a wide age range, who are now volunteering to help these young people at a critical time in their lives. People are being recruited from industry and commerce, from churches and voluntary organisations, and concerned individuals are willing to give their time to take a personal interest in the welfare of a young person. They are helping them with literacy, numeracy, and everything from computer science to fishing and pigeon racing.
The important thing for these young people is that someone with ability believes in them and cares about them. This often makes a difference between the
262
development of self-esteem and confidence, or drifting into a life of crime. I hope that the Minister will give his support to mentoring and to those organisations which are developing support for young people as they leave care.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, not only on moving this Motion but also him on an outstanding and encouraging speech. It showed all the marks of commitment and growing experience which, to an old campaigner, is particularly welcome.
I speak as chairman of the Children's Society and as co-president of the English Churches Housing Group. I was very keen to speak in this debate. I have already apologised to the Minister for the fact that I may have to leave before it is concluded as there are not many trains deep into Somerset late at night.
The Churches, in their national and local institutions, in partnership and in local parishes, together with individuals, have long been concerned about the plight and needs of all homeless people, and young people in particular. In fact, January 31st this year was designated "Homelessness Sunday", which was observed ecumenically to draw attention to the problem. Some 2,000 churches marked the day in some way. In my own diocese of Bath and Wells, a number of events took place.
Homelessness is not, as is sometimes thought, just an urban phenomenon, as I experienced it in East London for many years; it is a real problem in rural areas too, where lack of public transport and difficult access to employment can also exclude young people.
In Shepton Mallet, for example, a cardboard city was set up recently and a number of people took part in a sleep-out to draw attention to this issue. I can speak from personal experience of such a sleep-out at Westminster Cathedral. Even to spend one night on the pavements in plastic bags and boxes is really very hard. In fact my Roman Catholic Bishop colleague at one point in the middle of the night turned to me and said "I shall never forget this if I live to remember it".
The volunteers of Shepton Mallet Housing Association run a hostel which has been open for six years. During that time it has housed no fewer than 85 youngsters. We must always remember how much can be achieved by local enthusiasm, local commitment, co-operation and partnership.
I was especially pleased to open the Foyer Project in Yeovil with the right honourable Member of Parliament for that constituency. Our diocese declared redundant a church building which had been isolated in the town centre development. In partnership—again that word—with housing associations, the local authority and other groups, in an imaginative and impressive project, converted it into a resource for young people, offering them accommodation and job training. I emphasise that all that was done, but the real concern is the continuing funding and how that money can be raised and secured.

263
Research shows that the rise in youth homelessness has been one of the main features of the changing face of homelessness over the past two decades. The Department of the Environment noted that in 1981 the typical single homeless person was a male in his late 40s or older. By 1991 the majority of single homeless people were young people. It is particularly worrying to note the increase in numbers of homeless young women and girls.
In seeking ways to improve this truly shocking state of affairs, it is important to be aware of the major causes of homelessness. Most homeless young people say that they have left home because of household conflicts. Our Children's Society report, Running the Risk, showed that young people have experienced high levels of disruption, lack of support networks, and being cut off from the education system. Together with household conflict, these were the main causes of their leaving home in the first place. As we have just heard, it is estimated that one-third of homeless youngsters are estimated to have come from local authority care.
These young people are especially vulnerable, with significant levels of substance abuse, self-harm, depression and criminal offending, aggravated by fear and sometimes by assaults, and of course prostitution. I particularly welcome the Government's recent steps to treat young prostitutes as victims and not as criminals.
We have an example which confirms some of these facts in relation to New Age travellers. The Children's Society is involved in a number of projects in Somerset with homeless young people, including a participation project in Bath. Successive research carried out by the project in the west country has shown that 50 per cent. of New Age travellers were homeless prior to going on the road. So, for members of this group at least, becoming a traveller has been seen as a viable housing option.
It would appear that domestic problems like family breakdown are responsible for a high proportion of youth homelessness. There needs to be an examination of the financial impact of government policies as they affect young people—for example, the payment of the jobseeker's allowance at a lower rate until the age of 25, as has been mentioned, and the restrictions on housing benefit payments on the under-25s, cannot make it easier for young people facing housing difficulties. One policy change in particular, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would make a significant difference to smoothing the transition of young people into independent accommodation: that is, reform of the single-room rent restriction on housing benefit. Changes introduced in 1996 mean that young people under 25 can only receive housing benefit up to a maximum of the single-room rent, the amount set by the rent office as the average cost of accommodation in a shared house in the area.
A report by the National Rent Deposit Forum and the Catholic Housing Aid Society, published last June, showed that the effect of this on young people is considerable. Shared housing is often unsuitable
264
especially for vulnerable young people. Often it does not provide adequate stability for their needs. As we have heard, as a result of this single-room rent provision, many private landlords no longer offer accommodation to under-25s.
In addition to measures to assist young people in obtaining and sustaining suitable independent housing, efforts should also be made to help those experiencing difficulties at home—if not to remain there, then to leave in a constructive and planned manner when absolutely necessary. There should be a great deal more family mediation and counselling, as well as development of local services, to achieve that smooth transition from home to independence.
Before I finish, I should like to mention one other scheme, a project in Norwich, carried out in partnership with other agencies. The Milestone Youth Build Scheme enables young people between the ages of 18 and 25 to be involved in building their own flats. The programme lasts for 12 months. Training takes place on site and in college, and successful participants gain an NVQ at the end of the scheme. That seems to me to be a very good example of the sort of self-help that can be set up if charities, government and housing associations form partnerships that will help them.
There is a great deal still to be done, but I am grateful for all that is done by volunteers and voluntary agencies throughout our society. I hope that the Government will do all that they can to help them.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for introducing this debate on such an important subject. Unfortunately, it has been a tremendously well-informed debate up to now; I have already had to score two good quotations out of my speech. I pity noble Lords who speak at the end of the list.
It is estimated that some 2,500 young people sleep on the streets at some time each year. As your Lordships leave the Palace of Westminster this evening, and gather your great coats around you, it may well be worth thinking about the young people who are sleeping out tonight. Although nearly all rough sleepers are homeless, by no means are all homeless people rough sleepers. There are also many who squat with friends or live in refuges or hostels. A recent survey showed that in each of seven major UK cities about 5 per cent. of 16 to 18 year-olds are homeless. Research shows that most homeless young people do not just "walk out" of home. They are either thrown out or forced out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, both referred to the 30 per cent. of homeless young people who have come from local authority care. That is a devastating indictment of local authority care. Forty per cent. have been abused. a minority have mental health problems and others have alcohol and drug dependency problems. A significant proportion are women.

265
I should like to quote from the report of the Home and Away Project, to which I hope to refer later, which describes the kind of young people who are coming to it for help:
"A high proportion of young people who lack the basic wherewithal to make sense of everyday routine tasks is extremely high and worrying. Some cope by having well developed means of survival while others are at such a level of disadvantage that one is left wondering how they have remained safe for any period without a responsible carer. This group of young people appears to have gone through various systems without formal recognition of their vulnerability being made. Unfortunately, these are the young people who invariably get caught up within the criminal system before we are able successfully to help them to develop an alternative".
The vast majority of homeless young people are the victims of their families: families who cannot or will not support them; families which are so dysfunctional because of violence, alcohol or abuse in one form or another that young people feel they have to leave. There is also the problem of reconstituted families where a step-parent, a mother's lover, or whoever it may be, makes them feel they are not wanted. Only about 5 per cent, of young people walk away from the family willingly.
Let us look a little more closely at these family problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, referred to the great family of children in care. I would suggest that the care system has to be redesigned and funded in such a way that it does not just look after children but has the resources and skills to rehabilitate them, prepare them for adult life and then help them to make the transition to adult life.
One of the issues we have to face in the context of homeless people is that the Government appear to be quite unclear as to how 16 and 17 year-olds are expected to be financed. The previous government introduced arrangements for the tax and benefits system which implied that families would support them. But no one has ever said clearly that families had the duty to support them. I shall come later to some suggestions on that matter.
When older people today were 16, they were able to earn money and so were expected to contribute to the housekeeping, even if it was only £10 a week. They are now parents and they do not understand why their young people cannot contribute in the same way. However, the reality of our technological society is that 16 and 17 year-olds are not ready to contribute and are not ready to be earners. Either they are in training or in education or else they are in such a no-hope situation that they have rejected both training and education and are unemployable. There is a need for us, society, to decide who is supposed to pay for these people and what will be the system by which they receive the funding they need just to live.
I do not want to enlarge on the problem of abuse within the family but I should point out that we are not talking only about sexual abuse but also about physical abuse, constant verbal abuse and disparagement, and violence between the parents which sometimes the children are obliged to watch. There are many reasons why such abuse occurs.
266
There is a real problem with reconstituted families. One report I have read describes them as parents "living a new script with a new partner" who does not want a resentful, stroppy teenager around. Children of reconstituted families are particularly vulnerable to abuse. I would suggest to the Minister that the Government address the question of whether the cost of dealing with homelessness is greater or less than the cost of dealing with the problems caused by homelessness. Those problems are likely to be lifelong dependency on the state, poor health and all the problems associated with having nothing to do—crime, drugs, alcohol, and irresponsible parenthood.
Perhaps I may suggest some short-term solutions. Several noble Lords have said—I do not want to waste time repeating it—that each person needs the support a normal family gives. Each young person needs a shoulder to lean on—perhaps a shoulder to cry on—and someone to listen. That is far more important that more bricks and mortar. Perhaps I may quote the report of the Social Exclusion Unit on rough sleeping. It stated:
"What most homeless young people want above all is a fresh start in life—a job, a home and the confidence to re-establish contact with family and friends or start again from scratch. But many lack basic skills and most need intensive support to make the transition from homelessness to a job".
I am running out of time. I wish to stress the point that the Government must set the cost of doing something against the cost of doing nothing.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for referring to running out of time. I wonder whether I may warn all noble Lords that if everyone runs out of time the Minister will have none at all.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for initiating this very important debate. It is good to have someone speaking who is actually young. It seemed at the time that it was hard enough to grow up as a teenager in the 1960s, but I think that it was as nothing compared with the pressures now. Yet the greater the expectations and demands, the more we seem to treat young people as a problem to be controlled rather than as an asset to be invested in. Why do we so often demonise and penalise rather than celebrate and support? Perhaps it would help our perception of young people if we allowed them to be heard more.
I was at Westminster '99 yesterday, which was an occasion for politicians to be grilled by young people under the age of 18. It was a great experience and there were very pertinent and challenging questions. It really is time we gave young people votes at 16 and the right to be candidates at 18 so that they can have their say in how they are governed.
I believe that we will soon see the first generational accounts showing how much of national income and wealth go to different generations in this country. I will be most surprised if the picture is other than a huge bias towards the middle aged and old, particularly with the inheritance of houses and the receipt of second pensions by many people. I do not begrudge them—of course,

267
many older people are in poverty—but, as a group, the over-fifties are probably becoming relatively richer. I suspect that the opposite is true of those under the age of 25.
There are many reasons for giving young people a solid start in life which will afford them dignity, independence and security. But for vulnerable young people who need a place to live away from their family, we are not supplying that. That is when they come up against discrimination in the housing and benefits system which says that 16 and 17 year-olds cannot usually get benefits at all and that 18 to 25 year-olds qualify only for a lower rate of job seeker's allowance and housing benefit. That is curious reasoning because, to my knowledge, the cost of food and rent is not age related. What we are saying is that young people under the age of 25 are less valuable human beings than their older fellow citizens yet we preach at them that they lack a sense of proper values.
The most harmful and inhumane discrimination we apply to young people who need their own place to live is, as has already been mentioned, the single room rent restriction. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux,
"strongly recommends the withdrawal of the single room rent restriction for the under-25s so that young people at a critical stage in their lives can concentrate on developing work skills and on playing a positive part in their local community rather than coping with extreme poverty and the constant threat of homelessness".
Those are tough words.
Presumably, one thought behind the introduction of the SRR was that it would keep young people in the parental home. Yet many young people are highly vulnerable, not only because of their age but because of their lack of family support. It is often the breakdown of family relations, fleeing violence or physical or sexual abuse, or coming out of care, which has led them to the need to seek separate accommodation.
It seems that another assumption of the Department of Social Security was that the single room rent restriction would lead to the operation of market forces and a lowering of rents by landlords or the availability of a greater range of inexpensive shared accommodation. In fact, surprise, surprise, it has led landlords, in a situation where demand outstrips supply, to refuse to let to young tenants who they know will struggle to pay the rent. Thus those youngsters are being forced either onto the streets—and Centrepoint of course does not accept the assertion of the Social Exclusion Unit that there are very few rough sleepers under 18—or into the lower, shabbier end of the rented market; that is, if they can find any accommodation at all. Those in rural areas often have to move to the cities in order to find shared accommodation. Shared accommodation is not always suitable. It is one thing for a group of friends to take a flat together, as students often do; it is quite another for a young girl who may have been sexually abused, or an HIV-positive young man, to be forced to share with strangers.
268
The difficulty of finding or sustaining a tenancy, or the worry and insecurity involved, is hardly conducive to maintaining a job or training placement. That is where the irrationality comes in. The Department of Social Security is jeopardising effective participation in the New Deal, this Government's flagship.
Early vulnerability magnifies problems in later life. If young people have run away from home, slept rough, or had drug or alcohol problems, the chances of later addiction or ill- health, unemployment, prison, or mental breakdown are all greater in adulthood. That is very expensive, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. That is why the Government often cite the figure, which I believe comes from the United States, that £1 spent on childcare saves £7 in later life, to justify investment in nurseries. Surely "joined up", coherent government demands the same approach to housing youngsters at risk.
Yet the evidence from voluntary organisations which are concerned on a day-to-day basis with vulnerable and homeless young people is that the discrimination against them that is built into the social security and housing benefit system is causing hardship and a spiralling downward decline for many into rough sleeping, crime and despair. It surely cannot pass a cross-departmental, cost-benefit test.
If that is not the legacy that we wish to confer on our children for the 21st century, I urge the Government to remove the discrimination and abolish the single room rent restriction, perhaps as part of their overall review of housing benefit. They should certainly not wait too long while further damage is done. What is the point of a Social Exclusion Unit if it allows the blatant social exclusion of under-25s?
6.53 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank my noble friend for introducing this important topic. I must declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of the Green Park Healthcare Trust in Belfast, which includes the regional residential child psychiatry unit for the Province. I am also a trustee of the Housing for the Homeless fund, which is run by the Simon Community in Northern Ireland. The Simon Community provides accommodation for all ages of homeless. The total referrals in 1997–98 were 3,314, and the age group that we are discussing comprised 51 per cent, of that total; namely, 1,728. As we have heard, current trends in that age group are rising. Just as worrying is the fact that a survey in 1996 carried out in Northern Ireland indicated that 41 per cent, of the homeless in this age group had mental health problems as defined in the Children Act.
I wish, first, to look at the prevention of homelessness and at this group with mental problems in particular. They are in two categories: those with emotional problems which develop gradually and eventually may force them to become homeless; and those with behavioural and conduct problems, which are a form of mental handicap. One-third of this second category have specified reading disorders, such as dyslexia. It is vital

269
that these children are diagnosed at a very early stage, and that is where we let some of them down in the first instance.
The Education Order in Northern Ireland—and the Education Act in Great Britain—provides for statement of special needs for 2½ per cent. of all children. However, it is felt by many professionals that another 2½ per cent. of children could benefit educationally and in terms of mental health given that extra support. Therefore, there is under-funding of the educational psychologists service, and only the more serious cases are treated. Diagnosis should take place in primary school or earlier; it is early intervention that is most important.
In addition to the lack of capacity in the system, we have, as we have been told today by Chris Woodhead, 15,000 teachers who are not up to the mark. Just over 40 per cent, of those, according to the Express, are primary school teachers. I welcome the Government's endeavours to improve teaching standards. However, I ask them specifically to target the skills needed for early diagnosis of these problem children. Too high a proportion of them are our future homeless young people. It is vital to treat them from primary school age and not leave them undiagnosed until their teens or, sadly, sometimes even later.
Good teachers make for happy schools; and happy schools with a good ethos are shown to have fewer children with emotional and mental health problems. That fact was identified in a report by Sir Michael Rutter in the 1980s. Therefore, that is a vital link in prevention or in the improvement of mental health in children.
Although we are not discussing suicides, it is important to note that the attempted suicide rate is five per million in the under-14s and 30 per million in 14 to 20 year-olds. Ninety per cent, of suicide victims among the under-20s have mental health problems, so we are also looking at the prevention of these tragedies in the long run.
It is sad when any child has to be taken into care for mental health or other reasons, and we are lucky and can justly be proud of these establishments and the staff who work in them. However, that is not the end of the story but perhaps the start of another. These establishments are a form of housing for the homeless. Many will leave at 16, and we know that too many of them become homeless adolescents.
That brings me to the Simon Community and the help that it gives to its homeless residents. Like Centrepoint, it has many programmes. I should like to highlight one that is of particular note; namely, the Outhouse programme. It is in the form of a CD-ROM produced recently by the Simon Community. The CDs inform children about how to get on in the outside world and develop the skills that are needed to live there. They are now being distributed to every school in the Province by the Department of Education. I mention this programme as an example to show that charitable organisations strive very hard to fill this serious gap in government and educational responsibilities. I urge the Government to do even more to lower the number of adolescent homeless in the future.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I must declare an interest as national president of the YMCA in England. With great commitment and considerable experience, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has powerfully raised a vital social issue. He has chosen the words to describe his debate with care. "Appropriate" necessitates analysing the real nature of the problem, its underlying causes as well as its consequences. "Range" recognises that there is no one easy remedy, and certainly no quick fix. "Effective" underlines sustainability as essential. "Services"—a good, old-fashioned concept—indicates an honest acceptance of the importance of support. "Meet the needs" reflects the sensitivity to approach the issue, to see it from the standpoint of those who are affected.
As the noble Earl made plain, pressures on the young leading to homelessness can be formidable. Let me list some more: the impersonal pace of modern technology; the emphasis on league dominated educational performance, with its marginalisation of the weak and vulnerable; meritocracy, with its damaging impact on those who, for whatever reason, do not make it; low pay and/or low benefits or none—the Citizens Advice Bureaux and Shelter make this point emphatically—job insecurity and unemployment; the impact of commercialism and the market economy on traditional values; the downward and cheapening spiral in the media; the break up of families accentuated by the increasing career and job demands of parents who are in work; domestic violence; cynical, egocentric materialism which too often explicitly, let alone implicitly, rubbishes what used to be valued as mutual responsibility; and, to say the least, the confused messages sent out by too many at the peak of conventional success—in other words, the gap between strictures and performance: "Do as I say" not "Do as I do"; the fudged dividing line between what is seen as bright and astute and what is wrong or criminal. All the time, there waiting to exploit the opportunities of bewilderment and stress are the irresponsible pedlars of drugs and alcohol and their masters.
I say all this because homelessness is usually a symptom of a sick society rather than a separate self-contained social ill of its own. When I have met and talked with homeless young people—not just young people—I have always been struck by how all too easily, with a different life experience, with acute personal adversity of a kind I have fortunately not encountered, it could have been me or any of us in this House. Precisely because what we see begins to open up too many challenges and fears which we would rather brush away, it is tempting to retreat into an authoritarian response.
If there is any one single point I want to emphasise in support of the noble Earl this evening, it is that we cannot divorce our concern for the homeless from the whole ethos, values system and direction of society. The materialism of the market simply has to be balanced by the regeneration of a sense of community with mutual loyalties and responsibilities. Everything else we attempt—all the administrative systems in the world— will not prove effective unless and until we get that right. We may suppress or mask the unpalatable

271
evidence of social sickness, but we will not cure it. The psychological stresses and resulting physical realities could indeed be aggravated, becoming even more dangerous for those affected, not least in the sphere of mental illness and the dangers of suicide.
There are some 141,000 homeless young people in Britain. Young people under the age of 25 are almost twice as likely to be unemployed as the rest of the population. And homelessness significantly increases the likelihood of being unemployed. No home, no job, no home becomes a vicious circle. A recent survey among YMCA residents indicated that 42 per cent. had been in trouble with the police, highlighting the relationship—cause or effect or both—between anti-social behaviour, as it is described, and homelessness.
Experience has brought the YMCA to recognise the importance of the holistic approach. The need is not just for bricks and mortar Young people desperately need space, security, the opportunity to discover themselves and to grow in self confidence. A job or long-term meaningful training are priorities. Support and guidance are essential. Good quality housing of itself is seldom, if ever, the end of the road. The Foyer scheme to which the noble Earl referred has, as he suggested, proved an exciting initiative with great potential. The YMCA has experienced this with the foyers which it provides. Forty per cent, of young people who pass through those of the association leave with a job.
Social activities can also be invaluable. These can provide stimulation and bonding and can assist in creating a sense of community, a sense of belonging, something which is significant as a young person secures and, we hope, sustains permanent housing.
After housing has been secured, continued outreach support is invariably worthwhile. It helps to ensure that losing a tenancy and a return to homelessness are less likely. It can also contribute to reassuring neighbourhoods in which rehousing is taking place—a problem to which (he right reverend Prelate referred. It is obviously important if the negative consequences of a hostile or suspicious environment are to be avoided. When such after care is not provided, there is sadly evidence that a significant minority of young people in fact return to homelessness.
I spoke earlier about: the ethos of society as a whole. Perhaps I could conclude by repeating what I have said before in debates on related issues. Solidarity matters. Taking the hand and walking with the homeless towards their own self-confident future is the greatest test of commitment of all.
7.4 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is perhaps opportune that this debate is taking place at a time when the nation is in the grip of some of the coldest weather that we have had for some time. It is also opportune that the debate is taking place after such an interesting programme last night on BBC2. It is also opportune that the debate is taking place when one of the youngest Members of your Lordships' House has introduced the
272
debate to us. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Listowel for having given us the opportunity to air our views.
For those who have been assisting the homeless for many years, like the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, it is a well known fact that the homeless used to be mostly older men, many of whom had alcohol problems. Very few were women. Now there are many more young people, most of whom are not part of the same sub-culture.
I wholeheartedly support the Government's initiative to reduce the number of rough sleepers by two-thirds by the year 2002. The detailed report on rough sleeping by the Social Exclusion Unit gives a clear understanding of the complexities and causes of homelessness, as well as the enormous challenges that the Government and the many worthwhile voluntary agencies and charities have to tackle to produce a sustained successful result.
Concern has been expressed that a disproportionate amount of the Government's financial assistance has been allocated to London, rather than the other centres outside London. The National Homeless Alliance estimates that two-thirds of the nation's rough sleepers are found outside London. Also, the report by the Social Exclusion Unit quoted a figure of 2,000 people sleeping on the streets around England every night and 10.000 sleeping rough over the course of the year.
While many may blame the problem of homelessness for young people on lack of job opportunities, it is far broader. My noble friend Lord Listowel and others mentioned other causes such as broken marriages, cruelty, depression, alcoholism, loneliness and despair. They are all roads that lead to homelessness. An alarming statistic from Centrepoint revealed that 86 per cent, of young people across the country had been forced to leave home rather than choosing to do so. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, that a major problem is that many young people do not know where to go for help.
As other noble Lords have highlighted, it is not just the challenge of tackling the need to accommodate the homeless, but, just as important, the need to offer effective services to help those suffering from mental health problems, alcohol and drug addiction. There are so many worthwhile charities. Noble Lords have mentioned Centrepoint, Shelter and Look Ahead. All those charities and others strive to provide 24-hour supervision, medical help, counselling for drug and alcohol abuse, as well as advice on finding permanent accommodation and assisting young people in getting training so that they can go out and get jobs.
One other programme that I believe is doing excellent work in endeavouring to prevent school children ending up on the streets in London is the Safe In The City homelessness prevention programme which has targeted persistent truants and expelled pupils. The project has identified the areas around London where children are suffering from abuse or poverty. As a result of these surveys, specialists have been sent into schools particularly to teach children between the ages of 13 and 16 all about budgets, how to claim benefits, how to cope with family breakdowns, how to find jobs and to assist

273
with training. In the foreword to the report by the Social Exclusion Unit on rough sleeping the Prime Minister wrote:
"The longer people spend on the streets, the harder it is to return to anything like normal life. Only 5 per cent. of rough sleepers do so by choice".
I also quote the words of the chief executive of Centrepoint:
"The way forward is to enable individuals to find themselves, find work find friends and a passage into a more settled lifestyle".
In conclusion, while I fully support the Government's integrated strategy to tackle homelessness, I believe that the challenge for the future should be to target the prevention of homelessness particularly for young people as well as to endeavour to cure the problem of homelessness on a sustained basis.
7.10p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, 18 years ago I returned to this great capital of ours after a long absence. I had a little cash borrowed on a credit card. I held the notion that I could find lodging and a temporary job before looking up old contacts and that I might return to my family debt-free. Was I being too proud to seek that dignity? I regarded myself as a youth of great resource. I do not remember exactly how long it took me to discover what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, could have told me; namely, that without a proper address there would be no job, and that such a base would cost me more than I could raise. At about that time—I forget the exact chronology—I was offered a job as a male prostitute. So, I returned to my family like the prodigal son. Then, fed, rested and well turned-out, I got a job within days.
There are several points to my little story. The first is that starting out alone is beyond the means of an unsupported young person. I believe that the situation is worse now than it was then in regard to the basic earnings to basic accommodation ratio. This is an economic fact and is nobody's fault. But it drags people down and changes their self-perception from young optimist to urchin so fast that it makes your head spin. The charity London Connection has noted that there is a three to four-week opportunity for finding new arrivals to the streets, before they are lost to street sub-culture. They see about 3,000 young people a year.
The second point of my story is to show how very privileged I was to have a family to whom I could turn. We have heard much about children who come out of care. The one-third to two-thirds of homeless young people who have been in care institutions might well have been better served by adoption. Even when they are too old for official adoption, unofficial arrangements can still be useful and give a young person some kind of family and home to turn to. There are 36 centres for care leavers run by NCH Action For Children. Even those young people in its care would benefit from the personal and emotional support that experienced parents could provide during the rites of passage from dependence to independence.
274
At to those young people who have recently been in contact with their parents, or a parent, their situation might not have become so desperate had some kind of financial support been available to their families. We have absolute evidence of this from the experience of 1988: the withdrawal of income support from 16 to 18 year-olds produced an immediate rise in youth homelessness for that age group. There is a two-year gap, 16 to 18, to which my noble friend, Lord Northbourne, referred, in which a young person is a child or an adult depending on who asks. Many parents view 16 as a suitable age for children to leave home, especially where one has a new relationship, or a conflict arises within the home. But government policy has tended to regard 18 as the age when young people can claim benefit in their own right and earn adult wages. Therefore, they are in limbo. They are neither one nor the other. Those are two crisis years, which is not a good start in adult life.
In a survey of Centrepoint admissions—my noble friend Lord Listowel made reference to this, albeit in a slightly different way—48 per cent, of its visitors left home at 16 or 17 years of age. Minimum wages might help these people. Housing benefit that does not wither with earnings would help; I believe that the correct term is "higher earnings disregard". The withdrawal of the single room rent restriction has also been mentioned. Most of all, non-means-tested child benefit for this most expensive period would help. The idea that a means test will target poorer families mistakes the changed shape of families. In reconstituted families—and here we are talking almost exclusively about reconstituted families—in which a step-parent or new partner is not a long-term parent, there may be little obligation to support young adults, whatever the family income. Child benefit sends a message. Child benefit is not just a matter of reducing the financial burden on families. It goes only a small way to doing that. The perceived social responsibility of caring for a 16 year-old within a family has been undermined by governments' desire to shift that responsibility onto families from the state over the past 20 years. No doubt that is a well-intentioned desire, but responsibility has not been shifted so much as erased.
There is scope here for joined-up thinking. A young person on the streets is much more expensive than a young person at home who seeks to study, or seeks work. He is worth supporting while still at home. I should like to make a request that my noble friend Lord Alton has made in the past. I ask that a family and young person impact assessment accompany new social and benefit arrangements. That would assist everybody in joined-up thinking. Here we have the crux of the needs of homeless young people. Almost all youth homelessness can be traced to the breakdown of a family somewhere in the young person's life. There is no one cause, but this broad one covers most cases.
While charities and agencies try to help the homeless by mopping up the pools of young people in our cities, the tap that feeds these pools still runs freely. If we can sort out the families, we shall solve most of the problems that we have discussed today.
7.17p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for providing me with this opportunity to speak on this very important subject. Many noble Lords have already spoken about the situation of young homeless people in London, the south and in Northern Ireland. As a Yorkshire lad it is my duty to draw the attention of noble Lords to youth homelessness in the South Yorkshire area. Recently Shelter Network produced a report which showed that between November 1996 and October 1997 based on multi-agency monitoring statistics for South Yorkshire over 2,000 young people had approached 27 agencies about their housing needs. Nearly 70 per cent. of those young people were either actually or imminently homeless, 9 per cent. of them having slept rough for at least one night and 6 per cent. having nowhere to sleep that night.
Forty per cent. of those young people were under 18 years of age. Almost half of all cases of homelessness were due to family breakdowns, with a further 14 per cent. fleeing because of the fear of or actual violence, abuse or other kinds of harassment or friction. This also includes a growing number of ethnic minority youth who leave home due to lack of understanding and conflicts of culture between parents and children. Over 20 per cent. of young people either contacted more than one agency or re-accessed a service at a later date due to the re-emergence of a housing need or crisis.
Young people have limited access to social housing. Many local authorities do not accept onto their waiting lists young people under 18. There is little tenancy support available for young people who move into independent accommodation. Access to the private rented sector is limited, with high rent levels, poor quality accommodation and the requirement to pay a bond and rent in advance. In recognition of that difficulty, a bond guarantee scheme exists in Rotherham and Sheffield and moneys have been secured to set up such a scheme in Barnsley. Landlords are unwilling to allocate tenancies to under 25 year-olds partly due to housing benefit restrictions and partly to preconceived ideas about the behaviour of young people.
A multi-agency consortium in Rotherham has been successful in setting up a young people's housing advice centre with lottery money. The local statutory and voluntary sector play an important role in delivering services and creating an effective and co-ordinated network of services.
No single solution exists to the problem of youth homelessness. An effective response acknowledges the need for a range of services, in particular different types of accommodation and a variety of support structures. I welcome the Government's new initiatives to tackle the housing problem including the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership, the New Deal for the young, and the phased release of moneys to local authorities to build new homes.
I believe that if services are best to meet the needs of young people, it is important that young people are involved at all levels. Agencies should involve young
276
people in both the development and management of services. Agencies should also work with young people to set up regular consultations on their services through a variety of means including user groups. That information should be fed back into strategic service development.
In conclusion, will the Minister consider issuing guidance to local authorities on the following? Local authorities should regard care-leavers and homeless 16 and 17 year-olds as vulnerable and in priority need under the homeless legislation, and provide appropriate support by social services departments to enable them to maintain their new home. Every person aged 16 and over should have the right to appear on the housing register. Every young person should be able to obtain independent housing information advice and advocacy services when they need them. And every young person should be able to obtain accommodation in an emergency. The local authority should ensure that placement in emergency accommodation is followed by an assessment of the longer-term housing needs.
On that final point, as a local councillor in Rotherham, I am aware that there is a shortage of single person's accommodation. Will my noble friend consider schemes to bring into use the thousands of commercial properties by introducing grants and rate concessions for those property owners who would convert those empty storerooms for single person accommodation, with penalties and compulsory purchase orders for those who refuse to co-operate?
.22 p.m.
Viscount Leathers: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for introducing this important and wide-ranging subject.
The policy of successive governments on homelessness has demonstrably worked. Because of the Rough Sleepers Initiative and hostel provision, there is now an expert voluntary sector. Volunteers have always been imbued with altruistic and Christian values. Now, augmented with the acquired expertise and the earned trust of the homeless, the voluntary sector is in a position to continue this success and address the issues which the Social Exclusion Unit raised in its report, Rough Sleeping, in July of last year.
I wish to address a specific problem with which rough sleeping drug users in the 16 to 24 year-old age group are faced. Most young people who die on the streets die of drug overdose. Many, but by no means all of them, are homeless through a breakdown in their family circumstances. In some cases they have been forced to leave the family environment through the poverty of, or lack of space within, the household. In others they have suffered physical mistreatment or sexual abuse and are therefore understandably self-evacuees from the family. Others have been rejected and expelled by parents.
Let us consider Bill. Bill is 17 years-old. He left home because he was not contributing a wage to the household in Newcastle where his father was unemployed and he had four younger siblings. Once on the streets, young people are vulnerable. Because they cannot get money on which to live, and in desperation, prostitution

277
becomes a source of income and petty crime a source of material needs—both of which expose them to exploitation as sex workers. They are at risk of turning to drug or alcohol dependence in a wretched attempt to ameliorate the unhappiness and misery of their lifestyle. Moreover, their self-esteem is eroded.
Bill came to London and soon his meagre savings were gone. He managed to find shelter in a squat where he was introduced to heroin. Bill had been smoking cannabis since he was 15. He became addicted. To finance his habit he took to petty theft. He shoplifted to eat. In desperation he then became a sex worker: a rent boy in the West End.
The use of drugs is initiated through many reasons— peer pressure, curiosity or boredom—but is sustained by the poignant motive so common in rough sleepers: lack of self-esteem. That is perpetuated within a cycle of drug use, petty crime, greater loss of self-esteem, and greater use of drugs. That cycle cannot be broken if the sole provider of housing is the emergency night shelter which must be evacuated during the day thus exposing the victim to the vulnerable environment of the streets all day and every day.
Over three to four months Bill became depressed and drifted apart from his friends at the squat. He was sleeping on the streets. He was miserable and cared little for himself or his peer group. He occasionally slept at the Lord Clyde, an emergency night shelter in Vauxhall run by the Depaul Trust. The Lord Clyde is a night shelter with 26 beds. The shelter supplies emergency provision for 16 to 25 year-olds between the hours of 7.30 at night and 8.00 in the morning. But entry to the next stage of accommodation beyond the emergency night shelters, the direct access hostel, is denied the drug user since the criteria for progression are that they must be rough sleepers, they must not be drug users or have a history of drug use, and they must not have a criminal record. Although the Social Exclusion Unit identified that 39 per cent. of young rough sleepers have a drug problem, the truth is that about 90 per cent, of that group are drug users.
The Social Exclusion Unit reported that in some London boroughs the wait for drug rehabilitation is four months. Many hostels aim to move people on after three months. This does not include any delay in preparing the groundwork and getting the drug user to accept the need for rehabilitation.
Bill sometimes wishes that he could start again. He could be persuaded to undergo drug rehabilitation but needs secure accommodation as a base. He cannot get into a direct access hostel because he has a history of drug use and a record of petty crime—shoplifting, possession of heroin. Even if he were fortunate enough to obtain a place in a hostel, he would be moved on before a place on drug rehabilitation could be fixed up.
I cannot believe that it is government policy to return these youngsters to the streets rather than remove them from the dangers of street life, especially in view of the new initiative due to start in April. There is a need for a secure environment where the voluntary sector can work with young drug users, a need to provide support,
278
and to instil a sense of purpose and promote self-esteem. That must form part of the terms of reference for the new Youth Homelessness Action Partnership. I note that improving access to drug treatment services is a key objective of the Government's new drug strategy.
But where is there a form of 24-hour accommodation which will house the young rough sleeper with a history of drug use and a criminal record? Can the Government offer an option other than constant rejection and a bleak future (having been denied access to the next rung on the ladder to recovery) leading inevitably to death on the streets? Bill needs help now. In a few more months he may well be just another young rough sleeper dead on the streets from a drug overdose.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to give the Minister good news. I have no solution to nor analysis of the problem, other than those about which we have heard for the past hour. Never before have I listened to a debate and at the end of every speech said, "Hear, hear". The debate was devoid of acrimony. Noble Lords know where the problems lie and the terrible damage being done to many young people by the social consequences. I was delighted that it was not a party political debate and that no party was blamed for the situation. No party in this House has a control over passion, a blame or a mischievousness. All parties bear some responsibility for the present situation.
I congratulate the noble Earl and those on his Benches. They have encouraged more people to attend the debate who have not only spoken but assiduously listened to others. As a former Chief Whip, I am envious to see how well the noble Earl has been supported by his colleagues on this important topic.
As regards my two penny-worth, my days in housing go back 35 years to when I was a councillor. When I was a Member of Parliament I received more complaints or requests for help about housing than any other topic. I am not sure what the position is today, but I do not think that it has changed a great deal. Housing has always been at the heart of good government, local or national. The lack of good, affordable housing has brought misery to many people in this country. If ever there were a topic which ought not to be made a political football it is housing and the solution to the problem.
Tonight, we are considering the problems of the young homeless. Fortunately, I arrived home last night in time to see the television programme about the young, disabled homeless people. They live in wretched circumstances. I applaud the Minister and all the agencies who are striving to find the right mix. The young people I saw were not proud and knew exactly what had caused them to be on the streets. They knew that there was help, some of which they were able to grasp.
I tried to visualise the circumstances in which I or members of my family could have been driven out of our home. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, told us what he considered to be the reasons for there being many homeless people. He listed leaving care or the Armed Forces, sexual or physical abuse, step-parents who were

279
out of kilter with their children and many other problems. Those are not new social phenomena, but the problem is that the social mores and culture of this country have changed.
I am grateful to the London Government Association, of which I am vice-president, because it recognises that this is not a party problem. The word "partnership" was used more than once. I believe that that is the way forward. We will never, ever solve the problem of housing, but we can demonstrate to young people that our society in general has a responsibility. I greatly value my home, family and stability and I have some idea, but only remotely, of what these young people are missing.
It is our job in life to work together. That means money and it also means pride. We must work together and settle big differences. We must say to the Minister and his colleagues, "We believe that you are doing a good job—you are doing all that you can within the limits—but there is much more that can be done if you consult more widely and recognise the solutions which may be found elsewhere". I wish the Minister and his colleagues well in trying to solve these difficult problems.
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, it is with a great source of pride that I stand tonight and declare an interest in that I am a kinsman and a friend of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. My knowledge and information about the problem of homelessness has been greatly enhanced by listening to tonight's commendable debate.
The Government have implemented some welcome measures to address homelessness—for instance, the publication of the report of the Social Exclusion Unit on rough sleeping—and have brought forward enabling measures to give young people an immediate chance to join the New Deal. The Government's target to reduce the number of people sleeping rough in England to one-third of its present level by 2002 is very welcome. I am sure your Lordships will welcome the Minister's feedback as to the progress of that initiative.
A real concern when reading the report of the Social Exclusion Unit is the estimate of the number of homeless people on the streets, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. Does it not underestimate the extent of the problem and, therefore, are not its targets flawed? From casual observation of the streets of London, it seems that there are many more than 2,000 people living homeless at any one time. Can the Minister give us an assurance as to the basis of that figure? After all, if the extent of the problem is not known, how can we have an action plan that will adequately alleviate this very great social problem?
On visiting the London charity, Centrepoint, I found commendable the extent of partnership between government and the charitable sector. Centrepoint's activities include providing shelter during the cold winter months and providing the young homeless people with a point of contact with drug, drink and medical health experts. Very importantly, it tries to prepare the youngsters for a life inside the remits of conventional society and social responsibility.
280
As regards co-ordination of the Government's policy, will the Minister investigate whether there are significant differences between the various local authorities' treatment of the homeless? It seems that it is far too easy for local authorities to brush the problem aside and, in effect, pass the homeless on to neighbouring authorities. That unsettling process would surely be to the detriment of any disadvantaged young person.
I hope that the new London-based DETR unit will seek to encourage a holistic approach to the problem in our capital and, if the London model is successful, that the Government will consider setting up similar networks in all parts of the country where there is a problem of homelessness.
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh. He is a credit of that little society of Earls! I have known so many members of his family and have been friends with them.
The debate is a credit to the House. If I were asked to explain what the House of Lords does I would invite him or her to come along and listen to a debate such as this. That would justify the House of Lords in the eyes of any fair-minded observer. Quite a few hereditary Peers have taken part. I speak as half-and-half, but the noble Earl is a genuine hereditary Peer. They have played their full part in the debate and it represents the House of Lords at its best.
Your Lordships might ask why I am intervening in the gap. I put my name down on the list a long time ago, but it escaped someone's attention. It appears that nowadays only the youngsters are listed and that anyone over 90 is not registered. Therefore, I have been allowed to speak.
This is the House of Lords at its best and it is particularly appropriate to follow the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. When I was at Eton, his father was the only known socialist in that school of 1,000 boys. There was a dreadful rumour that there might be a socialist there. There was an even worse rumour that the headmaster's wife had Labour sympathies. But the point about the noble Earl's father is that, although at that time he was called Lord Ennismore, he preferred to be known as plain Mr. Hare. Therefore, throughout the school it was known that there was one very dangerous man called plain Mr. Hare. We feel that his son is a chip off the old block. He is perhaps not as dangerous but is as brave as his father.
I hesitate to boast about anything but the other day a woman on the train said to me, "Lord Longford, how many great grandchildren do you have?" I said that I thought I had 14 but in fact, I have 15 now. That must be more than most. But the man opposite said, "That's nothing at all. I have 17". Therefore, one should not boast too quickly.
However, I took the initiative which led to the foundation of the New Horizon Youth Centre. That was for young people aged 16 to 21. I am delighted to think that it has flourished today. It was not always a powerful organisation. When we began, there was one woman

281
called Nikki Hunt, the secretary, and myself. But the office was so small that, if she was in the office, I had to sit in the corridor and if I was in the office, she had to sit in the corridor. It now has 18 social workers. I do not like to say that it was all due to me, but I was there at the beginning. Therefore, I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of New Horizon.
Now it is visited by about 1,000 young people every year and, perhaps, 300 of them for considerable periods. Most of them, perhaps 700, obtain advice and move on but the other 300 receive long-term help. Therefore, on my behalf, I wish to pay tribute to the present Government who are extremely helpful. Are the Government going to live up to their promises? I hope that they will.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important issue of homeless young people.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I do not believe that there is anything new to be said on the issue. Many of us are grateful for the extremely good briefings and large amount of research that has been undertaken by a wide range of voluntary agencies and other bodies.
As the debate has indicated, a large number of issues which affect homeless young people are being looked at by a wide range of bodies, including government. I hope that this debate will give the Government the opportunity to acknowledge the scale and nature of the problem and come forward with further firm announcements as to how we can improve our efforts to tackle the problem.
As has already been highlighted this evening, a wealth of research has been undertaken. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to. the conclusions of a Rowntree research report which was entitled Young Homeless People and their Families. In particular, I wish to quote some of the conclusions because they reflect what has been said this evening. It states:
"The research highlights the part that better counselling support services could play in preventing homelessness among young people and helping those who do leave home. The interviewees, including young people who had been abused, were agreed that someone prepared to listen to them in the community or at school would have helped. Once they left home, they found that the Probation Service and specialist homeless agencies were more supportive than social services. Needs varied between individuals and it was clear that some young people would benefit from help through the established relationships with parents while others would be better helped to build an independent life for themselves".
I believe that those conclusions have been reflected in the contributions to the debate this evening. In his opening remarks, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, set the scene extremely well. He is to be congratulated on instigating such a well-informed debate and a debate which has attracted a larger proportion than usual of young Members of the House. I particularly welcome that.
Other noble Lords have ranged wide. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, provided us with good information about the
282
problems of those leaving care. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who we know has had to rush off back to Wells, reminded us of the role that the Church has played and has continued to play over a number of years. In fact, it is the one organisation which keeps housing and housing matters higher up the agenda than almost any other organisation.
He reminded me of a sleep-out in which I took part. But he also reminded me of a matter which still concerns me. All of us here this evening are concerned about homeless young people. But when I took up the issue in the constituency which I used to represent, I was pilloried by my political opponents for daring to talk about the young homeless in a constituency which perhaps had a higher proportion of elderly people than many others.
I helped to promote something called HYPID— Homeless Young People in Dorset. Again, I came up against prejudices of other people. One Christmas the organisation undertook an appeal and one of the most distressing things that I ever heard in the time that I was involved in homelessness issues was that that organisation received in its envelopes hate mail about young people. So although in this House we may understand the problem, outside there is still an argument to win. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for reminding us of that this evening.
We also need to agree with the matters raised by my noble friend Lady Ludford and expanded upon by the noble Lord, Lord Judd; that is, our attitude to young people in society and what our priorities as a society should be.
I wish to concentrate on two other issues. The first is to pick up on a matter referred to earlier; namely, foyers. Secondly, I wish to address the problems of single room rents.
There are two main concerns in relation to foyers. One has already been mentioned this evening. There is a particular problem for rural foyers. They find that their work is much more difficult in a rural area where the support services are more scattered. It is not so easy to integrate services. I hope that the Government will look at ways in which they can assist foyers in that regard.
The other matter I wish to raise is the funding of foyers and in particular revenue funding and keeping them going. I say that because curiously, just last week I was asked whether I would be involved in helping to raise money for a foyer which is being set up in Poole in Dorset. I said that I should be delighted to do that, but in return I asked them to send me a briefing note about how it had been for them in trying to set up the foyer for this week's debate.
I was here at the end of the last debate and I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, giving us quite good news about lottery funding. He said that the Government are looking at revenue funding and how they can assist projects which need lottery funding. Some foyers have tried to obtain lottery funding and it is very difficult to put together a package which meets the criteria. As has been highlighted, it is the running costs that are often the problem. I hope that the Government can give us

283
some indication that they recognise those problems and some idea as to how they may be able to help on that matter.
In the few moments I have left I wish to return to the problem of the single room rent. I was involved in highlighting this issue when the National Rent Deposit Forum produced a report last autumn. Also, like other noble Lords I received briefings from CAB and Shelter. All those organisations have done quite a bit of research. We had some detail tonight about landlords not wanting to continue to provide this type of accommodation to young people and the problems young people face in meeting the rent when they are in and out of work and only receive a little help towards the single room rent. In fact, it is often the most vulnerable people who have the most problems arid who are also required to share accommodation with people whom they do not know well.
All those matters have been raised tonight. Research by a variety of groups reached the same conclusion; that is, that the single room rent has led to increases in the level of homelessness and the level of hardship among young people and it is time we abolished it. I know from a series of Questions tabled by the honourable Gordon Marsden in another place that the Government are currently reviewing this issue as part of a general review of housing benefit. I know also that they commissioned research which will explore its effects. I hope therefore that the Minister can keep us even more up to date and expand a little on that.
I want to end by reflecting on what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. She told us of her involvement in setting up Crisis at Christmas. She said that she had been involved in setting up that organisation over 30 years ago; yet here we are, still debating this issue. The challenge for us all, and particularly for this Government, is to really make a change. I am sure that none of us wants to be debating this issue again in two years time, let alone 30.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, anyone who walks around in central London rapidly becomes aware that homeless people are living on the streets. The evidence is there for all to see at any time. The waste of lives that that represents is all too obvious and, where young people are concerned, the lost potential is enormous. In calling this debate, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave us an opportunity to discuss a problem that has exercised many minds: for a long time and I join in adding my thanks to those that have already been expressed by many other noble Lords.
As the noble Earl mentioned when introducing the debate, the Rough Sleepers Initiative was started by the previous government in the early 1990s and led to the successful resettlement of more than 4,000 previously homeless people. The scheme currently costs around £24 million a year. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions administers Section 180 grants. Payments under that heading started around 1990 and now cost around £8 million a year. That is all to help prevent single homelessness. The DSS
284
maintains around 4,300 bed spaces in hostels and temporary accommodation in a resettlement programme costing around £18 million a year and the Department of Health has programmes to assist the mentally ill and those with drug problems, which also feature as serious symptoms among the young homeless.
Thus it can be seen that Government concern in this area is long-standing. The previous government, having first toughened conditions to try to encourage the young to remain at home, began to assist those who, despite discouragement, nonetheless felt the need or, worse, were compelled to leave. The Government are now working to bring together and co-ordinate action in this field, and that we wholly welcome.
I took the trouble to discuss this issue with the manager of a hostel for young homeless run by a less well-known charity in my borough of Kensington and Chelsea as I wished to hear the experience of a practitioner. He reported that the picture has changed considerably over recent years and that the proportion of his clients that used to come from outside London has reduced from around 50 per cent. to around 10 per cent. At least that might be held to indicate that the situation has improved to a certain extent outside London.
The manager said that 20 per cent. of his clients now come from his own borough; 30 per cent. come from next door Westminster, which may seem odd; and most of the rest come from Inner London. For 90 per cent. of his clients family breakdown lies at the root of their problems, in particular problems arising from conflicts of loyalty with step-parents and problems with step-parents and step-brothers and sisters. Most of the rest of his clients are those who were caught in the trap when leaving care. Social services departments work very well for the young who have to go or have to be taken into care until they are 16. But at that point there is a tendency to pass the problem on to others by an abrupt withdrawal of support. Regrettably, some are lost as a result of that transfer process. The manager also commented that he could fill his hostel daily from start to finish with asylum seekers, but that is a separate problem outside our remit today.
The hostel provides accommodation for up to six months and in that time they expect to train and educate their clients so that they are able to live independently in their own accommodation. Some of their clients have none of the necessary skills when they arrive and need intensive one-to-one training. This is a high cost establishment. At the end of six months clients are moved on, generally into private-let accommodation but otherwise into longer-term accommodation. But they can still receive guidance from a resettlement officer who is funded by a combination of money from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and money from the lottery fund.
Most clients, in a welcome way, go into further education, but some go straight into work. For all of them a continuing income is a constant worry. The normal costs of running this hostel are met by a combination of charges based on their clients' housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance, though the latter is

285
expected to change in the near future. The centre runs at an annual deficit of around £20,000 a year, which has to be met by fund-raising, and is a constant struggle.
Two points stick in my mind as a result of that discussion. The first is the significance of the family and responsible parenthood. That has been mentioned by many noble Lords tonight. Although it is somewhat outside the remit of this debate, anything that can be done to improve family stability and relationships must be of great help if it results in fewer young people leaving home prematurely and becoming homeless. Indeed, in the long term that must be the most profitable way of tackling this subject. We, in this House, might regard parental obligations as absolute but, sadly, too many parents today take an altogether different view. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about the ethos of society. The noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, also touched on this aspect. That is the root problem. There are educational and social implications that run far beyond our debate tonight, but I cannot help but think that we must improve this area.
The other lesson is that it is essential that everybody recognises the need to work together so that there are no gaps between services, parts of services or between organisations through which clients can fall. Follow up and cross-referencing between different services and charities are essential if the homeless are to be brought back successfully into normal society. The instinctive corporate ethic of any particular group, be it a public body or a charity, can, on occasions, be damaging to the prospect of finding solutions to these problems and needs to be suppressed.
This has been a thoroughly interesting and helpful debate and one to which I have greatly enjoyed listening. I look forward to the Minister's response. I am sure he will tell us that the work which has been of concern for such a long time is continuing in a better and perhaps even more helpful way.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for initiating this debate. He made a splendid contribution at the beginning and set the tone for the whole debate. I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who have participated including, in particular, the Cross-Benchers and, indeed, the Irish Earls, with their wide age range.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, brought home to us the terrible experience of being homeless and young. To be without somewhere you can call home at any age is pretty awful, but without the experience and robustness that maturity brings, homelessness must be absolutely terrible. It robs people of their identity and their individuality. It can lead—not just immediately but for some time afterwards—to the kind of social exclusion that this Government are determined to tackle. At the very best, the experience takes a long time to get over and people need help to get over it. At worst, people do not get over it and there is a downward spiral into drugs, crime and prostitution.
286
Much has been made of the need to provide for young people the security of a home background. For most young people, that situation still applies. However, for many, the experience at home has been of trauma, break up, being thrown out, abuse or family break up. As the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and many noble Lords have emphasised, we therefore need to pay particular attention to preventive measures. We hope that our comprehensive proposals to strengthen the support available to families in this context will increase family stability and reduce the pressure on families. In particular, the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership has identified preventive measures as a priority for research so that knowledge about the range of measures that can be taken in the early stages is improved and we can base our policies on that.
There is one slight correction I want to make. It is not always the family's fault that young people become homeless. There are many families who have done their best but, nevertheless, the kids have walked out or otherwise moved away, often through addiction or attraction to crime. However, there are over 2 million young people who still live with their families in varying degrees of harmony.
I should also like to make a broader correction with regard to an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Judd and other noble Lords; namely, that much of the problem relates to the ethos of society and the fact that there is no collective help for some of these people. They feel that once they have dropped out there is no way back.
I turn to the role of the Government and the public authorities. I pay tribute to what was done under the previous government in recognising the problem and setting up the Rough Sleepers Initiative and other such measures, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We all recognise, at both national and local authority level, that there is a serious problem here. It is important that all public authorities, together with the voluntary sector, act together. That is why we established the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership which, for the first time, brings together senior representatives of central government, local government and the voluntary sector to tackle and prevent youth homelessness. The partnership has already agreed on priorities for research and a working definition of youth homelessness which will be used to provide a reliable estimate of the numbers involved.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, I should point out that there are real problems in attempting to measure the scale of youth homelessness. In one sense it is a sub-set, albeit a growing proportion, of homelessness as a whole. Clearly from the experiences relayed by a number of noble Lords, the proportion of homeless people who are young is increasing. However, the term "youth homelessness" may be used to represent a number of different levels of housing need. At its most extreme, we are talking about total homelessness— rough sleeping. I shall return to that shortly. However, that is only a relatively small proportion of the total problem. There are young people accommodated in emergency night shelters, direct access hostels, various

287
forms of squats, unsatisfactory bed and breakfast accommodation and, indeed, in some very good longer-term hostels.
As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, indicated, there are also young people who will stay with friends and relatives on a temporary basis which may not be satisfactory to anybody concerned. In many ways they, too, are suffering from a lack of a permanent or a satisfactory home. So a wide spectrum of young people is involved. As I have said, the most extreme cases include rough sleeping. It is totally unacceptable to all in this House that anyone should be out there tonight sleeping on the streets of London, or any other of our towns and cities. That problem was taken up as a priority issue by this Government.
The Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit to address the issue of rough sleeping as one of its first priorities. The report, published last July, sets a tough initial target of reducing the number of people sleeping rough throughout England to a third of its current level by 2002. Information compiled by the Housing Services Agency indicates that about a third of the rough sleepers contacted were under 26 years old. Of those, a quarter were aged between 18 and 25. There were some under the age of 18 but that was only 7 per cent. of the total. However, they are obviously by far the most vulnerable, as many noble Lords have emphasised. The SEU report emphasises the need for a joined-up approach and hammers home the message that better integration of policy and service delivery and better co-operation between the voluntary and public sectors is needed in this area. We have established at the top level a new ministerial committee to ensure that our policies are truly consistent and joined up. My honourable friend Hilary Armstrong will be responsible for that co-ordination.
We are establishing a new unit for London where the problem is most acute. Some noble Lords have queried the emphasis on London. Despite the figures for Kensington, indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, London is still an attraction for many homeless and displaced people from outside London. Some of the figures quoted perhaps misrepresent the emphasis on London. Nevertheless, there is a disproportionate problem here and therefore disproportionate resources are allocated to it.
The new London unit will have an integrated budget of £145 million over three years until 2002 to combat rough sleeping and the causes of rough sleeping. We are intending to appoint a person heading that unit who the newspapers have described as a "street czar". Whatever the press call him or her, the important point is that there will be one person with the responsibility and the means to arrange the co-ordinated delivery of services here in London.
We have heard examples relating to the problem outside London from my noble friend Lord Ahmed, who referred to the situation in Yorkshire, from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who referred to the situation in Northern Ireland, and from the noble Baroness. Lady Maddock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who has now gone to test
288
the rural transport system. No doubt he will come back to me on that at some point! All indicated that the rural areas, particularly the run-down parts, are also facing serious problems, although much less publicity has been given to them. The Rural Development Commission has identified over 80 projects which will work to address the housing needs of young people in rural areas. It is important that action is taken in all our towns and cities, not just in London.
The SEU report confirms that, in general, local authorities are in the best position to co-ordinate rough sleeping and general homelessness outside London. To support local authorities, the DETR has launched the Homelessness Action Programme, which will provide £34 million over the next three years to help voluntary organisations outside London to tackle and prevent single homelessness and rough sleeping. Details of the first tranche of successful applications were announced the other day by my colleague Hilary Armstrong. A number of those projects will now get underway rapidly. As well as addressing rough sleeping, we shall be funding schemes to ensure that young people never have to experience homelessness in any of its forms.
In relation to one particular group, we are co-ordinating the provision of homelessness grants with those provided under the Homeless Mentally III Initiative. People who are mentally ill, even prior to becoming homeless, often have secondary problems, such as those relating to alcohol and drug misuse, and then encounter even greater problems in getting out of that situation. We are prioritising support for homeless people with drug and alcohol problems. We have recently published details of how voluntary organisations can bid for funding under the specific grant relating to those with drug and alcohol problems. That issue was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Leathers.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred to mentoring. In pursuing its strategy, the Social Exclusion Unit has been in discussion with a number of government departments and with those in the voluntary sector, including organisations such as the Big Issue and the Homeless Network, to try to find the best way to take forward the Government's commitment to rough sleeper mentoring initiatives. As a result of those discussions, the Homeless Network, working with homelessness organisations, including the Prince's Trust, is already running mentoring projects and has produced a paper for the SEU outlining the basis for further development. I join the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in paying tribute to those adults and others who engage in the mentoring process. It provides vital support to very vulnerable people.
Perhaps I may add a general tribute to the work of the voluntary sector and the Church-based organisations which have developed a substantial response to these problems. I refer not only to the household names, such as Shelter, the National Children's Home, and Centrepoint, but also to the hundreds of smaller, locally based, voluntary organisations. I pay particular tribute to the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of

289
Borve, with regard to Crisis and Crisis at Christmas. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, also referred to activities in Northern Ireland.
Voluntary sector organisations, in conjunction with local authorities, can do much to help those who have often become deeply suspicious of more formal organisations. The Government are helping. Grants totalling £27 million over three years have been awarded and we shall shortly make an announcement about the allocation of a further £7 million to help voluntary organisations in this area. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, indicated, young people often do not know where to turn. Frequently, the voluntary organisations provide the point at which those young people have any contact with potential support.
I have been asked about foyers and funding for them by, among others, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The Government support the work of foyers through the Employment Service and Careers Service funding. Those agencies work closely with foyers to give residents access to guidance, support and training. Several successful foyers have operated. My noble friend Lord Judd referred to the YMCA, and there are many others. Both now and beyond, into the new funding arrangements after 2002, foyer schemes will be able to bid for employment and training provision alongside other providers. Individual local authorities are probably best placed to assess whether or not foyer schemes meet the need. As has been identified, there is not much point in giving a foyer project capital support if there is no workable proposal on how the running costs will be met. It is important that all prospective partners in new foyer schemes—the local authority, the housing associations and the voluntary organisations— properly plan the future financing of such schemes. That will enable them to play an important part.
Wider policies impact on youth homelessness. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the impact of the New Deal which will mean that we can begin to take young people out of the situation of total unemployment and therefore, in many cases, homelessness. Young people need to be in the labour market so that the cycle of "no home, no job/no job, no home" will be broken. The New Deal offers many such people a real opportunity to address other problems at the same time as maintaining a focus on employment, which is the central element of that scheme.
Issues relating to housing benefit have been raised. Clearly, access to housing benefit is a key factor for many young people. Inadequacy of resources is clearly one of the main causes of homelessness. For most young people under the age of 25, support for living in the private rented sector is restricted to the single room rent. That is supposed to represent the average rent for a single room with shared facilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and others, asked whether the Government should be looking again at that. We have received reports from voluntary organisations showing that the single room rent is causing problems in many localities where landlords and, to some extent, local authorities are avoiding letting accommodation to young people. We have therefore
290
commissioned a survey on housing benefit and the private rented sector conducted by the London Research Centre. That survey has now been completed and is being considered by Ministers. Government departments, including the DSS and my own department, together with the local authority associations, are reviewing housing benefit rules as part of the housing benefit simplification and improvement project. All the relevant evidence will be considered in that review. The overall priority of the review is to simplify and modernise the housing benefit structure. Clearly, the youth homelessness aspect must be considered.
Perhaps I may make two qualifications in relation to the single-room rent allowance. There is already some degree of flexibility. Those who are most likely to face additional problems and who are living independently without family support, for example, care leavers and disabled people, are exempt from the single-room rent provisions. It is also true that claimants suffering exceptional hardship as a result of the single room rent restriction can apply to the local authority for discretionary help.
The noble Viscount, Lord Leathers, referred specifically to the fact that drugs aggravate the problems of homelessness. A large proportion of those most severely affected by homelessness are also subject to drug abuse. Our new drug strategy will provide treatment for groups which are hard to reach. I refer, for example, to the young homeless. In total, the health authorities are deploying an extra £70.5 million over the next three years to develop and commission drug services. Some of that will benefit the young homeless. We must also consider the implications of restrictions on access to hostels and other services.
The noble Viscount, Lord Leathers, and other noble Lords, referred to prostitution. That is a serious problem in our major cities and elsewhere. Child prostitution and that of young persons must be dealt with. We have provided new guidance on that for police and local authorities. We are also developing a national plan to combat the commercial exploitation of children. It is vital that young people are seen as victims, not criminals, in that respect. We hope that all public authorities will take that view. It is a demeaning and disastrous side effect of homelessness in our cities.
There are other aspects as regards vulnerable people and the housing legislation which need to be tackled. We are currently strengthening the advice in the code of guidance about the duties of local authorities. My noble friend Lady Goudie referred to that. We need to give priority to all young people at risk.
That brings me to a point which a number of noble Lords raised; namely, those who have left care. They belong to probably one of the most vulnerable groups of young people. They have been in the care of local authorities and left. They have then found great difficulty in finding suitable and affordable accommodation. We know that between one third and one quarter of rough sleepers have been looked after by local authorities as children. Through our other policies in relation to care we intend to try to improve the position of those leaving care so that the transition out of care is managed more effectively than clearly it has been. Improving the support

291
for care leavers as such is one of the six priority areas which will attract additional resources through a special grant to local authorities as part of our "Quality Protects" programme to renew and reform children's services.
We are planning to make radical changes in the whole area of care leavers' support so that those aged between 16 and 18 years will have a plan setting out a "pathway to independence", including arrangements for their accommodation and ensuring that they have the necessary life skills. I hope that reassures my noble friend Lord Ahmed that we are beginning to tackle these problems.
I see that my time is almost up. There are a number of points which I have not touched on. In the normal way, I shall write to noble Lords about them. The issues raised in this debate go far wider than simple accommodation. It is a central social problem of our times. I hope that the expectations that have been raised by government action will be fulfilled. We owe it to all the young people on the cold streets tonight, or in inappropriate hostels and others forms of accommodation, to improve their circumstances. The Government are committed to that, as I know your Lordships are. I very much appreciate the contributions of noble Lords in this debate.
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. It has been a fascinating debate. There are a few points that I would like to emphasise. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I have now at last found out something about my father's life at school and I am very grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, made the important point that we expect the most from those who can give the least. The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, made some important points on which the Minister went some way to reassure us as regards the need for a secure environment for working with drug users so that they do not fall through the net of provision. There was an encouraging note from the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, as regards the Rowntree Report. Sometimes it is possible to re-establish a relationship with a family and that can be pursued, but obviously, it is not always possible.
I thank the Government for taking such positive steps and I wish them well. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Freedom of Information Bill [H.L.]
8.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is a great privilege and a great pleasure to introduce the Bill into this House. It is a chance, in the last few months before my eternal twilight—Töfferdämmerung, as one might put it—to make a difference to something about which I care passionately. I quote:
"Information is power. If a government is genuine about wanting a partnership with the people who it is governing, then the act of government itself must be seen as a shared responsibility and the government has to empower the people".
292
The Minister will no doubt recognise that as a quotation from Tony Blair. It continues,
"It is not some isolated constitutional reform that we are proposing, with a Freedom of Information Act. It is a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years.
"What is needed is a change of culture and a statutory obligation on government to make it a duty to release information to the people.
"We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity, and make government information available to the public unless there are good reasons not to do so. So the presumption is that information should be, rather than should not be, released".
In order to encapsulate what I believe about freedom of information, I tried long and hard to find a more radical and comprehensive manifesto for a Freedom of Information Bill, but I failed. The quotation is from Tony Blair just a couple of years ago. How I wish that was the Government's view now.
Things started quite well when this Government came to power. They appointed a Minister in charge of freedom of information who clearly believed in it. After only six months in office he produced a White Paper, which was quite a good one although it was already showing signs of being "got at". Since then things have gone badly awry. That particular Minister was sacked and responsibility moved to a Minister who, by reputation—although one has heard little from him on the subject—has no great sympathy with freedom of information.
The White Paper promised a draft Bill late last year, but none has been forthcoming. We heard that it would come in January or February. Now we hear that the expected date is sometime in April or May when Rhodri Morgan has safely gone West and the chairmanship of the relevant committee in another place has passed into more Blairite hands. I do not know what to expect. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be able to tell us that he is pregnant with information. He looks a little slim for that, but one can always hope.
I suppose Gordon Brown had a chance when he announced that 1999 was going to be New Labour's year of delivery, but there is certainly not freedom of information as regards his own travel plans. We seem to have fallen a long way short from what was promised and what we believed to be the case when this Government came to power. That is a great pity because freedom of information is not a threat to good government, but a great aid to it. The one outstanding example of it in this country is the publication of the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. I remember that at the time that was announced we were told that it would be disastrous to let the public, and the press in particular, into the deliberations which are so close to the centre of one of the most important parts of the affairs of state in this country. But it has proved to be the absolute opposite.
What causes scare stories and the press to go off the deep end; to act irresponsibly; cause chaos and refuse to recognise good arguments, is secrecy. One does not have to have worked in MAFF to recognise that, but it helps. Does any noble Lord believe that the BSE crisis would have been made worse had MAFF been open

293
right from the beginning with the information that it had about what was happening? Does any noble Lord really believe that our understanding of the disease and the progress of the epidemic would have been made worse by making all the research information which MAFF had available to researchers worldwide? Obviously not, because when MAFF at last made that information available worldwide we had an explosion of understanding of the disease. Does any noble Lord really believe that we would have handled the crisis in a worse way had we made the public aware at every stage of what lay behind our decisions on the BSE crisis so at each stage the public could have been taken along with the decisions we made or indeed have had the chance to change, by their opinion, the decisions that we made?
That could not possibly be the case. When we were at last forced to come clean as to what had been happening there was such an enormous difference between what we had been saying was the case and what it actually turned out to be. We were forced to take panic measures at enormous cost to this country, the beef industry, our finances and our reputation abroad.
Openness in MAFF would have made a great difference and a great improvement to the whole conduct of government. I see the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I hope I may call her my noble friend for a moment. I remember happy days when she asked Starred Questions and I answered them for MAFF. I would get my MAFF briefing papers and then go along to the noble Countess to find out what was really going on because the noble Countess was always much better briefed than I was and indeed she usually had more MAFF papers than I had been given. Therefore I was able to ask officials for the ones that I was missing and give the noble Countess a reasonable answer at the end of the day.
Secrecy is a culture and although MAFF is perhaps exceptional, all of Whitehall is like that. The other day I asked officials at the Department for Education for a copy of the school performance tables. I wanted them on disk. That is something they must have provided to every newspaper in the land. However, my request was refused and I shall say why later. The culture of secrecy is so deep that they will not even release something which is already public information in every library. Indeed you can go to your local authority and get that information, but they would not provide it to me on disk. Information on paper is fine—I was offered a deep box full of it—but they would not provide it to me on disk. That is the culture in Whitehall. Those of us who have tabled Questions for Written Answer will be used to the obfuscation and evasion which greets inconvenient questions. Some of us have perpetrated that. I put up my hand and confess to taking the easy way out occasionally, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, rarely if ever falls into that trap. As I say, it is a culture which is Whitehall-wide. To change that kind of culture you need a radical reform. It is no good trying to do it by bits and pieces.
294
I place all credit for this Bill with the Campaign for Freedom of Information and its director, Maurice Frankel, who has been fighting this fight a great deal longer than I have. I am a relatively new recruit. This Bill is a simple and radical Bill and is written from the point of view of the citizen and not the bureaucrat. It founds itself on the rights of the citizen to have access to government information. It overlays that with a system of exemptions by which the Government can claim that particular bits of information should not be released because they would be harmful to good government or to other important interests. It allows for the supervention over all that of the public interest so that even the darkest corners of government can be penetrated when the public interest demands it. It sets out the duties of public authorities and the charges they may make for information and it institutes an information commissioner to make sure that the individual citizen can have access to the information to which he has a right without undue cost. It does all this in eight-and-a-half pages. If, and when we see the government Bill it will be a great deal longer, a great deal more complicated and, I am sad to say, it appears that it will be designed to achieve much less.
If everything we hear is to be believed, the Government have been seduced by office, have been "done in" by Sir Humphrey, and have produced in their White Paper, and in what we think will appear in a Bill, clauses which we expect will destroy entirely the purpose of the Bill. The first and most deadly of these is the test which information must pass in order that government can have a right to withhold it. In this Bill the test is set at substantial harm. The release of the information has to do substantial harm to defined interests in order for it to be allowed to be withheld. In the Government's White Paper that test is reduced to harm in respect of the Government's own deliberations. We are told that that reduction of the test to straight harm is now to be applied to the whole Bill. But harm can be anything. It can be a speck of dandruff on a shoulder of an official or some minor hair out of place.
The reason the Department for Education refused to give me the performance tables was that it had heard that someone thought that some little minor aspect of this information might be wrong. Until it had completed its investigations into that it would not release it to me. I refer to some little percentage point change somewhere in some figure for some school which I would probably never even look at in information which was already published. If that kind of thing can be held by a government department to do harm—under a straight harm test of course there is potential harm there, some school somewhere might be offended by some use I might make of this—and if that is the test, there is no freedom of information and there is no release of information. There is nothing that the Bill achieves, however long and complicated it may be.
We must have the idea of harm qualified. If "substantial" is the wrong word—I understand why the Government feel frightened by the word "substantial"— the Government can perhaps downgrade it to "material" or perhaps adopt the Irish approach in the Act that they brought into force at the beginning of this year where

295
they require that harm is subject to a balance of public interest test. Either of those would do, but straight harm would destroy the Bill
Secondly, there are other areas too where the Government are moving so far away from the principle of freedom of information as to deny the principle itself. They propose that entire sections of government should be, as it were, exempt from the Bill. They say that policing should not be subject to the Bill. In the Bill that I have drafted I do not use the term "policing", but I say that the investigation of crime should be exempt. The difference between those two approaches would be apparent to the Lawrence family. The way the Government have drafted the White Paper—one has no reason to think the Bill will be any different—the Lawrence family would have had no right to any information about how the investigation into their son's death was conducted. That clearly does not constitute freedom of information if they cannot have the right to dig down and find all that we now know has happened in the course of that investigation.
The third area that really concerns me is the blanket exemption that the Government appear to wish to give to their own deliberations. Again I agree that perhaps my Bill is drafted pretty strictly. Starting from my position, I think it ought to be. I recognise that perhaps some compromise is possible. But if we start from the Government's position and look at what would have happened in the case of MAFF and the BSE crisis, MAFF would not have had to release any of the vital information. Nothing would have had to have been done by MAFF which would have made, or could have made, that crisis better, or better managed, or better governed. If we proceed along the route that appears to be mapped out by this Government, we shall have a freedom of information Bill perhaps some day, but it will be a travesty of a freedom of information Bill.
With this, my swansong, I hope that I can tempt the Government back onto the path that they once trod. I hope that I can blow on the embers of their promises and light again the fires of an ambition that filled their soul in opposition. As Tony Blair said,
"A Freedom of Information Act would signal a culture change that would make a dramatic difference to the way that Britain is governed. The very fact of its introduction will signal a new relationship between government and the people: a relationship which sees the public as legitimate stakeholders in the running of the country and sees election to serve the public as being given on trust. That is my view of how government should be".
It is mine too.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Lucas.)
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the way in which he has introduced this Bill. I had not realised that in that formidable frame such a radical, liberal heart beat. I for one was delighted to hear what I thought was a powerful and eloquent statement about the importance of a true freedom of information Bill. If it is the noble Lord's swansong, it is a beautiful swansong. I for one rather
296
hope that at the noble Lord's early age for this House it will not be his swansong and we may hear him address the issue on many further occasions.
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord on some of the elements in the Bill that he has put before the House. I wish to refer to them relatively briefly. The first clause deals with the purposes of the Bill. That is important because of course it enables those who may later interpret the purposes of the Bill to be able to point to what it is—if the Bill is passed—that Parliament intends.
Clause 1 sets out powerfully and well the reasons for a freedom of information Bill. It goes a long way towards confirming the statements of the noble Lord about the access to information, the need for citizens to have a right to information, and much more.
I also draw attention to Clause 2, in particular the right that it gives to people to correct information about them. We live in a world where, increasingly, the fates of people are bound up with the information that is recorded about them—information about their credit cards and information that will be increasingly put on a smart card as the Department of Health and Social Security and other departments adopt that principle. If that information is flawed, then the persons concerned— innocent though they may be—may get into very, very deep difficulties. It is absolutely crucial that individuals should have access to the information held about them in government offices or local government offices, and have the absolute right to correct that information and insist that the correction is made. As far as possible, any repercussions flowing from false information should be dealt with by the government department or local government department concerned.
I also congratulate the noble Lord on Clause 4, which suggests that there ought to be a defence of the public interest against the Official Secrets Act—something my party has long believed in. There have been enough occasions now where we can look back to the significance and importance of somebody being able to use the defence that they have spoken out in the public interest against the culture of secrecy, as the noble Lord rightly called it.
Let me also pay tribute to the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Dr. David Clark. He devoted himself with great intensity and commitment to the concept of a freedom of information Bill. He saw that as being achieved by his Ministry. It is a great shame that a man who gave such commitment and hard work to trying to bring about something which was, after all, in the Labour Party's manifesto—and therefore close to sacred—should have lost his job through the sheer intensity with which he pursued what he genuinely believed to be government policy. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I hope that Dr. Clark has a future ahead of him as well as a past behind him.
Let me say just a little about the history—the rather sad, miserable, timid history—of the efforts to get freedom of information in this country. I shall begin, I trust, without embarrassing the Minister too much, but

297
it is perhaps worth reminding him and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, that in 1974 the Labour Party manifesto said:
"We shall replace the Official Secrets Act by a measure to put the burden on the public authorities to justify withholding information".
The date was 1974. At that time, my noble friend Lord Jenkins was Home Secretary, and he commenced drafting a freedom of information Bill. He subsequently went to the United States in order to consult people there about his proposed Bill. When he returned he was informed by a number of Members of the Cabinet that it might be rather expensive. Unfortunately for the future of freedom of information, that view was confirmed by President Ford, who was not enthusiastic about the strength of the freedom of information legislation in the United States. Despite my noble friend's efforts, freedom of information was not proceeded with in the last year of Lord Wilson's Cabinet or in the first year of the Cabinet of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
Instead what happened was a typical British compromise. It was called the Croham directive. The noble Lord, Lord Croham, drafted a directive which asked departments to commit as much information as they possibly could to the public domain. The response was extremely varied. In one or two departments there was quite an enthusiastic response. Those departments were not the most prime or senior departments of government. In departments such as the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence—understandably—and, as one might expect, the Home Office, where at the time I had recently served, there was deep reluctance to make too much information available, on the general principle that it was probably not very good for the public to know too much about what the departments were doing. Within a year and a half, the Croham directive had proved to be an ineffective weapon. Certainly it was well-intentioned, but it was not very effective in extending the right of freedom of information.
Subsequent to that, under the government of John Major, an attempt was made to establish a code of practice for open government. That code of practice laid down access to public information as a method, if you like, of Civil Service behaviour. But he did not attempt to institute a statute giving citizens the right to freedom of information. It was well intentioned, and I would like to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister. In his citizens' charters he also attempted to give citizens information of importance about public services. But again—as is so typical of the history of our country in dealing with this extremely contentious issue—there is always a willingness to go halfway and no willingness to take the matter to completion.
Most recently, we have the manifesto of the present Government, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. That gave a commitment to freedom of information, which again, as in every single case, is now being steadily peddled away from, if I may use that phrase. Why is it then that we, unlike so many other countries—New Zealand, Canada, Australia and others—seem incapable of addressing this issue in a bold and convincing way? The answer has been
298
expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: we have a profound culture of secrecy in this country. Sadly, that profound culture of secrecy is not just a Civil Service culture. Once Ministers, of whatever party, get into office, they become convinced that secrecy is a very useful way of limiting the amount of pressure that can be brought to bear upon them. It is human nature. It is not the special wickedness of Conservative or Labour Party members; it is simply terribly tempting to move away from the concept of freedom of information.
In the end, we are a country in transformation towards becoming, in the broadest sense, an active democracy; a country which has for a very long time been a passive democracy. Let me quote an example of what is meant by an active democracy. The words are those of James Madison, the third President of the United States of America:
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives".
We have always been rather reluctant to accept the idea of people as their own governors. That is true when one looks at the efforts finally to get devolution to Scotland and Wales and when one looks at the efforts in this country to get human rights recognised. I pay tribute to the Government that their efforts are now recognised. It is because there is so little consultation on legislation in this country that so much bad and faulty legislation is passed.
We are looking at the middle of that transition towards an active democracy, in which we involve the participation of our citizens and in which we truly respect them. I am entitled to say from these Benches— where for many years we have supported a comprehensive concept of democracy which embraces devolution, human rights, freedom of information and reform of the voting system—that we have had such a vision for very many years.
What does it mean? It means that there has to be a true freedom of information Act. That is only the beginning, not the end. It means that in the world of the Internet we should begin to publish legislation in draft on the Internet and invite our citizens to contribute to making that legislation as good as possible. It means that we should enable them to look at amendments, as we do, as they pass through Parliament. It means that we should consult about issues that will affect them profoundly, like legislation on health and education. It means that we should stop scorning the Republic of Ireland for having embarked on a huge consultation before its last Education Bill became law. It means that we should accept that citizens at local government level are entitled to the fullest possible information about those matters that affect them. And it means, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has eloquently said, that some of the most difficult and indeed unpleasant episodes of government failure of recent years might well have been avoided if we had made it easier for people to discover the truth.
I conclude by commending the noble Lord very much for what he has done. I hope we will have an assurance from the Government that they will not try now to move away from this radical, far-reaching and truly

299
democratic concept of informed and educated citizens taking part in their own government and that they will therefore be able to tell us tonight that they have every intention of moving ahead and of doing so in a way which fully embraces this brilliant and extremely exciting idea.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his introduction of the Bill and on his eloquent exposition of it.
To many of us who voted Labour at the last election, the proposals for a Freedom of Information Bill were a cornerstone of the party's programme. For me, only Scottish devolution was of comparable importance, and even that, while critical to those of us who live in Scotland, has a narrower application.
Freedom of information sits necessarily at the centre of any project to empower the citizens. Other rights are harder to exercise without it. Abuses of authority, inefficiency and waste all thrive in its absence. This has been well recognised in the Labour Party, which has a proud, though admittedly so far entirely verbal, tradition in this matter. I could use up the whole of this speech in quoting eloquent testimony from the Prime Minister on the subject, but of course the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already done so. Noble Lords will be familiar with the Right to Information Bill of 1992 and the Right to Know Bill of 1993 which testified both to the importance of the idea, and to a body of coherent thought with regard to it, within the Labour Party. The White Paper published in December 1997 continued and expanded this tradition. It was for the most part a robust and uncompromising document, setting out an impressive intellectual infrastructure for future legislation.
Subsequent events have been all the more disappointing. Draft legislation has been delayed several times. The reports one reads about progress are uniformly depressing. For instance, the Economist of 30th January, in a profile of the Home Secretary, said:
"[He] is at present blunting the teeth of the government's promised freedom of information bill, a landmark piece of liberal legislation which Labour made much of in opposition, but which it has already delayed for no good reason".
It would, of course, be rash to believe everything one reads in the papers; but the combined weight of a series of press reports to this general effect, of the repeated delays in the publication of the draft Bill and of the Home Secretary's own evidence last April to the Select Committee on Public Administration in another place creates a consistent if gloomy picture. I think it would be difficult for anyone to read a transcript of this evidence without receiving a very strong sense of defensiveness and of a much stronger focus on difficulties than on solutions.
The core of the Home Secretary's argument then is very relevant to the current Bill. He argued for a total exclusion of law and order matters from the Government's legislation on the basis that this legislation would use a disclosure test of "substantial
300
harm" rather than simply "harm", and that this created particular dangers in relation to such material handled by the Home Office. But the White Paper in fact proposes a "simple harm" test in some areas, notably policy advice, which seems to me completely to undermine that argument. The Bill we are considering tonight is far less feeble in this area, and I would choose it ahead of the White Paper. But I would accept a weaker test in some limited areas if the result is a minimal list of complete exclusions.
The Minister has answered Questions on this subject in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. He has been inclined to point—for instance, in his response to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, on 30th November and to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on 9th November—to individual actions by the Government and to the release of specific items of information. It would certainly have been a truly terrifying disappointment if the Government, coming to power on the programme I have described, had not taken a positive attitude to such individual cases. But I very much hope the Minister is not going to argue that any collection of such actions can substitute in any way for a simple and consistent right to information, exercisable by any citizen at will, in regard to his or her own concerns. The one cannot possibly replace the other, either in whole or in part.
Constitutional freedoms are sometimes thought of as distant, impractical things, of no importance to the common man and woman. That is untrue in general, but is particularly untrue here. It was a television programme about motor cars which, many years ago, first stimulated my own attention. A particular run of the Austin Allegro exhibited a distressing tendency for the back wheels to fall off at speed. But the interesting thing was that the detailed information used in the programme all came from United States government files, because it was impossible to obtain the same data in the United Kingdom.
That particular example would, I think, no longer apply. Over the years, in this country, a rather baroque and ramshackle structure has emerged of obligations to publish and rights to obtain various kinds of information. The trouble is that these rights and obligations have grown ad hoc without particular reference to one another. They are therefore considered as a totality, more or less incomprehensible and are no substitute for a general, simple, single right of wide application.
I should perhaps say one or two words about the Bill itself. I am a bookseller, not a lawyer, but it seems perfectly workmanlike to me. It comes recognisably from the same stable as the other Bills, sponsored by members of the Labour Party, which I mentioned earlier. It is, as far as I can tell, mostly consistent with the Government's own White Paper, though with the welcome difference of far fewer exclusions. In particular, it uses the "substantial harm" test, one of the key features of the White Paper. As to its immediate provenance, I should say how particularly pleasing it is to see support for these ideas in the Conservative Party as well as in other parties.

301
The Minister, answering a Question of mine in your Lordships' House in November, said, I think encouragingly, that the draft Bill would "bear due regard" to the substantial harm test. I realise that it is just barely possible that he will feel unable to tell us whether that will be the test used predominantly in the Government's draft Bill, but perhaps he could expand a little more on the phrase "bearing due regard".
I have said one or two less than kind words about a government to whom I am mostly sympathetic. I will be very happy to eat these words if the Government will stop doing things which confirm my worst fears and will publish soon a strong and coherent draft Bill building on their own White Paper, avoiding compromise and living up to their own past words.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I sense an entirely different atmosphere in this House from that on the previous occasion when I attended a debate on this subject, in February 1988, when I introduced the Second Reading of the Protection of Official Information Bill. Not only did I receive very little encouragement from my own Front Bench then, but on the part of the Labour Opposition there was a great hesitation and lack of enthusiasm to proceed with the proposed Bill. In fact, I was unable even to achieve a Committee stage for the Bill after it was given a Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will indicate not only his support for the principle and practice of my noble friend's excellent Bill but also that time will be found to discuss the Bill in detail in Committee.
The principles of the Bill have been explained by previous speakers. I agree with everything that has been said. Sound administration must prevail over journalism, history or mere curiosity. However, if information is readily available to the public from government departments and public bodies, there will be better-informed discussion of public affairs, and on that basis decisions on the part of government and public bodies will be more soundly based. The case has been made and well and soundly proved.
It is interesting that in 1979 the Labour Party promised time for a freedom of information Act in an attempt to win the crucial vote of confidence before Labour went out of office. I hope that the Labour Party is now thoroughly convinced of the need to proceed with such legislation sooner rather than later. In the meantime, as has been pointed out, since the Labour Party made that proposal in March 1979 we have seen freedom of information Acts passed in a range of old Commonwealth countries, in Israel, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and many others. Some of us have become used to seeking information about how Britain is run by consulting Amsterdam, Helsinki or Canberra, not to mention Washington DC.
I suggest that it is not a symptom of paranoia to insist that there is a natural conflict between ourselves and Sir Humphrey Appleby. We are the laity; they are the professionals. Of course they are irritated when members of the public seek to interfere in what they
302
believe they do best of all. They are particularly irritated when we seek to interfere on the basis of good, sound information. Information is power; it is something that Sir Humphrey wants to keep all to himself.
I must declare an interest. When researching the books that I have written on various controversial episodes of British history in Palestine in the 1940s and in Albania, when secret operations were engaged in, and on the forced repatriation of Russians in 1945, I have very often found that the criterion for closing documents that are more than 30 years old has been, not harm or significant harm, but embarrassment to officials or Ministers. That is illegal. Embarrassment to officials has never been a criterion for closing documents after the 30-year rule. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that embarrassment is not a reason for withholding any paper whatsoever.
I was intrigued by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the right of citizens to obtain information held about themselves. That subject is being debated in the setting up of the Europol organisation. I must declare another interest, in that I am an adviser to the Police Federation. I admire the self-restraint of the Home Secretary when, as has been alleged, his own MI5 file was placed in front of him and he said, "No, thank you, I will not look at it". I wish that he had looked at it. He would have been uniquely privileged to be able to find out whether the Security Service had been accurate, careful, considerate and sensible in chronicling the activities of Mr Straw in his immature student days. We should have been fascinated to know whether the Security Service got it right. Perhaps Mr Straw will think again and will look at his file.
As for the rest of us, I trust that this Bill, if it is passed, or the Government's Bill, if it supersedes it, will not provide that no Security Service files may be opened and no details of such files may be made available to a member of the public. Certain types of information can be extremely harmful to the individual. I accept that the test of substantial harm to the body politic must prevail. However, there is also the question of substantial harm to the individual. I hope that the Government will take that into account when deciding on this crucial matter of harm or substantial harm which has been mentioned by almost every speaker.
"Harm" can mean anything. It is too vague a judgment. There must be a qualification by the addition of "substantial", or some other adjective. I found that the Americans were sensible about it. They were quite happy to give me my own FBI file, even though they whited out or blacked out a few bits of it. However, that should not be a reason for withholding the whole file in such an event.
The code of practice instituted by the previous Prime Minister has been mentioned. I agree that congratulations are in order and that it should be approved and improved upon. I believe that the Government will consider it carefully and I am delighted to hear that they are finally ready to tackle the matter. I commend the Bill to the House and to the Government. I hope that it will at least provide them with guidance along the lines that, whatever threat there

303
may be to the body politic, it is essential that information be available. Otherwise, the test of our efficiency is left to our enemies.
9.9 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House tonight. I wholeheartedly support him.
However, I hesitate to acknowledge any friendship in your Lordships' House in view of the speech of the right honourable lady the Leader of another place last Monday. She seemed to be of the firm conviction that all Cross-Benchers are Tories. I assure noble Lords that I am fiercely independent: I have no intention of belonging to any political party.
My lack of any political affiliation will have been obvious in my campaign over the past seven years. It has been no different, whichever government has been in power. Noble Lords will be well aware that there have been a number of occasions when I have exposed answers that have not been totally truthful, both in the Chamber and in Written Answers.
It sounds awful to say that I am tired of not being told the truth. I have a wonderful example here of how civil servants and officials from public authorities work. This is a minute from the Centre for Communicable Disease Control and the Somerset Health Authority, written last summer to someone in the Department of Health. It is headed:

QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNTESS OF MAR
"We are assuming that there is a possibility that any information supplied to the Countess by the Minister could be made public. We have been extremely careful locally not to disclose any information … which could be considered clinical in confidence.
"Therefore, we are providing you with full background information. This is in italics which indicates that it is being supplied in confidence to you. Our view is that if you wish to provide any of this information to the Countess, or to make it public in any other way, that is a matter for you.
"In an attempt to be as helpful as possible (within the obvious time constraints) a suggested response for public consumption is given after the information relating to each point".
That was last summer. I know that it is not the only incident where such duplicity has arisen. I was trying to help the Department of Health at that time. It would have been much more helpful if I had been told the truth, which, incidentally, I already knew. I rarely ask a question without first knowing the answer. That is me giving free information.
What I want is for the Government to be able to acknowledge that there have been mistakes made and that these mistakes have been very human and understandable mistakes in most cases. Even within our family situation, when we have committed an act which has hurt some other member of the family, we all know that the first thing we do is blame that other member. We then try to cover up our tracks. I learnt early on not to try to do this because my granny used to say, "Be sure your sins will find you out". That has happened with the BSE problem with MAFF. I have a suspicion that it will happen with organophosphates.
I commend to the Minister, if he wants an example of the free issue of information, the BSE inquiry. There, absolutely everything is available to the public, from the evidence that is taken right through to the scientific papers. That is how, with the limitations that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other Members of the House, the job should be done. Most of the information I have on organophosphates has had to come from the United States of America, where, as noble Lords know, they have a freedom of information Act. Let us have a freedom of information Act in this country. I heartily support the noble Lord.
9.14p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I rise first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on his passionate and most excellent argument in introducing the Bill. Openness is an issue that I have raised on a number of occasions in this House, so this is a very happy moment for me to stand up and plug it again. I only wish that on this occasion we were debating the Government's own freedom of information Bill. I am sorry to see that tonight there is no Peer sitting behind the Minister who wants to take part in this Second Reading or even to share the enthusiasm for what the rest of us are debating this evening.
Given my involvement in the consumer world, particularly the National Consumer Council and the National Federation of Consumer Groups, I am particularly interested in a right of access to information for consumers. Unlike most noble Lords here this evening, I should like to focus on the public provision of that information, as my noble friend Lord Lucas did so eloquently. Every day up and down the country decisions are made by government and their agents that affect all our lives. Contracts are let on our behalf, such as computer systems to guide our ambulance services or buildings to house our hospitals. Services are provided directly to us by government, such as education and healthcare. Others are regulated on our behalf, such as the medicines that we take, the trains in which we travel and the food that we eat. Increasingly, we are dependent on government to regulate the arrangements that we make to provide us with care when we can no longer look after ourselves, and for our income when we retire.
We mostly take on trust that the Government spend our money prudently on the services that they buy for us. We take on trust that the Government give us good value when they provide services themselves. We also take on trust that they do a good job in regulating matters on our behalf. Occasionally, sadly, events erode that trust. The quality of cervical screening services or children's heart surgery is called into question. Even today one sees grieving parents who learn that the hearts of their dead babies have been removed, in many cases without their permission. Millions are spent on a computer system for ambulances that fails on its first outing. Train and ferry disasters show up worrying lapses in safety precautions. We are mis-sold pensions in huge numbers and over a long period, and redress is slow in coming. We have had an E. coli outbreak in Scotland and the incidence of food poisoning appears to

305
rise fairly unabated. The BSE inquiry has highlighted governmental and regulatory failures in protecting the human food chain from contaminated meat.
Actual failures, possible failures and fudges account for only a small proportion of government activity, and I know that we must keep them in perspective. But that said they can and do sap public confidence in what government do. This point was highlighted earlier this week with the publication by the Cabinet Office of a MORI poll commissioned by the Government. It showed a general lack of trust in government, particularly politicians, Ministers, civil servants and government scientists. A number of specific questions were asked but two in particular related to groups that people trusted most and least to advise on the risks posed by BSE. Those trusted least were, again, government Ministers (41 per cent.) and food manufacturers (28 per cent.). Those trusted most, by a fairly wide margin, were independent scientists.
I suggest that for government these are worrying findings. They highlight the need to rebuild trust. The same MORI poll showed that 94 per cent. of those surveyed thought that the Government should be more open about how they made their decisions. Eighty per cent, thought that if the Government were unsure of the facts, they should still publish the information that they had available. This is the reason why a freedom of information Act is so vital for consumers. It is the key to rebuilding public trust.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, agrees that access to information about risks and benefits should help consumers to make informed choices about the level of risk that they are prepared to accept, whether it be related to a medicine, pension or BSE. It is the power to choose. It should enable consumers to check that they pay a fair price for essential utilities and that profits earned by the privileged gas, electricity and water suppliers are fairly divided between customers and shareholders. It should enable us to see how the Government choose a contractor from a number of tenders. Perhaps it will restore the public's trust in Ministers and politicians about decision-making.
It boils down to a balancing act that every government must perform whenever they make important decisions: the public interest against commercial, economic and political interests. I am sure that such balancing will be all too familiar to my noble friend Lord Lucas, he having been a Minister of and spokesman for different departments in his time. What weight is each interest to be given? It may not always be appropriate to let the public interest prevail. But when the Government decide to give priority to another interest, perhaps even against the recommendations of their advisers, they should be prepared to say so and justify that decision to the public.
Times change and so do expectations. We live in an era in which we expect government to be open and accountable to us, in which we expect government to make important matters known as a matter of course, often before they are asked to do so, and where there is a presumption that openness will prevail unless someone can make a very strong case for secrecy.
306
We also live in an era where more people are likely to complain about poor goods or services. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to the Citizen's Charter. As the chairman of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force set up by John Major when Prime Minister, which considered complaints about public services, I found it gratifying to read the Cabinet Office's People's Panel's most recent MORI poll published last month. It indicated that people believe that the public sector has become better at listening to complaints over the past four years; and that is the trust and expectation that we need to build on.
What should be the test for allowing secrecy in an open culture? If we are talking about governing in the public interest, then wherever there is a public interest in openness—and in most cases there surely will be— the harm that openness will cause must be substantial indeed to justify secrecy. Nothing less than substantial harm—as proposed in the White Paper, Your Right to Know—should justify secrecy in a culture that is truly open and transparent; otherwise it will be very hard to convince consumers that cosy deals are not being sewn up by monopolies and the powerful, and special interests behind closed doors at the expense of the ordinary person in the street.
One particularly welcome initiative is the draft legislation establishing a new regulatory body, the Food Standards Agency. We are told that one of the agency's guiding principles is,
"to make the decision making process open, so that the public can make their views known, see the basis on which it makes its decisions and to enable people to reach an informed judgment about the quality of the Agency's decisions and processes".
That guiding principle has now been translated into legislation in Clause 18 of the draft Bill. It is required in that clause to keep records of decisions and the information on which they are based. The records should be,
"made available with a view to enabling members of the public to make informed judgments about the way in which it is carrying out its functions".
Hurrah, my Lords! That is a most welcome step.
I only hope that the Government are as serious about openness in other areas of our life. We are waiting for the Government's own draft freedom of information Bill which should make a significant difference to openness across government activity. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us today that the draft Bill will be published soon. Perhaps, too, he will confirm that the Government are still intent on sticking with the substantial harm test, and not weakening it, as recent press speculation suggests, as my noble friend Lord Lucas highlighted, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, alluded.
I hope that the next time we have a Second Reading debate on a freedom of information Bill in this House it will be in the next Session of Parliament and on the Government's own Bill implementing the White Paper commitments in full.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for seizing the moment and bringing forward this most important Private Member's Bill. I shall be supporting

307
him at every point in his laudable endeavour; and I am delighted to support him here tonight. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
9.22 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is a pleasure again to be on the night shift with the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Hoyle. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, reminded us of the wider aspects of freedom of information. Perhaps I may add one further aspect contained in an excellent parliamentary briefing by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I shall not go into its case today, but, as did the case made by the noble Baroness, it illustrates that freedom of information is much broader than simply freedom of information inside government.
I welcome the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Certain aspects of his speech sounded like that of a repentant sinner, but it was all the better for that. As a number of speakers have reminded us—my noble friend Lady Williams did so most clearly—freedom of information has been a commitment on these Benches for a quarter of a century, as it has been on the Government Front Benches; and it has been a clear Labour Party commitment over that period.
I was slightly worried when my noble friend Lady Williams began her historical review. I had some involvement in the commitments of the Labour Party in 1974 and 1979—my chequered past. No freedom of information Bill was brought forward during that period. My only defence, having worked inside No. 10 with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, during that period, is the American saying, "When you're up to your armpits in alligators it's often difficult to remember that the idea was to drain the swamp". We did not have a majority and we had opted for devolution in a complex and time-consuming way.
This time, the opposition parties were given a long time to prepare their thoughts on the issue, with 18 years of Conservative government. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party had a joint commission on the constitution which became known as the Cook-Maclennan Commission. The philosophy behind it was what my noble friend Lady Williams referred to as working towards an active democracy. It was a major exercise in cross-party co-operation, including the present Home Secretary and Government Chief Whip on the study group.
I am drawing attention to that because we saw constitutional reform in the round. We saw it as a package of interlocking measures to re-engage people with the process of government. One of the amazing aspects of the document, which was published by the two parties prior to the general election, was that, of the dozen recommendations it made, in less than two years more than half have been brought into legislation.
I do not accuse the Government of dragging their feet on constitutional reform. However, we consider that freedom of information was a cornerstone of that whole reform package. We believed that it would break down what has been referred to on a number of occasions as the culture of secrecy which pervades Whitehall. We
308
believed that it was important because it would tip the balance between an over-powerful Executive and an underperforming legislature: it is the reform which empowers the citizen by giving right of access to government and other official information for both factual information and policy advice.
The general election gave the Government a clear mandate for reform. We on these Benches were disappointed when the first Queen's Speech made no mention of freedom of information. But we looked forward to Dr. David Clark's White Paper. When it came, we were not disappointed. The Canadian High Commissioner commented,
"It leaves Canada trailing in the dust and represents nothing other than a breathtaking transformation in the relationship between the Government and the governed".
That is praise indeed from a country which has been a pathfinder and pioneer in freedom of information. But what happened? Then came the reshuffle, and goodbye Dr. Clark. The director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, to whom reference has been made, said:
"If any replacement is drawn from the massed ranks of the lukewarm the chances of an early and effective legislation must be poor".
Well, his worst nightmares became a reality. Responsibility for the freedom of information Bill was transferred to that Lubyanka for open government, the Home Office. Now, instead of the brave words of Dr. Clark, rumours began to abound of delay and watering down. We now have the situation in which the Conservatives and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are ahead of the Government in this matter. That is very, very serious.
I warn the Government that the need to break down Whitehall secrecy and the culture of secrecy is as serious and as urgent as ever. I remain an admirer of the Civil Service. I spent five happy years as a temporary civil servant. But I remember then—and I was reminded of this listening to the noble Countess, Lady Mar—that I was always fascinated by those documents which had at the top, "line to take", and then at the bottom, "if pressed". I always moved straight to "if pressed", to find out what was the real answer to any question. But the first inclination was not to give the full information. The Government should beware of the mandarins' embrace. It comes on very quickly and they are very good at it. I still believe that there is a strong need not just at the beginning of a government but throughout to have a political input of advice. Otherwise, Ministers succumb to that mandarins' embrace.
We must look at these issues in the round. I want to see the House of Commons extending the powers of Select Committees and not just making Parliament more family-friendly. There is a concern that the freedom of information commitment is being diluted. We have already talked about the delay. A number of noble Lords have addressed the question of "substantial harm". We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that and to finding out whether that commitment on "substantial harm" is to be watered down.
There is also the question of exclusions. The White Paper proposed that a number of authorities and functions should be excluded altogether from the scope

309
of the legislation. Rather than excluding such matters, appropriate exemptions should be relied on to protect information in those cases where disclosure is likely to be harmful. That is the line taken in the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
I turn to the powers of the commissioner. The White Paper proposed that the Act would be enforced by an information commissioner, as does this Bill. However, there should be no further weakening of the commissioner's role as a result of the Home Office review of those proposals. Again, we await the Minister's reply on those matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, said that perhaps we should not believe all we read in the papers. But only five days ago, Andrew Grice, a very well-informed political writer on the Independent, said:
"The Government has watered down its long-awaited plans for a Freedom of Information Act, which will be published next month".
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, the Labour Member for Thurrock, who follows these matters most closely, said:
"The White Paper was a ground-breaking document and should be enacted in full".
On these Benches, we believe that to be the case.
My noble friend Lady Williams talked about creating a participatory democracy. Like her, I am a great fan of American politics. Something which always gives me a tingle in reading American documents is that majestic start to the legislation: "We, the people". For a quarter of a century, we have been contemplating how to involve "We, the people" into the decision-making process and what the Bill describes as,
"better informed discussion of public affairs; … greater accountability of public authorities; and … more effective public participation".
Those are the opportunities which a really radical freedom of information Bill would bring.
There is a real opportunity for the Government, with all-party support, with Cross-Bench support, to bring forward such a radical Bill. I hope that in a short time the Minister will give us a reassuring recommitment to such a Bill. As I say, at this moment, there is all-party support and there are indications of public support for such an assault on secrecy. I sincerely hope that the Government will take that opportunity.
9.35 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing it forward this evening. It does not seem to have attracted very much support on the Government Benches. I am afraid the Minister is unsupported by his colleagues. It seems the only interest in this Bill is to Members of your Lordships' House who were former Members of the Labour Party. I suppose the answer is that freedom comes when one leaves the Labour Party, or at least an interest in freedom.
In the Queen's Speech the Government promised to publish a draft Bill—I am delighted to see that the Minister now has a supporter, even at this late hour. The central question is: where is that Bill? I spent last night
310
reading the Labour Party manifesto. I recommend it to anybody who suffers from insomnia. Under the paragraph, "Open government" it says,
"Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions. The Scott Report on arms to Iraq revealed Conservative abuses of power. We are pledged to a Freedom of Information Act, leading to more open government, and an independent National Statistical Service".
It seems that one has to read that piece of paper rather carefully. Although the manifesto says that they were "pledged" to a freedom of information Act leading to open government, I am told by insiders that the word "pledge" is less firm than "will introduce". The fact that the manifesto uses the word "pledge" allows the Government to wriggle out of their promise.
That provided an upset for the noble Lord's colleagues in another place. I understand that almost 80 Members of the other place, including 11 Commons committee chairmen and four ministerial aides signed a Motion calling for legislation to be introduced in the autumn. Then the Home Secretary who took charge of this policy was forced to make an announcement and said on 30th November:
"The Government will publish a … Bill early next year".— [Official Report, Commons, 30/11/98; col. 528.]
But here we are, early next year, and we have not yet seen one. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, this has been a Labour Party policy for a long time. It was first promised in Harold Wilson's 1974 manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was unable to include it in his time in government. What is interesting, is that the Labour Party has not expressed the slightest interest in this issue during the 18 years it was out of government. It has not been one of the issues they have pushed.
One of the difficulties is that the Government have a different view of what is meant by "information". Look at their record: their first step in government was to sack respected press and information officers. We now receive information by "leak" and by "spin". Every announcement has its gloss; selected stories are pushed; journalists are cajoled into writing the party line; Parliament comes second when announcements are made; and we read about Statements in the morning paper. The tradition that they first come before Parliament seems to have gone by the board in many cases.
However, those who live by spin, die by spin and the demise of the "King of Spin" shows that. And with regard to the media, the worm has turned. The Government have lost their honeymoon period and are now trying to bypass the national media. Government Ministers appear more in magazines than in the press. We have seen the Prime Minister on "This Morning" with Richard and Judy. No doubt we shall soon see Ministers on cooking programmes. Of course, they are experts on every subject from football to Buddhism. We have a Government who are now dependent on trivia. We sometimes cannot get information from government departments by asking questions; it has to be forced out. Consider the difficulty in getting information about the travel expenses of Labour Ministers. The reason we did

311
not get it is because the only people I can see who live like Lords are government Ministers when they travel abroad.
On a more serious note, concerns have been raised about, for example, genetically modified food. The Government are secretive about their meetings with that industry and are not telling us what they are doing. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has been involved in a long campaign on this issue. Have the Government not learnt from the mistakes made regarding BSE? They should have, but they have not; and I am sorry about that.
As regards government information, this week a Commons Select Committee published a report about the Sandline affair. Originally, the Foreign Secretary seemed to blame the civil servants. Now, the Government blame the committee. That is surprising as the majority of members of that committee are Labour MPs. This is a government who have to prove that they are committed to freedom of information.
Earlier this week the Minister and I debated the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill. Editors are concerned about restrictions on press reporting under that legislation. However, I must give credit where credit is due. The Minister has kindly agreed to look at these issues and I am sure that he will. I hope that it will work better than one instance I experienced with the Data Protection Act. The noble Lord will remember that he and I debated that Bill in this House.
A month ago my bank informed me that someone had applied for a credit card using my name. I wrote to the bank asking if, perhaps, I could have the information that it was holding on me. I received a polite reply stating that that was not possible. I wrote to the Data Protection Commissioner enclosing correspondence and asking if, perhaps. 1 could have the information I required. I received a wonderful letter stating that he did not think I could have the information because such information was not about me; it was about someone who was purporting to be me. I hope to win that battle and I shall certainly inform the Minister if I do not.
I believe that the public has a right to know about many issues. The Government profess that they want an open government. That is important because otherwise the great issues we face are trivialised. The debate on Europe has become: more about the cost of changing one's holiday money into euros or euro traveller cheques rather than the real concerns of accountability and democracy in Europe.
I am sure that the Minister will give a confident answer this evening about the Government's policy. He is an honourable man. He will valiantly defend the Government with style and charm. No doubt he will gild his speech with the odd clever jibe at the Opposition and our record on this issue, and I accept what that record is.
However, the Minister must address the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. He must state those parts with which he agrees and those with which he disagrees and state whether the Bill will be allowed Committee and Report stages in this House. I believe that my noble friend Lord Lucas said that the Minister faced a difficulty of being seduced by Sir Humphrey. I think that is perhaps a little unfair on the Minister.
312
There is one point on which we might agree. I think it is wrong to blame civil servants. I do not blame civil servants for any of the things that happened when we were in power, when previous Labour Governments were in power, or indeed, while the noble Lord is in Government. Bad government comes from weak Ministers. Ministers have the power and they must accept the responsibility. I hope that the Minister agrees.
We look forward to the Government's response. I am sure that the Minister has a lot to say about his proposals as well as about the Bill proposed by my noble friend.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing the Bill. I thank also all those who have spoken. It is almost breath-taking to have to reply, but I shall do my best.
I agree that bad government is the fault of weak Ministers, just as was selling-off the railways at £10 billion under value. I cannot remember how many times I asked the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for details about, for example, the consequences of the "Sea Empress" disaster and answer came there very rarely, and, more often, came there none. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned the Scott Report. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I was in the Chamber and can remember the justified bitterness with which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, complained that he was a former Chancellor and a former Home Secretary but he was being given the infinite courtesy of five or 15 minutes to read that vast report so that he could give a response. Quite rightly, the noble Lord refused that insulting offer. Was that the result of weak Ministers? Yes, it was the result of weak Ministers in a government in which both noble Lords served vigorously. I am trying not to be unduly harsh.
Ministers do not hide behind officials at the Home Office. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Longford is not in his place because he would like to hear me say that one of the first things that we did was to do away with the relics of "Howardism"—my noble friend has been waiting for me to use that word for some time. We have said that when things go wrong in the Prison Service, we shall take the blame and the responsibility and that we shall not blame the Prison Service.
I am amazed to be chided that we had not been all that interested for 18 years. I seem to remember that the Conservatives were, apparently, in office for 18 years and did absolutely nothing, except to batten down the hatches in the most ignoble way.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we have done nothing since coming to power. The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, said that he did not want to hear simply a list of our actions. Well, I propose to outline them because they matter. We have been in power and in office for a little more than 18 months now. It is wrong to say that Jack Straw was forced into anything last November. One of the truly inexpressible, ineffable delights of membership of the Labour Party is attendance at the Labour Party Conference. I was there when Jack Straw made his speech. In September last

313
year, he said to rapturous applause—the Prime Minister repeated it—that we would introduce a freedom of information Bill. I am sorry that I am insisting on fact rather than rumour, but I do so insist. Following that, what was the important milestone in this Home Secretary's tenure of the Home Office? It was the setting up of the Lawrence Inquiry in public, and publicly funded, with the knowledge that everything would be laid out. If Jack Straw ceased to be Home Secretary tomorrow—I put that only as an absurd hypothesis—he would still have reaped the proper reward of courage and openness in an area where many of his predecessors would have done nothing.
Now, when the Chief Inspector of Prisons produces reports and they are checked for accuracy, I immediately sign them off for publication, whether or not their contents are popular. That is our policy. We do not hide behind anyone. The crime statistics are published immediately and regularly, not when convenient for party political purposes. I have spent the past year discussing with the Coroners' Society, those in the Prison Service and, more recently, the police service, how we can make inquests more open and more readily accessible to those who have the prime requirement for that; namely, the families of those who may have died in state-coerced circumstances. I do not mind if that is called a collection of actions. I believe that it is a noble collection of moral actions.
I repeat for at least the sixth time in your Lordships' House, either orally or in Written Answers, that this year we have undertaken to provide a draft Bill for the Public Administration Committee chaired by Rhodri Morgan. We have written to him and the Home Secretary and I have discussed it. I repeat the promise that the Bill will go for pre-legislative scrutiny to Rhodri Morgan's committee. That is not a sign of a lack of confidence or wanting to hide. Is it going to be suggested that somehow Rhodri Morgan has been recently emasculated or had his teeth drawn? I do not believe that anyone could say that he was not a vigorous proponent of the ideas put forward this evening. He has at least been consistent. His voice was heard over 18 years, but perhaps he was speaking rather quietly and nobody heard him.
What else have we done? I agree that we have done small things, but they are indicative ones. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me for the contract on Campsfield House, which is the detention centre. It was provided and lodged in the Library with only the commercial and confidential material removed. The principle was there. The Home Secretary has published almost the entirety of the IND casework notes, volume after volume, for immigration and asylum seekers. No one thought of doing that before, but we have done it.
That is the collection of actions. I now come to something which may be more significant. We have introduced and delivered two enormously important Bills, the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. We promised to do that and we have done so. They are intended to transform the way in which this country is governed. I say as firmly as I can—and I cannot over-emphasise—this Government's commitment to the
314
introduction of a Freedom of Information Bill. There is now growing a new relationship between government and the public. There is no doubt about that. The wind has changed. As the noble Baroness said, human rights, devolution—very rare acts of an over-centralised Government and Executive volunteering to devolve power to those to whom it properly belongs. We have done that.
We believe that a Freedom of Information Act is the central part of our agenda for change. We mean to introduce it. It is not a case of the Government's honeymoon disappearing. I cannot remember whether Mr. Hague's opinion rating is minus 27 or 28, but I do not believe that any sensible indicator of public opinion shows that the Government's honeymoon is over: in fact, quite the opposite. I believe that the people of this country want reform to continue and are pleased with the way in which it is about to continue even though it means that four or five speakers in your Lordships' House this evening may no longer be here to share our joy and amusement late in the evening.
We are not approaching these matters in a frivolous way. I have to chide the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The Home Office is not the Lubyanka. In fact, I do not believe that it has ever been run in such an open way for the past 20 years. As regards the Human Rights Bill, for example, we invited doughty campaigners like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to participate. He came regularly. There were also visits from Liberty and Charter 88. On the question of freedom of information, we asked Mr. Frankel to join us. He has given us advice and so have many of his colleagues who have an interest in this field. I do not believe that anyone can suggest that we have not been open about consultation.
It has been said that the prize was snatched away from the former Minister in charge and given to a Minister who is notoriously secretive. I am perfectly happy to listen to any complaints about the Home Secretary, but I cannot imagine any legitimate ones. To say that he is secretive or not open is simply not true and neither is it fair. By the collection of actions I have demonstrated a reasonable defence of what I have said.
We are going to deliver a Freedom of Information Bill. It is a perfectly simple concept, but it is not an easy thing to construct. Of course, departments are notoriously territorial, but they do have legitimate interests. The interests, for instance—I take them at random—of the Ministry of Defence are not coincident always with the interests of MAFF and they are not coincident with the interests of the Home Office. It is foolish and I think extremely short-sighted and unduly contentious to suggest the opposite.
We took over responsibility for this matter essentially in August. We want to develop the policy by means of all kinds of changes. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said. What we are about is trying to change the culture of this country. I object to the suggestion that there is a government and the governed. I believe that public information properly describes itself. It is essentially the property of the public. However, it is not every piece of information which is capable of being disclosed fully and contemporaneously. Anyone who

315
suggests the contrary is, I think, living in a dream world and has not attended to the experience of the more liberal regimes that obtain in other countries.
I was asked to indicate and demonstrate yet again the commitment of the Government. I say again that we remain fully committed to freedom of information, to promoting a radical change across government in the way government conduct business, and to a new relationship between government and the citizens they serve. I do not think I can make it plainer than that. The present Bill which the noble Lord has put forward—I agree he has done us all a service in bringing it forward—has certain flaws. I shall not speak for too long as I have already consumed 11 minutes of your Lordships' time. However, it is not, we think, adequately drawn. Clause 2(2) proposes that the Bill should override,
"any statutory or common law prohibition on the disclosure of information".
That simply cannot work. One cannot simply ride roughshod like that. It is a simple mechanism but it is not practicable. There is a long list of legislation which impinges on freedom of information. Some requires the disclosure of information, some the withholding of information. Every single example and every legislative provision has to be looked at discretely. It cannot simply be overridden in that way.
We have international obligations, after all. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, spoke about data protection. We are, of course, subject to European directives, which is why we were obliged promptly and timeously to bring in the Data Protection Act. We have obligations in the European context with regard to access to environmental information. We simply cannot produce a Bill that would be found to be unlawful in the European context.
There are other matters which are of importance which would have to be amended or deleted. There is no mention of the Scotland Act or the Northern Ireland Act, for instance. Clause 12 simply states that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland. That is at odds with the principle of devolution which I mentioned. There is no mention of Scotland. I do not raise these questions to be dismissive of the effort that has gone into the Bill. I am simply indicating, not in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that there are deficiencies in the Bill. I could go on but I think it is rather an arid exercise. I am simply responding to the invitation to say what is wrong with the Bill. There are difficulties but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put forward his Bill in that spirit. I think that what he has wanted to do is to establish the following principle, with which I agree and with which I believe everyone who has spoken this evening agrees. We want to approach this matter in a new and more open way.
I cannot give your Lordships a precise timetable. In any event I cannot anticipate the next Queen's Speech. However, I reiterate that we intend to have a Bill. We want it to be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny—which your Lordships normally think is a good idea—in Rhodri Morgan's committee. If your
316
Lordships wish through the usual channels to seek the same scrutiny here, that is of course a matter for the usual channels.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I realise that he cannot pre-empt the Queen's Speech. However, will he give the House an assurance that the draft Bill will be published during this current Session?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords. I do not think I can be more free with information than that!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I apologise for intervening as I have not spoken in the debate. I am particularly interested in which month of the current Session the Bill will be published as those of us who intend to take an interest in the Government's Bill when it comes forward anticipate that there will be a great deal of work to be done in researching the issues and studying the Government's proposals in the detail that the Bill will contain. It would be of considerable assistance to know in which month we may see the draft Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it will be of considerable assistance to me. I shall have to do a fair bit of reading myself.
I cannot go any further than I have. I reiterate that this is a commitment that we wish to deliver. I repeat, it is in the context of human rights, data protection and devolution.
Let me go back to human rights and data protection. The noble Viscount was of great assistance on data protection, and we spent a long time making sure in the context of public and published information that we fully protected the Article 10 rights of the press. We went to a lot of trouble on human rights. We went to a lot of less conspicuous trouble—both the noble Viscount and I were party to these discussions—about the protection of the press interest. Freedom of information, in other words, in the context of data protection. It was a rather less spectacular Bill—not quite as headline sexy as human rights—but it was still very important indeed.
Of course we support the principle behind the Bill. I do not mean to be tendentious when I say that the Bill does not have the necessary detail—it is too general— and it has certain deficiencies. I cannot support the Bill. Of course, in keeping with the usual traditions of the House, we shall not oppose a Second Reading today. What happens thereafter about timing is of course for the usual channels. I know it is getting late now, but let me finally reiterate that we intend to produce this Bill— Jack Straw has said so, the Prime Minister has said so, and, very low in the pecking order of humankind, I have said so again tonight.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has spoken tonight. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, got it right when he called me a sinner called to repentance. I feel like a sinner called to repentance, and

317
a grievous sinner indeed, who finds himself among a congregation of the godly and the wise, but is suddenly struck by the fear that the priest is in the brothel that I used to manage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we could have a little more information about that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given me a sort of comfort. I am delighted by his reaffirmation of the principle. I and everyone else who has listened this evening will await the Government's Bill with great interest.
The noble Lord has said two things about the timing: he said "this year" and "this Session". This is rather putting back the expected date, yet again, until maybe some time in June or July—or possibly into the autumn—when we were looking at a Bill which we were originally promised, or hoped we might see, in January or February. But the noble Lord did say that it would come before Rhodri Morgan's committee. Given that Rhodri Morgan will clearly assume high office in Wales in the not too distant future, I hope that it will be exactly what it sounds like and be with us within the next few months. I do not see any elucidation forthcoming from the Minister. I think we will have to be content with what was said this evening and hope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made mention of my sudden appearance with liberal ideas. The previous Lord Lucas was a Minister in the Liberal
318
government. Perhaps I have something of him in me because we were both very much in favour of the reform of the House and the end of hereditary peerages. I suspect that there is a good deal of support across the House for that this evening.
I shall be sorry to see the House lose the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, who I feel brings a great feeling of gravitas and depth of understanding. He will at least have the opportunity to vote for the Labour Party in the next election too and help to keep their support at its present level.
As always, I am grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her words. She was a doughty opponent when I was in government; I soon learnt that I had very carefully to question everything that I was told because she always knew more than I, and knew exactly what was going on. As she said, it was more to make the government honest. Looking back on it, I appreciate it enormously. I hope that she will find that we have a Bill worthy of her aspiration.
I am grateful for everything that has been said today. I do not know where the Bill will go now. It rather depends on what the Government's plans are for their own Bill. But if, in a month or two, we have had no further opportunity to see the real thing, we might look to see whether we can have an opportunity to discuss some of the weightier matters in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  Civil Service Fast Stream Recruitment
  Civil Service Fast Stream Recruitment
  Prison Service Quantum Project: Review
  Prison Service Quantum Project: Review
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Royal Commissions
  Royal Commissions
  Peers' Age Profile
  Peers' Age Profile
  Correction to Official Report
  Correction to Official Report
  NHS Boards: Peers Serving as Members
  NHS Boards: Peers Serving as Members
  Iraq
  Iraq
  US Contacts with Iraqi Opposition in UK
  US Contacts with Iraqi Opposition in UK
  Worshipful Company of Scriveners: Monopoly
  Worshipful Company of Scriveners: Monopoly
  General Pinochet: Arrest Warrant
  General Pinochet: Arrest Warrant
  Public Sector Research: Exploitation
  Public Sector Research: Exploitation
  Electricity Supply from EU
  Electricity Supply from EU
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
  Fish Movement Regulations: Infringement
  Fish Movement Regulations: Infringement
  Thomas Hamilton: Sergeant Hughes' Report
  Thomas Hamilton: Sergeant Hughes' Report
  Scotland: Shotgun Use
  Scotland: Shotgun Use
  Adult and Community Learning Fund: Award
  Adult and Community Learning Fund: Award