Sitting of 12 January 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Greenhouse Gases
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What representations he made at COP4—the fourth conference of the parties—on the trading of greenhouse gas emission permits as a mechanism for annexe 1 countries to meet their targets under the Kyoto protocol. [63565]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): During his address to the recent climate change meeting in Buenos Aires, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of the importance of domestic policies to tackle climate change, while recognising the need to continue dialogue with other countries to develop rules for emissions trading. The rules must ensure environmental effectiveness as well as economic efficiency.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that mounting evidence of the severe impact of climate change means that any scheme for trading emissions must include secure monitoring and sensible transitional arrangements? Can he persuade the United States Government in particular to accept the reality of climate change and the need to take very prompt action?
    Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I played a significant role at the historic Kyoto meeting in shifting the United States from its zero target to a cut of 7 per cent. by the end of the conference. I cannot guarantee that we shall have the same success again, but we are committed to establishing a fair ceiling. It is written in the protocol that domestic action is the key issue and that flexible mechanisms must be supplementary to it. We shall be making every effort to ensure that that ceiling is in place, properly monitored and transparent.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, thanks to the previous Government's leading role in this area and his acceptance of our policies, this country is very well placed not only to give a lead, but to bring others on board, including the United States? He said something about
    90
    mechanisms that he proposes to use in order to bring that about. Will he also tell the House about his timetable, thereby dispelling the accusation of Friends of the Earth that the Buenos Aires conference set an agenda for inaction?
    Mr. Meacher: Our only inheritance from the previous Government in respect of climate change was the closure of more than half of this country's remaining pits, which was not, of course, in any sense aimed at an environmental objective. It had a completely different provenance. We of course intend to reach the targets. As a result of the significant role that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I also played at the Buenos Aires conference, there is agreement for the first time among 160 countries on an action programme, which incorporates targeted deadlines. There are at least three in the work programme that was agreed. We intend to meet them—if we can, by COP6.

    Right to Buy
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What estimate his Department has made of the impact on take-up rates of his decision to reduce the discounts to council tenants under the right-to-buy arrangements. [63566]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): About 1 per cent. of council and housing association tenants exercise their right to buy each year. We estimate that about 90 per cent. of buyers will be unaffected by the changes to discounts, and of the rest—0.1 per cent. of social tenants—many will still be able to buy. We expect the percentage of social tenants buying their home to remain at about 1 per cent. each year.
    Mr. Swayne: Do Ministers want to encourage tenants to aspire to own their own homes?
    Ms Armstrong: Our commitment to home ownership is very clear. We want to ensure that anyone has a realistic chance and a sustainable opportunity to buy their own home. We also have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure that any programme that we introduce is value for money. The programme costs the taxpayer about £400 million a year. We think that we can get better value for money.
    Ms Margaret Moran: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, "Reviewing the Right to Buy", which raises some concerns about changes to right-to-buy discounts, especially the effects on social exclusion? It argues for a flat-rate purchase grant instead of discounts. Will she comment on its proposals?
    Ms Armstrong: I am aware of that report, which we are considering—as part of the general consultation. We have received representations from around the country, including the local authority of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), which fully supports our proposals. We will take into account all those representations, along with the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister recall that her party has historically been

    91
    opposed to the right to buy for council house tenants, and that it has been motivated by both ideology and spite? The measure to cut the discount by £12,000 in London and £38,000 in the north-east will be seen as nothing less than that. Does she accept that that will cause hardship to tenants hoping to buy their houses? Is she prepared to introduce transitional relief to lessen the impact of that attack on home ownership?
    Ms Armstrong: Once again the hon. Gentleman gets his facts wrong. The Labour party did not oppose the principle of the right to buy—[Interruption.] We said that money should be invested in social housing to make sure that people in the rest of the country who needed houses could get them.
    Mr. Burns: Stop digging.
    Ms Armstrong: I am not digging. It is the hon. Gentleman who has dug deep and cannot get out. We are in favour of home ownership, but we are also in favour of people who rely on social tenancies having a decent choice. That is why we have allocated £5 billion to put right social housing, which the Conservative Government neglected. For the first time in the history of surveying, council housing conditions deteriorated under the previous Administration. We will put a stop to that.

    Devolved Budgets
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the status of the leaked document relating to control by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies of budgets currently managed in London. [63567]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): My hon. Friend should know that Governments do not comment on leaked documents.
    Mr. Dalyell: How about putting in the Library of the House the respectable case for central funding?
    Mr. Caborn: I am speaking not on behalf of the Library of the House, but for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I do not believe that that comes within our expenditure.
    Mr. John Swinney: Bearing in mind the fact that the Minister's answers on the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be recorded in the Official Report, does the Minister believe that it would have been better for the issue to have been raised in public, rather than appearing in a leaked memo, and for the House to have had the opportunity for scrutiny and debate?
    Mr. Caborn: We deplore all leaks from Government Departments, but there has been adequate time to discuss on the Floor of the House and in Committee the financial arrangements for devolution for Scotland, and there is secondary legislation dealing with that as well.

    Home Buying and Selling
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What representations have been received as a result of the Government's consultation on reform of the processes of home buying and selling. [63568]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): "The key to easier home buying and selling" was published on 7 December 1998. Since then, there has been a steady stream of responses on a wide range of issues. The consultation period ends on 31 March 1999.
    Dr. Naysmith: In view of the interest that has been shown, is there any possibility of speeding up the process and starting to take action more quickly?
    Ms Armstrong: The matter has probably raised more interest among the public than any of the other consultation documents that we have issued. It is, therefore, important that we get it right. There has been considerable concern about the home buying and selling process. The Government decided to improve the situation so that people would know what they were getting into if they sought to buy their home, and so that they would have more confidence in the process. I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to speed up the process of home buying and selling. That is the weakness in the British system. To do that effectively, we need a proper period of consultation. We are committed to introducing proposals for action this year.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that we might all wish to speed up the process of house transfer, but that there are great dangers in imposing serious financial obligations on vendors? They might be required to pay for searches and surveys that might then go out of date before a potential purchaser was identified. Will she recognise the great concern, expressed by many professionals in this area, that the Government's thinking on this may be rather skewed?
    Ms Armstrong: We had the most extensive consultation ever with the professions in this area before we published the consultation document, and they were very involved in drawing it up. It is a Government document and the professions are now considering it in great detail. Anyone who reads it in full will see that it recognises the down sides of proposals as well as their benefits. Any consultation must take account of views on both sides, and we shall seek to do that. However, we are determined to improve the process, which brings frustration to many.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that the slowness at which houses in Britain are sold is a substantial problem, and that if we could speed up the process, it might be unnecessary to build quite so many new houses—the 4.4 million that Conservative and Labour Members alike are keen should not be built on green land? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if house turnover is improved, there will be slightly less need to build new ones?
    Ms Armstrong: I do not want to make assumptions that have not been fully researched, but my hon. Friend

    93
    may have a point. Other countries manage to get through the process much more speedily than we in Britain do, so we must consider what improvements can be made. That may bring the wider benefits of which my hon. Friend speaks; it will certainly bring benefits for consumers and citizens, for so many of whom this is the most important financial decision in their lives. They want the system to work better.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will the Minister comment on reports that her Government's urban task force is to recommend that those who own or buy houses on green-field sites should lose the right to mortgage tax relief? Does she accept that, although it is principally country dwellers who object to urban encroachment on green spaces, it would be a bit much even for her Government to expect only country dwellers to pay to prevent that?
    Ms Armstrong: I am not sure how that point can be taken into account in the consultation on the home buying and selling process, but the right hon. Lady shows some ingenuity. All I would say is that she should not believe everything that she hears on the radio.

    Regional Development Agency (Yorkshire and Humberside)
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: When the regional development agency in Yorkshire and Humberside will be officially established. [63569]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Regional development agencies for the eight English regions outside London were established on 14 December 1998 when the chairmen and board members were appointed. They will take over their executive functions on 1 April 1999.
    Mr. Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I am sure will be extremely well received by many people and organisations in Yorkshire and Humberside. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new RDA will be an excellent vehicle for driving forward the agenda of a better inward investment strategy for the region, as well as promoting better co-operation between the training and enterprise councils, both of which are critical to the future successful regeneration of Yorkshire and Humberside?
    Mr. Caborn: Absolutely. The RDAs will consider matters strategically. The previous Conservative Government left my hon. Friend's sub-region of South Yorkshire, with Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley, performing at around 66 per cent. of GDP per capita relative to the European regions' average. That is the dire mess in which the previous Administration left us. We are intent on tackling that in partnership with all the stakeholders in the regions. As my hon. Friend said, the TECs and inward investment will have an important role in that.
    Mr. David Curry: What concrete steps does the Minister envisage to prevent subsidy warfare on inward investment among the development agencies and, notably, between them and the Scottish Executive?
    94
    When will he publish the concordat which, it is alleged, sets out the rules of the game between Scotland and its Parliament and the English regions?
    Mr. Caborn: Common sense already prevails within the regional development agencies: three of the northern development agencies have already come together in relation to inward investment from north America. On the wider question of the United Kingdom, we shall return to that matter in a few weeks with the concordat on inward investment that we promised the House, and we shall deliver on that in the near future.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend on handling the introduction of regional development agencies with such speed. That is to the benefit of the regions. Some of the agencies in the regions were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis), but others should be working with the regional development agencies, including local authorities through their chambers. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be co-ordination of agencies to the best advantage of the regions, especially Yorkshire and Humberside?
    Mr. Caborn: Yorkshire and Humberside region was the first to get the regional chambers up and running; indeed, there is partnership between the chambers, which are mainly in the public sector, and the regional development agencies, which are mainly in the private sector. All the signs to date are that a strong working relationship is developing for the betterment of the eight English regions. Not one English region outside London is not performing above the average of the European regions in wealth creation, in GDP per capita terms.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Under regional development agencies, will Ministers still be able to favour their own constituencies in priorities for spending programmes? For example, how can the Department justify committing £53 million to the A1033 Hedon road improvement scheme in Kingston upon Hull ahead of so many other equally, or more, deserving schemes in other regions, such as the £41 million A63 Selby bypass, or the A3 Hindhead bypass, which is not in the Government's programme at all? Could it be that the Deputy Prime Minister is anti-car everywhere, except in his own constituency?
    Mr. Caborn: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's question has to do with regional development agencies; it shows marked ignorance on his part, because the matter does not come under their remit. However, in respect of the transport part of his question—which, I have no doubt, my hon. Friends with responsibility for transport matters will answer—that point was in the list of priorities that we set before the House and, indeed, was agreed by the House.

    Integrated Transport Policy
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What progress is being made in implementing the integrated transport policy. [63570]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I am pleased that my White Paper on the future of transport has been widely welcomed—[Laughter.] Every newspaper and every media programme endorsed the White Paper as the first step towards an integrated transport policy—something that the previous Government failed to establish. The White Paper was followed by the publication of daughter documents on roads, railways, road charging and shipping policy. Good progress is being made on the wide range of measures needed to deliver a better transport system for everyone, which we promised at the election.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that pressures on the legislative programme do not hinder the implementation of an integrated transport system, which is threatened by non-Labour councils such as SNP-controlled Moray, which increased fares for elderly people and those with disabilities by up to 2,000 per cent?
    Mr. Prescott: The 81 recommendations in the transport White Paper involve only 10 requiring legislative provision, six of which have already been provided. Many of the other 71 provisions are already being implemented; £150 million was provided for rural bus services, which has transformed such services in a number of areas. We are changing things: there will be a new railway regulator, a new franchise director and a new strategic rail authority, all of which will contribute to a better transport system with the provision of a record amount of £1.8 billion. That compares very favourably to the previous Administration's inadequate provisions.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman will know that Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset county council and Labour-controlled Weymouth and Portland borough council have as their No. 1 priority the building of the brown route that is desperately needed to ensure that we can utilise the port of Portland, which was abandoned by the Ministry of Defence. We are asked to send in more and more bids, but we never get a decision. When shall we have a decision?
    Mr. Prescott: What the hon. Gentleman has said about the failure to obtain a decision is as relevant to 18 years of a Tory Government as it is to 18 months of the current Administration. It appears that, all of a sudden, the priority of Opposition Members is to start finding out what is wrong with our transport system. Under this Government, an integrated transport system has been established for the first time. We have provided resources for that system, which will begin to be delivered this year and should be completed by the time of the next election.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: Those are welcome measures, but can my right hon. Friend assure us that the role of the bus in the integrated transport policy will be to meet social as well as commercial needs? People—especially in my constituency, and especially elderly people—currently feel that they are being given a raw deal by bus operators. It is difficult for them even to travel to local shops and hospitals, particularly if they live just outside the main, profitable routes.
    Mr. Prescott: As the White Paper says, the bus will play an extremely important part in providing alternatives
    96
    to private transport. More and more people are already using buses, both in cities and in rural areas. A new type of bus—the low-floor bus—is being provided in rural areas, and the evidence shows that services are more frequent. Moreover, new services to hospitals and railway stations are now being provided, because of the commitment that we have given to public transport. I assure my hon. Friend that the bus will play an extremely important part in our transport system.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The White Paper is welcome, but early action would be more welcome. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm reports that he hopes to introduce a Bill to provide a strategic rail authority during the current parliamentary year as a result of changes in the House of Lords relating to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill? Can he give us any idea when there will be a guarantee of a bus fares discount for pensioners throughout the country? Many areas currently do not provide such a discount, although, according to the estimate of the Minister for Transport in London, it would cost only £25 million.
    Mr. Prescott: The Government are committed to introducing a national minimum concessionary fare for pensioners, which would indeed cost about £25 million. I believe that only three local authorities provide no concessionary fares—all of them Tory controlled, which is hardly surprising, although so many Opposition Members talk of the importance of public transport. We also hope to introduce legislation to provide a strategic rail authority during the current Session, although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that will depend very much on what happens in the other place. I am already in the process of establishing a shadow strategic rail authority, whose chairman will be appointed next month.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the Government's reinvestment in rural transport, five villages in my constituency, between Harwich and Clacton, are now linked? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will continue that investment, and will try to repair the damage caused by the deregulation of buses under the previous Government?
    Mr. Prescott: As my hon. Friend implies, deregulation led to fewer buses on which fewer people travelled, which cost a great deal more. That is the opposite of what we intend, as the White Paper says. My hon. Friend has already seen the benefits of the extra resources that we have put into rural areas to begin to reverse the decline, and to provide public transport for people who desperately need it and were robbed of it by the last Administration.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that one of the most integrated transport policies is represented by the Jubilee line and its role in the millennium celebrations. If it is not fully operational by the end of the year, will the right hon. Gentleman resign?
    Mr. Prescott: The extended Jubilee line will be operational by the end of the year, but what the hon. Gentleman says is a bit of a cheek, coming from someone who was a member of the Government who began the

    97
    project nearly seven years ago. The line is still not ready, primarily because of the contract entered into by that Government, which did not guarantee completion in time for the millennium celebrations.

    Social Housing
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: If he will make a statement on investment in social housing. [63571]
    The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Over the life of this Parliament, we are making available nearly £5 billion extra for investment in housing, fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reinvest set-aside capital receipts from the sale of council housing to build new homes and to rehabilitate existing ones. Most of those resources will be invested in social housing.
    Mr. Sanders: The Minister will remember a reply that he gave me on 14 December, which laid out expenditure by the previous Government of some £35 billion over the lifetime of that Government, and showed that the amount that was committed so far or predicted for 1999–2000 was £14 billion, leaving a shortfall of £20,766,000,000 in housing expenditure. Is the Minister saying that the amount that will be spent in the final two years of this Government's life will be less or more than £20 billion?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman clearly has difficulty with figures. May I, therefore, remind him of the truth about housing investment? Over the lifetime of the previous Government, there was a consistent and dramatic decline in housing investment. We inherited a budget of only £1.5 billion for capital investment. That has already been increased to almost £2 billion in the current year and it will rise to £3 billion by 2000–01. That is a doubling of the capital investment that we inherited. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats do not welcome that.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Minister agree that it is incontestable that the release of capital receipts has provided a huge boost for investment in social housing, but that that needs to be seen against the backdrop of the massive cut in social housing expenditure under the last Conservative Government; no area of public expenditure was cut as much? Therefore, as long as the Government remain in office—beyond the next general election, I hope—we need year-on-year, real-terms increases in social housing investment.
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am sorry only that the Liberal Democrats do not appreciate it. Following the dramatic cut in housing investment during the lifetime of the previous Parliament, we have begun the process of restoring decent levels of capital investment. Year on year, we are projecting increased investment, so that, by 2001–02, capital investment in housing will be double that which we inherited from the previous Government.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: As social housing can, I understand, be built in villages and outside villages and towns, even though the local plan forbids housing development beyond the plan, will the Minister comment
    98
    on whether he supports the passing by the Liberal Democrats in Devon of plans for 90,000 new houses in the countryside in Devon? Would he not want to give some incentive to building on brown-field sites in towns and some disincentive to building on green-field sites in the countryside?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been asleep if he has not been aware of the emphasis that has been placed by the Government on increasing the focus on building on brown-field sites. At the beginning of last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published an important paper that set out our proposals for increasing the proportion of housing to be built on brown-field sites. We will shortly publish an interim report from the urban taskforce which has been looking at the matter and many other initiatives are in hand, but, ultimately, it will be for individual local authorities to see how they can best meet the housing needs of their area and ensure that, within their area, the maximum possible, which will vary from area to area, is achieved on brown-field sites.

    West Coast Main Line
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What recent discussions he has had with train operating companies on the west coast main line; and if he will make a statement. [63572]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Madam Speaker, happy new year, by the way.
    On 26 November, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I met all the train operating companies and Railtrack, to identify the problems and to begin to put in place some of the solutions to the lack of performance on the railway system. We are convinced that the action plan that we put in place at that time will begin to deliver enhancements this year.
    Dr. Starkey: I am sure that all the train-operating companies that serve my constituents will have made it clear to the Minister that they welcome the upgrading of the west coast main line and the positive effect that that will have on the reliability of their services. However, I am concerned—it is a concern shared by the Midland Rail Users Consultative Committee—about the effect—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am reading the report. I am concerned about the effect that the passenger upgrade on the fast line may have on the capacity for services on the slow line. My particular concern is that, in my constituency, as well as in central Milton Keynes, the stations at Wolverton and Bletchley are served largely by stopping services. I know that the train operating companies, Silverlink and Connex, are concerned that there will be insufficient capacity on the slow line for them to accommodate the current service frequencies as well as the freight that uses that line. They wish to be assured that they will be able to expand on those lines. Will the Minister take that up with the rail regulator and ensure that he makes sure that services can expand on the slow line so that all my constituents benefit from the west coast main line upgrade?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend will know that the form and timing of the freight upgrade is a matter for discussion.

    99
    I met the chief executive of Railtrack on 15 November to discuss a range of issues related to that, but no formal proposals have yet been received from Railtrack. Obviously, when they are put forward, they will be considered. I can tell my hon. Friend that the rail regulator has obliged Railtrack to examine how it can meet the capacity or requirements of all west coast main line operators as a condition of approving the Virgin Rail-Railtrack passenger upgrade 2 deal. I expect to see the fruits of that in Railtrack's March 1999 network management statement.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister accept that a west coast main line upgrade will be welcome to my constituents who access that line at Milton Keynes or Rugby, but that what has been said is a matter of concern, particularly in relation to slower services to Northampton and to the provision of rail freight services? Will the Minister ensure that it is watched most carefully so that the upgrade takes place but with the various interests being properly balanced?
    Dr. Reid: As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), the regulator has obliged Railtrack to take that into account when looking at the passenger upgrade. No formal proposals have yet been received on the freight upgrade, but hon. Members will be aware of the fact that, although there will be major advantages in various forms as a result of the freight upgrade, there may also be various drawbacks in terms of interruption to all passenger services, not just the slow passenger services. Those are important matters, but the major issue is that the House will welcome—I hope in a non-partisan fashion—the fact that, after 18 years of damn all investment on the west coast main line, this Government are doing something.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now quite exciting to travel on the west coast main line, especially at the weekends? For the first time ever, no printed timetable has been issued to passengers, on the somewhat spurious basis that, as Railtrack is doing so much work, nobody can really say when the trains will be running. Would my right hon. Friend care to point out to the train companies that, if the passengers have to guess when the trains are running, they might also like to guess which train companies they would like to have running the service after the next franchising round?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend has amply illustrated one of the reasons why there are few more exciting journeys than travelling with her on the west coast main line, which I have done on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend has made a valid point and she will be pleased to hear that the subject was raised by me, and, more importantly, by the Deputy Prime Minister at the meeting on 26 November and in writing thereafter. Passengers should not be expected to wander blindly, as my hon. Friend said, guessing the times of trains. It is bad enough trying to find the way through the complexities of some of the differentiated and compartmentalised train timetables now that we have 25 train operating companies, without those companies deciding not to issue timetables in the first place.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the Minister aware of the regular inconvenience caused to passengers on the
    100
    west coast main line by the unserviceability of the escalators connecting the main line station at Euston to the London underground? On one day last month, underground trains on the Victoria line did not stop at Euston because there were so many escalators out of action. When London Underground suffers problems with escalators, they are out of action not just for weeks but for months. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a severe word with representatives of London Underground, tell them that they have to do better and report to the House that they are going to do better?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek. I am not fully aware of the minutiae of the mechanisms of the escalator to which he referred, but I have no doubt about why it does not work: it is part of the £8,000 million backlog of underinvestment in the underground by the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, as in so many other areas, we intend to remedy that situation through a public-private partnership, which we are currently delivering. In addition, we have made short-term enhancements through our action plan for the rest of the railways, including 800 new drivers, 500 new units of rolling stock to be delivered this year, a task force on railway congestion blackspots, a shadow strategic rail authority and more investment in the railways than ever before. I understand the hon. Gentleman's complaint about one escalator, but I hope that he recognises that that problem, along with the destruction of many other aspects of Britain's social fabric, is a direct result of the negligence of his Government for 18 years.

    Train Services
    Ann Clwyd: What plans he has to ensure that train companies provide an improved service to passengers. [63573]
    Mr. Eric Martlew: What measures he has taken to ensure that train companies improve their services for passengers. [63587]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): In November 1997, we agreed a concordat with the rail regulator and issued new statutory instructions and guidance to the franchising director, requiring him to put passengers' interests first, which the previous Government failed to do.
    We are in the process of making three key appointments to strengthen passenger interests: a new chairman of British Rail, who will be prospective chairman of the strategic rail authority; a new franchising director, who will be the prospective chief executive of the SRA; and a new rail regulator.
    On 26 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I met representatives of all the passenger train companies and Railtrack to discuss the continuing performance problems and to thrash out a plan for immediate action. That included the provision of 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles and a new national passenger survey. On 25 February a rail summit will be held in London to deal with ensuring the longer-term improvements that we want.
    Ann Clwyd: In addition to the items on that impressive list, my right hon. Friend has spent a considerable amount

    101
    of time on ensuring the continuing safety of passengers travelling through the channel tunnel. I should like him to investigate an incident that took place on 3 December when a Select Committee group was returning from Brussels on Eurostar. The train was halted at Calais for more than two hours for what we were told were security reasons. No explanation of those reasons was given. Will he also investigate why luggage does not pass through the same screening process at Brussels as at Waterloo? When we returned from Brussels, our luggage was not checked.
    Mr. Prescott: I am concerned about what my hon. Friend says. I do not know about the details. I shall investigate the matter and write to her about it. She was able to ride on Eurostar because we rescued the failing financial deal on the channel tunnel rail link.
    Mr. Martlew: May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the west coast main line, in which I have taken an interest for many years? I am sure that he is aware that that line provides a poor service and has a very bad reputation for punctuality. Much of that is due to Virgin's incompetence, but it is also due to the fact that Railtrack is failing to maintain the line. Is he aware that Railtrack has decided to cut back drastically on planned maintenance on the west coast main line, resulting in the loss of 17 jobs in my constituency? Can my right hon. Friend take any sanctions against Virgin or Railtrack for failing to provide an adequate service on the west coast?
    Mr. Prescott: I well understand my hon. Friend's frustration with the west coast main line. As he well knows, when I was an Opposition transport spokesman, I was in his constituency when I proposed a new way of privatising that line. It is a pity that the previous Government did not adopt my ideas as, if they had, we would now be riding on a modernised west coast main line instead of facing the current difficulties. The rail industry has shown shortsightedness by creating redundancies that have led to reductions in investment and in the quality of services. A good example was when the train operating companies made thousands of train drivers redundant and then found that they had no train drivers to deliver the services, hence the recent crash programme to find new train drivers. I am concerned by such reports. Railtrack is attending the rail summit and a strategic rail authority will advocate the interests of the travelling public much more effectively than in the past.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Did the meeting last November that the Secretary of State attended with the Minister of Transport include a discussion of fares policy? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, since privatisation, fares on the privatised rail companies have gone down in real terms, in stark contradistinction to the fares on the publicly owned London Underground, which have increased way above inflation? At the very least, will he seek to devise a policy so that, from now on, fare increases on London Underground are directly related to improvements in performance?
    Mr. Prescott: It is very much the intention of the Government to achieve the quality of service that will be reflected in the fares, although a higher priority is to get more investment into railway systems that have not been
    102
    improved for the past decade or so, and particularly the underground. Along with the rail regulator and the franchising director, we shall be looking at precisely how the fares system fits into that. The agreement with the operating companies is currently being reviewed by the rail regulator and the franchising director.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: Is the Secretary of State aware of the absolute contempt with which his rail and transport policies are regarded in Oxfordshire? Does he have a view to offer my constituents in west Oxfordshire, who every day hope for a better rail service, but are no longer able to park at the station because there are insufficient spaces? While the right hon. Gentleman promotes his integrated transport policy, his Highways Agency closes the A34, has no consultation with the train companies to provide extra services and, in the past few months, has managed to bring the roads of Oxfordshire to a complete halt.
    Mr. Prescott: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's comments, as rural areas in Oxfordshire have very much welcomed our rural grants and improved services, so I assume that they feel that the integrated transport policy is well worth it. Oxford city council, which is very much to the fore in developing the policy, is looking forward to the local transport plans announced in our White Paper, which provide something like £800 million. Parking is a problem in most cities. If my memory serves me well, there are park-and-ride facilities in Oxford which we wish to encourage and which are working successfully. There is demand for more such schemes, in the city of York, for example. The hon. Gentleman's comments do not fit into the facts of the case.
    Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to suggest to Richard Branson that he should forget about the pleasures of balloon flying and travel in his own trains so that he can find out what a misery that is? I speak as one who uses the train service regularly. What a dismal failure transport privatisation has turned out to be.
    Mr. Prescott: It is generally agreed that there has not been an improvement in the quality of the rail system following privatisation. I did not think that that was in dispute. However, we must improve the quality of the service, get the extra investment that is needed and make sure that the system is much more accountable in the passengers' interest. I have just announced some of the measures by which I think we will achieve that, and I will make them clear at the rail summit on 25 February in London. We will be able to make many points at the summit, and we will look at the long-term changes that people want. To be honest, I do not think that people really care whether the railway is privately or publicly owned—they just want a good system. I may feel that the system might be better under private or public ownership, but we have what we have and we intend to make it better.

    Rolling Stock
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What plans he has to require rolling stock companies to make

    103

    arrangements with the franchising director and train operating companies for the planned replacement of rolling stock. [63574]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Train operating companies will have to replace or modify certain trains to meet their commitments to the franchising director and any requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. It is for the train operators to make the necessary arrangements with rolling stock companies.
    Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister go a little further and give some comfort to my constituents who, like me, use Connex South Central services daily and experience the unsatisfactory nature of many of the slam-door mark 1 trains which are still being used by that train operating company? Given that the franchise will not be extended, and given that the company says that there is no way in which it can replace those trains, is there any chance of those trains being replaced during the lifetime of this Government?
    Ms Jackson: The Health and Safety Executive has recommended to Ministers that all mark 1 rolling stock on the network should be modified by 2003 and replaced by 2007. Ministers are considering the recommendations, and an announcement will be made shortly. The hon. Gentleman referred to difficulties being experienced by certain train operating companies. Those companies showed no reluctance to bid competitively for the relevant franchises, and it is for them to meet their commitments and any requirements placed on them by the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the planned rail summit in February will include representations from the roscos, so that constituents such as mine can look forward to an enhanced performance and an improved quality of rolling stock in the short term, rather than the long term?
    Ms Jackson: I can confirm that the rolling stock companies will be present at the rail summit on 25 February. My hon. Friend touches on yet another example of the lamentable failure of the previous Administration who, during rail privatisation, ensured that the rolling stock was sold off at a fraction of its actual worth, and ensured also that the rolling stock companies were totally outside the regulatory system. That was another example of their failure to exercise competent stewardship of the national infrastructure.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), my constituency has Connex South Central services. We have rolling stock which dates from before the Beatles were ever heard of—when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister—which must be replaced urgently. What steps will the Minister take to correct the sell-off of the roscos—a disgrace in terms of taxpayers' money—and bring them within the regulatory system?
    Ms Jackson: We have made it abundantly clear that we expect the rolling stock companies to exercise a mature approach. There is a competitive market, and we have
    104
    seen new entrants into it. Since franchising, 1,400 new vehicles have been ordered; a replacement of well over 10 per cent. of the original fleet. There are commitments to order a further 800 vehicles at a cost of about £1 billion, and some 4,000 additional vehicles have been or are being refurbished. We have made it clear to rolling stock companies that if there is any hint of anti-competitive behaviour on their part, we will seriously address the possibility of legislation.

    Single Regeneration Budget
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: How the single regeneration budget fifth programme will be targeted on the areas of greatest need. [63575]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Under round 5 of the single regeneration budget, about 80 per cent. of new SRB resources will support comprehensive regeneration schemes in the most deprived areas, based on the 1998 index of local deprivation. About 20 per cent. of the resources will tackle pockets of need elsewhere, including rural areas, coalfield areas and coastal towns.
    Mr. Marsden: In welcoming my hon. Friend's answer, may I draw his attention to two matters? First, there is a need for the survey to be extremely specialised, given that, in seaside and coastal towns in particular, there are often pockets of deprivation in the centre of towns. Secondly, during that review, will he look especially favourably and sympathetically on those areas of public infrastructure in seaside and coastal towns that are not currently eligible for heritage or other forms of lottery grant?
    Mr. Meale: First, I pay tribute to the amount of work that my hon. Friend has done since becoming a Member of Parliament at the last general election. The Government are well aware of the extent of the social deprivation occurring in many seaside and coastal towns. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has shown his awareness of it in his many speeches on regeneration and in the reshaped single regeneration budget, which was announced on 22 July 1998. We shall pay particular regard to the problem and focus on it in any future SRB bids and planning.

    Capping Criteria
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: If he will make a statement on the impact which his decision not to announce capping criteria will have on (a) transparency and (b) accountability. [63576]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The accountability and transparency of local authority decision making will be improved. Local authorities will no longer be able simply

    105
    to take their capping limits as their budgets, and will instead have to consider carefully their needs and the funding they will receive when drawing up their spending plans.
    Mr. Lansley: Does the Minister not understand that the absence of pre-signalling of capping criteria means that, to local authorities, the capping system this year, far from being transparent, is utterly opaque? Does she understand that it would be an unhappy situation if local authorities were to be capped with a small margin between their budget requirement and the capping limit? Will she give local authorities and the House two pledges: first, that an allowance will be made for very small differences between any capping criteria, so as not to require rebilling for small sums of money; and, secondly, that she will take particular account of the special circumstances of authorities that have a budget requirement that is close to their standard spending assessment?
    Ms Armstrong: I am not able to tell the House today what the capping criteria will be. We are currently consulting on that matter; the consultation finishes tomorrow and we shall bring our proposals to the House. I do not accept that the system has been made more opaque. The fact is that the previous Administration introduced a system that meant that central Government determined everything. That gives local authorities little accountability to local people and little opportunity or responsibility to work with local people to achieve a budget that gets the best for local people at a price they are prepared to pay. I believe that the new system will lead to increased accountability and to greater clarity for local people.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I believe that transparency is something on which the Labour Government were elected. I asked a similar question about the criteria used for capping, but the answer I received was "No." That is not helpful to local government,
    106
    especially the council in Chorley which asked me to ask the question. Will the Minister reconsider the answer she gave and be more open and more transparent?
    Ms Armstrong: We are fulfilling a manifesto commitment, and I understand that my hon. Friend was also elected on that manifesto. As long as central Government set the limits, although the system will be transparent at one level, at another it will remove all responsibility from local authorities. Local authorities should be more independent and more responsible to local taxpayers. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that local authorities are charged with being responsible. If they are responsible, capping will not arise.
    Dr. Evan Harris: May I remind the Minister that the Labour manifesto promised to end universal capping; that the Oxfordshire Labour party manifesto for the 1997 county council elections said, "Vote Labour and end capping and the cuts to local services"; but that, on taking office, the Labour Government capped Oxfordshire's budget, jointly proposed by the Labour group? Does she accept that, by not publishing in advance the capping criteria, not only is there still universal capping, but there is now random universal capping? The people of Oxfordshire will not forgive the Government for the cuts in social services and education that flow from that outright negation of local democracy.
    Ms Armstrong: I met Oxfordshire county council this morning. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not part of that delegation, but I take his point as part of his representations and I am not criticising him. The manifesto commitment was to remove crude and universal capping. In the manifesto, we made it absolutely clear that we would retain reserve powers. There is a national interest and we are seeking to achieve a balance between the local and national interests.

Ashworth Special Hospital
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the report of the public inquiry into the Ashworth special hospital conducted by his honour Peter Fallon QC. That inquiry was established by my predecessor in February 1997 to investigate allegations by Mr. Steven Daggett, a former patient of Ashworth special hospital, that there was misuse of drugs, financial irregularities, possible child molesting and the circulation of pornographic material in the personality disorder unit at the hospital.
I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who brought this matter to the attention of the Government. She subsequently received threatening telephone calls, which she believes came from people whose trade in pornographic videos was interrupted by her intervention.
In this short statement, it is difficult to do justice to the inquiry report, which is 473 pages long. The executive summary alone covers 44 pages. So, I will highlight the major points in the report. The inquiry sat for a total of 66 days, taking evidence from a wide range of witnesses involved in Ashworth hospital, both in the past and at present.
The report presents a shameful picture. The general allegations made by Mr. Daggett were largely true. There were financial irregularities, drug abuse, the circulation of pornography and a poor quality of patient care.
Mr. Daggett's main allegations referred to Lawrence ward in the personality disorder unit. A ward within a personality disorder unit, set inside a special hospital, had been repeatedly visited by a seven-year-old girl, who was allowed unsupervised contact with patients guilty of sex offences against children. Her father brought her into the unit and, without let or hindrance, gave her unsupervised access to one patient who had a history of molesting young girls, including indecent assault and attempted rape. She also visited another patient who was locked up in Ashworth because he had kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted, mutilated and eventually murdered a 13-year-old boy. I am glad to say that the inquiry report concludes that there was no proof that the girl was abused, but that she was being "groomed" for later abuse.
The inquiry asked how a young girl could have been allowed to visit such men. It was told that the Lawrence ward was special and that there were not many incidents. All the patients were allowed to roam round much of the hospital unaccompanied. For a time, routine searching did not take place. The inquiry was told that the ward espoused the philosophy of a "democratic community". I should emphasise that the inhabitants of that so-called democratic community had between them committed innumerable murders, manslaughters, indecent assaults, indecent assaults on children, assaults or woundings with intent and a host of other offences.
The inquiry concludes that a small group of patients, led by the child murderer, was intimidating patients and staff and had gained a grip on the ward. It also concludes that there was a drugs problem on Lawrence ward, that it was endemic throughout the hospital, but that there was no direct evidence that nursing staff were involved.
The financial irregularities arose from a shop on Lawrence ward, from the sale of pornographic materials including videos and from people conducting credit
108
card businesses. Judging by the report, Lawrence ward appears to be a veritable outpost of the enterprise culture. The father who brought his daughter into Ashworth hospital also supplied pornographic videos, which he was allowed to deliver by car to the ward without either him or the car being properly searched.
There was a shop on Lawrence ward that was supposed to sell confectionery and soft drinks. Its turnover started at £50 a month and soared to £14,000 between January and October 1996. The child murderer also ran an unofficial shop from his side ward.
Unknown to senior managers, several patients—including Mr. Daggett, the person who complained—had been allowed credit cards. Eventually, when managers decided to end this arrangement, patients were forced to cut up their cards, but they retained the numbers so that they could renew them or continue to use them in telephone transactions. Security was so slack that Mr. Daggett managed, while in the hospital, to change his name by deed poll, acquire a new passport and driving licence and use a credit card to take out a large sum of money, prior to absconding.
The inquiry found that security was so lax that neither patients and staff, nor visitors were properly searched. It confirms Mr. Daggett's claim that, on Lawrence ward, the patients' rooms were not properly searched. That was illustrated when a full-scale search in January 1997 revealed a stock of children's underwear in the room of the man who had molested girls, and male pornography in the room of the child murderer. Both patients had video cassette recorders, used for copying videos. A previous search of the boot room on the ward had revealed 41 pornographic videos.
The inquiry set out to find how that deplorable situation had come about and how it had been allowed to persist. What it found out is a shameful story of confusion, indecision, mismanagement and incompetence. Some of the professionals and managers failed to show a glimmer of common sense, let alone to live up to the standards of their professions. The whole thing was a mess from top to bottom.
In the past, Ashworth had operated a harsh and repressive regime. Following scandals in the early 1990s, the Blom-Cooper inquiry in 1992 recommended a more liberal approach. The Fallon inquiry concludes that those recommendations, which were mainly directed at the rest of the hospital, were implemented without proper consideration of their differing impact on different patient groups. As a result, the patients with personality disorders enjoyed most personal freedom and reduced security. The report says that it was quite predictable that those failures could be abused by some of the patients.
What is clear is that, because of the failure of top management to lay down and enforce clear rules for both patients and staff, security became less and less important. As a result, more and more problems arose but nobody attended to them. As the report says,
"all too often the core principles of security were absent."
Nobody was seen to be in charge of the personality disorder unit. That was because nobody—with the possible exception of the patients—was really in charge. The senior management staff were out of touch, and psychiatrists seem to have been incapable of carrying out their proper professional functions. Management decisions, if known, were frequently ignored by both staff

109
and patients. The internal monitoring system did not work. The members of the board do not seem to have known what was going on. The external monitoring system did not work. Events within Ashworth were not reported to senior officials of the national health service or the Department of Health. Reports into serious incidents were suppressed.
The Fallon report concludes that the whole system was at fault. I am sure that that is right, but the report goes on to criticise individuals and I am sure that that is right too, because too many people at Ashworth failed to do properly the jobs that they were paid to do. The report criticises a number of people by name. Ashworth hospital authority has already taken disciplinary action against some people, and some others have left Ashworth.
In the case of any of those criticised in the report who are still employed by the NHS, whether at Ashworth or elsewhere, I expect their employers to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings in the light of the report. In at least one case, the report will be drawn to the attention of the General Medical Council and other professional regulatory bodies. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has already commenced disciplinary action in one case.
The report recommends that Mr. Paul Lever, chairman of Ashworth hospital authority, should step down. He has done so. Anne Marie Nelson, former chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority and present chairman of the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board has also resigned, in accordance with the principles of public accountability.
The running of Ashworth and the terrible incidents there were the subject in the 1990s of a succession of inquiries and reports. In 1990, one patient was murdered on Owen ward and another was murdered on Forster ward. In 1992, the director of security carried out security audits at Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. Her recommendations for greater security at Ashworth were ignored. At about the same time, a task force that was implementing the Blom-Cooper report described Ashworth as "over custodial". The Fallon report describes the task force's policy as a recipe for disaster.
In 1993, an inquiry into the women's services at Ashworth, which are not part of the personality disorder unit, produced a damning report. In 1995, there was an internal investigation into a hostage-taking on Owen ward. The report was 59 pages long with appendices covering 385 pages. Again, it was a damning indictment of what went on, but staff were shown only a nine-page summary, and so was the official responsible for implementing its recommendations.
Neither the Owen ward report nor the Swan report was made available to the health advisory service before publication of its review of progress following the Blom-Cooper report in 1995. Also in 1995 and again in 1996, patients attacked members of staff with razors. Later that year, the discovery in mail addressed to a patient of a machine for embossing share certificates led to an inquiry which revealed security breaches, scams and money-making ventures in the personality disorder unit.
Reports were prepared on all the incidents, but no machinery was put in place to see that changes and improvements were made. Nor was anyone ever given the task. I am determined that the Fallon report will not suffer the same fate. The report makes 58 detailed
110
recommendations. Some cover the operational procedures at Ashworth. I am giving the hospital authority four months to develop an action plan to implement the necessary changes within the hospital. I am appointing lan Pirnie to chair the authority during that process. Mr. Pirnie presently chairs the Morecambe Bay health authority. I hope and expect that he will bring to this task the leadership and management skills that he demonstrated as an admiral in the Royal Navy.
Other recommendations cover the general role and organisation of the special hospitals and their relationship with the rest of the national health service. Those will be the personal responsibility of Sir Alan Langlands, the chief executive of the NHS. I have given the task of ensuring progress on the more general recommendations which apply across government to Chris Kelly, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health. All three will report directly to me and all three will be expected to deliver.
The inquiry team gave final clearance to its report on Wednesday of last week. The printed edition arrived this morning; it is being published this afternoon. A detailed response to all its recommendations will be published as soon as possible. In the meantime, I can say that the Government broadly accept most of the recommendations and I can give an immediate response to some of those that will be of most concern.
The report recommends that security should be given a higher priority—that searches of patients and staff should be introduced, that no visitors should be allowed into Ashworth without being searched and that there should be regular searches of patients' rooms. The Government accept those recommendations. We give top priority to the safety of the public. We have already taken action. All aspects of security have already been tightened up. New rules have been introduced. Management is making sure that they are implemented for people entering and leaving the Ashworth site, within the site and on the wards.
Further investment in extra security staff is being made. An extra £1.5 million is being made available for all three special hospitals this year and a further £4.5 million is being made available for increased physical security measures at Ashworth. That will allow fully effective searches to be made of all visitors, staff, patients, goods and vehicles, including, where appropriate, the use of X-rays, metal detectors and sniffer dogs.
I have arranged for an independent review of all aspects of security, including the use of the post and telephones at all three special hospitals, which will report direct to Sir Alan Langlands. The social services inspectorate will conduct inquiries into the social work aspects of Ashworth, and subsequently the other two hospitals, and report directly to me.
On visits by children, we have already changed the rules on child visitors and gone beyond the recommendations in the report. In September last year, we put a stop to child visits to ward areas and visits by children who are not close relatives of the patients. No visits are allowed unless they are judged to be in the best interests of the child. All visits by children must be off the wards and must be supervised. Any visits by a child must be by prior arrangement. The rules apply at all three hospitals, and I wish to make it clear that those who breach any of those rules can expect to be summarily dismissed from their job.

111
The report recommends a review of the whole system of accountability within the national health service and between the national health service, officials of the Department of Health and Ministers, particularly in relation to the special hospitals and more generally. I share some of the inquiry's concerns about the system that I have inherited from my predecessors. I have made clear to the House who is to have personal responsibility for dealing with the various aspects of the report and that, for the present, they will all report directly to me.
The health Bill, which we will be introducing shortly, will put in place stronger and clearer accountability arrangements for the whole of the national health service and will end the internal market that has clearly inhibited more active management by the national health service executive and regional offices. As recommended in the Fallon report, the commission for health improvement will cover the special hospitals.
In addition, the board of every hospital—including each special hospital—will have for the first time a statutory duty concerning the standards of treatment and care it provides, there will be clearer powers for the Secretary of State to issue directions, and new arrangements for commissioning specialised services. I am giving further consideration to the question of overall accountability in the light of the report's recommendations.
The inquiry was set up to consider the personality disorder unit, not the future of the whole hospital, and of its high-security psychiatric services. However, the inquiry team has recommended the closure of Ashworth hospital. The Government do not accept that recommendation.
In the policy document "Modernising Mental Health Services", on which I reported to the House on 8 December last year, we made it clear that we want to see a closer integration of the high-security services with the other secure services, and the reconstitution of the special hospitals as NHS trusts. For the foreseeable future, the three special hospitals must continue to be the main providers of high-security services. There is no practical alternative in the short term. To announce that the three special hospitals had no long-term future, but that they could not be replaced for a good many years would run the risk of making them even more difficult to manage than they are now.
In any case, I do not believe that the problem at Ashworth is one of bricks and mortar. The problem is management, and that is what we are determined to tackle. The personality disorder unit at Ashworth is not some decrepit Victorian dump: it was purpose-built. Work started on it in 1976 and was completed in 1984. Replacing it with smaller high-security units spread around the country would not guarantee better security, higher-quality treatment and care or more effective management. That would still have to be planned, organised and worked at.
The members of the inquiry team gave a great deal of thought to how best the legal, medical and penal systems should deal with people suffering from severe personality disorder, and they make a number of very useful recommendations for far-reaching changes. I welcome those ideas very much, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will consider them very carefully
112
as we develop new and more effective ways of dealing with people suffering from severe personality disorder, whether they are currently in prison, hospital or in the outside world. Public security must be our main priority. The Government will also make sure that the recommendations in the Fallon report are made available to the teams reviewing the Mental Health Act 1983 and mental health services.
As a result, that may lead to changes in the role of the Ashworth personality disorder unit, the scale of its operations and how they are organised. It could mean breaking up the hospital into smaller physically segregated units, but we do not contemplate its closure. However, we agree with the inquiry team that a new form of reviewable detention is needed for those people with a severe personality disorder who are considered to pose a grave risk to the public. We therefore announced in December in our strategy document "Modernising Mental Health Services" that we would make proposals that ensure that the safety of the public is the prime concern and that a new regime is established for that difficult group of people.
Since the Fallon inquiry got under way there have been many changes at Ashworth. The process of change has not been without its problems, but progress is being made. The quality of the medical staff has improved substantially as a result of new appointments, management has improved and security has been tightened, but there is still a long way to go.
I should add that despite the catalogue of disasters accurately outlined in the Fallon report, many of the staff at Ashworth have been trying hard to do a good job. They work in very difficult circumstances. The patients in the personality disorder unit are often highly intelligent and manipulative as well as dangerous. They have to be looked after and checked on 24 hours of every day so that the rest of us can be secure. We owe it to the staff to make a fresh start at Ashworth and to encourage the good staff and management, partly by getting rid of the bad ones. The new arrangements and the new people should deliver a better performance all round.
A natural question that will arise in the minds of most decent people is, "How is the little girl getting on?" I have checked. She seems to be doing pretty well. She is living a settled life and under a court order, her father has no contact with her. She was being exploited by the adult world. I am determined to ensure that from now on the adult world looks after her instead. I hope that all will respect her privacy. At my instigation, a court order is being sought to prohibit disclosure of her name, address or school or any other information that might identify her. I hope that that will be respected.
Finally, I thank his honour Peter Fallon, the other members of the inquiry team and their secretariat for the thorough way in which they have gone about their business and the report that they have produced. They have done their job. It is now up to us to do ours.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for that important statement and for making available to me a little earlier a copy of the substantial report. I express the Opposition's support for his action this morning in seeking to protect the identity of the little girl involved through an application to the court for an appropriate order.

113
As the Secretary of State has said, the management problems at Ashworth hospital go back a long way. They are in many respects linked to a wider question about the appropriate approach to dealing with the most dangerous mentally ill offenders. The provision of a regime that is at once therapeutic and secure, thus achieving the twin imperatives of treatment for the patient and ensuring, as a paramount concern, the safety of the public, poses enormous challenges. Many changes in practice have been introduced since the early 1990s and major steps have been taken towards integrating the special hospitals into the mainstream structure of the NHS. The Opposition support the Government in seeking to continue that process. There has been a good deal of constructive collaboration in the past, and the Opposition hope that that approach will continue.
Even with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and, before him, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) acted promptly and appropriately when these matters came to light.
The Fallon inquiry was established by the previous Government to investigate the operation of the personality disorder unit within the hospital and to make recommendations to ensure that there could be no recurrence of such activities as those revealed by the evidence of Steven Daggett in early 1997.
The Secretary of State has already made it clear that what he has said today is but an initial response to a massive and detailed report. The House and the Secretary of State will appreciate that we have had even less time than he has to digest the details of the report, but I welcome his initial response that he will accept the bulk of its recommendations.
The Secretary of State has said that he will publish a detailed response in due course. Will he give an undertaking that he will make a statement when that response is published and the hospital management's detailed proposals are available? Will he otherwise make arrangements to ensure further discussion of matters once we have all had the chance to consider and digest the report?
The report's central recommendation to close the hospital completely has been rejected by the Secretary of State. In doing so, he is taking on a heavy burden of responsibility. It is his duty to ensure the safety of the public and of patients in the hospital. In rejecting the report's recommendation to close the personality disorder unit at Ashworth, he must be absolutely confident that the action that he has taken and is proposing to take will safeguard both the public and patients.
The House, too, will want to be reassured that the Secretary of State's action will be effective in addressing the long-running and intolerable problems at Ashworth. Will he therefore undertake to review the situation at Ashworth in 18 months, and make a further statement at that time on the effectiveness of the measures which are to be implemented in lieu of the recommended closure of Ashworth hospital?
What measures will the Secretary of State take to oversee the implementation of the recommendations that the Government have accepted, bearing in mind the report's criticism of the implementation task force, which was set
114
up to oversee implementation of the Blom-Cooper report recommendations? Will he assure the House that outsiders will be involved in that oversight process?
Does the Secretary of State envisage that continuing down the route of regionalisation and providing regional high-security units will eventually lead to the closure of the three special hospitals? Will he confirm that, in the meantime, no offender convicted of a serious offence will be transferred from high-security to medium-secure facilities? Will he further confirm that there will be no reduction in the number of high-security beds that deal with the throughput from the courts?
I noted that the Secretary of State expressed the hope that the relevant employers will take appropriate action in respect of any persons named in the report who are still employed in the national health service. Will he assure the House that he will follow up that expression of hope with action to ensure that, if such people are still employed in the NHS, they will be immediately suspended from their duties while the relevant employers investigate matters more fully?
The Secretary of State acknowledged the failure of management at Ashworth over many years. Given that there have been two changes of chief executive since this Government came to power, does he have full confidence in the hospital's current management and its ability to implement the report's recommendations?
Mr. Dobson: First, may I report to the House—I think that all hon. Members will be pleased to hear this—that I have just received a note saying that the High Court has granted the order to protect the confidentiality of the child.
We shall certainly be producing a detailed response. Whether that will be given on the Floor of the House and whether there will be an opportunity for debate is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip. We shall have to leave it in their hands.
I have never tried to get out of responsibility for any decision that I have taken. Security of the public and of people in the hospital must be the paramount consideration. Some advocates of breaking large hospitals into many smaller units seem to think, in a Pollyanna way, that everything will therefore be all right. There is no guarantee that a collection of small units would be more secure than one large and highly secure unit. I want to ensure that these people are securely locked up and that security is guaranteed in the hospital. I think that I am taking the option that is likely to prove the most secure.
With regard to implementation, I have spelt out who will have responsibility, at least in the short run, for the immediate implementation of the major recommendations. They will report to me and I will ultimately report to the House.
On the eventual closure of Ashworth or the other hospitals, I cannot speculate too far ahead, but I do not envisage any of the three being wholly closed.
With reference to high-security beds, there are people who are moved from high-security units to medium-secure units because the psychiatrists and others responsible believe that they will be safe there. Some of those people are allowed out because the psychiatrists believe that they have changed as a result of treatment, have improved and will be safe. The number of beds therefore varies, and we should not get into a great party political spat about that.

115
I am fairly confident that it will be possible to mount successful disciplinary proceedings against people employed by the Ashworth authority for something that they did wrong or failed to do at Ashworth. The situation is more complicated if they have moved to other jobs in the national health service. As I said earlier, I share some of the concerns of the Fallon inquiry about accountability in the NHS. I cannot instruct a health authority or a trust to dismiss anyone under the present powers available to me or the powers that previous Ministers used to have.
I have confidence in the arrangements that I am making and the changes that we are making at Ashworth. As I said in my initial statement, I do not suggest that it will be plain sailing. There have been difficulties. One chief executive at Ashworth lost the confidence of the doctors and had to be removed. She has been replaced, and I hope that the replacement will do a good job. He certainly seems to be doing a good job, and it is my job to try to help him and the others to do their jobs.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I echo my right hon. Friend's tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for her role in exposing this sad affair. I am sorry that she cannot be present today, but I am sure that she would welcome many of the steps taken by my right hon. Friend, particularly those relating to the little girl.
Is it not a fact that the special hospital system has been a shambles for years and is one of the great unresolved policy issues of the previous Administration? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the internal review commissioned by the previous Government, chaired by Dr. John Reed, recommended the closure of Ashworth and the other two special hospitals, and strongly recommended moving in the direction of regional secure units at a localised level?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the failure of the previous Government to act along those lines has led to serious difficulties in the prison system? Prisons such as Wakefield in my constituency are accommodating vast numbers of seriously mentally ill people who ought to be receiving psychiatric care, rather than prison care. Does he agree that in the longer term, the only way to avoid problems such as those at Ashworth is to move in the direction set out by John Reed?
Mr. Dobson: I have great respect for the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), as he well knows, but I am not sure that I agree with him in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are giving consideration to various categories of people suffering from personality disorder: the people in the hospitals who, in theory, are treatable but many of whom are not actually treatable; the people in the prisons who are suffering from personality disorder, are not getting the attention that they deserve and are a real nuisance to the prison system; and the people outside with personality disorder, who are dangerous but have not committed an offence, who the psychiatrists believe cannot be treated and who therefore have no place either in a prison or a hospital.
We are considering all sorts of alternatives for dealing with that, including a reviewable detention for all three
116
categories and the possibility of establishing a separate service to deal specifically with that minority. That may be the best way forward.
Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to Judge Fallon and his team who, in the short time available, appear to have done an extremely thorough and comprehensive piece of work. I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his predecessor for the speed with which they set up the inquiry and published its conclusions.
It appears from the report that the management of Ashworth was nothing short of outrageous. To adopt a phrase from elsewhere, it appears to be truly a case of the most disordered patients being in charge of the hospital. That being so, an instinctive gut reaction would be that the place must close, but the Liberal Democrats are prepared to share the Secretary of State's view that to announce its closure would create as many problems as would keeping it open. However, it should be seen to be a hospital on licence rather than on probation or under sentence, because unless it gets its act together, it would clearly be inappropriate for it to have an extended life.
With proper management, accountability and scrutiny, the hospital should be able to do the job, but will the Secretary of State accept the following suggestions? First, there should be a move within the hospital to management within smaller units. In particular, thought should be given to separating those who are convicted from those who are not convicted.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary, when considering their responses—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I will as we consider the matter in more detail—bear in mind the great benefit of following the report's recommendation to bring the medical staff in the Prison Service under the Department of Health, so that psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses can be moved between prisons and special hospitals? There would then not be the culture of closed wards, which we now have in special hospitals, where such people basically stay for life. Instead they would enjoy career development and progress, which might also allow us to recruit the psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses now in short supply.
Lastly, given that this is exactly the sort of subject where public interest demands that we get security and the method of coping with severely disabled people right, I offer the services of Liberal Democrats, with, I hope, those of Conservative Members, in reaching an all-party agreement on the way forward, which I hope will result in a secure and safe system, with a tough and effective inspectorate, so that such a scandalous outrage never happens again.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and statement, and for his acceptance of our view that we cannot close Ashworth.
One of the problems with a probationary period, or the sword of Damocles hanging over Ashworth, is that, if Ashworth is to work, those working there will have to show a real commitment to the hospital, and they are only likely to show such commitment if they feel that the Government share that commitment. What is good for them is good for us.

117
We have already contemplated breaking the hospital up into smaller units. We must clearly improve security within the hospital. The hospital has many vulnerable patients suffering from mental illness, and it is clear that a militant force of people from the personality disorder unit dominates everything, including the bodies which are supposed to represent all the patients and many of the staff. We want to stop that domination by breaking the hospital up into smaller, more easily controlled units.
However, if we are to have a proper regime which will look after the mental health interests of all the patients, security is crucial. It is impossible to deliver a decent therapeutic service without security, including security for the staff, some of whom have been stabbed while others have been held to ransom.
We are contemplating what to do about the prison health service, which always poses problems. I certainly welcome any commitment from the Liberal party, or anyone else, to ensure that this time we get it right, because in the past we got it wrong every time.
Audrey Wise: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the structure of what he described as the semi-autonomous trusts that he inherited makes his job more difficult, and that it is ironic that the Opposition should call for firm action from him when, as he has made clear, not all the levers are in his hands? However, does he agree that, because of Ashworth's troubled history, special attention should have been paid to it by structures within the national health service, such as the regional offices? Will he assure me that he will examine the role—or lack of it—of the regional offices to make quite sure that they, too, had their priorities right?
Although I agree completely that the staff at lower levels and the local management should be firmly held to account, dereliction of duty, neglect, or failure to have the right priorities at a higher level should not go unrecognised and unremarked.
Mr. Dobson: I sympathise with my hon. and well informed Friend's view. We live in a country where—as in this case—it is characteristic that, as far as I am aware, the first person to be sacked outright was an unqualified nurse, whereas other people, earning large sums, have been suspended on full pay or have gone to other well-paid jobs. I am determined to trace the responsibility, wherever it lies. In fairness to those who work in the regional offices of the national health service, until we came to power, they were being told to keep their noses out of virtually everything and merely to provide a service if it was asked for.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: By whom?
Mr. Dobson: By the previous Government and by the very competitive internal market which they had established. We are moving towards giving a much bigger and more positive role to the regional offices. We believe that to be necessary, not only in this sphere, but in matters such as the maintenance of proper surveillance and monitoring of the cervical and breast cancer screening system, where there was none until we gave that role to the regional offices.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration in allowing me to see a copy of the report earlier this
118
afternoon. Undoubtedly, it sets out a most odious and appalling set of circumstances. I recall a similar sense of shock when I read the Blom-Cooper report about six years ago. I regret that Mr. Fallon accuses me of being over-zealous, if anything, in implementing the Blom-Cooper recommendations, but the right hon. Gentleman, in reading the report before us, will share my sense that such a state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. I believe that there were seven suspensions then; he has identified a number of people who the report suggests should also be held responsible.
Anne Marie Nelson was totally dedicated, absolutely committed and determined to get the right balance between security and treatment. It did not work, and she has rightly stepped down, but I wish to place that point on record. When the hospital staff are mentioned—the right hon. Gentleman has referred to them—it is hard to distinguish between those who were at the heart of deplorable and unacceptable practices and those who were bravely and courageously trying to improve standards of care, with precious little support from their colleagues or superiors. A judgment has therefore to be made.
I am concerned about the distinction between the comments in the Fallon report—essentially endorsed, I think, by the Secretary of State—and the comments of the Home Secretary in the aftermath of the Michael Stone case. The Fallon report suggests, if anything, a shift towards pressure on the Prison Service to take more responsibility, or keep more offenders, whereas the Home Secretary appeared to be critical of the health service for not doing more for these troublesome, intractable and, frankly, costly patients, or offenders—call them what you wish.
I would appreciate some guidance from the Secretary of State. In which direction does he see the policy moving? How does he see the tension between security and care, and the distinction between patients and prisoners?
Mr. Dobson: In a sense, I do not think that there is a tension between security and care, because without security there will be no care. That has been one of the problems at Ashworth. I think that the relaxations introduced as a result of the Blom-Cooper report have been harmful. They may have produced benefits for some, but I do not believe that they produced benefits for many.
As for hospital staff and the whole system of responsibility, even after a reading of the Fallon report it is difficult to know who was responsible for any of these matters in the past. It is not clear which Ministers, which senior staff in the health service and which officials at the Department of Health were responsible, how those in the regional office, those in the commissioning body and those "on the ground" at Ashworth were involved, who was responsible for security, who was responsible for therapy or who was responsible for running the wards. The whole thing was a systematic shambles from top to bottom, and it must be sorted out.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was criticising the national health service when he said what he did after the Michael Stone case. He was, in fact, mounting a legitimate criticism of the attitude of some parts of the psychiatric profession. If someone has a personality disorder and commits a crime, that person will, we hope, be caught, prosecuted and imprisoned; but

119
there is another category of people who are dangerous, and who psychiatrists feel can be treated in hospital. Under the law, such people are entitled to go into hospital and be treated.
There is another category, of people with severe personality disorders who have not committed an offence, and who would clearly not benefit from treatment. At present, the system provides nowhere for those people to go. The problem created by the psychiatric profession—or some members of it—is the reduction of the proportion of people whom the psychiatrists considered capable of being treated in hospital. That extended the number who were not being dealt with by the system. I think that my right hon. Friend's criticism was perfectly legitimate, which is why we are trying to deal with the problem.
Generally speaking, it seems that the further down the hierarchy hospital staff were, the more committed they were to the hospital, to patients, to security and to doing a good job; conversely, the further up the hierarchy they were, the less committed they were.
Laura Moffatt: I suspect that those who have been described today as being dedicated to the work of caring for the most difficult members of the community will be extremely sad, especially those who work at Ashford. They will feel that they have been tarred with the same brush as others, and will say, "If anyone mentions Ashworth, I shall be ashamed to say that I worked there." What building work can we do to reinvigorate those people—they are committed to the most difficult people in our society, to healing them, to getting to grips with their recovery and to getting them into communities—to try to ensure that they can be proud of the work that they do, even though they have been severely let down by others?
Mr. Dobson: Given my hon. Friend's professional knowledge, I would respond to her by saying that I am concerned to show a firm commitment by the Government to Ashworth hospital, so that staff there feel that it will be reasonable for them to retain their commitment to the hospital, the patients and what the hospital is trying to do. Unless we have that commitment and put better people on the board and in management, the staff will become more and more disillusioned; but I have gone out of my way in the statement and in response to questions to make it clear that many people there do a difficult job on our behalf and get little credit for it. I want to ensure that they can do their jobs properly and are properly rewarded for that in every sense of the word.
Mr. Michael Jack: The report is a frightening account of professional and managerial failure. In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he was referring the report's contents to various professional bodies in the health care sector. May I first seek an undertaking that he will make public the replies that he receives from those bodies, as their commentary on the sorry tale of Ashworth would be interesting?
Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned the other special hospitals: Rampton and Broadmoor. May I seek his assurance that the Government's response to the report will include a section to say that the Secretary of State has checked against current procedures at Broadmoor and
120
Rampton to ensure that none of the failures that are outlined by the report are in any way possible or incorporated into managerial or professional structures at those two other hospitals?
Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman has raised two points. The first is about the responses of the professional bodies. Unless I am advised by my officials that I am breaking the law, I am prepared to publish them; in fact, whatever their advice, I will publish them. In relation to his second point, we need to take great care in dealing with all these matters. If it would help the right hon. Gentleman, I will think about the point that he has made and write to him in due course.
Ms Hazel Blears: I am sure that, like most hon. Members, I have listened to the Secretary of State's statement with an increasing sense of horror and disbelief at the catalogue of events at Ashworth, but I am aware that Dr. Peter Clarke, the acting chief executive, who was seconded from Salford's mental health services, is trying tremendously hard with his management team to make improvements, although he personally acknowledges that there is a long way to go.
Will the Secretary of State reassure us and confirm that we will move as swiftly as we can to implement the ideas that are set out in our White Paper "Modernising Mental Health Services", to ensure that special hospitals can become full national health service trusts and part of the NHS family? In that way, we can put the values of the health service—openness, accountability, transparency, the caring ethos of the NHS—into those institutions. They need to be opened up and made fully a part of the NHS family. I would welcome his reassurance that we will move in that direction.
Mr. Dobson: I can confirm that it is our intention to change the law in the health Bill that we will introduce to do just what my hon. Friend says. For several reasons, I am concerned about the way in which senior executive appointments are made in the NHS. If we ask someone, in effect as a favour, to take over the management of a very difficult place such as Ashworth, I would like to be in a position to tell them at the start, "If you do a good job for two or three years, we will be able to guarantee that you will move on to some other job, possibly a better paid job, as a reward for doing a good job in the one that we are asking you to do now." Under the present arrangements I cannot do that. There is something lacking in the system because we need to reward people who do a really good job, whether they are nurses on the wards or chief executives of hospitals.
Mr. A. J. Beith: May I ask the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to recognise that it will not do simply to castigate psychiatrists for not classifying as mentally ill and treatable highly dangerous people who are not mentally ill and do not appear to be treatable? Since the report makes it clear that there is such a category of people, and since there are some such people now in custody who might be released because they are not considered to be treatable, there is some urgency about the Secretary of State's discussions with the

121
Home Secretary and a need to develop something along the lines of the reviewable sentence, which is recommended in the report.
Mr. Dobson: I recognise that some people with personality disorders cannot be treated. The problem is that the psychiatrists have changed the boundaries, and there is such a thing as psychiatric fashion just as there is fashion about removing people's tonsils. One of the problems that has arisen is that, recently, the psychiatrists have decided that far fewer people can be treated and it just so happens that that means they do not have to deal with them.
Helen Jones: I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State that the problems at Ashworth are problems not of bricks and mortar but of management. Anyone who has had any contact with that hospital over the years knows that only too well. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend and other Back-Bench Members who have not yet had an opportunity to read the full report that two steps need to be taken? First, the concept of 24-hour care, which was introduced after the Blom-Cooper report, worked disastrously in the personality disorder unit because, in practice, it meant patients wandering around in the middle of the night.
Steps must be taken to ensure that patients, particularly those with personality disorders, co-operate with their agreed care plans and face sanctions if they do not. Secondly, while there are many good staff at Ashworth hospital, an inward-looking culture has developed in that institution over the years, and we must move away from that. Although we can look at the future of the prison health service with the NHS, there are other steps that need to be taken immediately to ensure that Ashworth forges links with other parts of the NHS such as mental health trusts and regional secure units. That would help to provide continuity of care and better career paths for staff, which in turn would help us to attract good staff to work in Ashworth. I would appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments on those two points.
Mr. Dobson: I know that my hon. Friend has had both professional and local involvement with people in Ashworth and she has made a valid point. For hon. Members who do not know, generally speaking, in the past if one lived in Ashworth hospital, one was expected to go to bed at night like most other people. Under the 24-hour care arrangement, people in the personality disorder unit can sleep when they like and walk around when they like, which imposes what can only be described as a massive burden. It means that the staffing at night sometimes has to approach the intensity that applies during the day in order to keep an eye on people. That is absurd and it needs to be changed.
It will however be very hard for the staff to carry out that process of change with such a difficult group of patients, and I will not promise any precipitate changes because I will not be the person who risks being knifed in the back at 3 o'clock in the morning. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that there is a more positive approach. I hope that, in committing ourselves to the future of the hospital we will enable the staff to provide the more positive approach that most of them want to provide.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I welcome the Fallon report and my right hon. Friend's attitude towards it.
122
I agree with him about not acceding to the recommendation in the report to close the hospital down. In my view that would be plain silly. There is nothing wrong with the physical security or facilities at Ashworth. I live about a mile and a half from it and have a vested interest in knowing that to be true.
We have had investigation after investigation and report after report over the years, but no one has ever been given the power and authority to sort the mess out. The choice of chairman will be important. My right hon. Friend must select the right person for the job in the medium and longer term.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear it in mind that, although many people in Ashworth have a lot to answer for, many brave people have worked—and still work—there. Some whistleblowers lost their jobs, including my constituent Sue Machin, who was forced out of her job as a psychiatrist there because she tried to expose what was going on. She eventually won her case at an industrial tribunal after undergoing years of terrible stress. There are heroes there as well as villains.
Mr. Dobson: I am sure that that is true. I last went to Ashworth before it was Ashworth. My hon. Friend will understand what I mean—such places have their names changed. Some of the people who work in some of the medium-secure units that I have visited are heroes just for working there in very difficult circumstances. I want to try to ensure that the people who work there feel that they are getting the credit, the attention and the help that they deserve.
From my brief acquaintance with him, I am confident that the new chairman of the authority has the necessary drive, skill and management capacity to take on the task of at least getting the first response from Ashworth. I have told him that I should like him to take on the task for four or five months and if he wants to stay after that he is welcome. However, I have agreed that if it is so demanding that he wants to return to Morecambe bay, he can.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Whom can the public blame at the top for what has happened over the past six years? Let us have names. Which Ministers were responsible?
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Oh, come on.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Oh yes. The right hon. Lady did not get to the Dispatch Box because she was so frightened about her image. I am sorry to raise this controversial issue. Who is to blame for what happened during the regime of relaxation? Why was there no monitoring by Ministers at the Department of Health in the early 1990s to ensure that the changes that were being introduced would not be abused as they have been? People need a politician to blame for what has happened.
Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, I am the last to go round blaming people—with the exception of a few Conservatives. The previous Government implemented the Blom-Cooper report when the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) was Secretary of State for Health. In view of the infinite capacity of the civil service and the national health service to take

123
donkeys' years to do anything, as I have discovered over the past 18 months, I have some sympathy with the right hon. Lady's attempts to get things done quickly, even if that has had ill consequences.
The almost universal application of the liberalisation after the Blom-Cooper report, which was directed not at the personality disorder unit but at the rest of the hospital, was effected pretty thoughtlessly by whoever was responsible on the ground. It was predictable—common sense must have suggested—that a group of highly intelligent, manipulative people would be better able to exploit reduced security and greater freedom than the average person suffering from mental illness in another part of the hospital. Quite frankly, in respect of some of the management and professional staff involved, it is as though the words "Abandon common sense all ye who enter here" were written over the doorway of Ashworth.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Eleventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on the Implementation of the Best Value Framework (HC 705-I) and the Government's Response thereto (Cm 4082).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
  4.35 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill provides for the replacement of crude, universal council tax capping with new reserve powers to protect the council tax payer and new arrangements for achieving best value in the development and delivery of local authority services. It provides a crucial role for the new National Assembly in Wales. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) will say something about that later.
  Modern councils put people first. They are at their best when leading their local communities, working with partners to develop and achieve a vision for their area, striving for continuous improvement in the delivery of local services, involving and responding to local people and building effective partnerships with local businesses and the local community.
  The Bill is the first step in the wider modernisation of local government set out in our White Paper last year. Our proposals to transform the political management and ethical framework of councils will be published soon in a draft Bill and other measures will follow.
  The Bill concentrates on the bread-and-butter issues: raising the quality of public services to improve the quality of people's lives; creating a level playing field to ensure real and fair competition in service provision and the efficiency gains that competition brings; and recognising the immense contribution made by public servants in the public, private and voluntary sectors.
  The Government's belief in modern public services comes from our traditional values of community and solidarity. We believe that, by the strength of our common endeavour, we can achieve more than we achieve alone.
  That is why communities work together, through their local councils, to ensure the provision of education for children, homes for the homeless, care for the elderly and vulnerable, regeneration for run-down neighbourhoods, crime prevention and community safety; and to plan better public transport. That contrasts with the open hostility of the Conservative party to the very idea of community. The Government embrace the values of community; the Conservatives scorn them. That is why the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), a Front-Bench health spokesman for the Conservative party, described community as "atavistic, backward-looking, irrational".
  Mr. Robert Jackson: As the Minister is so very keen on the importance of local communities and

  125
  local self-government, will she give an assurance that it will soon be possible for the local community in Oxfordshire to decide the level of council tax?
  Ms Armstrong: I shall not be tempted to breach the rules of the consultation. I enjoyed receiving the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from the local authority this morning, when I made clear the boundaries within which we work at the moment. The Bill provides slightly different boundaries, and I hope that he will be interested in hearing about them later in my speech.
  It is because we believe so strongly in the power of community and the potential of modern public services that we have zero tolerance of inefficiency, mismanagement and waste. It is because the Conservatives care so little for community that they have zero tolerance of public services. That is why they oppose the Bill. People expect a bigger say and a better deal from the services that their councils provide, with more transparency and involvement in the way in which decisions are made about the cost, quality and delivery of local services.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for greater transparency, but how will the capping of council tax benefits help to ensure greater transparency and accountability?
  Ms Armstrong: As I will say later, the Bill proposes a sharing of responsibility between national and local taxpayers on decisions that are made locally.
  People expect public services to be delivered in the most effective and efficient way, meeting their expectations on cost and quality. They are more concerned with how services are delivered than with who delivers them. They are fed up with the old ideologies which pitted public sector against private. What matters to them, and what matters to us, is what works.
  Modern public services are the foundation stone for modernising local government. The best councils recognise their success and seek continuous improvement. The worst councils should be changing now, or face intervention by Government. The average cannot afford to be content with mediocrity.
  Best value is far from a soft option, with four disciplines driving standards even higher. First, the public will set the standard and see the outcome. Secondly, standards and performance will be independently audited. Thirdly, tough inspection regimes will make sure that all councils are up to scratch. Fourthly, if they are not up to scratch, the Government will intervene to protect our public services and the council tax payer.
  Best value is based on four Cs: challenge whether a particular service is necessary or desirable; consultation with local people about the standards that they expect; comparison with the quality and cost achieved by other similar service providers; and competition, real and fair, to achieve the maximum value for money. When the Conservatives were in Government, they had their own version of the four Cs—capping, compulsion and central control.
  The Bill seeks to define more closely the role of Government, away from centralisation to regulation. The Bill will shift power out of Whitehall to the town hall, but will make sure that individual citizens are protected as
  126
  consumers and taxpayers. For too long, public service provision has been an ideological battleground between public and private sectors.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Armstrong: The result was compulsory competitive tendering—which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now defend.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is the Minister talking about the same Bill that we are considering in the House today? Does she accept that 27 new powers for the Secretary of State are specified in the Bill? The Bill, therefore, has a great deal to do with central control, including the continuation of capping by her Government.
  Ms Armstrong: The Bill contains immense new powers for local people. Far from being a centralising measure, the Bill proposes to change the relationship between central and local government, and spells that out for the first time—something that the previous Government were not prepared to do.
  Compulsory competitive tendering delivered some efficiencies, but at a cost. Too often, CCT meant the cheapest, rather than the most cost-effective. Contracts became straitjackets. Public services were delivered to minimal standards at minimal cost by minimalist providers.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way relatively early in her speech. On the subject of new powers, will she tell the House in what circumstances she would envisage using the new power that the Bill will confer on her and her right hon. and hon. Friends to cap local authorities below their standard spending assessment—which is, after all, the Government's own assessment of spending need?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know that the provisions made by the Conservative Government gave exactly that ability. I shall describe the powers in the Bill later in my speech, and I am sure that he is happy to wait until then. Now, I intend to talk about CCT, even though the hon. Gentleman does not want me to remind the House or the people of the devastation that the Conservative Government were prepared to inflict on local government and local services through CCT.
  Clause 18 will repeal CCT at the beginning of next year, as we promised in our election manifesto. In its place, the Bill introduces a duty of best value on all local authorities, including the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies when they are established.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: Does the Minister accept that the new powers to issue guidance and, by regulation, to make changes mean that future Secretaries of State will be able to reintroduce the CCT regime without further recourse to primary legislation, which has to be passed by Parliament?
  Ms Armstrong: No, I do not accept that. We are introducing a regime that is entirely different from compulsory competitive tendering—one that is far more flexible and more focused on local people and

  127
  their ambitions. Best value is a duty to deliver services to clear standards of cost and quality by the most effective, economic and efficient means available. Competition will be a key management tool for delivering best value and driving up standards, but, unlike CCT, it will be fair competition and it will be a means to an end, rather than the end in itself. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that explanation in order to get the real answer to his question.
  Best value will raise standards of public services in line with public expectations. The service standards of all local authorities will be brought up to those of the top 25 per cent. As a result, an annual 2 per cent. efficiency target should be well within the reach of all local authorities. If services are poor or inefficient, it will be clear where accountability lies. Local people should not have to put up with failing public services and the Government will not hesitate to intervene to prevent the worst excesses of inefficiency and waste.
  Most of local government shares our belief in modern public services. More than 100 local authorities across party boundaries are involved in best value pilot projects and more than 250 are involved in various best value initiatives. The Local Government Association has worked with us to promote service improvement and has set up its own improvement agency. Those bodies recognise the new challenges that best value poses for local councils: expectation of higher standards; a push for continuous improvement; and pressure for greater accountability.
  Clause 3 places a duty on each authority to consult the people whom it serves. The duty of best value is owed not to central Government, but to the citizen. I want there to be growing engagement between the public and their local councils. The citizens charter went some way toward telling local people what they could expect from public services, but best value will mean local people telling local councils exactly what they expect from public services.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Given the Minister's emphasis on the needs of people in their own locality, which vary from area to area, can she confirm that the order-making mechanism contained in the Bill gives considerable flexibility to enable the National Assembly for Wales to deliver slightly different policies that are in line with the needs of local communities?
  Ms Armstrong: Yes, I can confirm that, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, who will wind up the debate, will reaffirm it. The Bill is the first to devolve powers to the National Assembly and I welcome the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to the Chamber to celebrate that event.
  Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: No. I want to continue. I am prepared to take interventions, but the hon. Gentleman has already intervened once.
  There is a national interest, too, in the level at which service standards are set. Therefore, clause 4 allows the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales,
  128
  to specify performance indicators and standards in certain circumstances, accompanied by locally determined performance indicators and targets.
  Clause 5 requires local authorities to carry out fundamental performance reviews of all their functions to consider new ways to deliver services and set targets to show continuous improvement.
  Through the best value performance plan, a local authority will set out its targets and plans for the public and report on performance. Real local accountability will come when people can compare what a council says that it will achieve with what it actually achieves.
  That brings me to audit and inspection. Clause 10 provides the Audit Commission with inspection powers to complement the work of the existing inspectorates. All functions will be subject to rigorous scrutiny. An inspectorate forum will take forward arrangements for joint monitoring of the delivery of best value, particularly where local priorities cross traditional boundaries.
  We will ensure that collaboration between existing and new inspectorates works properly. For example, we will extend the role of the Housing Corporation to enable it to provide consultancy and support services to assist the Audit Commission to carry out its new duties under best value.
  Police authorities will be subject to the duty of best value, in line with their statutory function to maintain an efficient and effective police force. Policing has a unique tripartite structure, within which chief constables also have a role in delivering best value. Therefore, I propose to table amendments in Committee to reflect the role of chief constables under best value and to define more clearly the respective roles of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission. I also propose to table a further amendment in Committee to deal with the funding of inspections.
  In most cases where the auditor or inspector recommends action, I expect the local authority to act speedily on the recommendations. In the first instance, councils will be expected to put their own house in order and will have the opportunity so to do. However, there must be a line in the sand. Clause 13 sets out the enforcement powers that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly in Wales may use in the cases of the worst failures. We will develop a protocol with local government to ensure that there is a clear understanding about when those might be used. Indeed, we are already discussing that in partnership with local government.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Lady give us some idea of the time span for the procedure that would end in confiscation? I do not necessarily have an argument with it, but I am concerned that, by the time that it happens, the dust will lie upon the problem that inspired the reaction in the first place.
  Ms Armstrong: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. The Conservative Government never used their most severe powers. The reality is that, in the initial period, a performance plan, on which local people will be able regularly to give their views, will have to be published every year. Of course, the auditor will make an annual report and trigger inspections if necessary and inspectors will, if necessary, report to the Secretary of State. At this stage, I do not want to go into precise

  129
  timetables. We want to discuss those details in Committee and to produce guidance. They are a part of our discussions with the wider partners with whom we are developing the programme and we are learning from the pilot projects.
  Innovation and reform are at the heart of modern public services, so clauses 14 to 16 contain powers to facilitate best value. We expect local authorities to look at a wide range of options for service delivery, focusing on innovation and new ways of working, and testing the boundaries of service delivery and best practice.
  Where it will improve the standards of public service, we want local authorities to be able to enter into new forms of partnership. Instead of the sterile debates of the past, which paid more attention to the means of service delivery than to the quality of services delivered, we want to promote public-private partnerships—a third way for public services.
  Also, best value will encourage local authorities to work in partnership with other public bodies—pooling budgets, making better use of assets and ending some of the false boundaries between different deliverers of public service. Some of what was revealed in the statement earlier this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health shows the importance of enabling local authorities and health authorities to work together much more closely. At the same time, however, best value will encourage partnerships with private enterprise and voluntary organisations to secure new expertise and greater investment, and to promote innovation. The scope of those enabling powers will have to be carefully drawn. Therefore, clause 15 sets out the detailed process for using them, including further scrutiny by Parliament.
  Compulsory competitive tendering has tied public services in too much red tape for far too long. Modern public services require flexible procurement practices, and it is high time that the legislative framework was amended to reflect that. That is not just the view of the Government: it is also the view of both the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.
  In a recent open letter to the Prime Minister, the CBI stated:
  "The major task ahead is to break the CCT mindset… Best value should be the driver and therefore the centrepiece of local government reform…building innovative partnerships between councils and business and establishing the link between service improvements and better treatment of staff."
  In November last year, I was pleased to receive the first-ever joint delegation from the public and private employers and trade unions working in local government. Those social partners came to press for the best value provisions that are contained in this Bill.
  Local authorities need confidence in their partners, and private companies need to be able to demonstrate that they are good employers. Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales the power to amend the categories of "non-commercial matters" that authorities may take into account in selecting tenderers and awarding contracts.
  The House may remember the widespread support for the private Member's Bill sponsored in the previous Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King)—whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber this afternoon—which sought to make a similar
  130
  amendment. That Bill was killed off by objections from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). However, the Government are today introducing those measures in this Bill. Public procurement policy has moved on from the sterile ideology of the 1980s, even if the Conservative party has not.
  We shall consult widely on the use of those new powers. We believe that it is essential that our approach enjoys the support of partners in the public and private sectors. Our manifesto promised to replace crude and universal capping with new reserve powers to limit excessive council tax rises. The Bill delivers on that pledge as part of a wider package of measures aimed at improving local financial accountability. We hope that the powers will be used rarely, but we will step in to protect council tax payers, should that prove necessary. We are not a tax-and-spend Government and we do not want tax-and-spend councils.
  Mr. Burstow: While I understand that the Minister and the Government do not want high-spending councils, surely that must be a matter for the local electorate. Capping, whether it be crude and universal capping of the sort that the previous Government imposed or the so-called sophisticated capping to be introduced by the Bill, blurs accountability and denies the electorate the opportunity properly to judge their council.
  Ms Armstrong: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not understand what tax-and-spend councils mean. Such councils throw money at a problem rather than trying to sort it out and achieve the best outcome. We want to ensure that councils tackle their problems in that way. We are determined that the national interest, about which I shall speak later, is taken into account in the settlement; that has never been possible. It is not honest to say that national Government have no interest in what local government does. We have to work as partners. The Bill spells out the framework within which that partnership will work.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In the Minister's opinion, have the Government, during their term of office, capped only authorities that have been irresponsible spenders?
  Ms Armstrong: We are at present using the legislation introduced by the previous Government. It does not give me the flexibility or the terms that the Bill will give me.
  We are not a tax-and-spend Government. Councils know that, if they budget responsibly, they will not be affected, but if they fail to deliver responsible budgets or if their efficiency and economy fall short of the standard that we expect, we will use these powers to protect the council tax payer.
  The new powers contained in clause 23 and schedule 1 are much more flexible than the current capping powers. They will enable the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales to look back over several years in deciding whether a council's budget is excessive and allow factors such as demonstrable support for spending plans among the local electorate and the delivery of best value to be taken into account.
  The Bill provides for new and more flexible ways to regulate budget levels and allows for a more managed approach by councils that have to reduce their budgets if

  131
  the Secretary of State or the Assembly determines that a council's budget requirement is excessive. As we announced in the White Paper and at the time of the local government settlement, we are implementing a scheme under existing powers that will limit the amount of subsidy paid to local authorities which increase council taxes above a guideline that we shall set annually. Individual benefit recipients will not be affected. Where a council does not exceed the guideline, it will receive subsidy as now. If a council increases its council tax above the guideline, it will have to make a contribution to the council tax benefit costs arising from that increase.
  The technical provision in clause 24 provides that, where the authority making increases above the guideline is a major precepting authority, such as an English county council, it will make the contributions to the billing authority. In order to ensure fairness, no local area where a higher-than-average proportion of council tax is met from benefit will be affected more than the average.
  The Government believe that it is right that, where councils make increases above the guideline, costs should fall in whole or in part locally rather than nationally. The scheme is currently out to consultation and we shall report back to the House on it at the time of the settlement debate.
  Mr. David Curry: Despite the rules on averaging, does not the scheme mean that a local authority with a large number of properties in, say, band A or B—presumably housing poorer people—will none the less pay more than an authority in, say, Surrey or North Yorkshire as a contribution to council tax spending?
  Ms Armstrong: The Bill allows us to bring down to the average. However, it would be difficult to ask people who are below the average to make a larger contribution to take them up to the average. At present, the national taxpayer picks up the benefit bill. We believe that there should be some local accountability regarding the effect of local decisions. The burden should not be passed completely to the national taxpayer.
  Mr. Curry rose—
  Ms Armstrong: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  The scheme, as I have described it, is out to consultation. It is not part of the Bill, but part of the consultation that is currently taking place. The results of that consultation will come before the House in a regulation that hon. Members must debate. The details are part of the consultation process, not part of the legislation. Existing legislation enables us to do that.
  Mr. Curry: Is it not true, none the less, that the relative burden on council tax payers in Liverpool will be greater than that on council tax payers in Surrey or North Yorkshire?
  Ms Armstrong: I have already answered that question. If they do not make the average in Surrey, they will not contribute up to the average. If they have well above the
  132
  average in Liverpool, council tax payers will not be asked to contribute the amount that they could have been asked to pay if we had gone for the whole lot. We have sought to be fair by ruling that no council will pay above the average.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend refers to accountability, but surely local governments are accountable through the ballot box. That is where accountability lies. The waters have been muddied in the past 20 years or so by the complexities of local government finance and the fact that so much money is raised centrally rather than locally. These measures will make local government finance even more complex. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out that the poor will subsidise the poorest. That is surely not a system that a Labour Government should be comfortable about introducing.
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend seems to forget that, at present, the national taxpayer pays for local council policies through council tax benefit subsidies. That does not help local accountability. We want to share accountability between local and national taxpayers, and that is what this measure will ensure. I remind the House that no council needs to see council tax benefit subsidy limitations if it sets its council tax at a level below the guideline. Taken together, the changes will contribute to a further strengthening of local accountability.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Consultation will occur after councils have set their budgets. That is hardly fair.
  Ms Armstrong: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct. However, the consultation is outside this process and the budgets do not have to be set until later. The councils know what is going on, and they will listen to our discussions not just in the Chamber, but in Committee.
  With central Government no longer telling councils what they may spend, local people will have more impact on the decisions taken by local councils regarding the taxes that they raise, the spending that they commit and the public services that they deliver.
  The Bill modernises local government to enable the delivery of modern public services. Alongside our other local government reforms, it puts local people in the driving seat for reform, giving them a bigger say and a better deal from local councils.
  The Bill defines the national interest in the workings of local government. It is in the national interest that service standards are high; that best value is gained for every penny of public money spent in the public or private sector; that local government, like central Government, is prudent and responsible; and that the council tax payer is protected from the wasteful and the profligate.
  The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats do not understand that national interest. The Tories maintain their hostility to community and their support for capping, compulsion and central control. The Liberal Democrats seem not to care how high council tax gets or what the public get for their money.
  The Bill honours our commitments to end crude, universal council tax capping and outdated compulsory competitive tendering. In their place, we shall strengthen

  133
  local financial accountability, provide new protections for the council tax payer and introduce a new duty of best value to raise the standards of public service and modernise public procurement.
  The Bill has been broadly welcomed by public and private sector alike, by employers and employees, by local government across the parties and by trade unions. For too long, our public services have been marred by conflict and confrontation. Today, the Bill marks a new spirit of consensus and co-operation in the development of public services. I know that the Opposition do not like that. It is a third way, designed to reform public services, build new partnerships between the public and private sectors, encourage innovation and new forms of public service and protect the council tax payer.
  This is a modernising Bill for a modern public service and I commend it to the House.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If the Bill promotes light, truth and harmony in local government, consensus, partnership and a better community spirit, we will be right behind it. The Minister knows full well that a sense of community is at the heart of modern Conservatism. If that raises a wry smile on the Government Benches, it is simply because the hon. Lady's ludicrous posturing at the Dispatch Box makes her look ridiculous. What was interesting about her performance was the way in which it made Labour Members sizzle with enthusiasm. The Labour party obviously has a sense of unity of purpose, consensus and partnership about the Bill, which confers 27 powers on the Secretary of State to exercise over local government.
  Another interesting point about the Minister's performance was that it was characterised by the tell-tale signs that emerge when the legislative cart has been put before the policy horse. First, she announced amendments to the Bill as she moved Second Reading. The pilot schemes for best value are still in progress, so the Government are still formulating the policy on which we are being asked to legislate. Secondly, the hon. Lady spoke about what the Bill does not contain rather what it does contain, and she made little mention of the 27 new powers. There is also a tell-tale clause of the kind that appears in a Bill when there is a muddle; I refer to clause 14, which deals with the use of secondary legislative powers to amend primary legislation. That suggests that the Government do not now know what changes need to be made, and will think of them later.
  If ever there was an enabling Bill, this is it. Support for an enabling Bill is always a little deceptive because people are supporting the actions that they hope the Secretary of State will take with the new powers, not the way in which the powers will actually be used. The test of support for the Bill will be when it is used.
  I am reminded of the section in "Alice in Wonderland"—the Hansard editors will have to be lenient with me—where, according to my recollection, having run the race that nobody wins, Alice asks what it all means. The Queen of Hearts replies, "Words mean what you want them to mean". That just about sums up this Bill. It includes policies that are still subject to consultation.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Given that the hon. Gentleman is deploring the Henry VIII
  134
  provisions in the Bill, will he tell the House how many such provisions were introduced during the Conservative Administrations and how many of those he voted against?
  Mr. Jenkin: That is a good question. We should be extremely careful—indeed, it should be drawn to the House's attention—when such powers are being used. They should be used as little as possible. We will test the purpose behind the powers, and the Government's intention of using them, as the Bill goes through the House—as is our job as the Opposition, and as was, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman's job when he was in opposition.
  When the Deputy Prime Minister published the White Paper in July, we welcomed the fact that the Government were taking the opportunity to look afresh at the range of policies affecting the way in which local government is run. We said that we would judge the Government's proposals according to whether they would increase accountability, transparency and fairness in local government. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said,
  "We must think about how we can once more make local democracy vital and effective."
  We did not neglect local government when in office. I am proud of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, which introduced compulsory competitive tendering for council services. That was the start of the revolution in the delivery of council services that "best value" seeks to continue. Leading councils pioneered the idea of the enabling council. Hundreds of councils succeeded in transforming the quality of their services at reduced cost, and in so doing, transformed their culture on behalf of the communities that they serve. We applaud their success. Despite Labour's bitter opposition at the time, we welcome its acceptance that competition and transparency have a vital role in the delivery of council services.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: How many local authorities took advantage of powers under the 1980 Act prior to the Local Government Act 1988, which made competitive tendering compulsory rather than voluntary?
  Mr. Jenkin: Obviously, powers under the 1980 Act were not enough. That is why I am proud of the later legislation that extended CCT.
  We also introduced the Education Reform Act 1988, which transferred powers from local education authorities to schools and pupils, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which empowered local authorities to take action on the environment, and the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996, which transferred powers from local authorities, giving independence and choice to millions of dependent elderly people.
  We are, however, prepared to evaluate our record in local government; we acknowledge that we need to make a fresh start. As a party, we are seeking to change our whole attitude to local government. The House should ask some fundamental questions: what do we want local councils to do in the next century; what should be their functions, powers and responsibilities; and how can we make them both more independent of the hand of central Government and more accountable to their communities? [Interruption.] I make no apology for surprising some hon. Members. That is in the interests of local government.

  135
  Our objective should be to improve the effectiveness, relevance, accountability and attractiveness of local government. Our guiding principle should be that decisions in our society are taken as closely as possible to the people who are affected. We should aim to strip away the controls that fetter councils—including, eventually, capping.
  Mr. Robert Key: Conservative Members who have been Local Government Ministers warmly welcome and endorse what my hon. Friend has just said and look forward to the development of his argument. Will he bear in mind the fact that forward-looking Conservative-controlled local authorities such as Wiltshire county council are being held back by the inability of the Government to do joined-up local government, let alone joined-up government? The new Government's inability to manage their reforms—for example, in health, with the problems of bed-blocking that result—is making life extremely difficult for local authorities.
  Mr. Jenkin: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
  Many may have thought that new Labour meant it when it said at the general election that it supported decentralisation. However, the Bill takes local councils in precisely the opposite direction. From the noises made by new Labour in opposition, voters and even some Members of Parliament understood that new Labour opposed central Government rules on competitive tendering and spending levels.
  Behind the smokescreen of best value, the Bill replaces the clear and simple discipline of competitive tendering with a highly ambiguous and convoluted regime of central Government powers that are potentially far more draconian. Even the powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State are entirely at his discretion. Instead of abolishing capping in the name of financial freedom for local councils, the Bill replaces fair and open capping powers with a system of capping that is secretive and retrospective, and gives yet more powers to the Secretary of State.
  Ms Armstrong: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that the Conservative party has changed its position and is now against capping?
  Mr. Jenkin: Our position is perfectly clear. We believe that capping should be overt and clear. In the long run, in an ideal world, we should be able to reform local government so that capping is no longer necessary. At present it seems difficult to imagine—as the hon. Lady did when she was in opposition—circumstances in which capping can just be dumped.
  If any hon. Members still believe that the Bill is a decentralising measure, they had better disabuse themselves of that notion. There are no provisions in the Bill to produce accountability. There is nothing that puts powers back into the hands of local communities. If she disagrees, the hon. Lady may rise and tell the House why.
  Ms Armstrong: I have already made my speech.
  Mr. Jenkin: That makes the point.
  136
  The abolition of CCT and capping are old Labour commitments that new Labour was never able to escape. The Bill bolsters the position of the Secretary of State by granting him a host of new powers to intervene and by imposing a swathe of new obligations on councils.
  Far from the decentralisation that many may have expected, the Bill represents a further lurch towards the nationalisation of local councils, presented in a package designed to be all things to all men. The Secretary of State spent more than a year trying to reconcile what councils and trade unions wanted with the realities of office. What he has produced is not as it is intended to seem. In that respect, it is, perhaps, another manifestation of the third way.
  CCT has been a success. By the end of the 1970s, most local authority services had become little more than a union-dominated racket to provide jobs for the boys. CCT has produced huge savings across the range of local government services to which it applies, resulting in an average overall reduction of 7 per cent. in service costs. Moreover, contrary to the scaremongering of Labour's vested interests, it has done so while improving the quality of services offered to communities: in many cases, services have improved beyond recognition, both from the point of view of those who depend on them and from the point of view of the employees who work in them.
  Mr. Graham Stringer: I would be the last to deny that CCT has resulted in some minor improvements in transparency and has clarified local authorities' thinking. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the vast majority of the savings attributed to CCT have been caused by driving down the wages and working conditions of some of the poorest people employed in local authorities—in many cases black people living in the inner cities, and women? The legislation has been racist and sexist, and its effect has been to impoverish people.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that every local authority subcontractor is somehow racist and sexist, and drives people into the dirt? Is he seriously suggesting that a refuse collector employed by a private company today earns less than a refuse collector in 1979? If so, he really is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. What betrays the hon. Gentleman is his grudging admission that there was at least something good about compulsory competitive tendering. Coming from him, that is good enough for me. That betrays how Labour's opposition to CCT was bogus from the start. CCT has been a success.
  Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall make some progress.
  The Labour manifesto said:
  "We reject the dogmatic view that services must be privatised to be of high quality."
  We agree with that. Competitive tendering was never intended, per se, to force privatisation; it merely requires the direct labour force to compete and to be compared with the private sector. Local authorities are not forced to accept the lowest bid; they are merely obliged to have good reasons for not doing so. There is nothing dogmatic in that.

  137
  If best value is to work, it will have to replicate those processes. It is a question of sound financial management and respect for taxpayers' money and for the fact that it should be spent carefully, rather than frittered away. New Labour's opposition to competitive tendering reeks of dogma—the outdated socialist dogma which says that only the state can provide public services, and that profit is to be reviled. New Labour now claims to accept that those ideas belong in the past, but many in the rank and file of the Labour party and its union paymasters still cling fondly to their collectivist doctrines.
  Ms Armstrong: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has just said with the CBI's statement that—
  Mr. Edward Leigh: They are a bunch of socialists.
  Ms Armstrong: I see. Perhaps I should not be intervening.
  The CBI says that CCT has really had its day. It says:
  "Best value must retain the competitive principles of CCT,"
  but
  "remove its fundamentally adversarial nature and replace this with consultation and shared objectives."
  Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with that?
  Mr. Jenkin: No, I do not. I did not agree with the CBI when, for example, it supported the closed shop. It was wrong about that, and even the Labour party has accepted that. The Institute of Directors, in a survey of its members, found that 49 per cent. of them do not think that replacing CCT with best value will improve services for local council tax payers, and only 33 per cent. think that it will.
  It is difficult, however, to argue about the merits of best value on the basis of a Bill that contains virtually nothing other than a raft of extra powers for the Government. It is on that basis that we should discuss the legislation.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree with the leader of the Conservative members on Basildon council—with whom I have consulted on the Bill this afternoon—who describes the Bill as going backwards into the future? Basically, all the consultation flummery and best value is simply a smokescreen behind which Labour councils will be able to take back control of the services that the Conservative Government so successfully privatised.
  Mr. Jenkin: That is certainly one of the dangers of the Bill. But it all depends on how the Secretary of State chooses to exercise his powers. Of course, CCT was not perfect—
  Mr. Eric Illsley rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I should make progress. I owe the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) an intervention at some stage, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Illsley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) who has just referred to the successful privatisation of local government
  138
  services? Does that not contradict his earlier statement that CCT was not about the privatisation of services but was to achieve better value, or whatever?
  Mr. Jenkin: Apart from the Bank of England—and even that example might be questionable—can the hon. Gentleman give an example of a business which has been successfully nationalised? Of course CCT was not perfect: the sustained policy of non-co-operation pursued by Labour councils meant that tight regulations had to be introduced to ensure compliance with the spirit of competitive tendering, and we acknowledge that even that failed with the worst Labour councils. One of the great ironies of politics is that the pride which Labour councils express in their direct labour organisations is matched only by their reluctance to expose the performance of those organisations to competition.
  The unions hope that best value will reward that reluctance; they hate the discipline of CCT, and hope that best value will protect them from the rigour of competition, at the expense of council tax payers. Is that the intention of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) suggested? Alternatively, is best value, like the lager, intended to reach the parts that CCT could not reach?
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman talks about best value as though it were not supported by his Conservative colleagues. Do not Conservative local authorities support the move to best value?
  Mr. Jenkin: Many authorities will support best value if it is implemented in the way that they expect, but the Bill provides no certainty about how best value will be implemented.
  Compulsory competitive tendering provides a concrete framework to ensure competitive local council services. The White Paper stated that best value reviews will be required to
  "embrace fair competition as a means of securing efficient and effective services."
  I have just made the same point to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). The Bill gives no indication of how competition will be provided for. The White Paper offers a range of options, including benchmarking; contracting out all, or part, of a service; joint ventures; competitive tendering of various kinds; or even full privatisation—yes, that, too, is in best value. However, there is virtually nothing about the discipline of competition in the Bill, and nothing to suggest how it will be applied.
  What are we to believe? Will the Secretary of State bring the full rigour of competition to bear on recalcitrant, inefficient councils, or will the Bill achieve what many councils hope and allow them to escape the discipline of competition? The Bill provides no discipline for the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers, and that is its fundamental problem.
  The Bill creates no obligation for the Secretary of State to treat similar councils in a similar way. He can discriminate in favour of some councils and against others. The Bill is an invitation to cronyism of the

  139
  worst kind, which is already endemic in Labour councils. Today, The Birmingham Post reported:
  "Union leaders were secretly recorded urging a Labour councillor to secure work for party activists in a 'jobs for the boys' row in a Midland council."
  The Labour councillor who blew the whistle deserves to be congratulated on showing such courage, but what he revealed was deeply disturbing. He said:
  "They were saying co-operate in finding jobs for these people or all hell will break loose and the whole service will be in dispute. It was an arrangement they have had for years in the past and the Labour group knows about it but doesn't do anything."
  That is Labour in local government and, if best value is to succeed, that is what Labour must confront.
  The Conservatives want what best value sets out to achieve: to get the benefits of competition and to increase local discretion. Good councils are already pursuing best value, but the Bill will dilute competition and hugely increase central control, making local councils more answerable than ever to Whitehall. The emphasis on flexibility, which we hear so much about, encourages the expectation that councils will be able to take their own decisions, but, in reality, the final word on flexibility will rest with the Secretary of State. The onus will be solely on him to challenge the corruption in the party that he represents in Parliament.
  As with the proposals for best value, the Government's changes to the capping regime face both ways. Capping started as a way of protecting ratepayers from the excesses of Labour-run councils in places such as Lambeth and Liverpool, but no one can feel easy about the way in which it has grown. Councils need more freedom of manoeuvre in their financial affairs, but, equally, the council tax payer needs protection from excessive local tax demands. As the Government now recognise, central Government have an interest in how much is spent by local councils. Perhaps that new-found caution is behind the Deputy Prime Minister's rapprochement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rate capping is not being abolished; it is being modernised.
  Taken in isolation from any review of accountability or structures, the measures in the Bill move in the wrong direction. The refusal to publish provisional capping limits, the use of following-year capping, the taking into account of previous years' budgets and the potential clawback of central Government funds for council tax benefit do nothing to address the fundamental problem.
  As the Local Government Association points out, the proposed council tax benefit subsidy limitation will hit the poorest areas hardest. In its briefing, the association says:
  "the guideline increases could be seen as a direct substitute for crude and universal capping."
  Ms Sally Keeble: The capping measure is, in principle, very similar to measures introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party in government to limit the amount of housing benefit that was paid, and to make councils pay an element of that benefit when private rent levels exceeded market value.
  Mr. Jenkin: This is a novel concept in regard to accountability in politics. Whatever the former Opposition's policies were, when they become a
  140
  Government they justify what they did previously on the basis of what the new Opposition did when they were in government. I do not think that the British people will be very impressed by that—and councillors up and down the land will not be very impressed by it, either.
  Local people have too small a stake in the budget decisions made by their local councils. Councils are not properly accountable to the communities that they serve, and the Bill represents a missed opportunity to deal with that.
  If we are to have capping, the system needs to be clear. Universal capping may have been crude, but it was transparent, and councils knew where they stood. Under the Government's proposals, councils and officials will be confused and uncertain, and local communities will be even more so. Crude and universal capping—the target of the Labour manifesto—is to be replaced by capping that is secretive and retrospective. The Bill makes capping personal: it will be a matter of choice for Ministers, and I assure the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) that they will find it no easier to exercise their powers on that basis than to exercise them on the present basis.
  Once again, the Government have achieved the worst of both worlds, which is the essence of what we are discovering their "third way" to be. They have produced more apparent latitude for councils to tax and spend, with none of the reforms that are necessary to ensure that such freedoms are exercised in a responsible manner. The fact is that the Government have no real interest in improving accountability, because they know that the true cost of Labour in local government is very high. The most outrageous council taxes are charged by Labour; the worst-indebted councils are Labour. Labour councillors have been gaoled, investigated by police or subject to allegations in Doncaster, Wakefield—[HON. MEMBERS: "Westminster."] I hear the name of one local authority from Labour Members, but I can mention a few more.
  In Hull, Labour does not trust its local members to select candidates. Then there is Slough, and Birmingham—where a Labour party member has called for an inquiry into sleaze and intimidation. There is Welwyn Hatfield, and Reading—where a fraud squad investigation of the conduct of the direct service organisation was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. There are Hackney—as we well know—Islington and Coventry. Those are just the top 10. In many parts of the country, Labour remains a byword for mismanagement, incompetence and downright corruption.
  We welcome the idea of beacon councils—we are in favour of excellence in local government—but nothing in the Bill defines the criteria for such status, which will be yet another favour for the Secretary of State to bestow or withhold. Once again, he is taking the power to treat similar councils differently, and that will be yet another incentive for councils to curry favour from Whitehall rather than standing up for the interests of their electors.
  Either the Bill threatens to let bad councils get away with inefficiency and excessive taxation, or it will open ever more opportunities for Ministers to crack down, which was not quite the expectation of many people who voted for the Government. The Bill represents a sweeping increase in the powers of central Government. It is a further step towards complete control from the centre—the nationalisation of local government. Under the Bill,

  141
  there is a new panoply of discretionary controls. Although they go in name to the Secretary of State, it will be the Treasury that holds the purse strings ever more securely.
  Best value is open to abuse, both by irresponsible councils and by the Secretary of State. It can make it harder for contractors to provide services for well-run councils and to deliver good value and good services to residents, while opening opportunities for Labour to hand out more jobs for the boys. Even the best-run councils will live in fear of the Secretary of State exercising his new and wide-ranging discretionary powers, which ultimately provide the means by which the Treasury can discipline local government beyond the reach of any democratic accountability.
  The Bill is unclear. It is half baked. It creates the potential for overbearing central Government, but without the benefits of straightforward rules. The new discretions are open to abuse and capping is made a weapon shrouded in secrecy. The restoration of local government is a vital task for the House, but the Bill is the wrong way to go. I urge the House to reject it.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) because I want to congratulate him. Today, we have probably seen one of the greatest examples for a long time of bare-faced cheek from any Conservative Member. I welcome his conversion to a belief in local government. It is just a pity that, during the 18 years that they were in government, the Conservatives showed little or no sympathy for local government.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in the Lobby to vote against the Henry VIII clause in the Bill?
  Mr. Bennett: I would certainly be pleased, if I were to serve on the Committee, to vote against the Henry VIII clause. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we should not be putting such clauses in legislation, but I wish that the previous Administration had been as good at preventing their introduction as some of us on the Back Benches.
  I welcome the proposals to get rid of compulsory competitive tendering because I do not accept that that practice did anything useful for local government. It led to a huge waste of resources because one group of people bid for contracts and another group of people tried to manoeuvre things so that contracts were not awarded in a particular direction.
  In so far as any money was saved, it was not a saving to the citizen, although it may have been a saving to the local authority. What tended to happen—it was certainly the experience in my constituency—was that people who lost a refuse contract were re-employed at lower rates of pay. They then had to apply for benefits of various sorts to make their income up to nearly what it was before. The difference was that, instead of having the honour of working to earn the money, they had to rely on the benefit system. That was not to anyone's advantage.
  I also noticed that a substantial number of people in the poorest parts of my constituency lost their jobs and that those jobs went to people in richer parts of Stockport. Often, the job went from a breadwinner to someone who had the second job in a household. I do not object to second jobs in a household, but it meant that, in some of
  142
  the poorest areas of Stockport and Tameside, jobs and income, which was earned as a right, disappeared. That not only impoverished people there, but reduced income opportunities for shops and the rest of the community.
  I do not believe that compulsory competitive tendering did anything useful for local government. I welcome the fact that it is to be abolished, but there is not much else in the Bill that I have much enthusiasm for. The whole question of best value is verbiage. It has been already said several times that it is a smokescreen to cover up further Government control.
  I applaud the aim of regenerating local government, but there are much simpler ways of doing that. Basically, one has to set local government free and trust the local electorate. Until we do that, it will be very difficult to regenerate local government.
  We also have to look firmly at the powers of local government. As long as we continue to reduce the powers of local government, it will be very difficult to increase enthusiasm and interest in it. In the year I was born, the list of powers held by the local authority in the city of Manchester was very long. It was responsible for the gas supply, the electricity supply, the water supply, sewage disposal, buses and trams, refuse collection and disposal, housing and education from nursery schools up to further and higher education. It was responsible for social services provision and the poor law institutions were still under its control. It was also responsible for environmental health, the police, the fire service, parks, cemeteries, crematoriums, libraries, wash houses and baths. I could go on, right down to a substantial share in the Manchester ship canal. Those were extensive powers and they attracted to local government people who were enthusiastic about running those areas of responsibility.
  Having taken virtually all those things away from local government, we have to recognise that the situation has changed. Even in the areas of responsibility still held by local government, there is a tendency for Whitehall to want to dictate what is done. We have to recognise that, unless we return to local government far more of those powers, we should stop calling it local government and accept that it is merely local administration of national services. Until we recognise the need to reverse that trend, it will be very difficult to rebuild local government.
  It has been suggested to me that if we have elected mayors and cabinet government within local authorities, we will somehow attract people back to serve on councils. The first thing we have to recognise is that we must give much greater status to elected councillors and not, as so often happens, knock those individuals who provide a useful service. We must also recognise the problems of attracting people to such jobs. In the early part of the century many people did not have good educational opportunities. They ended up in relatively dead-end jobs and were very pleased to be able to show their skills and powers of leadership by becoming members of local councils. As a result of improved educational opportunities, the number of people in that situation has reduced dramatically. It is the same for Conservative councillors. Many people were forced into family businesses where they were not able to exercise their skills and they ended up being able to show those skills and their willingness to serve their community through the local councils. Many of those opportunities have now disappeared.

  143
  It is extremely difficult for people to get time off work for such tasks. That is not because the employers say that they cannot have time off to work on the local council, but because it is spelt out clearly that if they do, their promotion chances will disappear. If we are to attract people back to serve on councils, we must accept that it is extremely important to ensure that local councillors have status and are offered the opportunity to take time off.
  I believe that, as long as local authorities are receiving the vast majority of their funding from central Government, it will be extremely difficult to get back the autonomy. We should return the business rate to local authorities. Until we do, it will be difficult to give them the status they require.
  I think that the Government must face the fundamental question of how far local people should be able to make choices. In my childhood, my father used to tell me firmly that I could make a choice if I lived in Greater Manchester. I could either aim to live in the city of Manchester and pay high rates and have high-quality services or I could live across the boundary in Stretford or one of the other smaller authorities surrounding Manchester and pay much lower rates and have much poorer services, unless I was crafty and able to slip across the border to enjoy some of the services provided by the city. People had a clear choice. That choice is increasingly disappearing. That is what worries me about best value. People should have the right to choose to have a lower level of services in their area and to pay less for it. That is difficult if there are national standards for education, social services and other functions.
  Will best value apply to education? It seems logical that it should, but we do not want a proliferation of best value measures and the whole inspection system, which currently comes from the Department for Education and Employment.
  If we are introducing best value, it is important to take a holistic view and measure all the services provided by a local authority. I am worried that any measuring exercise—be it the simple measurement of profits and costs in compulsory competitive tendering or a system that lays down criteria—will fail to look at the whole picture. I should like to illustrate that by considering the provision of services for the elderly in Reddish. It is not difficult to measure what is provided by social services, such as luncheon clubs and home helps. However, the authority provides or assists with a range of other equally important services for elderly people. The Reddish library provides an excellent service for the elderly to borrow books and talk to people. It is a helpful service for the community. The same is true of allotments, which are often run by a voluntary committee, many of whose members are pensioners. Stockport council should be proud of the support that it gives in that area, but the activity of the parks department is equally important. Stockport' s neglect of the bowling greens has undermined an opportunity for elderly people to enjoy themselves. I should like all those services measured under best value, but it is difficult to achieve such holistic measurement.
  Local authorities should not be judged on turnout. It is very important that people have the right to vote and to make local choices, but we should not castigate those who
  144
  choose not to exercise the right to vote. If they do not bother to vote, we can assume that they are happy with the outcome. We should not get upset about turnout. If we are interested in a high turnout, we should give a 10 per cent. discount on council tax to those who turn out.
  The issue is not that important. We should recognise that apathy has always been a feature in local elections. I looked at an electoral register from 1906 which showed the canvassing of the Labour party. It listed the reasons that people gave on the doorstep about why they were not going out to vote. They were: "They are all the same", "going later" or "possibly". The excuses for not voting have not changed much during this century. A few issues such as the poll tax will motivate large numbers of people to vote, but we should not get too hung up about turnout. The important point is that people have the opportunity to make choices.
  Mr. Illsley: Does my hon. Friend hold the same view on electoral registration? The register in my area is many thousands of voters down on previous years. Does he think that local authorities should do more and should have more resources to improve the register?
  Mr. Bennett: It is important that people should be registered to vote and that we should make it easy for people to vote, but, having done that, we should not get too upset if they remind us sometimes that it is not the most exciting thing. As we take ever more powers from local authorities, I do not blame people who do not particularly want to vote. Changing the system will not increase the number of people who vote.
  I welcome the abolition of CCT, but I plead with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that if we can trust the people of Scotland and Wales with devolution, we ought to be able to trust the people of Denton and Reddish, Tameside and Stockport with far more powers to make their own decisions about the level of local government services that they want and how they want those services run. The more that we have to give them best value and diktats from Westminster, the more that we move from local government to local administration.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. David Curry: The Bill is nowhere near as bad as the Minister's speech made it appear. She is occasionally shrill and she does rather blather, but when she does both simultaneously it becomes very tedious.
  The Minister mentioned her great four Cs—challenge, consultation, comparison and competition. She did not mention a fifth C—councillors. The motivation of councillors to carry out the changes matters most of all. If we move to new structures of government, the role of the back-bench councillor and the motivation to become a member of a council will be crucial to making the reforms work.
  If the system becomes too executive, those who are not part of the inner circle will have to think hard about their function. We want councillors to carry the measures out on behalf of the community—a word that I am not frightened of. I hope that the Minister will remember that most of the community is not represented in the community consultations. Most people do not belong

  145
  to bodies, organisations or pressure groups and are not represented. We must be careful not to nominate too much. Consumers' organisations are entirely nominated, but claim to represent the community.
  The Minister accused us of believing in capping, compulsion and central control, which are the three hallmarks of the Bill. Capping will be more extensive because it can be multi-annual and can be started below the level of the budget, which was not the case under the previous Government. Compulsion lies in the range of reserve powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State, who is part of the central Government.
  It would be better if the Government agreed that they should have a view about what it is sensible and right for local authorities to spend. They spend a proportion of the national product and we cannot ignore that. The argument is about how that is done and where a fair balance lies. It is an argument not of principle, but about sensible methods and balance. If we put the issue on that basis, we may be able to reach broad agreement.
  The Bill is not a charter for local government liberation. On best value and capping the Government have draconian powers of intervention. For once the notes that accompany the Bill are not as obscure as they often are for such legislation. Normally, they are even more complicated and less comprehensible than the Bill, but that is not so in this case. They give some useful examples, but the word "intervention" appears regularly. Let us not pretend that this is a charter of liberation. Even if local government has been let off the chain, it has certainly been caged, to use one of the Prime Minister's favourite metaphors.
  There is merit in best value, but it is more all-pervading than compulsory competitive tendering. It has two fundamental elements. The first is a requirement to undertake reviews of every service within five years. It would be interesting to know in what order they are to be reviewed. Will the difficult ones be taken first; will it be left entirely to the local authorities; or will there be a mixture? Secondly, there is an obligation to produce annual performance plans, which will be subject to audit. An inspection will be either by the existing service inspectorate or by the new Audit Commission—which has become the 7th cavalry in all this—as the best value inspectorate for housing, highways and environmental health.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who is just leaving the Chamber, was leader of Manchester city council. He rightly said that CCT had served its purpose. It forced councils to define the cost of a service and to measure its delivery. Before CCT, local authorities were under no such obligation. In that sense, best value is a linear descendant of the principle of CCT. Without CCT there would not have been best value. To be honest about it, the one grew out of the other.
  The essential question on reviews is how competitive the service will be required to be. The Government are to produce guidance on competition and it will be critical. Incidentally, I hope that the direct service organisations will have to keep separate accounts, as they do now, so that their finances can be checked and will remain transparent. An enormous amount hangs on the strength of the guidance, which I hope will be published before the Bill is considered in Committee.
  146
  Much depends on the powers of the Secretary of State, but some important issues will have to be sussed out in Committee. The role of competition is crucial. CCT got the private sector involved. What are the Government's intentions as regards exposing services to the private sector or to the voluntary sector, or indeed to competition from other local authorities? For example, in education there is the possibility of the private sector being brought in to take over failing local education authorities. Is that part of the best value exercise? Can it be extrapolated to different services?
  How do we ensure coherence between the various inspection regimes? The Minister has admitted that there are many individual regimes. How do we achieve a cross-cutting—a favourite Labour word—assessment of them? How do we make sure that a local authority that subjects itself to a rigorous scrutiny and therefore marks itself down does not get hit harder than a local authority that is permissive in the way in which it examines its own services?
  The advice that—presumably—the Audit Commission will have to give the auditors will be crucial in achieving coherence in the way in which the services are inspected. What is the methodology in the scrutiny? If there is to be intervention, it has to be triggered by a common standard. We have to be sure that the Secretary of State uses his powers on a basis that can be justified and that they are not seen to be used arbitrarily.
  There are also bound to be questions on the timeliness of the performance information from local authorities. After all, the performance indicators will be crucial to the measurement process. We should demand much quicker delivery now that there is to be an annual performance plan. Local authorities have enough experience to generate performance indicators on a much better basis than now.
  Some services will have to be pushed hard. Social services, for example, are not inherently less capable of being measured than other services, but operate in a culture in which such a process is alien—a culture that will have to be challenged.
  It is important to remember that the services are for people. The process must not become an internal exercise which is hidden from the real world in which the services are supposed to be delivered. Therefore, the mechanisms for involving councillors—which is where the measure moves into the restructuring processes that the Government will no doubt introduce later—and for giving substance to the consultations are also important. I hope that the Minister will say more about that in Committee.
  The role of the Audit Commission will also be crucial. The new leader of the Audit Commission, whom I appointed to the Audit Commission, will make a very good General Custer, although I think her fate will be a good deal more felicitous than that of the unfortunate American general. However, she has a difficult job to do. Where the Audit Commission has to inspect, is it intended that it should be an in-house inspection with Audit Commission inspectors, or will the Audit Commission be at liberty or be required to appoint external inspectors or invigilators? Will it have to lay down the rules by which they operate or the standards by which they measure? It is a crucial issue, not least for the staffing requirements of the Audit Commission. Clearly, it will need new staff to carry out its new functions. Will it still be responsible for

  147
  the performance indicators? It has done a remarkably good job. It has sometimes made people feel uncomfortable, but it is no bad thing that people should feel uncomfortable about the revelation of statistics.
  As we all know, the problem with local government is that the top few authorities are extremely good, the bottom few are catastrophic and in the middle is a large mass which is simply not very ambitious. The key is to bring that unambitious mass up to the level of the higher performers. As the Minister said, we want everybody to be as good as the top 25 per cent. However, by definition there will always be 75 per cent. which are not in the top 25 per cent., and it will be more difficult to keep the process going the third time round with the new steps of measurement. The criteria cannot remain the same; they will have to reflect the progress that has been made and the incremental improvement which it is realistic to demand of local authorities.
  I now turn to the part of the Bill that deals with capping. The Minister said that "crude, universal capping" will be replaced by what I take to be sophisticated and selective capping. I am not sure that someone standing on the gallows would be overtly concerned as to whether he was about to meet his fate by a crude or a selective method.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Judging by what is on the face of the Bill, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right. It is subjective and selective and it is in the hands of the Secretary of State. However, the schedule is as crude and across the board as ever.
  Mr. Curry: I am about to come to that. My hon. Friend, who has much experience of these matters as a giver and a receiver, is certainly right. It is not a new liberal regime; it has two differences from its predecessor. First, the Government can cap over more than one year. As I understand from the extremely complex Bill and the schedule, which is infernally complicated as my hon. Friend said, that is a notification procedure. Secondly, the Secretary of State can be more selective over the terms on which he caps local authorities. It will still be open to the Secretary of State to announce capping criteria in advance, which is a facultative ability under the legislation that the Government propose to repeal.
  The explanatory notes do not make clear how the legislation will operate in practice. Some of the Secretary of State's powers are on the face of the Bill, others are not. In fact they stop half way through a sentence. The explanatory notes emphasise that the Secretary of State must have regard to principles, but do not say what those principles are. I am referring to paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes. We need to see the principles, as yet again it is not stated what the principles are. Yet again, the devil is in the detail; how it will operate in practice is what matters to people.
  I agree with doing away with pre-announcement as it will force local authorities to make choices. The Minister saw representatives of North Yorkshire county council this morning while I was in a Select Committee meeting. My local authority explained that because of the change in methodology on the social services side it faces a serious problem. As a result, it is consulting the community on
  148
  increasing the council tax precept by 7.5 per cent. to make good some of the deficit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) said, an interesting early test of the Government's intentions will be whether or not they decide to live with that if it receives the approval of the local people.
  There is quite a difficult distinction between designated and nominated authorities. As I understand the Bill, nominated authorities can have a notional budget which is below their present level of spend. They are then left to work out how to meet their capping requirements.
  I now turn to the foggy bit of the Bill which deals with council tax benefit proposals. The provisions depend on regulations that have not yet been announced, so in a sense the Bill contains the gravy, but we do not yet have the meat which is the main course. As I understand it, each tier of authority when it calculates its own precept will have to take account of the extra benefit cost that it will entail and include it in the charge. The district will bill and pay to the county its share of the revenue, but the county has no power to hand back the extra element of the revenue that it raises through the benefit rules.
  However, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) made clear, local authorities with a preponderance of properties in the lower bands will find that those living in such properties will be subsidising the poorest people who live in social housing. There is no escape from that. There may be a good intellectual argument for doing that and for sharing responsibility, but the idea that it has anything to do with more effective accountability simply does not stand up. It is so complex in nature that that line of argument is absolute baloney and the Minister would be well advised not to pursue it. The impact will be much tougher in some areas than in others.
  If the legislation is carried out effectively, if people want to make it work, if there is a commitment on the part of councils and councillors, and if the regulatory framework is sensible—and if the Audit Commission, a sound body, applies it properly—there is no reason why the Bill should not be effective. The danger is that that will not happen, and that there will be slippage between existing and new requirements.
  Before we exult too much at the liberation that the Bill represents, it is worth while pointing out that the Bill retains capping, that the Government have deferred on the regional assemblies—which are more important to the Liberal Democrats than to me—and that the Bill will not restore the business rate.
  Mr. David Heath: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall our annual pilgrimage to see him when he was in his previous occupation. What is most depressing to some of us is that the three elements about which we complained the most—capping, the uniform business rate and the standard spending assessments—are to persist. The Government came to office with a massive majority to abolish those elements, but they are persisting with them—to the detriment of local democracy and local accountability.
  Mr. Curry: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the area cost adjustment. To have got this far in a debate on local government without mentioning the area cost adjustment—or, for that matter, additional

  149
  educational needs—is quite an achievement. The Government have flunked that matter for the next three years, and the hon. Gentleman can add to his litany of complaints those matters which affect his county, and mine.
  Prescription underlines the Government's attitude in the Bill. I have read every single line of every single local government White Paper—there have been a whole string of them from the Government—and the attitude that comes through is permeated with the frustrated spirit of a colonial power exasperated at the antics of the natives, who must be brought under some firm government. There can be self-government in the little principalities, but the imperial framework will remain in place. Following my own experience, I do not necessarily disapprove because, in politics, people often have less choice than they think. We are more honest if we admit that.
  The Bill is a different way of doing something that is essentially simple, and I am willing to give it a chance to work. However, we will need to know how it will work, because how the Secretary of State interprets his powers and uses his principles and guidelines will be fundamental. I hope that the Minister will come to the Committee well armed.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome the Bill, and I hope to keep my comments relatively brief as a consequence. I wholeheartedly welcome the abolition of universal capping, although I realise that the alternative is to give powers to the Secretary of State. However, anything that this Government come up with will be a lot better than what we had from the previous Government in terms of capping.
  In 1990, 20 authorities were capped under the new financial regime imposed by the previous Government. One third of those 20 authorities were coalfield authorities, all of which finished up with very low standard spending assessments. Despite many complaints during the past eight years about the standard spending assessments—and many speeches in this House—there has been little adjustment to them. As a consequence, the low starting point for authorities with historically low SSAs, such as mine—Barnsley metropolitan borough council—has meant that we have had difficulty catching up.
  We have had low and unfair revenue support grant settlements. Tory Members of Parliament have previously classified Barnsley—where unemployment levels are traditionally 2 to 3 per cent. higher than the national average—as more prosperous than Kingston upon Thames and, on one occasion, Runnymede.
  The most recent settlement from the present Government has been much fairer to Barnsley and has recognised our particular problems. However, my local authority still faces £10 million of cuts in this year's budget, on the back of £40 million to £50 million of cuts since capping was introduced in its present form in 1990.
  Even when standard spending assessments were increased for my local authority by about 6 per cent., it made very little difference to our problems because we were still subject to the capping criteria. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to annual pilgrimages to Government Departments. I can recall pleading with Ministers in the last Government to increase our SSA in relation to the fire service, because the Home
  150
  Office was telling us that South Yorkshire was below the Home Office's required standards for fire cover. That is how bizarre the system became.
  I welcome many of the Bill's initiatives, such as the power to nominate and set targets for future years, or to use them as a baseline. In 1990, the cap came well into the financial year, and it was difficult for the local authority to adjust to the new budget once the financial year had started. It is a good idea for the Secretary of State to have the power to give local authorities a target to achieve in the present year or, alternatively, a target for the following year.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will make good use of his power in the Bill to take into account anything he feels relevant in determining any future caps, in terms of designating or nominating authorities. In particular, I hope that he will take into account coalfield authorities where there is a history of low SSAs and low RSGs. In the past few years, colleagues and I have asked successive Governments to review the SSA methodology. It is unfair and arbitrary, and we have provided research from various universities to highlight the problem. The original Webber-Craig authorities looked at the matter, and the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities (Outside London) is doing so.
  SSAs should reflect need. If the methodology introduced by the previous Government had been fair, some of the capping regimes that have been in place might not have been needed. My local authority is not a high-spending authority, and it is not profligate. It always features well in the performance indicators, but it has particular problems. It has low educational achievement and high unemployment, but it has no ethnic minority population, and we lose out under the SSA methodology because of that. Barnsley has been a prudent authority. However, after eight years of cuts, it is having to look at cuts in education and social services—the two areas where we have the greatest pressure.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I welcome the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering. In my opinion, it was not a success—it failed miserably. It was intended to bring private enterprise and private sector dynamism into local government. However, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) let the cat out of the bag when she talked about her local authority bringing services back into public control which had been successfully privatised. The latter was of course the idea behind CCT. However, it lowered standards and cut the quality of services dramatically.
  The only way in which the private sector could profit from taking on contracts in areas such as cleaning was to cut the hours of work, the holidays and the wages of those employees involved in the contracts. Some of those private companies made vast profits—basically at the expense of the work force and the taxpayer. Those contracts had low quality specifications, and standards and quality fell. Wages and holidays were cut, and there were redundancies. At the end of the day, many employees had to turn to benefits—particularly family credit—to top up their earnings. So taxpayers were subsidising CCT and putting money straight into the coffers of private companies. In addition, the Equal Opportunities Commission produced reports detailing

  151
  gender inequalities: many of the employees in those service areas were female and CCT discriminated against them.
  I hope that best value will lead to a return to good-quality local services. Quality should be our byword and standards should be raised to the level of the best. The emphasis should be on quality, not on cheapness. We want to go back to having quality services in local government. I welcome the duty to consult that is placed on local authorities, because the public will have their say about the type and quality of public services they want. My local authority has in place mechanisms such as community partnerships whereby it can consult the public; it also regularly consults local business. Such consultation will provide information about how the local people want their services to be run and, more importantly, about whether they want a cheap and nasty service or a quality service to be provided in their area.
  Clause 4 relates to performance indicators. My local authority has nothing to fear in that respect, because it is a hard-working and low-spending authority. However, an article in this week's issue of the public sector finance magazine suggests two interesting performance indicators. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish spoke about electoral turnout, making the good point that local authorities should not be burdened with having to deal with turnout. However, we have to give consideration to electoral registration because, over the past few years, many electoral registration officers have ignored their responsibility to produce an adequate register. My local electoral register contains duplications and the number of omissions runs into the thousands.
  Even if this is not included as a performance indicator, local government should be given encouragement and, perhaps, financial assistance to improve electoral matters in the local area. Some of the issues relating to elections, such as having a rolling register or different voting days, do not fall within the scope of this or any other local government Bill, but we have to improve the turnout in local government elections because it is important that people should participate in local democracy.
  I welcome the provisions in respect of a five-yearly review and benchmarking. If, at the end of the process, the benchmarking shows that a local authority is not achieving the level of the best and that leads to privatisation or some other means of providing a given service, so be it. I especially welcome the duty to review whether a given function should be exercised by an authority: it is high time local authorities were given a duty to examine the services they provide and to decide whether it is necessary that they provide those services, or whether they should be provided in some other way. Only by reviewing and comparing can we promulgate best practice.
  I welcome the performance plans and agree that the public should be able to see what the local authority intends to provide and how it intends to do so. My local authority recently compiled the responses to a survey to which there was a good public response and which asked the public what services they thought the local authority provided. The local authority and I were devastated to learn that some members of the public still thought that the local authority was responsible for health care in their area. The results of that survey came as a big
  152
  disappointment, showing that we have to educate the public about what services are available from local authorities and what a local authority is obliged to provide. If people are to understand why their council tax is being increased, decreased or capped, they have to understand the services on which that money is spent.
  I welcome the provisions of clause 17, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) will speak at length on the subject. Matters such as terms and conditions of employment, training and recruitment, equal opportunities and the inclusion of people who are long-term unemployed should be permitted in contracts.
  Clause 24 pre-empts future legislation in respect of the council tax subsidy and I hope that further thought will be given to the consultation on that. At the end of the day, we are removing capping with one hand and reintroducing a cruder version of capping with the other. As one who represents a deprived area, let me point out that it is the poorest authorities that will be hardest hit by council tax subsidy capping. I hope that Ministers will study closely the consultation responses on that subject.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while welcoming the repeal of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1988 concerning compulsory competitive tendering, declines to give the Local Government Bill a Second Reading because, instead of creating a system of local government that is powerful and free, it grants comprehensive powers to the Secretary of State over local government, amounting to the nationalisation of local government, it creates a culture whereby local government is more concerned with the requirements of Whitehall than the needs of local residents, it retains and incrementally increases capping, thus blurring accountability for Council Tax and service levels, it fails to grant a power of general competence to local authorities, and it alters the way in which Council Tax Benefit subsidy is paid in such a way that poor Council Tax payers will pay for the benefits of the poorest Council Tax payers."
  I shall address one of two of the points raised in the debate so far and then set out the Liberal Democrats' general view of the Bill. I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). In view of his comments on Henry VIII clauses, I hope that his application to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill is successful; such provisions cause us considerable concern and are an issue to which we should like to return at a later stage.
  We share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman and by several other hon. Members that it is right that the House should have regard for the way in which it has reduced the status of local government over many years—not only during the lifetime of the Conservative Government, but since the war. The process of attrition and centralisation, whereby powers and functions have been removed from local authorities and transferred to agencies and central Government Departments, has steadily undermined the authority of local authorities and their ability to command the support of local people. It is that, more than any other factor, that has depressed turnouts and the Liberal Democrats believe strongly that

  153
  there has to be a reversal of that centralising tendency. Unfortunately, the Bill does not in any way contribute to such a reversal.
  Mr. Bennett: Although I fully accept that the powers exercised by local authorities have been substantially reduced, the hon. Gentleman should be careful with his argument: turnout figures have not fallen dramatically compared with the period when local authorities had a vast range of powers, for even then turnout was relatively low.
  Mr. Burstow: I accept that. One analysis of last year's local election results commented that perhaps we had returned to a level of turnout more typical than that which pertained during the post-war period. There was a run of exceptionally high turnouts under the Conservative Government, when people increasingly used local elections to indicate their displeasure not only with Conservative local councillors, of whom there are now far fewer, but with Conservative central Government and the way in which they managed local government affairs through capping and other measures.
  While we are on the subject of reversals, it was interesting to listen to the two Front-Bench speakers, especially the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). He outlined the newly emerging Conservative policy on local government, which differs greatly from the policy paraded around the country when the Conservatives were in government. Many in local government, especially former Conservative councillors, would have liked to have heard those policies expressed and converted into action when the Conservatives were still in office, because they know only too well the consequences of the failure to do so. Many have told current Conservative Members of Parliament that the reason why the Conservative party no longer runs many local councils is the actions of the Conservative Government.
  It is worth bearing in mind that, unlike the previous Government, the Labour Government have decided that it is appropriate for this country to sign up to and ratify the European charter of local self government. We welcome that sign of direction and of a desire to rejuvenate and reinvigorate local government. However, we question whether the Bill will move us in any way towards the noble sentiments and vision set out in the charter. It recognises the importance of independent and democratic local government and describes what local government is. It has tax-raising powers and it is not an agent of central Government. It is not there simply as a service delivery arm for central Government and Whitehall.
  Given the Government's desire to sign up to that charter—soon after becoming a Minister the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) announced that they were signing up to it—it is surprising that this legislation does not cut central control or remove prescription of service delivery. It certainly does not devolve financial freedom to local authorities.
  Mr. John Hayes: On the contrary, the Bill would increase central control. The distinctiveness of local authorities that want to pursue their own agenda would be limited by bland, uniform targets and by "independent" audits, which would force
  154
  them to adopt a vanilla-style approach and, therefore, would limit most electors' choice of different approaches and options.
  Mr. Burstow: The extent to which the Bill would further extinguish the opportunity for diversity and distinctiveness at a local level is a cause for concern and I welcome the fact that Conservative Members are now increasingly concerned about those issues. It is a pity that they were not so concerned when they were in government.

  The legislation assumes the worst of local councils. Labour did not take that position in opposition. The Minister referred to what she described as the Conservatives' approach of capping, compulsion and control, but it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Undoubtedly, the Bill contains many of those elements and nowhere is that more clear than in part I, which introduces the new regime of central control.
  I must make it clear that Liberal Democrats welcome the end of compulsory—or compulsive—competitive tendering, which prevented and, indeed, perverted value for money. CCT resulted in local authorities being forced to deliver services on the basis of little more than trying to find the bargain basement price, not the highest-quality goods. We have always regarded that as an unacceptable product of the CCT regime. CCT did not bring the discipline of the private sector; it left councils tied up in red tape and bureaucracy, creating a huge industry for lawyers, consultants and all sorts of other agencies. Often, the so-called savings resulted from increasing staff insecurity and lowering wages.
  The Liberal Democrats have never opposed the principle of private sector involvement in the provision of public services. Indeed, many of the authorities that we control are doing just that. However, we have always objected to the element of compulsion that CCT necessitates. The so-called best-value regime that is to replace CCT is in danger of being as hidebound in red tape and as knee deep in consultants as it ever was.
  The Bill will grant the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to guide and direct the new best-value regime. Indeed, a future Secretary of State armed with the new powers—perhaps a less benign Secretary of State—could reintroduce compulsory competitive tendering without the need for primary legislation. The Bill goes further than the wildest dreams—I stress that—of Nicholas Ridley and his view of how local government should evolve into annual meetings to let contracts. The wording of this Bill would allow a Secretary of State with a very different view from that of this Government to enable such changes without reference to Parliament, except to a Committee considering regulations that are not susceptible to amendment. That is why the Bill is unacceptable. The changes would not be subject to the sort of parliamentary scrutiny that I think appropriate. Indeed, my colleagues feel strongly that the scrutiny allowed is inappropriate.
  Of course, competition remains an important element in the best-value regime. We do not object to that and it is important that competition and the ability to benchmark and to market test are appropriate. However, if a council knows from opinion polls, citizens' panels and other public consultation methods that go beyond sectoral interests, that a service is effective and popular with local residents, will it still have to subject that service to market

  155
  testing under the regime? Many hon. Members have commented that the devil is in the detail. It is important that the regulations and guidance are available to the Standing Committee when it considers the Bill. Only in that context can we meaningfully scrutinise the legislation and debate where it will take us and local government.
  Effective performance management is the key to high quality, cost-effective service delivery. Councils successfully deliver efficient services that are geared to the needs of their communities if they have built performance management into the organisation. There are different approaches to performance management. If one asked any three consultants, I am sure that they would offer different answers—for a price, of course.
  Market testing and competition can help councils to achieve efficient service delivery, but the individual council and its electorate should be left to decide which services to market test, which to run in partnership with other organisations, whether in the private or the voluntary sector, and which should remain in-house. Indeed, it is important that local authorities should be able to retain an in-house capacity against which to benchmark and also to safeguard the public interest if a private contractor failed or where there was no other competitor in the local marketplace. Otherwise, we would have the bizarre situation of there being no facility in place for the service to be re-provided within the authority. That has been one of the down sides of the way in which CCT has operated.
  The Bill is unacceptable to Liberal Democrats because it has such sweeping powers. I referred to the Henry VIII clause, clause 14, which would give the Secretary of State the power to rewrite other Acts of Parliament. The Bill as drafted would greatly extend the remit of the Audit Commission.
  Ms Armstrong: Perhaps I can help. Clause 14 exists in its present form because we want to facilitate new ways of working. For example, we want to enable health authorities and local social services departments to pool budgets. Where appropriate, we want authorities to develop waste management programmes, not necessarily to separate collection and disposal, and that is impossible in two-tier authorities at the moment. We cannot do so in a way that will give local authorities flexibility to decide whether such a move is appropriate for them without doing so in that way.
  If the hon. Gentleman persists in opposing those provisions, he will, for example, restrict the ability of authorities to work together. One authority that was a best-value pilot discovered that it organised only 10 adoptions last year. It has said that it is crazy for its social services department to offer a full adoption service and that it should be able to work with a neighbouring authority. The Bill would give authorities the freedom so to do. However, Parliament must be able to agree decisions to keep the public audit trail right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I understand that the Minister is anxious to give the fullest possible explanation, but the Front-Bench spokesmen will have the opportunity to deal with such points when winding up.
  Mr. Burstow: I am grateful for that full explanation of the Government's intention behind the clause, but we
  156
  must have regard for the fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State will not always be in those posts and that others could use the powers entirely differently. That is why we are expressing our concern and why we want to be clear about the procedures and the ability to amend. The Bill would allow alterations through regulations, when hon. Members would be allowed to vote yes or no, but they would not be allowed to consider, amend or change such regulations. That is a fundamental weakness of the Bill. A better way to secure what the Minister wants to achieve is to introduce a power of general competence. That would be in accordance with the representations made by the Local Government Association and—many times—by Liberal Democrats. We would support the Bill if it introduced that power and put in place a process by which Parliament would get what it needs but which also gave greater freedom to local government. Although we shall discuss the matter further in Committee, we object strongly to the Bill in principle because it does not offer that.
  Dr. George Turner: Is not the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Bill in fact a criticism of the way in which the House works? The problem is that the House does not properly scrutinise Government. That is not the fault of the Government, who want to introduce sensible management into local government. It is for the House to modernise scrutiny of Bills and secondary legislation: if hon. Members addressed that matter more forcibly, we should make some progress.
  Mr. Burstow: I could not agree more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will vote with us when we press those very points. We firmly believe that many elements of the House's procedures could benefit from the modernising zeal about which Ministers often speak. Such modernisation would ensure that the House could scrutinise the Government's actions and legislative proposals more effectively than at present.
  The Bill greatly extends the remit of the Audit Commission. I strongly support that organisation's work and the non-partisan and effective manner in which it operates, but the Bill could add a new dimension to the conflict that can arise between local councillors and auditors. That is because, when assessing best-value plans, it is possible that auditors will go further than a review of the process involved in assembling such plans and will stray into challenging directly local authorities' policy priorities.
  As the Bill is drafted, it appears that the Audit Commission may have to issue guidance and give support to local authorities. It will be interesting to learn how much extra Ministers think that local authorities will have to pay in fees for such additional services.
  Reference has been made already to the 100 or more local authorities, under the control of all parties, that are engaged in best-value pilot schemes testing the practical effect of the ideas contained in the Bill. How will the lessons from those pilot schemes be translated into the provisions of the Bill and the regulations and guidance to be issued subsequently? I hope that the Minister will give some indication of the timetable and the process involved. When will the information derived from the best-value pilot schemes be shared with the House?
  Questions also arise with regard to the duty to implement best value and the drafting of clause 3, which omits any mention of equality or environmental

  157
  sustainability. We are especially worried that the Bill does not refer to either of those matters, and we shall press Ministers on them in Committee, as we believe that they are important and must be given due regard in the application of the best-value regime.
  I turn now to capping, whose scope the Bill in fact extends because it allows a more sophisticated selection of authorities that may be capped. We have consistently opposed the principle of capping, as we believe that it blurs accountability. Council tax payers faced with higher bills or poor quality services will not know to whom they should complain. Should they express their unhappiness in writing to Ministers or to local councillors at their surgeries, or should they boot out those councillors at the next local election?
  As has been said already, the new regime will introduce more secrecy into the process. It will be harder for treasurers and councillors to make judgments in advance of capping to protect their local authorities' interests when it comes to setting budget requirements and council tax levels. The absence of pre-signalling will be damaging. In the interests of local democracy and of genuine local accountability through the ballot box, we should prefer capping to be abandoned altogether.
  The Bill paves the way for the introduction of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. The previous Conservative Government introduced a housing benefit subsidy limitation, and this Government are to employ the same claw-back mechanism for council tax benefit. Even though some Labour Members are continuing their campaign for changes in what they believe to be an unfair housing benefit regime, they are likely to support the introduction of the same unfairness into the council tax benefit system.
  We believe that the proposal will penalise councils that spend slightly more than what is dictated by central Government. The Local Government Association has calculated that there are at least 23 local authorities in England which, even if their spending levels match those of the Government's standard spending assessments, will be penalised by having council tax benefit subsidy clawed back. That seems even more unfair in the light of what the Minister said earlier about achieving a balance between the interests of taxpayers at national and local levels. How can it be fair for central Government, by means of the new device contained in the Bill, to claw back benefit paid to support services at the level that central Government will have deemed appropriate? The Government must examine closely the details of the scheme, which clearly will penalise some of the poorest councils and people in the country.
  The Bill will restore, by the back door, the system of crude capping. It will amount to another way in which the Government will be able crudely to direct local authorities in the conduct of their affairs, and we shall oppose the measure for that reason. As our reasoned amendment makes clear, we believe that the provision is inappropriate.
  What is the reason for the haste behind the introduction of the council tax benefit limitation? In the coming financial year, even though they may not be pre-signalling, the Government will continue to implement the existing regime of crude and universal capping. So why are they hurrying to rush through Parliament this Bill and its associated regulations to
  158
  enable them to impose this additional central control over local authorities? What is the rush? The scheme has been announced, but local authority associations and treasurers have not yet seen the scheme's precise details. That makes it much more difficult for treasurers to advise local authority members about setting appropriate budgets.
  The Bill fails to put in place the building blocks needed for the reinvigoration of local government. It does nothing to tackle the democratic deficit caused by the domination of one-party councils as a result of the first-past-the-post electoral system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Here we go."] Hon. Members may say, "Here we go," but they would have been even more surprised had I not made some reference to a voting system that causes too many councils to be complacent about the views of their electorates because they know that they will not be tipped out of office. The present system reinforces one-party domination of councils.
  The Bill does nothing to introduce the wider power of general competence to which I referred earlier, nor does it increase local financial autonomy by returning control of the business rate to local councils.
  Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman care to remember why the business rate was reorganised? It was because, rather than increasing the domestic rates, local authorities—largely Labour councils—were milking the business community. They often doubled and sometimes trebled the business rate year by year. The Government had to introduce measures to protect the business community. Incidentally, many areas with poorer populations benefited from the redistribution of the business rate from councils such as Westminster, which provided a very large part of the money.
  Mr. Burstow: There are two or three points there. First, the introduction of the uniform business rate has done considerable harm to the interests of small businesses in many areas. That remains a concern of the various organisations that represent small businesses. Secondly, research that was published even during the passage of the legislation to introduce the uniform business rate showed that there was little evidence of the adverse effects on businesses that were claimed to be the result of the level of the business rate. Thirdly, the Government suggested in the Green Paper ways in which there could be linkage between business rates and the council tax so that councils could not shift the burden unfairly onto the business rates, as the hon. Lady claims that they used to do.
  For all those reasons, we do not accept the hon. Lady's argument. We hold to our view that the business rates should be returned to local control. That would make for a more buoyant local tax base and a fairer distribution of funding between that which is raised centrally and that which is raised locally. That is the first step back to greater financial independence for local authorities and more accountability to their local communities. That is why we strongly commend the idea to the House again today.
  Best value and sophisticated capping are the products of pre-election promises made by the Labour party. Capping and compulsory competitive tendering are now effectively to be changed, but they are not to be brought to an end. The Bill strengthens ministerial control and further weakens local accountability. The Bill fails to strengthen local accountability. It is prescriptive. It turns councils into service delivery arms of Whitehall.

  159
  The Minister said in her concluding remarks that the Bill put local people in the driving seat. In our view, it does not put local people or local councils in the driving seat. Rather, it puts the Secretary of State in the driving seat. Indeed, the Secretary of State, through the Bill, is highjacking more powers from local authorities. He is leaving councillors and citizens on the hard shoulder.
  6.53 pm
  Ms Jenny Jones: Like many other hon. Members who are contributing to the debate, I used to be a councillor. I served for six years on a metropolitan district council in the west midlands. As people know, metropolitan district councils have an obligation to deliver many services. My party was in control for four of those six years and in opposition for two. We were put into opposition by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. We hear a lot of talk these days about coalitions with the Liberal Democrats. I thought that the House might like to know that coalitions can be fairly flexible. I have watched closely local Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in power and they have an interesting interpretation of democracy and accountability. I will leave it at that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) eloquently summed up all the disadvantages of compulsory competitive tendering and what was wrong with it. It is certainly high time that it was got rid of. There is one disadvantage that no one has pointed out and that I would like to throw into the pot.
  In the six years that I was a councillor, I was able to watch at first hand the implementation of white-collar CCT. One of its major effects was to set departments against departments, officers against officers and members against members. An enormous blame culture got going in the local authority. That was not peculiar to my authority; it happened in local authorities across the land. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that CCT led to joined-up local government. It did nothing of the sort. It achieved the opposite. That is one of the biggest reasons why it is about time that it was gone.
  Earlier this morning, I was fortunate enough to listen to a couple of representatives from local councils that have been best value pilots. They said that one of the advantages of best value was that it encouraged inter-departmental working. Members and officers had to work much more closely together to ensure that they met local needs and delivered the services that people wanted. I am willing to keep an open mind on best value. If it achieves a better working culture within most councils, it will be something to be welcomed.
  However, I have two major reservations about the Bill. The first is about the standards and performance indicators for best value. If I read the Bill correctly, it does not contain any mechanism for asking councils what performance indicators they would like. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have to allow councils to shape the standards against which they are to be judged. Not all councils are the same. Populations have different needs. We will need to build in some flexibility and allow councils to have a say about how their performance is measured. I have a fair degree of scepticism about leaving it to central Government Departments to set the
  160
  performance indicators. If we do that, we shall simply replace prescriptive, top-down CCT with prescriptive, top-down best value.
  When we won the general election, most councils thought that the days of edicts handed down from central Government Departments and of being told, "This is the way you are going to do it—like it or lump it," had gone. I urge my hon. Friends the Ministers to consider ways in which councils can be consulted in setting the performance indicators.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the intention of the Bill. Yes, targets will be set nationally. It is important that local authorities can be compared easily against the same standards, but local authorities will be required to devise their own performance indicators as well.
  Ms Jones: If I have misunderstood the Bill, I stand corrected, but the Bill is in its early stages. I shall monitor its progress closely as it goes through Committee, into the other House, and comes back again. I need reassuring on that point.
  My second reservation is about capping. Universal capping is going, and I am pleased about that. It was a crude instrument—a sledgehammer of an instrument. It was anti-local democracy. However, the Bill should spell out what the Secretary of State's reserve powers are, what will trigger them and how they will be implemented. We hear a lot about transparency and accountability, but councils also need transparency. They need to know not only where but what the goalposts are. They need to know what they are aiming at. The Bill is not clear about what the reserve powers are and what will trigger them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) was right about accountability. I was always led to believe that the ballot box was the ultimate accountability. My former council, like many others, has elections every three years out of four. It may be worth while the House remembering the reason why we do not have elections in the fourth year. In the 1980s, the Conservative Government's relationship with local authorities got so bad that they abolished a tier of local government because they did not like the fact that councils insisted on thinking for themselves.
  Many councils have annual elections. As an ex-councillor, I assure the House that nothing concentrates one's mind more than the knowledge that one must go to the electorate each year to discover whether the people like what one has done. We should not get too carried away with rhetoric about the unaccountability of councils. I think that they know more about accountability than do some central Government departments or regional offices of Government.
  For more than 100 years, most councils have delivered services to the best of their ability. Many councils and councillors work extremely hard. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) read out the usual list of councils that have not been as competent as they should. However, to be honest, they are in the minority. I believe that councils—whatever their political control—and councillors work extremely hard to deliver the services that they think the electors want. For many years, they have done so in a very hostile climate.

  161
  Most councils now want a much more positive working relationship with central Government. They want to see a partnership. We hear an awful lot about that these days, but I think that councils want a genuine partnership between local and central Government. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to forget that as the Bill moves through Parliament. We must not let down the councils when they are seeking a new way of working with central Government.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that local government in Britain today is in the grip of a malaise. With great respect to my very good friend, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), I do not share his apparent complacency about the situation. He may have been a better colonial governor than the present one, but the empire simply must be dismantled.
  The reason for the malaise is a fundamental ambiguity in our understanding in Britain of the basis of local authority. That ambiguity is increasingly disabling, and I suggest to the Government and to my party that it must be resolved—not least because, until it is, the constitutional reconstruction which is under way, and which I think everyone now accepts is irreversible, will not be complete. The ambiguity to which I refer goes back a long way and is neatly encapsulated in the title of an academic book on mediaeval English local government: "Self-Government by the King's Command". In other words, local communities must govern themselves but their authority comes from the top downwards and not from local communities upwards. The Minister paid lip service to the idea of self-governing local communities, but her answer to my intervention about my county of Oxfordshire demonstrated that she is as much trapped in this ambiguity as any one of her predecessors.
  To understand the problem that we face, we must first understand the three great forces that have reinforced the top-down nature of our system of local government over the past century. Those forces have operated under Governments of all three parties.
  The first force is the increasing cost of the widening range of services provided by the state. In 1900, local government spent roughly half of total Government spending of £19 billion—that is the figure in today's money; in 1900, it was only £272 million. About half of that amount was raised in local taxation—that is to say, local government raised one quarter of all public spending. Today, at the end of the century, Government spending amounts to some £333 billion, of which local revenues yield no more than one sixteenth.
  The second force making for centralisation is the idea that government services must operate to uniform national standards and by nationally standardised procedures. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—who is just leaving the Chamber—referred to the history of this question. He might like to note that the first big step towards centralisation was taken by a Liberal Government in 1906—admittedly a long time ago—with a national system of labour exchanges run by Whitehall. The next great step came after 1945 when the Labour Government decided to create a national health service rather than allocating new duties to the existing system of local government. That was a fateful step, which created
  162
  a system of local administration parallel to local government but with different boundaries and without the benefit of local election. Since 1945, such parallel systems have been elaborated in a host of new areas almost exclusively by transfers out of local government and hardly at all by transfers downward from central Government. As result, nowadays more people appointed by Ministers are holding office in local bodies than are elected by local people.
  I think it is fair to describe this as an obsession with national uniformity. One of the most disastrous consequences of that obsession is the fact that the perfectly proper principle of equity between different regions of the country has been used to justify a set of mechanisms that has reduced local financial discretion to the almost marginal. The Bill continues that mistaken approach. In the name of equity, business taxation has been centralised and all local spending, including the capping regime, is determined by formulae devised in Whitehall. If the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best, it is only because his computer knows better.
  The third great force making for centralisation is concern for efficiency. The Minister laid great stress on that in her speech today. Especially under the previous Conservative Government, local government was distrusted as it was seen to be too liable to producer capture and political manipulation. I sense that that distrust persists in the Bill and its concept of best value. Over the past 20 years, a raft of functions has been transferred from local government to the new parallel structures in the fields of housing, education, career services, waste regulation, the provision of homes for the elderly, highways and so on.
  Anyone who thinks that the rejection of local government was an exclusively Conservative phenomenon has only to look at the policies followed by new Labour since 1997 in relation to youth crime, community safety, raising educational standards and the provision of social care. As Harold Wilson once said, "Whoever is in office, the Whigs of Whitehall are always in power."
  National performance standards, cost control, equity and efficiency are important and legitimate concerns. They represent important principles that deserve to be respected. The problem is that, in this country, they have been pursued beyond reasonable measure and without regard to countervailing considerations. This Bill is no exception. One might say that those principles are the typical product of a polity that has dispensed with the concept of checks and balances.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's contribution and by several speeches by Opposition Members in which they have reinvented themselves before our very eyes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is able to condemn this country for being more centralised than our neighbours because other western countries have varying degrees of devolution to regional bodies? I do not recall the hon. Gentleman's supporting our devolution proposals.
  Mr. Jackson: Governments of all parties share responsibility for the current situation. That is the spirit in which I make my remarks. I want to outline the dangers of the situation that we are in and to explain what we should do about it.

  163
  The fact is that the slogan of equity and efficiency could lead us to do away altogether with elected local government. It could even justify our doing away with elected national government. A body such as the European Commission—if I dare to mention it—could undoubtedly run this country with adequate equity and efficiency if they were the only values that mattered. We have to recognise that what is at stake includes the principle of representative government and the idea of accountability to elected people. In our treatment of local government over the years, our position in the House reminds me of the proverbial cartoon character who is depicted busily sawing off the branch on which he is sitting.
  To my party in particular, I want to make a particular point. In the late 1980s, we were drifting towards the idea that, at the local level, accountability towards elected representatives could be replaced by accountability to the users of public services through the operation of internal markets. There are still those who find that a seductive vision: every school grant maintained; every doctor a fundholder; every public service run by people engaged on a fixed-term contract by a Minister applying transparent performance standards constructed on the basis of surveys of user preferences.
  The problem is that we have no warrant from experience that practice matches that beautiful theory, in which politics is reduced to a subdivision of marketing and citizens are regarded essentially as consumers. How much power do users have in relation to monopolistic public services dispensing scarce goods? Can "Exit" replace "Voice" in those services? How does the fragmentation that the theory entails enable us to deal with the many problems that are best tackled on an integrated multi-service basis? Are we not coming to recognise that the world of opinion polls and focus groups is dangerously open to manipulation by the power holders? Can accountability in the detail that matters to users be ensured through fixed-term contracts? We should always remember that the American authors of "Reinventing Government" framed their ideas against the background of the highly developed and constitutionally guaranteed system of representative local government that we in this country lack.
  I point out, in answer to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), that the British system—or perhaps, after devolution, we should now refer to the English system—has become excessively dependent on a single instrument: the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. All Members of the House know that instrument to be a broken reed. As the question of what we are doing to improve our procedures has been raised, let me point out that the Modernisation Committee is doing nothing about that.
  My conclusion is that we all need to go back to fundamentals in local government. I welcome the recognition of that, although it was derided by Labour Members, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke from the Front Bench. The fundamental question that needs to be resolved is whether local government is to be an expression of local self-government or no more than one way among others
  164
  of delivering services. Another fundamental question follows: how far can we and should we do without the representative principle?
  If we study the deep-rooted political traditions of this country, we know the answers to those questions. On those fundamental matters there is common ground between the Tory tradition of limited government and pluralism of powers and the radical liberal tradition of democratic citizenship. The only political tradition that sustains our present approach is that of the old-fashioned socialist top-down bureaucratic planning of which Whitehall is now the last exponent in the civilised world.
  Once we have answered those basic questions, all the other questions of equity and efficiency, difficult as they are, can be more easily answered. The answer lies in finding a balance between what they require and what local choice, diversity and pluralism require. The key issue is encapsulated in the figure that I gave earlier—locally raised revenues now amount to no more than a sixteenth of total public spending. No other advanced country works in that way. Let us look to other countries, recognising that, if they can make subsidiarity work, so can we.
  The Bill does not address the fundamentals that have made us one of the most over-centralised and least accountable polities in the western world. That is a task for a future Conservative Administration, which I hope will devote to our national political life the same radical energies that the previous Conservative Administration devoted to our national economic life.
  7.14 pm
  Mrs. Christine Butler: I enormously enjoyed the speech by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who performed a volte face by largely supporting the Bill, gave a litany of disclaimers for his party and made accusations against Labour-controlled local councils. Although he is not in his place, I shall enlighten him about what his party used to get up to in local government. I have direct experience of that because when Castle Point suffered under a Conservative administration, one of its members was well known for boasting that no one could teach him very much about corruption and it would take a majority of freemasons for the council to make any decision.
  I was delighted to listen to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who gave wonderful descriptions of authorities in the great days of Victorian municipal authorities before the first world war. I am afraid that the world has moved on since then, although he rightly pointed out that, in most respects, people have not changed much in their attitudes to local or any other government.
  I welcome the establishment of the best value regime that will replace the outdated, inadequate and unpopular compulsory competitive tendering system. I welcome also an end to crude and universal capping.
  Some hon. Members have read too much into the Bill before us; it is not the definitive, all-purpose local government Bill. More is to come, and it would be appropriate to discuss at a later stage some of the matters that have been mooted this evening.
  The Bill has a simple message: best value replacing CCT; a regulatory regime that will enhance local government performance; and the Secretary of State

  165
  taking a bottom-line approach by using reserve powers to police local government measures. I share other hon. Members' reservations about those latter aspects.
  The principle of best value has been endorsed by stakeholders across a spectrum of national bodies including local government. From my experience, I know that members of the public appreciate, understand and welcome best value. The principle of best value in local service provision and the necessary consultation provided for in the Bill will increase public confidence in local government. More specifically, the Bill heralds a new and meaningful approach to participatory democracy through greater accountability, transparency and consultation. We must, however, be careful that the principle remains whole and clear in legislation and will shine through in the practical implementation at local level.
  I should like the Government to make a commitment to a national scheme to give support and advice to local authorities that are developing best value. Despite the expected benefits that may cascade from the example of beacon authorities, sufficient evidence exists of a need for a resource to help to develop skills, particularly in researching supply markets, in procurement and in restructuring councils. Although I would have liked schools to have been included, and a single standards inspectorate to be established, I welcome the proposed inspectorate forum, which will at least create a coherent framework for inspection.
  Although I welcome the proposed guidance in particular areas that the Secretary of State will give local authorities, we need more flesh on those bones. As the Bill progresses, I hope that there will be a clearer indication of which performance indicators will be used for the objectives of cost, quality outcome and public expectation. I hope, too, for greater clarification of the principles that will determine excessiveness.
  7.20 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: Like the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), I come from a background of local government. It is interesting that so many hon. Members who have spoken do so too. As a result, the House has seen through the sugar coating on the Bill's bitter pill. The first portion of the Bill, which plays to the Labour unions, especially in local government, is the sugar coating. It placates those in the unions, and Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors, whose concerns about compulsory competitive tendering have been expressed in the debate. Such concern neglects to see CCT in the light of the times in which it was originally introduced.
  The second portion of the Bill is the bitter part: blatant capping. There is no doubt about that. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that the Bill takes away capping with one hand and puts it back with the other. That is not so. It removes capping with one hand, but puts it back with both. There are two forms of capping in the Bill: subjective capping in the main part of the Bill and a crude, across-the-board capping in the schedules.
  As far as Labour councillors are concerned, this is the best value Bill. The words "best value" sound nice. I imagine that they roll easily off the tongues of spin doctors. The concept sounds easy to sign up to. It even sounds as though it might benefit somebody. However, as has been spelt out time and again, there is not enough in the Bill on which to grip in order that hon. Members may decide whether best value will work.
  166
  We have a White Paper, a vague Bill, regulations to come, discussions, and so on. Member after Member has asked for clarification. As discussions are continuing, perhaps the Government might seriously consider, for the benefit of people in local government and of hon. Members on both sides of the House, delaying a little the Bill's consideration in Committee until more information and clarity is provided. The touch of good will for the Bill is being destroyed by the lack of information and understanding. Many of us are concerned that residents in central areas, which are generally run by the Labour party, will receive worse, not better services.
  Competitive tendering, which is common practice in the business world and in many western countries, has become political in this country. It was introduced to try to create decent local government services; to try to get local government to understand its services, set standards in them and provide fair value.
  Ms Margaret Moran: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the previous Government achieved best value, given that an Equal Opportunities Commission report found that compulsory competitive tendering cost more than £250 million—twice the savings that it purported to achieve? I do not think that that is best value. Is the hon. Gentleman's concept of best value the same as the one that we are discussing?
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady should look at the most recent independent report on a large number of local authorities, which describes their opinion of CCT. Instead of going through the long report, I shall quote the summary, which concludes that most authorities
  "have achieved significant cost savings in addition to those previously obtained. At the same time, most Authorities believe that the quality of service provision has improved."
  That is clearly an independent report. From my experience, the hon. Lady's supposition is wrong. Even The Times—quite some time ago, I admit—praised in an editorial the benefits to local people in quality of service and value for money from CCT.
  The Government have done a few correct things in the Bill. They have built on the previous Government's ideas concerning the Audit Commission and the district auditor, the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—and the citizens charter approach, to which blatant reference is made.
  I am concerned that such good things will be destroyed by the apathy of which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spoke, as a result of the Labour party's idea of consultation, which I understand and, to a degree, support. Although consultation is laudable, it is set up in such a way in the Bill that it could end up providing a cover. People may be persuaded of the quality of services, which could and should be better, by the reviews, discussion and documents poured on them.
  There is talk of competition yet, under the Bill, authorities will be able completely to cut out competition with the private sector—either directly or indirectly. Without doubt, that will lead to a diminution in service quality and an increase in costs. It saddens me that, as a result, inner cities will be hurt most.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish talked about apathy in voting. I suspect that we are doomed to find the same in the consultation exercises as they are set out in

  167
  the Bill. Let us consider the example of a London council. As a best value authority, it will be required to consult residents, service users, tenants groups, residents groups, businesses, neighbouring councils and probably the Government office for London, diocesan boards, health authorities, public utility companies, the Department of Social Security, some professional groups, and so on. The list could—and if there is a cover-up, will—go further. The beleaguered residents of that London borough will be consulted by the borough, the police, the fire and civil defence authority, the development agency, the waste authority, Transport for London, the mayor of London and the Greater London Authority. All that is just on the duties.
  Next, each local authority will have to prepare a best value performance plan for each financial year. Each plan will be published before the following financial year, and, hence, will be based on the data of the previous financial year. Thus, it will be 18 months to two years out of date. For the plans to be useful, they must be voluminous and impenetrable—utterly beyond the ordinary resident. That will be a turn-off. The Denton and Reddish apathy will strike. There will be genuine interest in some aspects of services among businesses and directly linked organisations—perhaps among others, too. However, the process will create such apathy that the ordinary resident will be most unlikely to respond. The odd resident will respond to everything, but, from my experience, with some exceptions, emphasis should be on the word "odd".
  Ministers assure us that the district auditor will be closely involved. I hope that they will ensure that we are not contemplating a new bureaucratic superstructure, which will be set up by the auditor and chargeable to the council tax payer. It must not be allowed to become a gravy train. If the Minister wants any advice, he should suck in his pride and speak to Westminster council.
  As has been said, compulsory competitive tendering is to go. The White Paper tells us that it will still be available as an option, but because the element of compulsion will be lost and the rules will be changed, local authorities will be able to fiddle the tendering while making a show of putting out for private competition.
  The loss of quality and value for money will be covered by reviews and excuses. That is the reason for clause 17. It is a sop to the left. The removal of non-commercial considerations from competition for best value for money will mean that some local authorities will try to beat the system. They will turn competitive tendering into a farce and will stack the odds against the private sector so that there will be no real competition.
  I seek a categorical assurance from the Minister that it will not be possible to use clauses 14 and 15 to allow a local authority partly or wholly to own a company that is set up for municipal trading. As the Bill is currently drafted—and because we have been provided with so little detail—that seems possible. It would be deplorable if public companies—by which I mean publicly owned companies, in the form of local authority companies—could compete against the same private companies that pay the council's business rates and whose workers pay the authority's council tax.
  I suspect that the Government hope that many Back Benchers will focus on the sweet first half of the Bill and not notice the second half. It has been fairly evident this
  168
  evening that at least some of them have noticed the difference. The Secretary of State told us that crude across-the-board capping had gone. He had the wit to say that he had replaced it with another form of capping—a subjective form. The present proposals go further, introducing a subjective form in the Bill itself and crude universal capping in the schedules to it.
  To add to the woes of local government, as we have heard, the Secretary of State will for the first time be able to set a cap at a level below authorities' standard spending assessment. I hope that some Government Back Benchers have thought about that. I shall watch with interest the reaction to the Bill of hon. Members representing constituencies in Labour-controlled Brent, because as matters stand, that local authority will make itself heard loudly.
  The main part of the Bill will not bring best value in services to council residents throughout the country. The control is vague, bureaucratic, distant and in many cases will be based on data that are horribly out of date. In summary, I do not believe that the Bill will work as well as one might wish. It will be a poor substitute for CCT. The capping proposals take little account of changes in circumstances. We will hear more about that in time to come from Labour Back Benchers as well as from the Opposition. The proposals allow for unfair, subjective application, and for the first time they allow capping below SSA.
  7.34 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: It must be wonderful to be a born-again shadow Local Government Minister. One can repudiate everything that the previous Government did as a result of the application of a particular ideology, while at the same time defending that ideology and skipping easily over the evident contradiction between the two positions.
  I shall deal with the solution to that contradiction—the release from the ideological impasse in which the previous Government placed local government—by looking at best value as a way forward. Best value is defined in clause 3 as securing continuous improvement in the exercise of all functions undertaken by an authority, whether statutory or not,
  "having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness."
  It should be noted that the definition calls for continuous improvement in all functions. Account must be taken of the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—but it is essentially improvement in the round. My personal view is that we might add a fourth E—equity—to make it crystal clear that our intention is to secure improvement in the round.
  The Bill makes it clear that improvement must be judged by a variety of factors. To what extent does the community accept that there will be improvement? Is there improvement in allocative efficiency—that is, the best overall outcome of service delivery—or is it simply a cheaper service for a cheaper specification, as we previously experienced?
  It is interesting that the Opposition make a great point of the fact that best value is not obsessively defined in the Bill, as CCT was under the previous regime. That is the point. The idea of a partnership with local government, and of the community being able to judge the outcome

  169
  and suggest how a particular service trajectory may go means that everything should not be obsessively laid down, because flexibility is needed at local level.
  The Bill presents a challenge for local authorities. In some ways the process of conforming to the requirements of CCT was straightforward, if painful, for local government. All that local authorities had to do was to carry out the letter of the legislation. They might want their in-house team to win and they might do their best to make that happen, but the opening of the brown envelope was a neat cut-off point to all those concerns. Failure to win was the fault of the brown envelope. The authorities' job thereafter was to adapt to reality after the envelope. Their creative urges could be channelled into methods of subverting the process, but little else.
  Best value, however, challenges local authorities to forge a relationship with their service providers over a long period. The service providers may be the in-house team, an external provider or a voluntary sector organisation that does not operate for profit. The duty that best value places on a local authority is to work on service provision together.
  The work of preparing and allocating contracts has a direct bearing on what happens afterwards and over a long period, because there is no brown envelope cut-off point. The local authority must be responsible for the consequences of its own decision making prior to allocating the contracts. That gives local authorities the opportunity to think carefully about the best combination of provision for the local community. The Bill states—in clause 6, I think—that communities should be involved in deciding and evaluating, making that process an important part of the overall success of best value.
  That is a great step forward from the narrow focus of CCT, which was almost exclusively targeted on the idea that the market rules, that there was no such thing as a public service ethos, and that the only benefit that communities wanted was to pay less for fewer services. The claim for CCT was that the market would inevitably deliver a better service at a cheaper cost, if only it were allowed to.
  At the beginning of my contribution I referred to the deep ideological nature of CCT. It was an ideological instrument derived directly from that snake-oil doctor of the far right, F. A. von Hayek, who took the extreme view that the pricing mechanism would solve every problem in the market, if only it could be left to its own devices. The claim for CCT was along the lines that von Hayek suggested: provided every impediment to the operation of the market could be removed, service improvements would automatically follow. In reality, that has not happened. Overall, there is little evidence that CCT has worked in the way in which its framers originally claimed that it would. It is interesting that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) should claim overall headline savings of 6 per cent. on CCT costs. I imagine that he took that figure from the executive summary of the Walsh and Davis study of 1993. But if one reads the report as a whole, the reality, even in that report, is rather different.
  There is evidence that savings, where they have occurred—Walsh and Davis make this clear—have largely been through savings in specifications, driving down conditions of service, or in labour casualisation, all of which have an effect on the quality of service offered. It is no accident that the previous Government
  170
  systematically resisted the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to CCT contracts. An acceptance of their terms would have largely removed that hidden saving mechanism for external contractors. The evidence from many contractors is that they specifically bid for contracts because they knew that they could cut corners and costs over and above the contract terms in order to make a profit from a competitive bid.
  There is some evidence of the discipline of CCT developing more service-oriented approaches by direct labour organisations, but, with hindsight, it is not clear that other developments in local government could not have achieved that outcome.
  Set against that is the real evidence of the cost of preparing and policing tenders—the so-called transactional costs. Again, Walsh and Davis estimated those to be some 7 per cent. of each contract each year, but there is also evidence that savings vanish once a service is re-tendered after four years. Studies more recent than that by Walsh and Davis suggest that at the second round of tenders, especially if the local authority in-house team has been knocked out in the first round, savings start to disappear as costs rise and as cartels start to organise the service among themselves.
  Evidence of the cost of monitoring the service suggests that the client side, where a strict comparison can be made, has a 30 per cent. or similar increase in its cost compared with the cost of servicing contracts prior to CCT.
  Also present, but less easy to evaluate, is evidence of the breach in the perception of the local council—perhaps the most important although the least tangible point—as providing a responsive service to the community; the loss of the ability to amend and adjust to suit local needs. If a contract did not specify a service at the time of allocation, that was it. Local authorities simply told one to come back when the service was re-tendered.
  There is the story of the ducks—sometimes described as the Barnet ducks, although I may be doing that authority a disservice—which allegedly died during the winter because whereas the park keeper had once fed them informally, the new contractor had not received a specification requiring him to do so. That may be a little apocryphal, but it illustrates the widespread problems that contracted services posed to the good relationship that should exist between a council and the community that it serves.
  That will change with best value. Local authorities must be efficient, but they must also be able to talk about efficiency in the common-sense way in which most people refer to it—what is the best overall outcome taking into account the combination of factors that affect it. Of course, best value needs to be monitored and measured. The public have a right to expect the best from their local authorities, and they need tools to find out whether that is the case. I do not accept that the public will not be able to take part in decisions on local plans or to judge a local authority's service provision on the basis of what it said it would do. In principle, that is a fairly easy concept for local people to grasp, and I am sure that they will.
  The Bill provides for a continuing involvement of the Audit Commission in that task. It will be a more complex task, since the mechanical measurement of performance will no longer suffice. For example, Postman Pat effectively served the community of Greendale by

  171
  delivering medicines, pulling sheep out of hedges, alerting the emergency services when people were in distress, and so on. But he carried a cat in his post van, and under CCT he would have been sacked on the spot for inefficiency in delivering the post. Under CCT, the post may simply have been collected from the office in the centre of Greendale and there would not have been a Postman Pat at all.
  Mr. Bennett: E-mail.
  Dr. Whitehead: Even e-mail.
  The Audit Commission will need to measure in the round and produce indicators that reflect that. Therefore, it will need to consider community health. It will have to ask whether the community is working better as a result of the way in which services are delivered. I am delighted that some measures will be set in terms of delivery against community expectation. To measure that is a further challenge. It will produce a different way of organising performance indicators from the mechanistic approach of the previous Conservative Government. The Government will need to ensure that those more difficult three-dimensional performance indicators are robust. I am sure that work will be needed to ensure that that is the case.
  We will need to ensure that those technical measurements and the consequences of the removal of crude capping work well, and that is a matter for detailed consideration in Committee. However, I welcome the Bill on Second Reading. It demonstrates that the Government are willing to enter into a partnership with local government where the proper roles and responsibilities of each are understood. That is a great achievement compared with the trench warfare of centralism—which I know from my own experience—which the previous Government decided was the lot of local government in the United Kingdom.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) invited us to go back to fundamentals in considering the Bill—what we want from local authorities is the context in which the Bill is being debated. Before doing so, I want to deal briefly with some comments made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead).
  Essentially, the misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's contribution was that he failed to recognise that CCT was based on an analysis of process, not outcome. The worry that some of us who value local democracy have about best value is that not just the process but the outcome will be defined, not by the local people, because the accountability will not be first and foremost to them, the recipients of the service—although I accept that consumers and electors are not synonymous—but by an outside agency, in this case the Government. That is the essential difference between CCT and best value. It is a difference and a concern which has been raised by the Local Government Association.
  I come now, in the spirit initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), to the fundamentals. We need to see the Bill in the context of our vision of local democracy. Local government is a key part of our democratic infrastructure, but only if it is in
  172
  the tradition of local self-government, not if it is an agency for central Government. That may seem self-evident. Surely we all recognise that local government is important democratically in a number of ways. It is important because it is the first interface which most people have with the exercise of political power. It is important because it helps to provide the framework of our political parties which, in a sophisticated democracy, are themselves crucial to good government. But it is also important because it provides an alternative means of delivering political ideas, of exercising political power; not a competitive means to this place—this Parliament is sovereign—but an alternative means, an alternative forum for different ideas, a different focus for power, a different focus for a distinctive view of how services should be delivered in a local community.
  Sadly, although that may seem self-evident, it has not been a view shared by many national politicians since the war. It is easy to forget that before 1945 core services, such as electricity, health and water, were delivered by local government. The drift has been one way since then, and it has been away from local democracy and local government. Politicians of Governments of all parties have failed to trust local government with the power that it needs to deliver the sort of distinctive exercise of political authority that I mentioned earlier.
  The tradition of people making a national name in local government before entering Parliament has also largely been lost in this country, although it still exists in many other democracies—France springs to mind. I say that it is lost because it was once the norm here. One thinks of the Chamberlains in Birmingham or Herbert Morrison in London, who became national figures in local government before they made their names in Parliament. That, loss, too, has had an effect on the way this place sees local democracy. If we accept my initial premise—that local government is an essential part of our democratic infrastructure—we must have the courage to allow local authorities sufficient power and finance to govern not only effectively, but distinctively.
  There must be sufficient flexibility to allow innovation and diversity in different authorities. Audited performance plans and unprecedented levels of intervention by the Secretary of State raise legitimate doubts about the creation of vanilla-flavoured local government, constrained by a combination of rigid finance and uniform standards dictated from outside the locality. That will endanger the concept of genuine choices being made locally about the distinctive exercise of political authority. Such intervention is based on the bogus notion of equity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage pointed out, but also on the equally bogus notion of comparability.
  The idea that there can be any useful purpose in having nationally uniform targets to compare local authorities in urban areas with small authorities in remote rural communities is nonsense. There is no good logical reason for uniform targets across such different types of local authority. It is as nonsensical as having uniform targets for different types of business; for example, by comparing a fanner with a person making soft drinks. It is a bogus notion, but a powerful one, and it is reflected both in the Bill and in the explanatory notes.
  Annual performance plans across authorities must be different in style and content; they should reflect local needs and also differing local political priorities. There has always been a tension between Parliament and

  173
  local government, but the Bill will result in a degree of tension between the Secretary of State and local government that has never existed. The Bill specifically identifies the extension of capping through the idea that it can be applied over several years, and that extension will further prevent local authorities from developing and financing distinctive plans.
  How can the Bill be anything but counter-productive in terms of attracting the best people to local government—the most innovative, dynamic and imaginative people? Who would go into local government, if all they could do was to go through the motions, conforming to some nationally agreed plan and set of targets? The Bill runs counter to the objectives laid down by the Government in various documents on local democracy about encouraging the involvement of good people in local councils early in their lives.
  Few people could argue with the principle of best value that underpins the Bill and is central to the delivery of its stated aims of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, but the target-setting, measurement and consultation must be set, led and delivered locally. Local authorities must be more than simply agencies of central Government. The Bill is based on the view that the problem of local government is that standards of service are too variable, but its solution is prescription. Instead, the solution should be to enable local government to become more accountable to its electors, who will vote for best value when they recognise the relationship between what they pay and the quality and level of service that they receive.
  There are examples of that from around the country, both in Labour and Tory councils, which are recognised as providing a good service. They achieve genuine levels of local enthusiasm and, accordingly, generate local support, but, too often, local elections have become simply a vehicle for people to exercise judgments about particular Governments or political parties. Bland, uniform and mediocre local authorities, largely unaffected by local decision making, will not enhance local democracy; they will not encourage greater turnout at elections, nor attract better people to serve their local communities, but will damage and weaken local democracy. At the very best, the Bill is a missed opportunity. At worst, it exacerbates many of those problems and will further weaken our democracy.
  7.55 pm
  Dr. George Turner: It is interesting to follow a political neighbour, if not a political friend. The views expressed by the hon. Gentleman are a long way from how I understand the Bill.
  I warmly welcome the Bill and the role that it has to play. Although it has been criticised as too narrowly financial, the House should recognise that it is part of a package of measures designed to address the real needs of local government and local democracy. After 20 years of experience in local government, I cannot share the rather apathetic views of some hon. Members—surprisingly, even some of my Labour colleagues—who believe that turnouts of 20 or 30 per cent. at local elections are somehow acceptable.
  I am delighted that we are addressing the need to rejuvenate local democracy. The one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is that local democracy will
  174
  be healthy when local people actually vote on the issues affecting their communities, rather than acting as a national opinion poll on the Government of the day. The tasks are challenging, but we all have an interest in supporting them.
  In welcoming the Bill, I was amused to hear, if not the deathbed repentance, then the repentance from the coffin of the Opposition, because after living through 18 years when their actions showed us what they believed in, it was almost like being in a dream to hear what the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) had to say about local government. The Opposition must think that the electorate are fools if they really think that their actions will be seen as anything other than electoral posturing and the search for short-term political advantage. I genuinely hope that the Opposition will develop their views, as we need to be united nationally on some issues if we are to achieve proper local government.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing was often accused of being on message; she was on manifesto. The Bill delivers what I was elected to support and I shall enter the Division Lobbies with pleasure tonight. The Bill has been criticised: people have asked whether it will work. The House considers legislation, especially secondary legislation, in arcane and out-of-date ways, but I do not believe that that is a good reason to prevent the Government from having good management techniques. That is a danger in the arguments, especially those of the Liberal Democrats, about secondary legislation. One of the lessons that I learned quickly in Parliament was that Governments are rightly judged as succeeding or failing not by legislation, although that is an important element, but by how they use legislation. Decisions made by Ministers determine whether the country prospers and the people benefit from a change in Government. We shall not know how the Bill will work until Ministers use the powers that it gives them.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, probably through the voice of the Deputy Prime Minister, gave the biggest single boost to local government finance for my county council in 20 years. That boost was given under some of the same legislation through which we had received some of the worst settlements during the previous four or five years.
  Mr. David Heath: I represent a part of the country that was capped by the Government after an election that had produced an overwhelming majority in the county for higher expenditure. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on one phrase in his speech: management techniques? Is not that the crux of the matter? The Government are still determined to manage local government instead of providing for local autonomy, and Liberal Democrat Members will not stand for that.
  Dr. Turner: I entirely disagree. Good management is not about telling everyone what to do, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think; it is about delegating, and ensuring that decisions are made at the right level. That, however, does not mean that the buck will stop lower down. Ultimately, it will continue to stop with Ministers.
  In running the nation, we want to get the balance right. We want to be clear about the decisions that are made, and about who is responsible. That is what the electorate

  175
  need. Nevertheless, I accept that, in a country the size of ours and given our system of government, Ministers will want to reserve unto themselves some powers that reflect the fact that that is where the buck stops. I know—we all know—that, in the case of certain things that happen in local government and are experienced by the local electorate, Ministers will get the blame, and I have no doubt that Opposition Members will try to heap that blame on them when the time comes. One of the features of local government today is the fact that we have not yet achieved the right balance between Government and local decision making in terms of powers and the language that we use.
  One of the difficulties that the House will experience in discussing local government is caused by the variety of quality to be found in local government. Local government is not black or white; it genuinely comes in all sorts of shades. During the 20 years I served in local government, I saw dedicated councillors who were in touch with their electorate, properly representing the views of that electorate and the interests of their community, acting with knowledge and appointing officers who gave good professional advice. I saw councillors who were keen to ensure that the best information technology techniques, and the best ways of running organisations, applied in their authorities. However, I also saw councillors who were more interested in posturing, uttering slogans and, in fact, abusing local people—more interested in academic argument that might, at times, be more appropriate in the Chamber—than in delivering local services. I believe that some of the difficulties facing the Government when they draw up a Bill such as this are caused by the wide range of performance, whether at council or officer level.
  The difficulty and the danger are posed by the fact that we need to enact legislation to deal with the needs of the people who are unfortunate enough to have the worst councils, while ensuring that the rules do not discourage or prevent innovation and the progress of the very best. It is in that regard that Ministers must use their judgment.
  As one who was a member of a local authority, I am well aware that compulsory competitive tendering wasted money. I sat on committee after committee which saw that the total cost to the public purse was larger than it would have been without CCT. However, I am glad that the Government are not saying simply that they will turn the clock back. Twenty years ago in local government, there was much to be challenged. The Bill addresses the need to achieve value for money, which will challenge councils to ensure that modern approaches and tools such as information technology can tell us what constitutes best practice.
  It has been suggested that the Government are trying to create uniformity. I am well aware of the richness and variety of the ways in which local government is currently administered. By no means is a single formula applied locally, and I do not think that there is any intention that should happen. We should suceour the rich experimentation that is currently taking place, and I do not think that the Bill does anything to prevent that; but we must learn the lessons of those who experiment. Experiments that fail must be abandoned, and when
  176
  experiments succeed, that best practice needs to be propagated in local government. That, I think, is the underlying philosophy of the Bill.
  My experience as a Member has been coloured by the fact that my office is opposite that of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk borough council. Because of that proximity, I have felt a keen interest in the doings of the borough council, and I am delighted to note that, rather than feeling that it will pushed into something by legislation, the council has addressed the issue ahead of time. I believe that it was the first public body in the country to gain an "investors in people" award. It has received three charter marks, and a number of its services are benchmarked to ISO9002, a quality standard for service delivery.
  Two years ago, the council made a commitment that it would work to the British Quality Foundation's business excellence model. That commitment will underpin its service review. It said that it would review its services in three years. I consider that a challenging objective, and I look forward to receiving the report, in a month or two, on its housing, financial, IT and refuse collection services for the current year.
  I think that there is a broad welcome for the Bill. I believe that many people in local government feel that shackles have been removed, and that they can work in a different way with a different Government. However—and I speak as one who complained about capping when I was a councillor—we must face the fact that the slogan "Give them the money, Bernie", implying that the Government should provide the vast majority of the money and then let local authorities get on with the decision-making and the spending, is not a reasonable model.
  The last Government treated local authorities as though they were in the doghouse. Certainly, the rules were simple enough for a dog to understand. It is possible that the present Government are treating local government as something more like an adolescent. As children grow older, the rules become more complicated, but they are still there. I hope that we shall see an evolution and a development in local government. After 18 years of its being denigrated, blamed, hit, limited and constrained, it will take a few years of the present Government to change the backdrop. I hope that we shall see a relaxation in the minds of Ministers, at least, in terms of regulation and control; and if the measures that the Government are introducing in regard to democracy succeed, I think that we can further empower the process of local accountability. It is not there yet, though, and I understand Ministers' concern about capping.
  We must see progress. Ultimately, the quality of those in local government will determine what happens. The quality of the officers is clearly critical, but more important than that is the quality of the members, because they determine who the officers are. They need to be given a task that is worth while and a time scale in which to perform it, and they need plaudits as well as brickbats.
  I believe that we are on a sensible agenda, but it will take time. We shall not know the answers until after we have passed the Bill—which I am sure that we shall—and see with what wisdom and success Ministers can use it. Undoubtedly, many of the problems of the past decade or so have been caused by the way in which Ministers who are now Opposition Members misused, and abused, their powers.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: We have heard very good speeches from the Opposition Front Bench, and interesting and well-put speeches from the Government Back Benches. We heard a good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow); but I was somewhat disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). At one point, I thought that he was arguing against local elections, although I felt that I had a great deal of common ground with him when he intervened earlier.
  The Bill, in effect, transfers power from the market to Whitehall, bypassing residents on the way. It simply confirms that local government in England is exercised only at the discretion of Whitehall and, in particular, the Treasury. Encouraging consultation while preventing local government from meeting the needs that may be highlighted is a bit like an adult telling a child that the siren indicates that the van has run out of ice cream. The principle of self-governance is not shared in government because the Government and their so-called third way do not trust the people.
  Gladstone once said that liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence, and conservatism is mistrust of the people tempered by fear. New labourism appears to be distrust of the people tempered by focus groups. What is the Bill all about? The answer is in the explanatory notes on the effects of the Bill on public sector finances:
  "The improved efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources which result is expected to deliver significant costs savings across the board, as well as improvements in service quality."
  The Bill promises us something for nothing. We have heard that so many times. The notes also say:
  "There will be some costs of compliance with the best value provisions of the Bill which will fall upon authorities, and which may involve them incurring new costs… Such costs will be expected to be contained within existing budgets"—
  so there are no new resources with the Bill.
  The council tax provisions will enable the Government to restrict excessive increases in council tax. That will control total revenue expenditure in England of over £50 billion and in Wales of over £2 billion, so it is about control of expenditure—something for nothing, no extra resources, central Government control.
  How does that chime with the Government's ratification of the European charter of local self-government? How can a Government who commit themselves to the importance and independence of democratically elected government propose hit squads and further powers for Whitehall to intervene—nationally set performance standards, central powers of reserve to cap locally set budgets, new audit and inspection arrangements?
  The Minister said that the Bill was pushing powers out of Whitehall to the town hall, yet there are 27 new central powers in the Bill. If the Minister's claims were to stand up to scrutiny, she would have been introducing a Bill to give local government the power of general competence and a system of proportional representation for local elections, where the ballot box, not the Secretary of State, would be the final arbiter of performance and tax raising.
  The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) was right when he described the measure as an example of the mistrust of local government, a mistrust that has led to a lack of transparency in local government finance, leaving
  178
  local taxpayers confused over whom to blame for cuts, tax rises or waste; but the most pernicious aspect of the Bill is the council tax benefit clawback. The poorest areas are hit the hardest. As a national newspaper put it the other weekend:
  "The real issues are local choice and local democracy. Labour's scheme is capping in all but name—and indeed treats poorer councils worse than the Tory shires. The new measures are mostly contained in regulation changes, rather than legislation, and so will be confined to a House of Commons Committee. But the powers necessary to enact the reform are in the Local Government Bill. The Observer hopes that some honour is left among New Labour's back-bench MPs. If this was too much for Mrs. Thatcher, it should certainly be too much for New Labour."
  I fear that the Division will prove that it is not.
  8.14 pm
  Ms Oona King: I particularly welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, given the subject of my private Member's Bill, the Local Authority Tenders Bill, which went through in the previous Session—or rather did not go through. During nine months of negotiations with the social partners, I spent a rather torturous time looking at ways in which we could come to an agreement to push forward best value, which the Minister has now brought before us with the comprehensive package in the Bill, which I welcome.
  For obvious reasons, therefore, I would like to restrict my remarks to clause 17. I know that all hon. Members always start by saying that they are going to restrict their remarks and then talk about everything. I will try not to do that.
  Clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to change the list of non-commercial considerations that the local authority can take into account when putting a contract out to tender. Before we get too technical, I would like to outline what that means in plain English. Previously, under compulsory competitive tendering, that was not possible. A local authority was able to take into account only the lowest bid essentially. In my experience, that led to a Dutch auction that favoured cowboys, to the extent that many employer organisations now feel that CCT is a great disadvantage and of disbenefit to them; reputable employers are put at a disadvantage. Disreputable employers are able to reduce terms and conditions of employment, reduce wages and thereby get an advantage and win a contract.
  That often harms the employers themselves. We have seen numerous instances of employers going bankrupt after they have gone for the cheapest bid that they could and then were not able to deliver the service. The local authority and, most important, the public also lost out.
  I would like a move away from the dogma. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been guilty on occasion of wallowing in dogma. The Bill represents a move from away from that. As the Minister has clearly put it, it is not the means; it is the ends. We want to look at best value. Whoever is able to provide best value and fair employment practices as well has an absolute right to win contracts.
  I do not wish to see the previous bias towards the private sector replaced with an unthinking bias towards any other sector, be that public or otherwise, because the

  179
  most important point is about quality and standards. It is about how we deliver the service, not who delivers it. I hope that there might be some common ground there.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: As ever, the hon. Lady makes it sound oh so reasonable, but clause 17 could be a ticking time bomb because it allows the Secretary of State to re-introduce dogma if he likes and all sorts of non-competitive, dogmatic policies to ensure that, in many cases, private industry is discriminated against.
  Ms King: The hon. Gentleman says that the issues are dogmatic. May I raise some of the particular ones to which he refers, such as equal pay? In my view, that should not be difficult—[Interruption.] You are going like that as if to say—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not going anything like that.
  Ms King: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was making an indication as if to say that it is unreasonable to suggest that a local authority should seek to uphold good employment practices with public money. That is an issue that does divide the House. Labour Members believe that it is the responsibility of a local authority to uphold good employment practice. I make no apologies for that.
  During the negotiations with the social partners, the CBI agreed wholeheartedly—
  Ms Armstrong: Some Conservatives said earlier that the CBI is made up of a bunch of socialists.
  Ms King: It is true that the Conservative party appears to label the CBI socialists, communists or worse even. The social partners agreed on areas where such interventions would be possible and where they would be sensible and in the interest of providing and delivering a better service. I fail to see why the Conservative party finds that so inimical to business because business itself does not. During the Committee stage of my private Members's Bill, I had meetings with many representatives of the business community and I was struck by the fact that they said, "We do not want cowboy contractors to be able to put in a lower bid and cut us out of the loop so that we lose business or go out of business." It was a bizarre "Through the Looking Glass" experience because Conservative Members were arguing against dealing with that. It was rather strange.
  The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said that he was proud of CCT and perhaps the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) shares that view. I wonder whether they are proud of the fact that the courts have ruled that CCT was discriminatory towards women. It was clearly proven. I wonder whether the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen take issue with the court's ruling. That is an important point but, as is often the case, sadly, there is not a single woman on the Opposition Benches.
  I now want to talk about the third way. I am waiting for Conservative Members to groan because they did so very nicely earlier on. Unfortunately, the notion of the third way is often met with derision. I used to be a trade

  180
  union officer and, during negotiations with employers, when we were unwilling to find any common ground we both lost out. I cannot understand the refusal of certain Conservative Members to accept that in the past we have said, for example, that the public sector is good and the private sector is bad and that we should move away from such views. That is what the third way means and it is clearly incorporated into the Bill. I welcome that and I hope that, at some time in the future, Conservative Members will also welcome it.
  There is a coincidence of interests between employers and employees. As I have said, reputable employers and many employees suffered under CCT. Changing that system will benefit both those groups. It is about building on what has been termed the new employment agenda, which explicitly recognises that the way in which employees are treated has an impact on the quality of the services provided to the community. If one cares about the service that the community receives, hopefully one would care about building upon a new employment agenda, which has been outlined in the memorandum from the social partners. That memorandum states:
  "Our approach is based on a determination to construct a new and co-operative relationship between public and private sectors."
  That is the third way. It is not a media soundbite. Some people ask what it is. They ask whether it is directions from the motorway or instructions from "The Kama Sutra". There is a great deal of confusion. [Laughter.] I will not go into the various positions one might take on that, but it is straightforward. It does not rest on the shallow grave of a media soundbite, which some people might suggest. In the new culture of partnership, we recognise that the old adage of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. Under CCT blind stupidity reigned and all the key actors were set against one another.
  Clause 17 allows the Secretary of State to change the list of prescribed non-commercial considerations. All the social partners agree that the current regulations must be reformed. They have already agreed on a list of areas where it would be legitimate to ask questions about a contractor's employment record and are currently discussing the details for putting that into operation.
  Mr. Evans: As somebody who has never thought that the third way had anything to do with "The Kama Sutra", I must say that the hon. Lady has obviously given this much thought. Why cannot this be put into the Bill so that it can be properly debated in the Chamber, in Committee and in the other place? If the Government already know what the non-commercial activities are to be, let us have them up front and in the Bill.
  Ms King: When the social partners spent more than nine months seeking a negotiated agreement on what could be put forward and the Government have said that, in consultation with the social partners, they will decide on the list, I cannot see any merit in the hon. Gentleman's objections. The areas on which the social partners have agreed include quality, training, health and safety, disability and racial equality, equal pay and gender equality. Those are all issues which, no doubt, make the Opposition squirm. The social partners have recognised that those areas have a valid place and I hope that Conservative Members might recognise that.
  In essence, we must ensure that the tendering process is not used as a barrier to higher quality services, fair competition or employment protection. We need to place

  181
  the public interest first. That is something that, on certain occasions, both sides of the House have failed to do. It is what we are trying to do now. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for her comprehensive efforts in this area and I look forward to better public services, enabling the rejuvenation of local government that is so long overdue.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: There are certain political realities in local government. One is that, the further one is from controlling national government, the more one is in favour of freedom for local government. I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). I agreed with much of what he said until he began to talk about proportional representation, which is not a panacea to bring about improvement.
  The Government took office with an agenda stating that they must get rid of competitive tendering and some of the other dreadful things that the Tories introduced, such as capping. They have suddenly realised that if they do that, a degree of control will slip. As a result, those things have been redesigned. The chains may have been taken off, but other chains have been introduced to replace them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) noted earlier that there were 27 new powers in the Bill. That is instructive. This is a technical Bill that could be used by a future Secretary of State to control local government however he wished. The criteria are more general than under the previous Government, when issues were more overt and up front.
  I am proud of my 14 years service in local government. Local government is a good institution with some capable people. It is probably as efficient as Whitehall and national Government and probably scrutinises more. I spent hours in committee crawling over relatively small sums of money. That level of scrutiny of Government expenditure is not evident in this Chamber. Local government is sometimes unfairly run down, even by my party. It has a good reputation.
  Many people have an affinity with their local authority, particularly in old established boroughs such as Poole, which has celebrated its 750th anniversary. There is also strong affinity with local government in many shire counties and metropolitan areas. The Government should pay special regard to that. I am not a great enthusiast for regional government, because it would be an artificial creation. I would far rather have more power passed down to local authorities, allowing people to make mistakes on occasions, but to make them in their own communities. That would be better than creating artificially large regional government institutions.
  Compulsory competitive tendering was helpful for those in local government who wanted more efficiency. Before the Local Government Act 1988, service standards often did not have to be specified by local government officers. The Act made them think carefully about the service that they were providing and set a market price.
  Market prices are not the be all and end all, but it is useful to know what things cost when going out to tender. CCT often generated savings. Sometimes it did not, but it is reassuring in any form of government to test the price of a service. In rural Wiltshire, where I grew up, local authorities, under whatever party, tended to take a
  182
  minimalist approach to local government and were not highly overstaffed, so the savings tended to be smaller. However, there were many large urban authorities with large direct labour organisations, some of which did not even have to prepare proper accounts before CCT regulations. Even after the regulations, they found it difficult to do so. They were living off the rate payers and rent payers and sometimes providing very bad services.
  A great deal of progress was made under CCT, but perhaps there is an argument for moving on. However, all that one can say about best value is that it sounds like something that we might find in a supermarket, but none of us knows what we shall get from it. To know whether best value will work, we have to see the detail. We have not seen it yet. It is a pity to overthrow the CCT regulations and go for best value, when we may not find out important details until the regulations are drafted.
  It will be difficult to measure economy, efficiency and effectiveness without a regime for testing the price. When the details of best value are made known, I hope that there will be more tendering than there currently appears to be. One Labour Back Bencher said that best value was verbiage. That is fair. We shall have to wait and see how the Government fill in the details.
  Labour had a manifesto commitment to abolish crude and universal capping. I am not sure that they have done that. The details of the Bill suggest that the new system will be worse, because we are moving towards a more secretive, arbitrary capping system. The big advantage of telling authorities their capping level in advance is that they can discipline themselves to keep within it. If authorities are not told, more of them are likely to be capped because they will step over a mark without knowing that it exists. It is a bit like having a blind auction or an auction of promises, with local authorities guessing where the level is, rather than knowing.
  That will lead to all sorts of problems. Making the system less overt will take some of the fairness out of it, because authorities will not know where they stand. Because the criteria will be more general, people may not understand why one authority is capped and another is not. Less clear criteria will lead to more argument in local government. Authorities will be tempted into breaking what will retrospectively be deemed the cap, which will lead to all sorts of difficulties, such as rebilling.
  The Conservative Government went through a steep learning curve on capping. They moved away from capping councils after they had set their budget because that forced them to rebill. I fear that the new Government will have to learn some of the same lessons that the previous Government learnt.
  I am not sure that we shall get much further forward with the new capping regime. Where people stand will not be as clear. If there is to be a capping regime, it is important that treasurers and officers can advise their members on where they stand with reasonable certainty. I have sat on a local government finance committee and voted to spend up to the cap several times because we knew what the limit was and it seemed sensible to spend up to it. It was a pity that if we underspent we could not roll over the savings year by year. That gave no incentive to make savings.
  The proposal for capping over more than one year could well cause problems, particularly if we move to annual elections. If control of an authority which was

  183
  capped for years one, two and three changed within that period, an authority under different political control would inherit the capped budget of its predecessor.
  The proposal under clause 24 to make an authority pay the excess council tax benefit is also fraught with difficulties. One has only to look at the back of the Library brief which sets the various options. The Government will very much regret that proposal. It is extremely complex and is likely to cause great difficulties in future. I am sure that it will be examined in great detail in Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the nearly poor could end up subsidising the poor, particularly in boroughs with houses in categories A and B such as Pennine towns; that could prove disastrous.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex said that he supported beacon councils. I have great reservations, however. The Bill refers to the setting up of an independent advisory panel. Would it be independent in the same way as the Jenkins commission or would it be independent from the Government? Again, we will come back to a subjective view about what is and is not good in particular authorities. Council officers will invest much time and effort in trying to win beacon council awards which may give them some latitude in respect of their finances. Although we must encourage best practice, I am not sure that that is the best way to do it. I was never a great one for charter marks either as I am not keen on handing out lollipops. We must try to ensure best practice across the board without being too prescriptive; I am not sure that beacon councils are the best way to do that.
  Finally, the Government have started to learn that they do not want to lose some of the powers that the previous Government had. We have to see how best value turns out as we do not have the details. The capping regime in the Bill is worse than that introduced by the previous Government because it is less obvious to local authorities how it will work and one or two provisions in the Bill will give the Government headaches. I do not know which of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be on the Committee, but I am sure that it will be interesting.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I welcome the Bill whole-heartedly. It is part of the Government's wider programme to modernise local government. In my view, it strikes the correct balance between local accountability and initiative and an entirely necessary element of oversight and scrutiny by central Government, and, significantly, by the National Assembly for Wales.
  The abolition of the inflexible and discredited CCT system and the crude concept of rate capping is entirely overdue. The new duty of best value and the duties to review, consult, appraise and engage continuously in a process of improvement simply mirror good management. Significantly, it is what the public have the right to expect.
  To strike a note of criticism about the manner in which the Bill is drafted—I speak as a lawyer—schedule 2 is impenetrably complex. If one is striving towards transparency and engaging with the general public, surely there is a case for simplifying legislation on local government finance.
  As the only Welsh Member to have spoken so far in the debate, although there has been an intervention by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I should
  184
  like to stress that the Bill applies not only to England but to Wales. In the context of Wales it is qualitatively different. I notice that the Minister agrees.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is to wind up the debate, and I should be grateful if he would respond to some points. To my knowledge, this is the only Bill so far directly to provide order-making powers not to the Secretary of State for Wales, but to the National Assembly for Wales—a democratically elected body that is at the forefront of constitutional change not only in Wales, but in the rest of the UK.
  I hope that the Bill is the shape of things to come, and it is heartening that it conforms with the spirit of devolution. It is a framework Bill to provide enabling powers, and it is not overly prescriptive. It does prescribe the concept of best value, but there is a public expectation that basic services such as education and social services should be run properly and in accordance with best value.
  The Bill is remarkably light on mandatory requirements thereafter. The provisions on performance indicators, reviews, timetabling and—significantly in the case of Wales—intervention and reserved powers are all permissive, and not mandatory. In the context of Wales, the provisions are dependent on the democratic will of the people of Wales through the Assembly, and that is significant.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will know that a key provision of the Government of Wales Act 1998 is section 113, which imposes a statutory duty on the Assembly to sustain and promote local government—a novel concept. That is entirely fitting in a country such as Wales, which places great—perhaps fanatical—emphasis on loyalty to one's own locale and community.
  In Welsh literature and history, there is the concept of brogarwch—a dedication to one's milltir sgwar—that is of loyalty to one's locality. Wales is a nation of communities, and it is right that the Government of Wales Act will set up a partnership council between the new tier of regional government and local government. The Bill is consistent with the idea of a partnership council. At first blush it might not seem to be but, frankly, the Bill is permissive and subject to the democratic will of the people of Wales.
  How does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary foresee the partnership council inter-relating in practice with the provisions of the Bill? I agree with the constructive comments of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that much of the conceptualisation behind the Bill depends on good will between central Government, regional government—in the case of Wales—and local government. I will be interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on that. I assume that the National Assembly for Wales can choose not to make any order-making powers, or to make order-making powers which are different from those which apply in England. Again, that is consistent with the spirit of diversity which lies behind the concept of devolution.
  Clauses 22, 23 and 24 are technical measures relating to police authorities and reserved powers in relation to precepting authorities. However, the explanatory notes with regard to clause 24 seem to be inconsistent with the Bill. Is it the case that the Secretary of State for Wales will continue to retain powers relating to police authorities? That appears to be the meaning of clause 22,

  185
  in which case those reserved powers could be applied by the Secretary of State, but not by the National Assembly, so the position in respect of police authorities would differ from that of unitary authorities. The explanatory notes appear to be somewhat contradictory.
  The Bill is part of a programme to modernise local government. Local government has to adopt the role of community leadership. I look forward to the implementation of the legislation and hope that it is not too much to expect that it will herald a new, constructive age of local government. The Bill starts the process of restoring prestige to local government, and I welcome it.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), although he will forgive me for not following up on the issues he raises that relate specifically to Wales.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the partnership council: every Government Bill should contain a clause that is specifically dedicated to the establishment of a partnership council, for where would we be in the modern age without the Government's belief in partnership? However, the Government's approach is to assume that the partnership sought through all the various mechanisms will deliver everything because everybody will agree with each other all of the time. It is perfectly obvious that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) believes that, if people are brought together, they will agree. In fact, the object of legislation is often to require things to happen when people do not agree: for example, the whole point of capping is not to cover situations where people do what they are enjoined to do, which is not to engage in excessive spending, but, in the Government's own terms, to enable the Government to take reserve powers for the occasions when they do not. We are trying to ensure that powers exist to require local authorities to act responsibly when they are moved not to do so.
  When the Bill was published, it was interesting to consider it in the context of the White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", because there is discontinuity between the then Labour Opposition's pre-election political posturing and all the rhetoric that led up to the Labour manifesto and subsequent events. After the election, instead of action on the aspects of the rhetoric that related to freeing local government and to sweeping away central Government interference and the excessive legislation introduced by the Conservative Administrations, we get only those legislative measures that serve Labour interests. In the Bill and, no doubt, in future legislation on introducing higher standards and controls over ethics and behaviour in local government, we can see that the Labour Administration's agenda on local government is driven by the requirements of dealing with Labour in local government.
  The Government know that, to achieve their objectives in local government as dictated to them by their Labour local authorities, who are still in the grip of their relationship with the trade unions, they have to deliver the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering, but how are they to do that within the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility? They do it by talking about best value. Labour's political rhetoric is that we have to do away with
  186
  the wicked capping that past Tory Administrations used to prevent local authorities from spending money on services; but the Government recognise that authorities—it will inevitably be Labour authorities—who want to engage in excessive spending will have to be constrained from doing so. Their solution is to bring back control not in the guise of crude and universal capping, but as a mechanism that, in its technical aspects, is capable of imposing a system of capping that is just as detailed and constraining as anything that has been applied by past Conservative Administrations.
  Again, we see the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. The rhetoric of Labour is about freeing up local government, but the reality is serving the interests of Labour in local government and recognisingz that Labour local government has deep flaws, which is why this Administration has introduced the Bill.
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect briefly on the fact that Conservative council after Conservative council was capped under the previous Government's regimes? I served on one. Those councils spent up to the cap and that became the norm. The English language was abused, was it not?
  Mr. Lansley: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is taking me to a later part of my speech. He will not be surprised to learn that I have difficulties with the manner in which capping regimes have been applied. For example, in recent years, my county council in Cambridgeshire was capped, even under a Conservative Administration. It was capped at the standard spending assessment level, when it had one of the lowest council taxes in the country. In that case, capping was not applied to curb excessive spending.
  Capping was introduced because of excessive spending by Labour authorities, but the manner in which previous legislation was implemented led to absurdities, which have constrained local authorities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said quite openly, the Conservative party does not want that policy pursued in future.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: May I help the hon. Gentleman? He is saying that the existing capping criteria are crude and ineffective and that they were unfairly applied to his local authority. Therefore, he should support the Government, because we want to remove that crude capping regime and introduce a fairer system.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is trying to help me, but he is directing me to the wrong solution. His solution is not the sort of capping that ought to be applied, as I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise. Capping should be applied for excessive spending in year, rather than be spread over a number of years. If there is to be a reserve power, it ought not to be in the form provided for in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) said that schedule 2 was excessively complicated, and we know why. There is only one reason. The schedule is designed to give the Secretary of State great flexibility in the manner in which he applies the capping powers. Therefore, we are not talking about predictable reserve powers, which will operate only if local authorities increase expenditure excessively.

  187
  I am not trying to write policy and this is not necessarily the best solution, but legislation could specify that the capping regime would be based on a multiple of the increase in council tax at standard spending assessment and that capping would not apply to any local authority that spent within a given margin of the SSA. As we all know, the SSA is not a precise instrument. One of the most objectionable aspects of the regime was that capping was applied at or close to SSA and the Government have proposed in their White Paper that it should apply at or below SSA, which is an absurdity. If there is to be a reserve power, the legislation should specify that the capping regime should not apply within 10 per cent. of the SSA level.
  Dr. George Turner: The argument is well worth pursuing because when we try to simplify in local government, we take away local councillors' ability to argue for a particular circumstance. The Government are trying to strike a balance between everything being a special case and having an oversimplified system that lays down one rule for everyone.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. I wish that more Labour Members had taken this line as there are reservations on the Government side about the capping powers that the Government propose. The policy is designed to give Ministers—no doubt at their behest, in conversation with officials—the power to do anything that they want at any time.
  However, that is not what a reserve power should be. Such a power should permit Parliament to assert that, although there is a case for simplicity, it cannot apply to a large number of authorities except in so far as it sets a boundary beyond which legislation may allow the Secretary of State to intervene. As long as that boundary allows a considerable margin between the cap and the average rate of council tax increase in a given year and that year's standard spending assessment, it is possible for most local authorities, year by year, to remain unaffected by the capping regime. That is what we want, but the Bill will not achieve it. Instead, it will mean that, every year, every local authority will contemplate the character of the capping criteria. They will even worry about the possible capping criteria in the following year that may bite back retrospectively on their budget decisions.
  I shall return to the matter of the best value regime. The implication of the contributions from Labour Members is that there is a debate about who is in favour of best value. We are all in favour of it, which is why I find it astonishing that Labour Members should say that Conservative councils tell them that they support best value. Of course Conservative councils say that: I have a letter from the Conservative Cambridgeshire county council that makes it clear that it supports best value. According to the district auditor, that council is doing very well: the wide range of measures that it has adopted has put it at the leading edge among authorities implementing principles associated with best value.
  There is no surprise about that. Conservative administrations in local government have led the way in creating best value. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex said, best value is simply an extension of
  188
  compulsory competitive tendering. If one thinks of best value as being both baby and bath water—with the baby being competition, or CCT—what makes this part of the Bill objectionable is that the Government, far from chucking out the baby with the bath water, are keeping the bath water and chucking out the baby.
  A core element of local government activity must be exposed regularly to the harsh rigour of competition through competitive tendering. Otherwise, competition will be lost, by stages, within local government: even benchmarking—by which authorities compare their success with that achieved by the best 25 per cent. of local government practice—will not secure the same best value that could be achieved in a rigorous competitive regime.
  The Minister talked about the four Cs—challenge, comparison, competition and consultation—but I fear that we shall find that Labour authorities will not pursue most of them. They will undertake consultation, but they will not challenge Labour authorities' presumption that the more services provided, the better. They certainly will not engage in competition and all comparisons made over time will be confined to local government rather than between the public sector and the private sector.
  I share the worry expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about beacon councils. Performance indicators must be focused on efficiency, cost and value for money if the concept of beacon councils is to have validity. However, I suspect that some of the elements in those performance indicators will be directed too much towards compliance with Government prescription, given that the White Paper often equates quality with volume of service provided. The result will be that beacon councils will be relatively high-spending authorities engaged in relatively high-volume activities and that they will then be rewarded with additional money from Government for precisely that reason.
  I have a final point about performance indicators. The White Paper proposes that quality should be one of the performance indicators imposed by Government, but that should happen only when local government is carrying out a function prescribed and required by central Government. If quality performance indicators begin to intrude into services which local government has the discretion to provide or not, central Government will be prescribing what happens inside local government and not allowing local government to strike the essential balance between the provision of service and the cost to the taxpayer. Central Government should, as far as possible, be kept out of that decision. Quality performance indicators should be limited to those activities which it is prescribed in statute that local government must undertake.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that the Government simply have to understand that council tax benefit limitation will hit hardest in circumstances in which there are many low-value properties and many benefit recipients. I cannot understand why the Government are blundering into this problem. There is an additional difficulty, which I hope that Ministers will consider carefully and try to avoid. It arises in relation to authorities that have been very low spenders and are spending below their SSA. In increasing their council tax, often as a result of a decline in their revenue support grant, authorities may incur a penalty as a consequence of the council tax benefit limitation even though they are

  189
  spending below the SSA. As it happens, the worst example is South Cambridgeshire, which will incur a penalty because the council tax benefit threshold is 23 per cent. below the SSA. There is no rationale, even on the sharing of responsibility criterion to which the Minister referred, for a local authority incurring a penalty if it is increasing its council tax, but spending that far below its SSA. I hope that, when Ministers look at the detail of the Bill, they will recognise that problem.
  I am disappointed in the legislation. It was perfectly possible to introduce a Bill that retained CCT but put it into a wider context of best value. Such a Bill might have secured a higher degree of support on both sides of the House. It was perfectly possible to introduce legislation with a genuine reserve power in relation to capping rather than the wide discretion that Ministers seek to give themselves.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: I am one who has always believed that the genuineness of democracy depends on how close it is to the people. The nearer democracy is, both ideologically and geographically, the more genuine it is. The more power and decision making wander away—to London or, even worse, to Brussels—the more a democracy fails to represent the people who have rightful ownership of it. That is why local government is so important. That is why it must be made to work, regardless of the local government model that we use. If one form of local democracy does not work, we have no alternative but to keep switching until we find one that does. It is community representation that matters, not the bureaucracy of local government.
  Local government election turnouts that sink below 20 per cent. obviously do not help. They send a clear message from the more than 80 per cent. of the electorate who choose not to bother to vote. The message is that something is very wrong with the set-up. Then again, after so many years of attacks on local government by central Government, we should not be surprised by that apathy.
  It was the systematic destruction of local democracy that made the Scottish Parliament so necessary. If the Conservatives had remained in power much longer, they would have initiated a demand for a North of England Parliament. I believe that because I was first elected as a ward councillor on the same day that Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. I must say that it was the one and only moment of celebration that we shared, but I was delighted to be elected in May 1979. To be a local councillor in the late 1970s was something to be proud of. I found myself surrounded by men and women of various political persuasions who had spent distinguished lifetimes giving real service to their localities. They had collectively built up local services, improved public health, and demolished slums and erected millions of decent houses in their place.
  As institutions, the councils were far from perfect and could certainly have been improved. However, they were generally controlled by decent and committed people who were rightly proud of their achievements. Those councillors never guessed on that fateful day in 1979 that the next 18 years would be the worst in the history of British local democracy and that it would change for ever. Instead of developing and improving the communities in which they lived, those councillors were forced, year on year, to cut services, scrap capital programmes and shrink the wages and conditions of loyal council workers.
  190
  Elected councillors quickly became the villains in almost everyone's eyes, as central Government forced them to increase rates, impose the poll tax and simultaneously devastate the local services that they had previously nurtured, for no pay, in their leisure time and often on top of full-time jobs. As the pressure mounted, many of those who had served their communities so well grew tired and stood down, and local government was the loser.
  It is to be hoped that that is behind us now, but immense damage has been done. I believe that it will take many years to rebuild the respect, dignity and satisfaction once associated with being a councillor. However, the job must be done because local democracy must be strengthened; it must be changed and made to count again. I welcome the Bill as a meaningful start. As local government acquires power, it must begin to assume more responsibility. That is the only way that we shall return to the days when local people believed that it was important to turn up and vote in council elections.
  It appears that almost everyone welcomes the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering. The Confederation of British Industry says that the time is right to move away from CCT, and the Local Government Association particularly welcomes the abolition of CCT and the inclusion of best value proposals. It makes one wonder who was in favour of CCT in the first place. In all honesty, CCT gave local authorities the incentive to move out of the competitive dark ages, but it was clearly too blunt an instrument. The concept of best value is clearly better than compulsory competitive tendering and should be supported.
  Best value must certainly not be a soft option. I welcome the fact that the CCT regime will not be removed until best value legislation is in place. The problem with CCT was that far too many local authorities concentrated on survival and finding ways of getting around the regulations, rather than on delivering better public services. I was reminded of the many bonus schemes that I experienced in industry when employees spent more time finding ways of getting around the schemes than producing goods. CCT was introduced in an atmosphere of confrontation that was the hallmark of Government in the early 1980s. Instead of being viewed as a partner of central Government, local government was treated as the enemy. I am not referring only to Labour-controlled councils; Tory councils were often treated with just as much contempt by the Government of the day.
  The Bill moves us on and, it is to be hoped, will ensure that continual improvements in quality and efficiency are at the heart of best value. I worry about the detail of best value and would certainly have welcomed more insight into how the intervention process will work. We all await that with trepidation.
  Best value will not work if it becomes as threatening and destructive as compulsory competitive tendering. My local authority in Bolton does not need—and never needed—to be told that it is good to be more efficient. It has enough nous and incentive to drive for efficiency improvements and it has certainly been forced to make enough cuts over the years to understand how significant efficiency savings are. It is much more important that we allow councils voluntarily to do better and that we jointly seek better local government, because if we fail, the public will increasingly respond by staying at home on

  191
  election days. As the public stop voting locally, local democracy will be diminished and will reach the point at which it is no longer representative or democratic.
  Bolton council understands that and has as much interest in ensuring public support and confidence as anyone. That is why, in advance of the Bill, Bolton has already set up a best value team. That is why it has taken initiatives to ensure constant improvement in local services through partnership with the public. I very much welcome the steps that the council has taken, especially its vision for future partnership with organisations from the whole community, including business, trade unions, the voluntary sector, the police and many others.
  The clear powers in the Bill will enable Bolton council, and authorities across the country, to take on a more effective community leadership role. The Bill will reinforce and build on the progress that has already been made through such initiatives as the Bolton vision for the future, the 3Ds partnership and the Halliwell central forum.
  On council tax capping, I welcome the removal of the existing capping powers and their replacement with more discriminating reserve powers. However, I believe, as I am sure many of us do, that our ultimate objective should be to abolish capping entirely. Power and responsibility go hand in hand and we should trust that the local community will remove the power of its local politicians if they become irresponsible. If the public choose not to do that, so be it. That is what I understand local democracy to be. If the public are willing to pay increasing levels of council tax, that is their choice. Levels of local taxation should be decided locally. If the decision on how much to pay were set free from interference by central Government, that might increase local election turnout more than anything else.
  It is obvious that we need a Bill that will deliver what the White Paper suggested—local government in touch with the people. However, to achieve that goal, we must trust local government and the local community and allow them to run their own affairs.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I should declare an honorary interest as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which, although I am proud to be one, is not a great distinction because many hon. Members are vice-presidents of the LGA. I should also list my crimes—I was a member of Somerset county council for 12 years, leader of the council, chairman of the police authority and vice-chairman of two national bodies. For three years, I was on the Audit Commission. Quaintly, like many hon. Members who were in local government and now find themselves in Parliament, I still believe in local government and local democracy and I am prepared to stand up and say so because it is important.
  Unfortunately, coming to this place seems to have addled my brain. When I intervened on the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), I was incapable of remembering a list of three things, which is a shame. We argued for so many years with Conservative Governments for the need to remove capping—of course—the need to reform the uniform business rate,
  192
  which it seems we spent yesterday reinforcing, and the removal of the wretched area cost adjustment, into which I shall not go because it is not relevant, but on which the Government are ducking the issue.
  We should welcome some parts of the Bill. The removal of compulsory competitive tendering is the obvious case in point. The problem with CCT was always the first C. There was nothing wrong with competitive tendering as a process, a tool of local government. The compulsion was wrong. Distortions introduced by Conservative legislation meant the removal of fair competition and the stripping of local authorities of much work that had been properly done. Incidentally, CCT did not result in such good value to the taxpayer because of the value-added element that was lost in the process—let alone the detrimental effect on employees.
  I welcome in broad terms the best value proposal, but I am worried as to whether the guidance will become uniform. My experience on the Audit Commission made it clear that it is very difficult to move from using performance indicators, however sophisticated they are, to a process that enables the establishment of best practice without dictating best practice. The most important thing is the capacity for communities to take local decisions that are right for them. I hope that local government will be properly involved in the derivation of performance indicators and in identifying areas that are best left to the local electorate to determine. There must be real choice in local government. If it means anything, it is the capacity to make a proposal and allow people a choice on the basis of that proposal.
  I am worried about clause 14. I listened carefully to the Minister comment on how a general power of competence would not achieve similar results. I hope that we shall have a chance in Committee to explore the audit trail further, because I am not convinced that it does not exist. One area that is outside the audit trail of either the Audit Commission or the National Audit Office at the moment is that of quangos, such as housing associations. We have begged time and again for them to be included in the audit regime. None the less, I cannot see how bodies that are separately audited by authorities and set up by Parliament can fall outside the audit trail.
  The major problem is capping. We have heard all this nonsense about reserve powers before. We heard it from the previous Government, yet, eventually, every single county council was capped. That was not the use of a reserve power; it was universal capping. The pre-notification issue, about which we have also heard before, is equally important. An indeterminate sword of Damocles hung over local authorities, which was detrimental to the way in which local authorities were managed and not in the best interests of rate payers.
  All sorts of issues are involved in the way in which capping will be implemented in its new form, such as that concerning authorities that are already spending below the standard spending assessment. SSAs are arbitrary, not accurate, measures. It would be quite wrong to use them as a test of whether a council is competent and efficient.
  The essential issue on which I shall dwell is that of democracy. If we do not give local voters real choices, why on earth should they vote? The Conservatives made that mistake over many years in government. By introducing universal capping and ensuring that there was no difference in total spend, they removed any local

  193
  argument for electing Conservative councillors, and paid the penalty for it. It worries me that the new proposals will achieve exactly the same by other means—by virtue of best value, dictation from the centre and the reserve power of capping.
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: No, I do not have time.
  It worries me that we shall not create the essential element of local democracy: the capacity to take local decisions for local people and communities. That is what local government and local democracy are about, and it should be what this Government are about.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: We have had an interesting debate. We heard 18 Back-Bench speakers, many of them with long years of service in local government, so a great deal of experience was brought to the debate. Instead of attacks on capping and compulsory competitive tendering, it might have been appropriate if those on the Labour Benches had offered apologies for the antics of some of their local authorities over many years. I am referring not just to the imposition of high council taxes, but to mismanagement and, in too many cases, corruption as well.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: I want to make a little progress as I do not have much time, but I shall give way to the hon. Lady later.
  We are used to local authorities twinning, but a number of Labour-controlled authorities have overdone it. Poor service was twinned with high council taxes. To those authorities, beacon councils meant not beacons, but bonfires on which their council tax money seemed to go up in smoke, without any impact on services.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) seemed to associate large sums of money with much better services. Time and again, the figures proved that that was not the case. Some of the authorities with the highest council taxes and the highest level of expenditure had the poorest levels of service. We must divorce the two and find out how the money can be effectively and efficiently spent.
  I went through this morning's newspapers expecting to read the usual spin doctors' reports on the Bill, telling us how wonderful it was and how it would restore local democracy, free local government and keep faith with the councils. Instead of that, the newspapers were dominated by national politics and the Prime Minister's attempts to fight back after the Government's black Christmas. The Guardian reported that the Government's fight-back
  "got off to a shaky start…as ministers braced themselves for hard times ahead".
  It referred to
  "three grim weeks which have cost two ministers' and one spin doctor's jobs".
  Perhaps that was the spin doctor who would normally have spun this sort of story.
  Someone less generous than I might have accused the Government of engineering the back-stabbing and in-fighting as a distraction from their policies, especially
  194
  on local government. As the Government relaunch themselves, they tell us that they want to move away from personality to policy. If the Bill is an example of policy, no wonder the papers are full of personality. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) said that many hon. Members had read the Bill and read between the lines. They know exactly what the Bill means.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said that he hoped that local government would be judged on its own merits and not used as a poll on national Government. After 18 months of Labour Government, I understand why he should say that. The Bill represents the continuation of an approach that lacks direction, consistency and detailed thought.
  As we enter a new century, we witness attacks on our constitution and an erratic reform of government at all levels. [Interruption.] The Bill is part of that pattern and comes from the Government who have given us one institution for Scotland with a certain set of powers, including tax-raising powers; another institution for Wales, where the Welsh Assembly will take on many of the powers mentioned in the Bill; a different set of powers for London, with a directly elected mayor; and voting systems that beggar belief, especially the closed-list system for European elections.
  We are constantly told to look at the big picture, but there is no big picture of which these reforms form part—only a series of small pictures which bear no relation to one another. [Interruption.] It is not a grand mosaic, but a system of crazy paving. None of these reforms—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we cannot have a continuous sedentary chorus from those on the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. None of these reforms will help. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) called them half-baked, but that gives them credit that they ill deserve.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: The reforms to CCT and capping continue the hotch-potch and mish-mash that will leave local government in the dark and uncertain of its relationship with central Government.
  Dr. Jones: I was initially motivated to intervene when the hon. Gentleman talked about the antics of local government. Then he talked about half-baked ideas. That reminded me of the Conservative Government's performance in power. The hon. Gentleman talks about antics, but what about the Tories, who rushed ahead with rail privatisation, costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion? Surely that is a much worse antic than any that local government has ever got up to. Many of local government's antics have been the result of pressures put on it by the Tory Government, which resulted in a waste of money in bureaucracy, the hiring of consultants—the beauty contest. Too many antics were initiated by the Tory Government.
  Mr. Evans: That is a deviation. I enjoyed the hon. Lady's earlier intervention because she has enormous

  195
  reservations about the Bill. I thought that new Labour could see the merits of privatisation and competition; that it agrees with privatisation, including of the railways. I see no provision for the renationalisation of the railways. I suspect that the Government have seen the merits of that.
  The Bill simply continues the mish-mash of the existing relationship. In new Labour's brave new world, local government will have to adhere to some of the new rules of the game, except that it will not be told what the rules are, and they will change from local authority to local authority. The Bill tells us that dogma is out, but dog's dinner is in, and all sorts of scraps are thrown around.
  CCT and capping gave certainty and predictability in local government. It gave value for money and new disciplines to a system that was running away with itself. It introduced competition. We heard from the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), that CCT had some merits. We heard that, albeit begrudgingly, from a number of Labour Members. They conceded its benefits to local government. It has enabled local authorities to escape from the accumulation of trade union diktat and Spanish practices which benefited the provider of services at the expense of the recipient and the council tax payer. We must always remember that.
  We have talked a little today about the electorate and how to get more people out to vote. But we must always remember the level of service that council tax payers receive. It is important to them that we get it right. CCT was introduced in the teeth of Labour opposition in the 1980s and throughout 1988, when it was extended—Labour now sees the benefits of that, including savings of about 7 per cent.
  There are too many reserve powers and unanswered questions in the Bill. It dilutes competition and gives enormous discretion to the Secretary of State. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have already criticised the Henry VIII clauses.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman once again, but there should not be a mini-discussion among Opposition Members either. If hon. Members do not want to listen to the debate, I suggest that they leave the Chamber.
  Mr. Evans: Clause.3(5) states:
  "The Secretary of State—

  (a) may issue guidance to best value authorities generally or to one or more particular authorities;

  (b) may issue different guidance to different authorities".

  Clause 4(2) states:
  "An order may specify different performance indicators or standards—

  (a) for different functions;

  (b) for different authorities;

  (c) to apply at different times."

  The Bill is extremely vague in parts and we have grave concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex talked about the Secretary of State's and the Welsh Assembly's 27 new powers. We have enormous reservations about the fact that those new powers will be held in reserve and could be used.
  196
  We have no qualms about the proper devolution of powers. I am talking not about local authorities but about individuals and institutions, such as schools, hospitals and general practitioners. But the reserve powers given to the Secretary of State by the Bill are not the enabling powers that we would wish to see and which we were promised at the general election for the reform of local government. I am not surprised that the Minister is already talking about amendments that she hopes will be made in Committee, because the Bill has not been properly thought through.
  It is strange that local authorities are supposed to take instruction from Ministers who think that best value is flying around the country and the rest of Europe in private jets instead of taking scheduled airlines. Ministers can certainly see best value in houses in Islington; they may not have the money, but they know how to get it. How can local authorities take instruction from Ministers who do not show best value in government?
  We need to hear a lot more about clause 17, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King)—about the pitfalls, the ticking time bomb and the abuses for which it could be used. At least competition policy meant that all local authorities had to follow strict guidelines so that abuses could not be committed, as in the past.
  Part of the problem with local authority contracts was the over-politicisation of the way in which they were awarded. Clause 17 may be abused—perhaps not by the current Secretary of State or by the Welsh Assembly in its first 12 months—and that problem must be addressed. I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot address it in the Bill if we know, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, that many aspects are causing grave concern.
  In respect of capping, the great question is, "When is capping not capping?" The answer is, "When it is new capping." The Secretary of State's reserve powers for new capping are enormous. The Bill puts local authorities in the dark, because it allows him, or the Welsh Assembly, to use capping powers after the event—if local authorities introduce excessive charges.
  What are excessive charges? Is three times the rate of inflation an excessive council tax rise? If so, a number of local authorities will face the cap from the Government this year, because many charges will go up by 7 per cent. Indeed, there will be double-digit increases, so what does "excessive" mean?
  Let us at least give a clue to local authorities, which have to set such charges. The Bill is far too vague: the Secretary of State is free to cap, or not to cap. Although the criteria that he chooses must obviously be the same for all local authorities, no one knows what they are. It will also be up to him to decide what "excessive" means.
  There is fear in Wales that the new Welsh Assembly will usurp the powers of some local authorities. It has the power to distribute moneys passed on by central Government—using the Barnett formula, we are assured—but will its First Secretary or a Committee decide what "excessive" happens to be? A coalition could run the Welsh Assembly—not the Labour party, as it believes—so how would that work?
  A number of concerns have been raised, not only by Conservative Members. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the Minister to smirk, but concerns have been

  197
  expressed by her own Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned the advantages brought by CCT and the fact it can be harmful if power drifts away from those who are governed. I agree, not simply in respect of Westminster, but of Brussels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned the discontinuity between the White Paper and the general election and the Bill. A number of people, including many in the local government sector, will be disappointed. The Local Government Association briefing mentions
  "aspects of the detail which the Association will wish to scrutinise during the Bill's passage, in particular, the wide-ranging reserve powers proposed for the Secretary of State in applying Best Value and the new regime to regulate council tax; the provisions for inspection under Best Value, including existing inspectorates' roles; the provisions for contracting out in clause 16; and the criteria which will trigger the new capping powers in the Bill."
  The association has reservations about virtually the entire Bill.
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman might at least have added that the LGA "broadly welcomes" the Bill. Should he not have quoted those words before proceeding to the association's qualifying remarks?
  Mr. Evans: The fact is that, at the conclusion of its briefing, the association expresses a number of reservations about the Bill—the same reservations that we have heard throughout today's debate. While it may welcome some of the broad thrust of the legislation, it has enormous reservations. We would be wrong to ignore reservations expressed by representatives of local authorities throughout the country who came to the House today to make their concerns known, and to dismiss their views on the ground that they welcome some of the changes.
  A number of other points were made. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) spoke of the drift of power away from local government, and said how damaging that would be. We want to enable local government to become responsible to the electorate. Other hon. Members asked how we could make the electorate more interested in going out and voting in local elections. Certainly, we must do more to deal with that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who has a long and distinguished history of service in local government, mentioned apathy. He too expressed reservations about clause 17, and spoke of the absurdity of capping below SSA. I hope that the Minister will deal with that when he winds up the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) spoke of getting back to fundamentals in government. We need many more changes. I understand that the Government are to produce more reforms, but there is great disappointment about the fact that they have begun with this measure when so many others could have been presented.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned the consultation process. We need to know a little more about that. When I was a county councillor in West Glamorgan, the council used to engage regularly in consultation with local businesses. Local business representatives would troop in, and would be listened to by councillors. The authority was, of course, Labour controlled. Out they would go; then the council
  198
  would jack up the rates by 30 per cent. or 35 per cent., showing no concern whatever for the local businesses and no interest in where they would find the extra money. We need more detailed information about the procedure involved in the consultation. Guidelines are to be issued, but we do not know what they will be. As with so much in the Bill, we simply do not know.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spoke of a smokescreen for further Government control, referring to fears about the Bill that we all share. He spoke of Whitehall's tendency to dictate what local government should do. The Bill will not release local government; it will not give local government far more control.
  The hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) said that the consultation would increase confidence in local government, but I hope that what I have said about the procedure shows that, in many instances, consultation is a sham. If it is to be effective, it must take place in a meaningful way. Local authorities must listen to what local people say. Local people—not just representatives of organisations, but individuals—have an important voice, and local government must listen to them.
  The Bill does not represent a third way; it is third rate. It does not set local authorities free; it puts fresh chains on them. In our view, this is "new Labour, new chains". The Bill does not give authorities predictability; it blindfolds them with the threat that, if they step out of line, they will be hit. It gives the Secretary of State, or the Welsh Assembly, enormous reserve powers. It is arbitrary in nature, unclear in presentation and unpredictable in practice. Rather than waving a wand to improve the functioning of local government, the Secretary of State will be waving a stick.
  We were promised a great deal by the Government, but, as usual, their approach is piecemeal and ill defined. As the best effects of compulsory competitive tendering are ditched and the protection of capping abolished—or not, depending on the mood of the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly—only one thing is certain in the Bill: that council taxes will rise. There is no guarantee whatever that the services that people receive will improve.
  The Government are torn between dogma and doubt. The one leads to the ditching of sensible proposals that protect the council tax payer, while the other leads to listing. Together, they have created a party at war with itself, a Cabinet besotted with position, not political direction, and a Government with their eye on each other, not on the ball. There is a price to be paid for incompetent government and, with the passage of the Bill, it will land on everyone's doormat. That is why we cannot and will not support the Bill tonight.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): There is a price to be paid for incompetent government and the number of Conservative Members sitting opposite is witness and testament to that.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that the debate has been interesting. It has convinced me of three things: first, that there is widespread support for bringing the services that are provided by local authorities in England and Wales up to the standards of the best in terms of both cost and quality;

  199
  secondly, that if we are to deliver best value in full and improve local financial accountability, central Government need new powers and local government needs real flexibility; and thirdly, that those new powers need to be exercised with care, with broad agreement and for the benefit of local communities. I take heed of those hon. Members who have advocated caution.
  The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) initially argued that there was widespread support for the continuation of compulsory competitive tendering, rather than best value. To substantiate that claim, he had to resort to quoting the much quoted Institute of Directors—not all the Institute of Directors; only 49 per cent. of it apparently. When he was told that the larger, more representative CBI supported the Government's position, one Conservative Member, who is no longer with us, remarked from a sedentary position that the CBI was merely a bunch of socialists. What could better demonstrate the pathetic and marginal nature of the current Tory party than the fact that it believes that the CBI is a bunch of socialists?
  Later, Tory Members chose to have a philosophical debate with one another and very interesting it was too. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) made an interesting contribution that attracted considerable agreement from the Labour Benches because he attacked fundamentally the philosophy of the previous Government. However, he rather spoiled it by claiming, apparently, that Thatcherism was a disguised socialist plot to reintroduce central planning to Britain. However, I am grateful for the many helpful proposals that have been made in the debate.
  It is a time of great change for Wales. The advent of the National Assembly heralds a new era of inclusive politics in which the people of Wales and their representatives will have to work together for the common good.
  The Assembly will be no talking shop. It will have at its disposal the £7 billion or so budget that is currently assigned to the Welsh Office. The Assembly will allocate those resources and set policies and standards for services. In doing so, it will wish to work in close partnership with local government to deliver services that will meet the needs of the people of Wales.
  It is my special privilege to turn to the provisions that deal with the National Assembly for Wales. Before the referendum, we promised that new Government Bills would reflect the position of the Assembly within the modernised British constitution and would confer on it powers consistent with those that it will inherit from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later this year. The Bill is the first to do so.
  Under the Bill, the Assembly will be able to decide how to exercise its powers to take forward the modernisation of Welsh local government in a way that reflects the special needs of Wales and the democratically expressed wishes of its people. That is the only way to go if the Assembly is to have the trust and respect it deserves. In that sense, the Bill paves the way for the shape of future primary legislation for Wales. Parliament should provide the framework within which the Assembly will operate, without seeking to be unduly prescriptive. I am delighted that the Bill does that and I commend it to the
  200
  House as a new and refreshing means of delivering real power into the hands of a body that will exercise it in an open and accountable fashion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) asked about the role of the partnership council and its best value. It is one of the many areas in which the Assembly can discuss with local government how it is exercising its powers with respect to local authorities. He also asked about the position of police authorities in Wales. The Bill provides that the best value powers in respect of those authorities will be exercised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Evans: Could clause 17 be used by the Welsh Assembly so as to use the Welsh language as a means by which contracts are handed out by local authorities?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman hails from Wales and he will know that that question is meant to be entirely mischievous. There is no possibility of a democratically elected body for Wales, where 80 per cent. of the population does not speak Welsh, doing such a thing. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for trying to make mischief out of the real consensus that exists in Wales about the promotion of the Welsh language.
  There has been concern from some hon. Members about the intervention powers in the Bill. The hon. Member for North Essex trumpeted the 27 new powers for the Secretary of State that he claims are contained in the Bill. He chose to ignore the fact that 50 powers introduced by the previous Administration will be repealed by the Bill. By my calculation, that means that the Bill represents a net reduction of 23 in centralising powers. The Bill removes powers from central Government. By contrast, the hon. Gentleman declares himself proud of the 28 pieces of local government legislation introduced by the Conservative party between 1980 and 1997.
  Intervention in an authority's affairs by the Secretary of State or the Assembly will be appropriate to the nature of any failure. It will be the exception, not the rule. It will be the last resort.
  Dr. Evan Harris: On that subject, may I draw the Minister's attention to a provision that is not repealed by the legislation—the disgraceful section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which purports to ban the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, rather like purporting to ban the promotion of left-handedness? That has resulted in a failure to provide good sex education, the failure of pastoral care for young lesbian and gay pupils and other difficulties that schools in particular have had to face. Why did not the Government take the first opportunity to repeal that stain on our statute book?
  Mr. Jones: The Government have a commitment to repeal that legislation before the end of this Parliament, but it is not a part of best value.
  Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the apparently excessive powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State and the Assembly to make orders and issue statutory guidance. The alternative would be to put more detail in the Bill. We do not believe that that would be the right way forward. Best value needs flexibility.

  201
  That can best be provided through secondary legislation and guidance. That is how we can take into account the experience of the pilots. It is how we can introduce changes at operational level as circumstances change.
  The Opposition have failed to appreciate the fact that we have been discussing these powers with local government and others for over 18 months. Let me make it clear that the powers will be used with considerable care. They will be used after consultation and we will seek consensus in the way we use them. We are developing a protocol with the Local Government Association setting out the general principles that will underpin the exercise of the intervention powers and the broad procedures to be followed.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister undertake to make the protocol available before the Committee stage starts? It is impossible to discuss how the powers will be exercised when the Government are playing their cards so close to their chest.
  Mr. Jones: The protocol will be made available as soon as it is agreed with the Local Government Association.
  Some hon. Members have objected to clause 14. The powers are included in the Bill to help local authorities to deliver best value. We shall consult widely before using the powers. We shall look carefully at best value authorities' powers to trade and engage in partnerships.
  We are also considering the ability to pool budgets with other public bodies to achieve common objectives. Such powers will have to be curtailed. We cannot create new monopolies. We shall not allow special advantages for authorities to trade in the market. The Secretary of State will be able to impose restrictions and conditions on the use of the powers. We shall ensure that risks are limited and public funds protected. The powers will remove the constraints that prevent authorities from delivering best value. That must be good for local people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) expressed concern about authorities drowning in Government performance indicators. Some aspects of local services are of national interest, such as levels of educational attainment or child protection. It is right for the Government to set standards to ensure a minimum level of such services. However, authorities will set a range of indicators to reflect their priorities. Those indicators will play a key role in the performance management framework. The Audit Commission has consulted on indicators and will continue to do so in the coming year.
  The Bill is not about nationalising local government, as some Opposition Members have suggested. It provides local authorities with a framework to deliver effective and efficient local services for local people. Councils will be held to account for their delivery of services. The duties to publish annual performance plans and to consult service users and others will be key mechanisms in making that happen. The Bill is not about nationalisation; it is about enabling local government to do its job better.
  The Conservatives were also concerned that the Bill says nothing about how competition will work under best value. They do not believe that best value will provide real competition. We recognise that competition will be an important part of best value. In each review, authorities will need to test the competitiveness of each service.
  202
  In our White Papers we have identified a number of ways in which that can be done. There will be competition, but unlike under compulsory competitive tendering, it will be fair, based on the principle of partnership and in a climate of respect for employees' rights. If local authorities seek to evade or fudge competitiveness, it will be apparent in the quality or cost of their services and will be picked up by the audit. There is nowhere to hide.
  I greatly appreciated the arguments against CCT made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). I am indebted to him for revealing to me the case of the Barnet duck. I assure him that under best value Barnet ducks will grow fat.
  Equity has been referred to during the debate. It is inherent in best value. An effective authority will ensure that it is built into the review process and underpins the local performance plan. Many local authorities are addressing that already. There is no need for a specific mention in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) asked how we would use the experience of the pilot areas to draw up secondary legislation and guidance. The pilot studies are being widely assessed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I receive regular reports. We both have a pilots steering group and working groups which bring together the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Council, the Audit Commission, the Local Government Association and the voluntary sector. We have not set up all those pilots and engaged all that expertise only to ignore them. It is to take account of the experience of the pilots that we have left some flexibility in the Bill as to how we implement the details of the framework.
  We were elected on a manifesto that promised that we would retain a reserve power to control excessive council tax increases. It is right for central Government to take a responsible interest in the responsible use of local authority powers. In England, only 25 per cent. of local government finance is raised locally and in Wales the figure is even lower. We have to be accountable to the national taxpayer, but we also need to protect local taxpayers, and we will.
  Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jones: No. I am trying to refer to as many points as possible.
  We shall do so, however, in a more flexible and discriminating fashion. Those who are criticising the reserve powers are looking at them in isolation and not as part of a wider package of local government reform to which the Government are committed. That package of reform is providing local accountability and responsibility. Indeed, we hope that the other changes that have been proposed as part of the review of local government finance will mean that the reserve power is used rarely if at all.
  In conclusion, modern local government is a vital part of the fabric of the dynamic, democratic, fair and inclusive society that people want and it is vital to securing the quality of life that people deserve and have a right to expect. We recognise that modernising local government will take time and will be demanding on all concerned. Some of our reforms will require wide

  203
  consultation before they can be introduced, in recognition of the radical and important nature of those changes for local government and the local people it serves.
  The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) was cynical about the value of consultation. We should expect no more from a former Conservative local government Minister. The hon. Member for North Essex welcomed the idea of beacon councils, and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) called for local business rates. Our White Paper contains proposals for improvements in those areas and many more, on which we are currently in discussion with the Local Government Association, local government and other parties before conducting wider public consultation on the way forward.
  The current Local Government Bill is the first step. Among all our public institutions, councils have a special status as local, directly elected bodies. They are able to make things happen on the ground—where it really matters. Together, the changes will renew the framework for local government, opening up the way for councils to meet the challenges and needs of the 21st century.
  The Government do not believe that it is right that local people should have to put up with poor services and high local taxes. They need a voice that will be heard. Authorities need to respond to that voice, and to take pride in the way in which they respond.
  Too often under the previous Administration the drive to cut costs in service delivery overrode all other considerations. Dogma prevailed and users of local authority services took a back seat. I have to acknowledge that local authority performance in the delivery of services is still patchy—with some achieving high standards and others not.
  Best value represents a fresh start for all councils and a way forward into the new millennium. There is a hunger in local government to meet the challenges of the new millennium. The Bill will enable that, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 341.

  Division No. 30]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Baker, Norman

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Beth, Rt Hon A J

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Oaten, Mark

  Brake, Tom

  Öpik, Lembit

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Rendel, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Burnett, John

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

  Burstow, Paul

  Stunell, Andrew

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Chidgey, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tyler, Paul

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Webb, Steve

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Willis, Phil

  Harvey, Nick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Adrian Sanders and

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Donald Gorrie.

  Keetch, Paul

  204

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cummings, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darvill, Keith

  Austin, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Banks, Tony

  Davidson, Ian

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benton, Joe

  Doran, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Drew, David

  Best, Harold

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Follett, Barbara

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fyfe, Maria

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gunnell, John

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  205

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hutton, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pike, Peter L

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pond, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Radice, Giles

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Linton, Martin

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lock, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Love, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Roy, Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruane, Chris

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacShane, Denis

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Singh, Marsha

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Merron, Gillian

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Milburn, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  206

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stringer, Graham

  Watts, David

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  White, Brian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wise, Audrey

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wood, Mike

  Todd, Mark

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wray, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 170.

  Division No. 31]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Alexander, Douglas

  Canavan, Dennis

  Allen, Graham

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Caton, Martin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chaytor, David

  Austin, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  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

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Borrow, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cousins, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cummings, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dafis, Cynog

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Darvill, Keith

  207

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Drew, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Efford, Clive

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Etherington, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fisher, Mark

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lock, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Love, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McAllion, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Steve

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godsiff, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gunnell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hanson, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoey, Kate

  Michael, Alun

  Home Robertson, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Milburn, Alan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  208

  Norris, Dan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Snape, Peter

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Soley, Clive

  O'Neill, Martin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stevenson, George

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pickthall, Colin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pike, Peter L

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Plaskitt, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pond, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Radice, Giles

  Todd, Mark

  Rammell, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  Rapson, Syd

  Trickett, Jon

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rogers, Allan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooney, Terry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roy, Frank

  Watts, David

  Ruane, Chris

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wood, Mike

  Singh, Marsha

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. David Jamieson

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Alan Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burnett, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cash, William

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Bowell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Brady, Graham

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Brake, Tom

  Collins, Tim

  209

  Colvin, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lidington, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Loughton, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Luff, Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Flight, Howard

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Mates, Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gibb, Nick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gill, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Norman, Archie

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Oaten, Mark

  Gorrie, Donald

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gray, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Page, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Paice, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pickles, Eric

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Prior, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Rendel, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Robathan, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Harvey, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hayes, John

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Horam, John

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Steen, Anthony

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Syms, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  210

  Townend, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Walter, Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wardle, Charles

  Yeo, Tim

  Webb, Steve

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [MONEY]:
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;

  (b) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (i) at its sitting on Monday 1st February, the Scottish Grand Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and

  (ii) in respect of that sitting, paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) shall have effect with the substitution of the word "nine" for the word "ten".—[Mr. Allen.]

  COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Dawn Primarolo be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mrs. Barbara Roche be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Local Government Finance (Buckinghamshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  10.26 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: The parliamentary day began with questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and we continued with the Second Reading debate on the Local Government Bill. I shall conclude tonight's proceedings by raising the crucial issue of the local government finance settlement for Buckinghamshire and its implications. I am delighted to do so in the company of my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and, last but not least, for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney)—all of whom represent Buckinghamshire constituencies and share my concern about the prospective fate of the county council's finances.
  The reality is that although, nationally, the revenue support grant settlement might appear to many people to be reasonable, locally in Buckinghamshire it is undoubtedly a bad deal, bad news and is being badly received. As a result of the Government's announcement, the average increase in social services standard spending assessments this year is 5.8 per cent, but Buckinghamshire is due to receive only 2.8 per cent., or £1.5 million. Yet the authority calculates that, in order to retain existing service levels, an increase of 9 per cent.—or £5.5 million—is required. Therefore, we are immediately faced with a shortfall of £4 million.
  That shortfall is exacerbated by the Government's regrettable decision this year not to roll forward to the financial year 1999–2000 the £2.5 million in special transitional grant. If that sum of money were rolled forward—as we wished and expected—it would be possible for Buckinghamshire county council both to take on and to pay for long-term care commitments. The threat to that process is a matter of genuine and cross-party concern.
  My hon. Friends and I welcome the Government's proposed new grants for promoting independence. I say that without hesitation to the Minister. As yet, the conditions attached to the use of those grants are unclear, and we expect an announcement on that point by the end of January. I simply observe to the Minister and the House that, if the Government allow flexibility in the use of those grants so that Buckinghamshire, for example, can use them to pay for long-term care commitments, the local authority will have more flexibility in setting its council tax level.
  If, however, there is not an announcement soon, or if the Government announce that they will not allow flexibility in the use of those independence-promoting grants, Buckinghamshire county council will be in a serious quandary. It will have to decide how to bridge the £6.5 million gap. It can do so only by raising council tax or by underfunding education.
  This year, as a result of an especially severe financial settlement, the county is not spending at the level of its full education standard spending assessment, for fear that if it did so, intolerable damage would be inflicted on
  212
  other services provided by the county. Next year, Buckinghamshire county council intends to spend at the full education SSA, as the Government intend, as parents and teachers wish and as the needs of our children demand. However, Buckinghamshire also wants to retain the level of social services provision.
  On present reckoning, if there is not better news from central Government, Buckinghamshire county council concludes that a budget of £329 million will be required, necessitating an increase in council tax of 13.9 per cent. That is undesirable. Whether it is unavoidable is not yet clear. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be gracious enough in his reply to acknowledge that if the county council were forced to make that increase, £1.5 million of the revenue raised would go to the standards fund, £1.5 million would go to secondary schools and £400,000 would be devoted to the reduction of class sizes at key stage 2. That would be welcomed by hundreds of parents and teachers who have written to me on the subject, not least those representing the Edlesborough county combined school and the Cheddington county combined school, which are confronted by class sizes of 47 and 43.
  Of course, the situation is unsatisfactory and we should prefer a better alternative. In pursuit of such an alternative, a cross-party delegation of county councillors came to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on Tuesday 5 January. To his credit, the hon. Gentleman gave a courteous hearing to the delegation, for which I thank him and for which I know all the councillors were grateful.
  The delegation consisted of five county councillors. It was led by the chairman of the council, Ken Ross. It included David Shakespeare, the chairman of policy and resources; Mark Greenburgh, the leader of the Conservative group on the council, who is listening intently to the debate; Councillor Pam Crawford, the leader of the Liberal Democrat group; and Councillor John Huddart, the leader of the Labour group. It was greatly assisted by an admirable duo of officials: the chief executive of the county council, Ian Crookall, and the head of finance, Sean Nolan.
  It is important to understand that the delegation was cross-party and sentiments were expressed in a non-partisan fashion. Councillor Crawford said:
  "It was important to explain the full impact of the loss of grant for Social Services…there are real pressures on the budget for older people. It is vital that we meet the pressures on old people's and children's services."
  To his credit, Councillor Huddart said:
  "The cross-party delegation demonstrates everyone's commitment to protecting our services."
  Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors, as I hope the Under-Secretary will acknowledge, are in touch with, concerned about and determined to promote the interests of their constituents. To that end, they have reached a consensus on the proposals that the county has made.
  Mr. Brian White: As a former member of Buckinghamshire county council, on which I had the misfortune to serve a few years ago, I am confused by the hon. Gentleman's comments. Perhaps he can enlighten me. When the disaggregation between

  213
  Buckinghamshire county council and Milton Keynes occurred, there was a discrepancy in the favour of the county—some say of £5 million, some say of £7 million or £8 million—which the then chairman of policy and resources, David Shakespeare, agreed should go to Milton Keynes. For the want of it being in writing, it would have done. That means that Buckinghamshire has had a higher standard spending assessment for the past two or three years. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can make such comments without addressing that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is quite enough.
  Mr. Bercow: I blame myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Invariably, as my hon. Friends will testify, my generosity in the House gets the better of me. First, if the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) wants to pursue the question of the future borrowing powers and financial arrangements of Milton Keynes unitary authority, he is welcome to do so with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Secondly, it is a trifle cheeky for him to criticise the record of Buckinghamshire county council and my support for it, given that this year Buckinghamshire county council is spending only 0.3 per cent. under its education SSA, whereas Milton Keynes, as he knows to his discredit—apparently he supports this arrangement—is spending 8.9 per cent. less than its education SSA. That is a matter for him, his conscious, his party and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  Buckinghamshire county council is a good, prudent, well-run authority. It is committed to the principle and practice of best value. Already, it is achieving savings of £2 million a year as a result of outsourcing. On top of that—I hope that the Under-Secretary will take note—it is conducting a rolling programme of root-and-branch reviews of all its services. That has already yielded annual savings of £800,000, and savings of a further £2.5 million per year is earmarked for future years. In addition, the council has frozen infrastructure expenditure in cash terms, realising a saving to the authority of £1.6 million a year. It is a good authority; it is doing all that it can to provide quality services at affordable prices on behalf of the people whom it exists to serve.
  The Government's position on capping is not altogether clear. I hope that the Under-Secretary might enlighten us in his reply. In his statement on 2 December 1998, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions referred several times to excessive council tax increases, for which he said there would be no justification, and which he would not hesitate to intervene to prevent. Unfortunately, he has not divulged to the world what constitutes excessive; he simply will not say. That has created an absurd game of cat and mouse.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle indicated assent.
  Mr. Bercow: It is an unsatisfactory guessing game, as the hon. Gentleman rightly agrees. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who is an intelligent man, will concede that it does not make sense to operate on that basis, given that if a decision made by the council is wrong and it is capped against its expectation, it will have to re-bill. That would cost Buckinghamshire £500,000. That is not sensible. Let us know the ground rules and operate according to them.
  214
  Of one thing we can be certain: whatever consultation the Government have undertaken, Buckinghamshire county council has consulted. It has surveyed residents, staff and stakeholders. It has issued consultation documents on its proposals and had a healthy and supportive response to them. It has staged a series of briefing meetings for people with a particular interest in the subject. As a result, beyond doubt, the message is this: we support the council's priorities, we want the services to continue, we are prepared to pay the cost for them.
  I conclude on behalf of my hon. Friends by making two requests of the Under-Secretary. First, in the name of quality service provision and for the sake of the health of local democracy, will the Under-Secretary speedily clarify whether there will be flexibility in the new independence grants that are to be provided and, if so, what form that and flexibility will take? Secondly, will he trust the democratically locally elected politicians who are the custodians of the local interest and are charged with effectively representing it? If he gives them the chance, they will do the job, and they will not let their local residents down.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and to the Minister for allowing me to intervene briefly in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in obtaining a debate on this important subject.
  I shall make three points. First, I remind the Minister that in each of the local government settlements that the Government have announced since the general election, they have transferred money away from Buckinghamshire to other areas of the country through changes in the standard spending assessment formula. That has created difficulties for a council that is already run economically and prudently, and whose electors are accustomed to the level of services that it provides.
  Secondly, the decision by the Government this year not to roll forward the special transitional grant for social services into the standard spending assessment for 1999–2000 was unprecedented in the years since the new system for funding social services was first established. We in the House all know that the care of the elderly, the learning disabled and other vulnerable people involves a long-term commitment by the social services department of a local authority. It cannot be switched on in one financial year and switched off the next because of an sudden, unheralded, unforeseen and unprecedented change in the Government's policy.
  I very much regret that the Government chose to make such a switch in policy and I hope that Ministers will consider allowing flexibility of the sort that my hon. Friend called for. If they do not do so, there is a real threat to services such as the Princes Risborough day centre in my constituency, the Endeavour day centre in Chesham, which serves the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and day centres in High Wycombe that serve the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney).
  Short of cutting social services, there are only two ways in which the county council can compensate for the regrettable change in the Government's policy. One is to increase the council tax severely in a way that would

  215
  inevitably bear hardest on those people on pensions or fixed incomes. The second is to reduce planned spending on education in a way that would also be unwelcome.
  Finally, I reiterate my hon. Friend's call for the Government to make clear their criteria for capping. The opaque way in which they hold out the prospect of capping retrospectively after councils have set their budgets will make for bad budgetary planning and a lack of accountability of councillors to their electors. Every political party represented on my county council wants the Government to think again, and I hope that even now the Minister is prepared to do so.
  10.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his success in securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to consider the provisional local government settlement for Buckinghamshire in the coming financial year.
  The local government settlement is an issue of considerable interest to local authorities. Today, we came to the end of the consultation period on the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 2 December. Many local authorities, including Buckinghamshire, as the hon. Gentleman observed, have made representations on the settlement and have sent representatives to see Ministers to press their case. I can assure the House that, before we take final decisions, we will carefully consider all the comments made on our proposals, including those made by the representatives of Buckinghamshire and those made by hon. Members in this evening's debate. We expect to be able to announce the final settlement early next month.
  I will comment later on the settlement and what it means for Buckinghamshire, but I should put the comments made by the hon. Gentleman in context.
  We have provided the best settlement for seven years. We have provided a 5.4 per cent. increase for councils total revenue spending. That is an additional £2.6 billion and provides local authorities with a real increase of 2.9 per cent. I am confident that local authorities will continue to produce more efficiency savings as they continue to modernise. Therefore, the increases that we have provided will provide even greater headroom above inflation.
  The English settlement provides an extra 7.2 per cent. or £1.4 billion for education, on top of the extra £5.4 billion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that we would be providing over three years for capital investment in modernising our schools.
  Council tax payers will have also been pleased to note that we are not expecting them to pick up the tab for this extra expenditure. We have allowed for an extra £2 billion of Government grant, so that council tax bears only its fair share of additional spending. That provides that, if local authorities increase their budgets in line with SSAs,
  216
  council taxes will rise by 4.5 per cent. on average—I appreciate that, within this figure, there will be variations between authorities. I will come on to that point later.
  Personal social services receive an extra £500 million or 6.1 per cent. in cash terms as part of the Government's new approach to social services. That is a 3.6 per cent. increase in real terms. We are increasing resources by more than 3 per cent. a year in real terms, on average, over the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03.
  I am sure that authorities in Buckinghamshire will recognise that this is a good settlement and that they have benefited from it. As always, authorities are affected to a lesser or greater extent by the changes made to the distribution of Government grant.
  Last year, we announced a number of changes to the SSA formulae to make them fairer. This year, we have made more changes to SSAs, where those are justified and will lead to a fairer system.
  We have specifically made changes to the children's social services formula. The new formula has been introduced following detailed research, mainly undertaken at York university, which has been the subject of thorough and detailed discussion with local government. The analysis used to develop the formula reflects the pattern of service costs since the Children Act 1989, and includes details of all types of children in touch with social services.
  The formula includes plausible factors influencing the need to spend and uses a statistical method which ensures that results are not biased by historic levels of funding. The new formula for children's social services provides a better indication of need and a fairer allocation of grant among authorities than the previous one.
  All the major criticisms of the formula have been fully investigated. We did not introduce it in last year's settlement because there were doubts which required further examination, and that examination has taken place in the intervening year. As a result, a fostering cost adjustment has been developed to allow for the uneven costs of foster care across England.
  Although standard spending assessments for some authorities are reduced as a result of that change, we have ensured that no authority will receive less grant from the Government in 1999–2000 than it did in 1998–99.
  We have also introduced changes which make allowance for the additional cost of providing social services for the elderly in their own homes in rural areas and, for the next financial year, the distribution of grant will take account of deprivation in the part of the formula that deals with what are called county services, such as libraries and probation.
  However, we have not made other changes which were suggested to us. Despite extensive discussions with local government, no clear-cut improvements could be identified on issues such as the area cost adjustment and the additional educational needs SSA. We were pressed to make changes on those, but we did not do so because we did not believe that they would be justified.
  Many authorities in the south-east were concerned about possible changes on those issues and made

  217
  representations to us. We accepted that none of the proposals that we had before us represented a clear improvement on the existing system, so we have left that part of the formula unchanged.
  We will continue to seek ways of making the system fairer, and we have launched a long-term, three-year research programme to try to find a fairer, more robust, simpler and more stable way of distributing grant. That is the biggest challenge in local government finance, because the demands of fairness on one side and simplicity on the other are not easily reconciled. We have an extremely complex system, which many people think is not as fair as it should be. The challenge over the next three years will be to achieve a system that is more comprehensible to ordinary people and that also achieves the objectives of fairness.
  As we said in our July White Paper, we do not expect to change the SSA formula over the next three years. That will allow a period of stability for local government, and for the research, to find out whether we can come up with different ways of distributing grant.
  We also announced SSA totals for three years in the comprehensive spending review. Those may change slightly, to reflect changes in local government's functions and responsibilities. Apart from those, there will be no changes, so the new approach will allow local government to plan ahead on a firm basis—for three years—for the first time. That can be only good news for councils and council tax payers alike.
  We believe that the changes to SSAs are fair, but councils need time to adjust their spending levels. As in previous years, we will pay grant to limit the effect on council tax payers where changes in the way that we calculate SSAs lead to significant loss, but over and above that, we will ensure that no local authority receives less Government grant than last year. There will therefore be no losers, which means that there is no case for large council tax increases.
  We were elected on a manifesto commitment to end crude and universal capping. However, we promised to retain a reserve power to control excessive council tax increases. The new reserve powers are set out in the Local Government Bill, which was debated today. The Government have a strong interest in local government taxation and spending decisions and must have reserve powers, which will enable them to limit excessive council tax increases and so protect local taxpayers.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Time is very short and I want to deal specifically with Buckinghamshire, which I know is a matter of concern.
  We hope that the other changes proposed as part of the review of local government finance will mean that the reserve power has to be used rarely, if at all. Local government knows that this is a matter of trust: if it fails to deliver prudent budgets, or if efficiency and economy fall short of the standards that people expect, we will use our reserve powers.
  218
  Until the new legislation comes into effect, we will use existing powers as a reserve power to limit excessive council tax increases. We have not announced capping principles in advance, but we will still be prepared to use the powers to limit excessive budgets once set, to protect local taxpayers. We will decide whether we need to use our capping powers and what criteria will apply once authorities have set their budgets.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) urged me to announce the criteria in advance. That is not a sensible approach. It would apply a mechanistic formula in which there would be a perverse incentive for authorities to increase budgets to the limit. That is not a sensible way forward. We have made it clear that we will use the reserve power only when we believe that authorities have not acted responsibly.
  We expect authorities to approach their budgeting within a responsible framework and to do so in the spirit that the hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned. He insisted that authorities should be free to decide the appropriate level. We expect them to do so with proper concern for prudence and responsibility.
  We are providing significant real increases in funding from Government grants and the business rate, and the provisional settlement sets out how those resources will be distributed. Local authorities should carefully consider their needs in the light of that settlement when drawing up spending plans. We are not a tax-and-spend Government, and we expect authorities to act responsibly as well.
  The standard spending assessment for Buckinghamshire will increase by 4.5 per cent. The hon. Member for Buckingham would have to look back as far as 1993–94 to find a bigger increase. Indeed, the average increase for Buckinghamshire between 1993–94 and now has been barely 2 per cent. a year. Buckinghamshire's increase this year is well above the rate of inflation, which shows our commitment to improving local services. An education increase of 5.4 per cent. shows our commitment to education in particular.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned the difficulties faced by Buckinghamshire's social services. The county has received an extra £1.5 million in its personal social services SSA. In its representation on the provisional local government finance settlement, the council expressed its disappointment that the Government had not rolled forward the special transitional grant into next year's SSA. The hon. Gentleman raised that matter in his speech. However, to adjust in that way would make no sense in the light of the comprehensive spending review, which started from a zero base, looking at expenditure needs in the round. The only fair comparison involves looking at the total resources provided for social services. In Buckinghamshire' s case, the amount of grant from the Department of Health in 1999–2000 is increasing compared with the figure in 1998–99. When added to the SSA, it provides a 2.8 per cent. increase, which is above the expected rate of inflation and far more than the total SSA allocation to Buckinghamshire in any of the past four years.
  The comprehensive spending review has brought about a completely new approach to the way in which money is allocated to local government—over a longer period, in order to provide stability and predictability, and with more focus on outcomes. We accept that some new clients are

  219
  still coming into the system—albeit a diminishing number—as a result of the community-care changes of 1993. There is more than sufficient funding within the social services settlement to meet the costs of previous—
  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 four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Library
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what requirements are placed on senior staff of the British Library to disclose shareholdings and other financial interests in the annual report of the Library. [63365]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: There are no requirements on senior staff at the British Library to publish these details in the Library's annual report. However, the Library holds a Register of Business Interests in which all staff are required to provide details of relevant financial interests or other relevant material benefit which they receive from sources external to the Library and which might be perceived as a conflict of interest.

  Art Collections
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those public art galleries and museums which allow items from their collections to be displayed in(a) hotels and (b) other places where the general public does not have an automatic right of access. [64493]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Although we are aware that some museums and galleries lend items from their collections outside the museums community, we have no means of knowing all that do so: it is for the governing body of each museum and gallery to determine their own policy on loans of works of art or objects. The governing body will want to be satisfied as to the level of public access to the display.

  BBC (Funding)
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will announce the membership of the panel looking at the future funding of the BBC; and if he will make a statement. [65562]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The panel will be chaired by Gavyn Davies and comprises the right hon. Lord Newton of Braintree, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, Sir Alan Budd, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, Helen Black, Ruth Evans, David Lipsey and Heather Rabbatts.

  This is an important review which aims to ensure the BBC's continuing ability to meet its public service obligations effectively, while, at the same time, ensuring that it retains the ability to operate effectively in a competitive marketplace.
  132
  I am pleased that Gavyn Davies has accepted my invitation to chair the panel. The panel members have the knowledge, authority and judgment to weigh the issues, and I am confident that they will do so impartially, without preconceptions and with the national interest in mind.

  The panel will be announcing shortly how it intends to take the review forward, including the taking of evidence.

  The panel will report to me by the end of July and I will then consult on its findings.

WALES

  Football Association
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Sports Council for Wales concerning the receipt by the Football Association of Wales of a grant from the English Football Association and the conditions attached thereto; and if he will make a statement. [64987]

  Mr. Michael
  I have had no consultations with the Sports Council for Wales on this issue. It is entirely a matter for the two governing bodies involved.

  Finance
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate aggregate Government spending in Wales in each year between 1992–93 and 2001–02. [64502]

  Mr. Michael
  Identifiable General Government Expenditure in Wales between 1992–93 and 1996–97 is as shown:

  £ million

  1992–93

  11,438

  1993–94

  12,069

  1994–95

  12,556

  1995–96

  12,985

  1996–97

  13,496

  Source:

  Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses

  These figures include all General Government Expenditure that can be identified as being within Wales, but excludes items from which Wales may benefit even though the money is spent elsewhere (eg defence spending).

  A substantial part of identifiable General Government Expenditure consists of social security payments which form part of the new Annually Managed Expenditure total, for which forward allocations to the year 2001–02 are not available. The Welsh budget (a substantially smaller sum than identifiable General Government Expenditure) which includes the Departmental Expenditure Limit and Annually Managed Expenditure for the years 1998–99 to 2001 02 is as shown.

  £ million

  1998–99

  7,411.9

  1999–2000

  7,812.1

  2000–01

  8,223.4

  2001–02

  8,665.5

  133
  Note also that identifiable Government Expenditure (IGE) in Wales is not directly comparable with IGE in English regions—because some items can be identified in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not at a regional level within England.

  Estimates of all Government Expenditure for Wales, including an appropriate share of UK defence spending and other such items, were made in Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales 1993–94 and 1994–95. These estimates were:

  £ million

  1998–99

  7,411.9

  1999–2000

  7,812.1

  2000–01

  8,223.4

  2001–02

  8,665.5

  No estimates have been made for later years.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate Government revenues derived from sources in Wales in each year between 1992–93 and 2001–02. [64501]

  Mr. Michael
  "Government Expenditure and Revenue, Wales 1993–94 and 1994–95", available in the Library of the House, gives the following estimates:

  1993–94: £9.3 billion

  1994–95: £9.9 billion.

  No estimates are available for other years.

  Bedlinog Schools
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the dates of the visits by the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to Bedlinog Junior, Bedlinog Infants and Graig Bedlinog Infants schools to advise on the exercise of his powers under sections 35(1) and 167(1) of the Education Act 1996; [64769]

  (2) if he will list the dates upon which his professional advisers on school building visited Bedlinog Infants, Bedlinog Junior and Graig Bedlinog Infants schools in consideration of the exercise of his powers under sections 35(1) and 167(1) of the Education Act 1996. [64768]

  Bedlinog schools —class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios —September 1998

  Class sizes

  School

  Class

  Number of pupils

  Number of teachers

  Pupil-Teacher ratio

  Bedlinog Infants

  N/R

  18

  R/Y1/Y2

  22

  Total

  40

  12

  20:1

  Graig Bedlinog Infant

  N/R/Y1

  23

  Yl/Y2

  21

  Total

  44

  12.1

  20.95:1

  Bedlinog Junior

  Yrs 3–6

  25

  26

  25

  Total

  76

  23.8

  20:1

  1Including Head teacher

  2Head teacher teaches for 80 per cent. of his time.

  134
  Mr. Hain
  Since Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council's proposal to amalgamate the three Bedlinog schools on the site of the existing junior school attracted statutory objections, in accordance with sections 37 and 169 of the Education Act 1996, it fell to the Secretary of State to determine.

  In considering the proposal the Secretary of State sought the views of the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales (OHMCI) and the Department's professional advisers on school building matters —Burgess Partnership.

  Bedlinog Junior, Bedlinog Infants and Graig Bedlinog Infants schools were inspected by independent inspectors under contract to OHMCI on 10–12 June 1996, 23–25 September 1996, and 4–6 March 1996 respectively. Given the generally satisfactory standards of achievement in the three schools, visits by HMI were not deemed necessary following the inspections. OHMCI provided the Department with advice on the educational merits of the LEA's proposal having considered the LEA's statement of case and all the objections.

  The Burgess Partnership did not visit the schools but assessed the LEA's technical report on the condition of the junior school building and the authority's response to objections relating to this particular issue. Their assessment was reported to the Secretary of State for his consideration along with all other evidence.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimate he has made of each of the current class sizes in(a) Bedlinog Junior, (b) Bedlinog Infants and (c) Graig Bedlinog Infants schools, Merthyr Tydfil; and what estimate he has made of each of these class sizes following the proposed reorganisation of the schools; [64771]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the teacher/pupil ratios at (a) Bedlinog Junior, (b) Bedlinog Infants and (c) Graig Bedlinog Infants schools; and what estimate he has made of the pupil/teacher ratio after the proposed reorganisation of the schools. [64770]

  Mr. Hain
  The following table provides details of class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios at each of the three schools at September 1998.

  The determination of class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios following the reorganisation of the schools will be matters for the head teacher and governing body. The school is expected to have around 162 pupils and 6 teachers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the weeks ending (i) 19 December 1998, (ii) 26 December 1998,

  Shootings

  Assaults

  Date

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  13 December to 19 December

  2

  1

  1

  1

  20 December to 26 December

  0

  0

  1

  0

  27 December to 2 January

  0

  0

  0

  1

  03 January to 9 January

  1

  2

  6

  5

  Total

  3

  3

  8

  7

  Note:

  Statistics may be subject to minor amendment

TREASURY

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the excess winter deaths for each region within Great Britain for the last three years, and the forecasts for(a) this winter, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; and if he will list the estimated cost to the NHS as a result.[63411]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Rendel, dated 12 January 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the excess winter deaths for each region within Great Britain for each of the last three years, and the forecasts for (a) this winter, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–2001; and the estimated cost to the NHS as a result.
  The number of excess winter deaths in each region within Great Britain over the last three winters is given in the table below.

  Excess winter deaths by region, Great Britain, 1995–96 to 11997–98

  Region

  1995–96

  1996–97

  11997–98

  North

  2,490

  2,620

  1,800

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,040

  4,550

  2,510

  East Midlands

  2,930

  3,540

  2,050

  East Anglia

  1,600

  2,140

  1,080

  South East

  13,240

  16,450

  7,320

  South West

  4,140

  5,060

  2,270

  West Midlands

  4,160

  4,530

  2,490

  North West

  5,220

  5,960

  2,650

  Percentage of (a) all live births and (b) singleton live births: with a stated birthweight less than 2,500g England, regional offices and health authorities, 1995–1997

  Percentage

  1995

  1996

  1997

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  England

  7.3

  6.0

  7.3

  6.0

  7.5

  6.1

  Northern and Yorkshire

  7.7

  6.4

  7.4

  6.1

  7.9

  6.5

  Bradford HA

  8.8

  7.7

  8.7

  7.6

  9.1

  8.0

  County Durham HA

  7.3

  5.8

  7.2

  5.8

  7.8

  6.1

  East Riding HA

  6.9

  5.7

  7.5

  6.2

  8.2

  6.6

  136
  (iii) 2 January 1999 and (iv) 9 January 1999 the number of (a) punishment beatings and (b) shootings which took place in Northern Ireland; and how many in each category were committed by (1) Loyalists and (2) Republicans. [64212]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks for the period 13 December 1998 to 9 January 1999.

  Excess winter deaths by region, Great Britain, 1995–96 to 11997–98

  Region

  1995–96

  1996–97

  11997–98

  Wales

  2,440

  2,880

  1,330

  Scotland

  3,660

  3,640

  2,740

  1 Provisional

  The ONS defines excess winter mortality as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average of the number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  It is not possible to forecast the figures for future winters as excess winter mortality is influenced by many factors such as temperature and the incidence of influenza which cannot be predicted.

  Information on the estimated cost to the NHS is not collected by the ONS or the Department of Health.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the percentage of low birthweight live births in each English health authority area broken down by(a) single and (b) all live births for the last three years. [64413]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 12 January 1997:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on low birthweight live births.
  The information requested is shown in the attached table.
  137

  Percentage of (a) all live births and (b) singleton live births: with a stated birthweight less than 2,500g England, regional offices and health authorities, 1995–1997

  Percentage

  1995

  1996

  1997

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  7.9

  6.5

  7.4

  6.3

  8.1

  6.9

  Leeds HA

  8.5

  6.8

  8.1

  6.6

  8.2

  6.9

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  7.7

  6.4

  7.9

  6.7

  8.3

  6.7

  North Cumbria HA

  6.6

  5.3

  7.0

  5.4

  7.5

  5.6

  Northumberland HA

  7.3

  6.2

  6.0

  5.1

  7.1

  5.5

  Sunderland HA

  7.6

  6.5

  8.0

  6.6

  8.1

  6.7

  Tees HA

  7.8

  6.4

  7.3

  6.4

  7.6

  6.5

  Wakefield HA

  7.9

  6.7

  7.6

  5.8

  7.9

  6.5

  North Yorkshire HA

  6.5

  5.0

  5.5

  4.4

  6.6

  4.9

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  8.7

  7.5

  7.7

  6.1

  8.4

  7.0

  Trent

  7.3

  6.0

  7.3

  5.9

  7.6

  6.2

  Barnsley HA

  7.6

  6.7

  6.6

  5.7

  6.9

  5.6

  North Derbyshire HA

  5.9

  4.5

  6.1

  4.9

  6.5

  5.2

  South Derbyshire HA

  6.5

  5.3

  6.9

  5.7

  7.0

  5.7

  Doncaster HA

  7.5

  6.4

  6.8

  5.5

  8.8

  7.1

  Leicestershire HA

  8.0

  6.4

  8.2

  6.7

  8.2

  6.8

  Lincolnshire HA

  6.4

  5.1

  6.2

  5.1

  6.8

  5.6

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  8.0

  6.5

  8.0

  6.4

  8.9

  6.8

  Nottingham HA

  7.5

  6.0

  7.4

  5.8

  7.2

  5.9

  Rotherham HA

  8.0

  7.0

  7.1

  6.1

  7.3

  6.1

  Sheffield HA

  7.9

  6.5

  7.9

  6.5

  7.7

  6.4

  South Humber HA

  7.1

  5.9

  7.0

  5.6

  7.5

  6.2

  Anglia and Oxford

  6.8

  5.3

  6.9

  5.5

  7.0

  5.6

  Bedfordshire HA

  6.7

  5.5

  7.3

  5.9

  7.2

  6.0

  Berkshire HA

  6.9

  5.4

  6.8

  5.3

  7.1

  5.5

  Buckinghamshire HA

  6.8

  5.3

  6.7

  5.5

  7.2

  5.5

  Cambridge and Huntingdon HA

  6.8

  5.2

  6.5

  5.0

  6.2

  5.2

  East Norfolk HA

  7.3

  5.7

  6.7

  5.4

  6.7

  5.1

  Northamptonshire HA

  7.0

  5.6

  7.5

  5.9

  7.7

  6.2

  North West Anglia HA

  7.6

  6.3

  7.8

  6.3

  7.4

  6.1

  Oxfordshire HA

  5.7

  4.3

  6.2

  4.9

  6.3

  5.0

  Suffolk HA

  6.3

  4.9

  6.5

  5.3

  6.9

  5.5

  North Thames

  7.5

  6.1

  7.4

  6.1

  7.6

  6.2

  Hillingdon HA

  8.3

  6.4

  7.2

  5.9

  7.5

  5.9

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminister HA

  7.8

  6.2

  7.7

  5.5

  7.6

  5.7

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  7.9

  6.6

  7.7

  6.3

  8.2

  7.0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  8.3

  6.8

  7.9

  6.4

  8.0

  6.3

  Barking and Havering HA

  6.2

  4.9

  6.8

  5.5

  7.4

  5.7

  Barnet HA

  7.8

  6.3

  7.5

  6.2

  7.9

  6.2

  Brent and Harrow HA

  8.6

  7.4

  9.0

  7.6

  8.7

  7.9

  Camden and Islington HA

  7.4

  6.6

  7.5

  6.8

  7.8

  6.7

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  7.7

  6.3

  7.7

  6.5

  7.8

  6.2

  East London and The City HA

  9

  7.7

  8.9

  8

  9.7

  8.6

  North Essex HA

  6.5

  4.9

  6.3

  5.1

  6.2

  4.9

  South Essex HA

  5.7

  4.5

  5.9

  4.4

  6.6

  5.1

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  6.8

  5.3

  6.5

  5.1

  6.6

  5.0

  West Hertfordshire HA

  6.5

  5.1

  6.9

  5.4

  6.0

  4.6

  South Thames

  7.0

  5.6

  6.9

  5.6

  7.0

  5.5

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  6.9

  5.6

  7.4

  6.1

  7.3

  6.0

  Bromley HA

  6.9

  5.5

  6.9

  5.4

  6.4

  5.0

  Croydon HA

  8.3

  6.3

  7.8

  6.4

  7.9

  6.2

  East Kent HA

  6.7

  5.3

  6.2

  5.0

  7.4

  5.7

  West Kent HA

  6.7

  5.4

  6.6

  5.2

  6.3

  5.1

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  5.7

  4.0

  5.9

  4.6

  6.2

  4.5

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  9.1

  7.7

  8.7

  7.6

  8.8

  7.3

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  7.1

  5.5

  6.9

  5.3

  6.7

  5.3

  East Surrey HA

  6.5

  4.6

  6.3

  4.8

  5.8

  4.5

  West Surrey HA

  6.4

  4.8

  5.7

  4.6

  6.2

  4.5

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  6.4

  5.4

  6.7

  5.4

  7.1

  5.5

  West Sussex HA

  6.6

  5.2

  6.4

  5.1

  6.8

  5.3

  South and West

  6.7

  5.4

  6.8

  5.4

  6.7

  5.3

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  6.2

  4.6

  7.2

  5.4

  6.2

  4.7

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  6.9

  5.4

  6.7

  5.3

  6.4

  4.9

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  7.1

  5.8

  6.8

  5.7

  6.6

  5.5

  Isle of Wight HA

  6.5

  4.6

  7.1

  5.6

  7.3

  6.3

  Somerset HA

  6.5

  5.3

  6.7

  5.2

  6.4

  5.2

  South West Devon HA

  6.6

  5.6

  6.7

  5.5

  7.4

  6.2

  Wiltshire HA

  7

  5.7

  6.6

  5.4

  7.4

  5.6

  Avon HA

  6.8

  5.6

  7.0

  5.4

  7.0

  5.6

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  6.8

  5.4

  6.7

  5.5

  5.8

  4.6

  138 139

  Percentage of (a) all live births and (b) singleton live births: with a stated birthweight less than 2,500g England, regional offices and health authorities, 1995–1997

  Percentage

  1995

  1996

  1997

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  All babies less than 2,500g

  Singletons less than 2,500g

  Dorset HA

  6.3

  5.1

  6.5

  5.2

  6.8

  5.4

  North East Devon HA

  6.7

  5.3

  6.9

  5.6

  6.3

  4.9

  Gloucestershire HA

  6.9

  5.5

  6.5

  5.1

  6.8

  5.2

  West Midlands

  8.0

  6.7

  8.1

  6.7

  8.2

  6.7

  Birmingham HA

  9.5

  8.2

  9.2

  7.7

  9.4

  8.0

  Coventry HA

  8.7

  7.5

  9.7

  7.9

  8.7

  7.0

  Dudley HA

  7.9

  6.4

  8.5

  6.8

  8.3

  6.3

  Herefordshire HA

  6.4

  5.2

  6.8

  6.2

  6.9

  6.0

  Sandwell HA

  9.7

  8.3

  9.5

  8.1

  10.0

  8.9

  Shropshire HA

  7.1

  5.5

  7.0

  5.5

  6.7

  5.5

  Solihull HA

  6.6

  5.1

  8.5

  6.1

  7.2

  5.7

  North Staffordshire HA

  7.1

  6.0

  7.4

  6.2

  7.0

  5.8

  South Staffordshire HA

  6.6

  5.3

  7.0

  5.2

  6.5

  5.0

  Walsall HA

  8.8

  7.5

  9.1

  7.7

  10.1

  8.1

  Warwickshire HA

  6.9

  5.5

  6.3

  4.9

  6.7

  5.3

  Wolverhampton HA

  9.2

  8.2

  9.6

  8.6

  10.1

  8.5

  Worcestershire HA

  7.1

  5.6

  6.6

  5.5

  7.2

  5.7

  North West

  7.7

  6.4

  7.7

  6.4

  7.8

  6.6

  South Lancashire HA

  6.4

  5.1

  6.9

  5.9

  7.0

  5.5

  Liverpool HA

  8.3

  6.9

  8.5

  7.1

  7.7

  6.7

  Manchester HA

  9.9

  8.5

  9.2

  8.2

  9.2

  8.0

  Morecambe Bay HA

  7.4

  5.9

  7.3

  6.2

  6.2

  5.2

  St. Helen's and Knowsley HA

  7.9

  6.7

  8.0

  6.7

  8.1

  6.9

  Salford and Trafford HA

  8.0

  6.6

  7.8

  6.4

  8.3

  6.8

  Sefton HA

  7.1

  5.5

  7.2

  6.0

  7.6

  5.9

  Stockport HA

  6.9

  5.5

  6.3

  5.1

  6.1

  4.5

  West Pennine HA

  7.8

  6.7

  7.6

  6.7

  8.4

  7.5

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  8.3

  7.1

  8.2

  6.9

  8.6

  7.4

  North Cheshire HA

  5.5

  4.7

  6.6

  4.8

  6.2

  5.2

  South Cheshire HA

  6.5

  5.0

  6.4

  5.1

  6.6

  5.6

  East Lancashire HA

  8.7

  7.5

  7.7

  6.9

  8.3

  7.0

  North West Lancashire HA

  7.1

  6.0

  7.6

  6.5

  8.1

  6.8

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  8.2

  7.0

  8.3

  6.9

  8.7

  7.5

  Wirral HA

  6.6

  5.6

  7.6

  5.6

  7.0

  5.7

  Source:

  ONS

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons underlie the deduction of income tax credits from the figure for net taxes and social security contributions in Table B9 of the Pre-Budget report, Cmnd 4076. [64639]

  Ms Hewitt
  Income tax reliefs such as MIRAS and other tax credits, including the Working Families Tax Credit, are part of the income tax system and are administered by Inland Revenue. As they reduce the receipts of Inland Revenue, they are netted off the figures for total tax receipts and social security contributions.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the United Kingdom's gross contribution to the EC budget for the latest available year was comprised of the proceeds of(a) agricultural levies and (b) customs duties; and what were the corresponding figures for the latest available years for (i) France, (ii) Germany and (iii) Italy. [64642]

  Ms Hewitt
  The percentages for the traditional own resources contributions of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy in respect of calendar year 1997 are set out in the table.
  140

  Percentage

  Duties on agricultural Products (formerly agricultural levies)

  Sugar and Isoglucose levies)

  Customs duties

  United Kingdom

  3.25

  0.76

  22.73

  France

  0.45

  2.19

  9.64

  Germany

  0.73

  1.35

  14.49

  Italy

  0.53

  1.06

  12.01

  Notes:

  1. Source of figures: the European Court of Auditors report on the 1997 EC Budget.

  2. Percentages relate to the Member States gross contributions, less traditional own resources collection costs, before account is taken of the UK's abatement. The gross contribution figures include adjustments to VAT and GNP contributions of earlier years.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Dominic Lawson
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the capacities in which Mr. Dominic Lawson has been employed by Her Majesty's Government or any agency acting on their behalf; and if he will make a statement; [64972]
  141
  (2) what public funds have been paid by Her Majesty's Government or anyone acting on their behalf into a bank or banks to Mr. Dominic Lawson; for what purposes; and if he will make a statement. [64973]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Social Exclusion Unit will publish its report on, and recommendations for, reducing the numbers of teenage pregnancies. [64832]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 7 December 1998,official report, columns 16– 17.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the use of air miles awarded to Ministers who travel on official business paid for by public funds. [65072]

  The Prime Minister
  Paragraph 82 of the Ministerial Code makes clear that Air Miles and other benefits earned through travel paid for from public funds, other than where there are de minimis (for example, access to special departure lounges or booking arrangements which go with membership of regular flier clubs), should be used only for official purposes or else forgone. However, if it is impracticable to use the benefits for Government travel, there is no objection to Ministers donating them to charity if this is permissible under the terms of the airline's scheme and the charity is one chosen by the airline.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1998,official report, column 459, on ministerial visits to Latin America, if he will list the (a) 12 countries referred to and (b) the Ministers concerned. [64736]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The information is as follows:

  Argentina

  Lord Clinton Davis

  Baroness Blackstone

  Tony Lloyd MP

  The Right Hon. John Prescott MP

  Glenda Jackson, CBE, MP

  Belize

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Brazil

  Barbara Roche MP

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Baroness Blackstone

  The Right Hon. Peter Mandelson MP

  Lord Clinton Davies

  George Foulkes MP

  Nick Raynsford MP

  Chile

  Lord Clinton Davis

  Tony Lloyd MP

  142
  Columbia

  Tony Lloyd MP

  George Foulkes MP

  The Right Hon. Nick Brown MP

  Brian Wilson MP

  Costa Rica

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Ecuador

  The Right Hon. Nick Brown MP

  El Salvador

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Guatemala

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Mexico

  The Right Hon. John Morris QC, MP

  Tony Lloyd MP (x2)

  Panama

  The Right Hon. Robin Cook MP

  Uruguay

  Tony Lloyd MP.

  In addition, Tony Lloyd MP is returning from a visit to Peru today.

  All visits were in accordance with the rules set out in the ministerial code.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the ministerial visits undertaken to each South American and Caribbean country since 1997. [64823]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers have made a number of visits to the countries of South America and the Caribbean since 1 May 1997 to strengthen our bilateral relations, promote British interests and play our leading role in international affairs.

  For the visits to South America I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).

  The information for Caribbean countries is as follows:

  Bahamas

  The Right Hon. Robin Cook MP

  Baroness Symons

  George Foulkes MP

  Barbados

  The Right Hon. Clare Short MP

  George Foulkes MP

  The Right Hon. Frank Dobson MP

  Cuba

  Baroness Symons

  Brian Wilson MP

  Grenada

  George Foulkes

  Guyana

  The Right Hon. Clare Short MP

  Jamaica

  Baroness Symons

  The Right Hon. Michael Meacher MP

  Trinidad

  Baroness Symons.

  EU (Nuclear Safety)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the measures proposed under paragraph 67 of the presidency conclusions of the Vienna European Council in respect of nuclear safety in the context of enlargement of the European Union. [64815]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom has a strong interest in ensuring the candidates for European Union membership apply adequate safety standards. The Conclusions of the 7–8 December General Affairs Council on nuclear safety in the context of enlargement, welcomed by Vienna, stress the need for the candidates to attain internationally accepted levels of safety as part of their pre-accession strategies and to meet commitments they have already made in this sector.

  The EU is already helping the candidates improve nuclear safety levels and to deal with the cost of early plant closure. This assistance will continue within the overall context of pre-accession assistance set out by the Accession partnerships, which are themselves due for revision later this year.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister to what extent each of his objectives in undertaking the bombing of Iraq jointly with the United States of America in December has been met; and on what basis he will consider undertaking similar attacks in future. [65281]

  The Prime Minister
  The objectives of Operation Desert Fox were to reduce Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and other military capabilities, and Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbours. We are ready to use force again if necessary, and will do so if Iraq tries to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction or threatens its neighbours.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the French Government about the consequences for his policy of establishing a separate European defence identity of the American and British military action against Iraq. [65380]

  The Prime Minister
  None. We have, of course, briefed the French and our other EU partners on our recent actions in Iraq. The reasons for these are well understood.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he gave to representations from the Government of Italy concerning the attack on Iraq. [65379]

  The Prime Minister
  I briefed Prime Minister D' Alema on our current thinking on Iraq on 18 December 1998 and we agreed to keep in touch on the issue.

  Sure Start Strategy
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he proposes to make for the parliamentary accountability of the Sure Start strategy. [65651]

  The Prime Minister
  Sure Start is a vital element in the Government's work to improve services and other support for young children and their families. We have committed £540 million over the next three years, including £452 million in England, to achieving Sure Start's objectives. Sure Start is an interdepartmental strategy, and 144
  its success will require active partnership within Government and a continuing commitment to innovation. I want the arrangements for securing Parliamentary accountability for Sure Start both to be clear and to underline these principles.

  I have therefore decided that, in England:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will take the lead on Sure Start within the Cabinet, while my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will have day-to-day responsibility for the policy and will chair the interdepartmental steering group of Ministers and officials which will take it forward and monitors progress;
  a new interdepartmental Sure Start Unit, based in the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), will run the programme at official level, with its terms of reference and targets set by the steering group. Ms Naomi Eisenstadt, currently Chief Executive of Family Service Units, will take up her appointment as the head of the Sure Start shortly;
  subject to approval of the necessary Estimate, Sure Start expenditure for England will be carried on its own Vote. The Head of the Sure Start Unit will be an additional Accounting Officer within the DfEE. As is usual, the appointment as additional Accounting Officer will be made by the Treasury and a copy of the letter of appointment, setting out the respective roles and responsibilities of the additional Accounting Officer and the Permanent Secretary of the DfEE as Principal Accounting Officer, will be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Clerk of the Committee of Public Accounts;
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be the Minister ultimately answerable to Parliament for Sure Start. But my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health will normally answer Parliamentary Questions on Sure Start in this House, and in the case of Oral Questions will do so during DfEE Question Time. The Government expect that the relevant Select Committees will normally wish to invite her to appear when they examine Sure Start. My noble friend the Baroness Hollis of Heigham, a member of the Sure Start steering group, will answer for the Government in another place.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Public Health is writing today to the Chairman of the Committee for Public Accounts and the Chairmen of the Select Committees for Health and for Education and Employment, and the Government will liaise as necessary with the House authorities, to ensure that these arrangements work well and secure effective accountability for this innovative policy.

  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales are accountable to Parliament for Sure Start and equivalent programmes in Scotland and Wales respectively.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  GCHQ
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government plan to respond to the representations made on behalf of the 14 staff dismissed from GCHQ for refusing to give up their trades union membership. [65653]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  After discussions with the Council of Civil Service Unions and the TUC, I have decided to offer compensation for lost pension rights to the 14 staff dismissed from GCHQ for retaining their membership of the national Civil Service trades unions.
  145
  This decision reflects the principled stand which the 14 trade unionists took, to the point of dismissal, against the attempt to take away their basic trades union rights.

  The additional pensions benefits will be provided through a special scheme under the Superannuation Act 1972, which will be laid before Parliament once the details have been finalised.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [62806]

  Mr. Mudie
  As the information asked for is lengthy, it has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63924]

  Mr. Mudie
  The figures for total expenditure by the Department since May 1997, in each of the categories stated above are as follows:

  Public Opinion Research

  May 1997 until present: £1,073,681.00

  Television, Radio and Newspaper Advertising

  May 1997 until present

  TV: £1,760,198

  Radio: £2,219,211

  Press: £4,480,116

  Total: £8,459,525

  Direct Mail

  May 1997 until present £25,084.

  Therefore the total spend on research, advertising and direct mail for the period May 1997 until present is £9,558,290 or an average of £477,914 per month.

  This compares with a total spend on research, advertising and direct mail for the previous financial year 1996–97 of £7,172,497 or an average of £597,708 per month.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the term average cost in respect of the costs of travel by Ministers in his Department in RAF and privately chartered aircraft refers to the average cost per passenger. [64775]

  Mr. Mudie
  No. The average cost refers to the average cost per trip and not the average cost per passenger.

  Local Authority Education Authorities (Chair)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list all the local authority education authorities specifying in respect of each whether the chair of education is a man or a woman. [65316]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected by my Department.

  Millennium Bug Busters
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if Millennium bug busters who have completed a subsidised training course have an obligation to work in the United Kingdom. [64821]

  Mr. Mudie
  There is no requirement for Bug Buster trainees to work in the UK after they have completed their training.

  Foundation Courses
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the position of students who are required to attend a foundation course before taking up a university place who currently receive no grant for the year of their foundation course. [63358]

  Mr. Mudie
  Current legislation restricts mandatory awards to courses leading to a first degree, HND, DipHE and to courses of initial teacher training. We have decided broadly to carry forward this position for the new student support arrangements which are being introduced for the 1999–2000 academic year. However, students on foundation courses in further education will be eligible to apply for assistance through the new further education student support arrangements which will be introduced in September.

DEFENCE

  RN Hospital Haslar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what non-military organisations currently use the RN Hospital Haslar site; [65298]

  (2) what investment has taken place in medical facilities at the RN Hospital Haslar in each of the last 10 years; [65300]

  (3) what discussions he had with the non-MoD users of the RN Hospital Haslar concerning his proposals for the hospital; [65299]

  (4) how many (a) doctors and (b) nurses are employed at RN Hospital Haslar; and what are their specialisms. [65301]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. G. Callow to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 12 January 1999:
  I am replying to your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning a number of issues at the Royal Hospital Haslar. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency.
  147
  Your Questions and my responses are as follows:

  What discussions has the Secretary of State for Defence had with non-MOD users of RH Haslar?

  Staffs in the SDR Implementation Team and from this Agency have spent some time discussing our proposals in detail with our colleagues in the NHS. In particular, they worked closely with the Portsmouth Health Authority and the Portsmouth Hospitals Trust. In addition, they have also consulted the NHS Executive through the MOD/NHS Liaison Group.

  The local population, including official bodies, will be consulted fully when the Portsmouth Health Authority present publicly their plans for the provision of secondary health care in the area.

  What non-military organisations currently use RH Haslar?

  Presently we have Gardner Merchant, Lasercare, NAAFI, Hampshire County Council, The League of Friends and Radio Haslar on the site.

  In addition, Portsmouth Health Authority, local GP Fundholding practices and other NHS referral agents provide patients.

  How many doctors and nurses are employed at RH Haslar and what are their specialisms?

  Our current records show the following strength details, including attachments:

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  Civilian

  Total

  Doctors

  A&E

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Surgery

  3

  3

  2

  2

  10

  Anaesthetics

  6

  4

  4

  4

  18

  Medicine

  8

  3

  5

  2

  18

  ENT

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  Orthopaedics

  4

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Radiology

  2

  2

  2

  1

  7

  Pathology

  1

  1

  4

  4

  10

  Max Fax

  2

  1

  2

  0

  5

  Opthalmology

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  R&R

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Psychiatry

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  Obs & Gynae

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Paediatrics

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Nuclear

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Urology

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Civ. Med. Practitioner

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Specialist Registrars

  0

  7

  3

  0

  10

  Sen. House Officers

  9

  18

  6

  0

  33

  Pre. Reg. House Officers

  10

  12

  0

  0

  22

  Total

  50

  53

  30

  22

  155

  Nurses

  87

  129

  92

  67

  375

  What investment has taken place in medical facilities at RH Haslar?
  During the financial year 1997–98 capital expenditure of £0.939 million was incurred at the Hospital. This covered majored items of medical equipment, building projects, computer systems and vehicles such as ambulances. Unfortunately, prior to that year, it is not possible to separate accurately capital expenditure from the hospital's day-to-day running costs. However, we estimate that capital expenditure costs were approximately:

  £ million

  1996–97

  13.6

  1995–96

  7.8

  1994–95

  2.6

  1993–94

  3.0

  1992–93

  1.7

  1991–92

  1.7

  1990–91

  1.7

  1989–90

  1.6

  1988–89

  1.6

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for 1998–99 for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [65478]

  Mr. Spellar
  Consistent with Treasury requirements, DERA is required to achieve a 6 per cent. return on capital employed.

  The Agency is required to keep any increase in the hourly manpower rates charged to MOD customers below the annual rise in the Retail Price Index. These manpower rates include overheads and depreciation but not direct contract costs.

  DERA will seek to increase income from work for non-MOD customers from the £106 million achieved in 1997–98 to £122 million in 1998–99.

  DERA will seek to increase the number of staff elected as Fellows of professional bodies by 10 per cent. from a baseline of 126 at the end of 1997–98 to 139 in 1998–99.

  DERA is required to achieve on time 90 per cent. of the agreed milestones on work for MOD customers.

  DERA has been set the target of maintaining at least the same score as last year, 655 points out of a possible 1,000, for overall satisfaction in the core questions in the annual customer satisfaction survey and, because of the particular significance of project management skills in the efficient delivery of scientific programmes, to achieve an improvement of 5 per cent. in the score for project management, from 596 points to 626, in the same survey.

  DERA will seek to increase the value of its contribution to projects jointly funded by DERA and industry by 10 per cent. from £38.3 million to £42.1 million. DERA will seek to achieve, over a period of 3 years, a 20 per cent. increase in the number of articles that appear in scientific and technical publications and which are subjected to scrutiny and validation by a panel of experts. Under this target, the increase would be from 4.8 publications to 5.8 publications per 100 professionals in DERA, with professionals being defined as all those staff who have a scientific, technical or other specialist background or training.

  DERA is required to increase by 50 per cent., from 16 to 24, over a period of three years, the number of its scientific teams that achieve the rating of "world-class" in DERA's technical assessment exercise. The latter involves both internal assessment and validation by outside experts form academia, industry and MOD.

  Royal Green Jackets
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last year the Royal Green Jackets have hosted breakfasts for charities or other organisations; and if he will list the organisations concerned. [64761]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Green Jackets have not hosted breakfasts for any charitable or other organisation in the last year.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre for 1998–99. [65635]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The role of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre is to train the Armed Forces and other Intelligence agencies in intelligence and security disciplines and conduct after capture; to maintain an operational capability; and to contribute to effective and timely advice to the Armed Forces on appropriate intelligence and security matters. The Key Targets for the Agency for the 12 months from April 1998 are:

  Key Target 1:
  To meet 100% of operational taskings required by the Department to the standards agreed by the Director General of Intelligence and Geographic Resources.

  Key Target 2:
  To establish an effective quality evaluation methodology for training by March 1999 and establish the baseline for future improvements.

  Key Target 3:
  To deliver the training programme endorsed by the Defence Intelligence Training Policy Group within agreed resources.

  Key Target 4:
  To investigate measures of efficiency within Agency training Outputs.

  Key Target 5:
  To achieve a 2.5 per cent. improvement in efficiency.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Technical Papers)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the papers produced by the Radiation Physics Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment in its Plasma Physics Notes and Radiation Physics Department Technical Notes series of papers which are currently unclassified, indicating the title of each paper and the date on which each paper was produced. [65057]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have arranged for a list of unclassified papers from the relevant series to be placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Black Shaheen
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when export licences for a stand-off weapon known as the Black Shaheen were granted. [62919]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]: No licence has been issued for the export of the Black Shaheen missile or its sub assemblies, but we expect to licence the export of sub assemblies to France subject to the agreement and implementation of suitable technical safeguards.

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that the licensed production of arms by British companies requires that(a) deals to license arms production overseas have to pass the same
  150
  checks as direct exports, including parliamentary reporting and (b) exports via UK licensed products overseas must require UK export licences. [64534]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: In its recent report on Strategic Export Controls, the Trade and Industry Committee recommended that the question of controls on licensed production overseas should be addressed in the Wassenaar Arrangement. We are currently considering this and the Committee's other recommendations and will be responding to the Committee in due course.

  The issue of controls on licensed production overseas has also been raised in a number of the responses to the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls and will therefore also be considered in our review of the White Paper proposals in the light of the results of the consultation.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been applied for and granted since 1 May 1997 for military and dual use goods; and how many licences were refused. [64531]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 27 November 1998, decisions were made on 14,423 applications made in the same period for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) or Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) covering the export of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List; or of goods subject to export control by being listed in Schedule 2 to the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996, as amended, or in Annex 1 to Council Decision No. 94/942/CFSP, as amended. Of these, 13,965 SIELs and 382 OIELs were issued, and 76 applications for SIELs were refused.

  In addition, goods may have been exported under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, official report, columns 256–58.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the countries for which licences have been given for military and dual use goods since 1 May 1997, indicating the types of goods concerned. [64532]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 14 July 1998, official report, column 149.

  Patents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to simplify the process of registration of patents in the United Kingdom. [64643]
  151
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The Government's 1998 Competitiveness White Paper recognises the fundamental importance of intellectual property rights, including patents, to an innovative economy, and the need for such rights to be accessible. The Patent Office will therefore be continuing its drive to simplify its detailed rules and procedures to make it easier for businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, to obtain patent protection. Building on steps it has already taken, for example in making patent application forms available on its web-site, the Office will be actively pursuing the possibilities for its customers to deal electronically. The Government will also be working with their European partners to simplify and harmonise the patent system in Europe, in particular in response to European Commission proposals expected following its Green Paper on the Community Patent and the Patent System in Europe.

  Food Retailing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by the OFT in its investigation into competition in food retailing; and if he will make a statement. [65074]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading hopes to complete preliminary investigations into supermarket profitability within the next couple of months. It is a matter for him how and when he makes his findings public.

  Export Controls
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy that arms brokering is made subject to licensed approval under the same criteria as those contained in the EU Code of Conduct. [64536]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, which was published on 1 July 1998, contains proposals to extend controls on trafficking and brokering in a number of areas. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on 14 December 1998, official report, column 364, in which she set out the Government's proposals.

  A variety of views have been expressed on these proposals, with a number of respondents to the White Paper suggesting wider controls in this area than those which the Government have proposed. We are currently reviewing all the proposals contained in the White Paper in the light of the responses received.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans the Government have to legislate to implement the recommendations of the Scott report; [65001]

  (2) what plans the Government have to review licensing requirements for strategic arms exports. [65002]

  Mr. Wills
  The White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, which was published on 1 July 1998, contained the Government's proposals in response to the recommendations on strategic export controls made by 152
  Sir Richard Scott. It also contained a number of proposals for new licensing requirements, including the extension of controls on the trafficking and brokering of goods in certain circumstances, and the introduction of controls on the transfer of technology by intangible means.

  We are currently reviewing the White Paper proposals in the light of responses to it. The Government aim to introduce new primary legislation as soon as there is time in the legislative programme.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners will be dependent on means tests, once the Partnership in Pensions is fully operative. [64682]

  Mr. Timms
  The proposals in the Government's Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" are designed to ensure that someone with a full working life, or years covered by credits, will receive a pension on retirement above the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  The proposals in "Partnership in Pensions" will promote behavioural changes through the spread of good value funded second pensions, improved pensions education, and the greater reward in retirement from moving from benefits to work. It is not possible to forecast the impact of complex behavioural changes over 50 years.

  With no allowance for behavioural change it is estimated that by 2050 the number of those receiving Minimum Income Guarantee will fall from approximately 1 in 3 pensioner households (rather than individual pensioners) to approximately 1 in 4 and fall further in later years.

  As an illustration of the possible impact of behavioural effects, if all those in work saved an additional 5 per cent., the figure would fall to approximately 1 in 5 in 2050.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what take up rate for the stakeholder pension the figures of(a) £0.7 billion lost in lower National Insurance contributions through contracting out and (b) the extra state support of an initial £500 million are based. [65235]

  Mr. Timms
  As chapter 12 of the Green Paper on pensions "Partnership in Pensions" makes clear, the Department estimate that £0.7 billion would be lost in National Insurance revenue for every million people who contract out of the new State Second Pension scheme. This cost would be recouped in the long term because people would no longer receive the State Second Pension when they retire. The figure of £0.5 billion represents the net National Insurance revenue loss, after allowing for the return of some low earners to State Second Pension.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of complaints referred to the Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency indicating the number of complaints
  153
  which have (a) been upheld and (b) resulted in compensation payments being made in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [65036]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Denis Murphy, dated 11 January 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner.
  The Office of the Independent Case Examiner commenced work in April 1997. When the Agency responds to a complaint the client is provided with details on the services of the Independent Case Examiner to enable them to contact her directly.
  During the twelve month period to 30 November 1998, 1463 clients made applications to the Independent Case Examiner. Only about one third of applications received by the Independent Case Examiner result in a full investigation. There are a number of reasons for this; the required gateways for investigation may not be satisfied; or the case may fall outside the Independent Case Examiner's jurisdiction. Additionally an increasing number of complaints are resolved early following successful mediation, without the need for a full investigation.
  In the same period, the Independent Case Examiner issued 217 final reports following her investigation (some of these reports will relate to applications received prior to 1 December 1997 as the target for completion of a full investigation is 19 weeks). In 73 of these reports the complaint was fully upheld and in 132 the complaint was partially upheld. Of these 217 cases, 172 resulted in compensation being paid.
  Compensation payments are considered where a clear and unambiguous error by the Agency has resulted in distress or in actual financial loss to the client which is not recoverable through other means.
  We are committed to providing good quality customer service and are continuing to develop a close working relationship with the Independent Case Examiner and her staff, meeting regularly to identify ways in which our service to clients can be improved.
  This has led to the Agency's Business Units adopting a case study approach to cases handled by the Independent Case Examiner. This involves the Business Unit Manager and staff involved with the case identifying lessons learned, introducing improvements and good working practices and liaising with the office of the Independent Case Examiner.
  We have reviewed the way that we handle complaints and we have increased resources for our Client Helplines and the National Enquiry Line, extended our hours of opening to cover 8.00 am to 8.00 pm Monday to Friday and 9.00 am to 5.00 pm on Saturdays and completed trials to greatly improve and increase clients' opportunities to secure a face to face service. Through these measures our aim is to deal with clients' problems at an early stage and prevent problems escalating.
  I am confident that through closer liaison with the Independent Case Examiner and the action we have already taken we have started to address the problems we have in the way we deal with clients' complaints. Where we discover we have made mistakes or caused delay we will do everything in our power to put things right as quickly as possible and apologise to the clients concerned. I recognise that we have a long way to go to remedy our problems fully, but we expect clients to see continuous ongoing improvements by the end of 1998–99 and beyond.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many review claims have been(a) dealt with
  154
  by the Disability Unit, (b) disallowed and (c) overturned on appeal, (i) since 1 January 1997 and (ii) since the current review has been in operation. [64757]

  Mr. Timms
  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.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ronnie Fearn, dated 11 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many review claims have been (a) dealt with by the Disability Unit, (b) disallowed and (c) overturned on appeal, (i) since 1st January 1997 and (ii) since the current review has been in operation.
  I have assumed your reference to the "current review" is a reference to the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) which has been reviewing the entitlement of people receiving the higher rate mobility component with the higher or middle rate care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  It may be helpful if I explain that more detailed statistical information is held about individual cases under the BIP than about general DLA cases, which are not individually tracked.

  Table A at Annex 1 contains information about DLA reviews and appeals dealt with outside the BIP. Table B, also at Annex 1, has information about BIP reviews and appeals. For the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, it is not possible to make a direct comparison between the two tables.

  You will also wish to know that any review may result in any one of the following outcomes:

  Disallowed—all benefit has been disallowed

  Reduced—level of award reduced

  Maintained—this upholds the previous decision given

  Award varied—benefit payable remains the same, but there has been a change to the components or length of award has changed

  Withdrawn—the review request has been withdrawn by the customer

  Defective—the review request was not signed and after returning it to the customer has not been received back at the Disability Benefits Directorate

  No grounds—no legal basis on which to look at the case again

  Allowed—the review has resulted in benefit award

  Increased—a component not previously awarded has been allowed

  Turning now to appeals, I must explain that, while the appeals figures quoted all relate to appeals following previous reviews, they do not necessarily relate to appeals against review decisions given during the same period. This is because of the time lag between a review decision being given, an appeal being made and submitted to Independent Tribunal Service and the appeal Hearing taking place. In other words, it is not possible to state exactly the number of successful appeals resulting from appeals against review decisions for the periods requested in your Question.
  You may find it helpful to know that statistical information about BIP, including details of reviews and appeals is, published on a monthly basis and is placed in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Table A—Non BIP reviews and appeals

  Non BIP cases from I January 1997 to 31 October 1998

  Number of reviews decisions made

  646,249

  Number of reviews disallowed

  10,607

  Number of appeal decisions made

  77,474

  Number of appeal decisions overturned in the customer's favour

  24,883

  Source:

  DBD Resource and Assurance Group
  155

  Table B—BIP reviews and appeals

  Total BIP cases to 31 October 1998

  Number of review decisions made

  17,913

  Number of reviews totally disallowing benefit

  5,347

  Number of reviews resulting in the mobility component only being disallowed

  880

  Number of reviews resulting in the care component only being disallowed

  2,108

  Number of Appeals decisions made

  1,116

  Number of cases overturned resulting in the case being restored to the original award or to a higher rate

  305

  Note:

  Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Source:

  Statistical databases from BIP database

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the Disability Unit's(a) published targets and (b) current target attainment levels for processing review claims for the disability living allowance. [64759]

  Mr. Timms
  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.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ronnie Fearn, dated 11 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the Disability Unit's (a) published targets and (b) current target attainment levels are for processing review claims for the Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  The Disability Benefits Directorate's published targets for 1998–1999 for clearance of DLA Reviews is 60 per cent. in 55 working days and 80 per cent. in 75 working days.
  The actual year to date achievement of DLA reviews clearances, as at November 1998, is 70 per cent. in 55 days and 86 per cent. in 75 days.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for disability living allowance were received by the Disability Benefits Unit in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998; and what was the average length of time taken from the Unit receiving the application to the applicant being notified of the decision in each of the three years concerned. [65039]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Denis Murphy, dated 11 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many applications for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) were received by the Disability Benefits Unit in (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998: and what was the average length of time taken from the Unit receiving the application until the applicant being notified of the decision in each of the three years concerned.
  156
  The total number of DLA new claim applications and Special Rules new claim applications received by the Disability Benefits Directorate are shown at Annex A.
  The average length of time taken from receipt of the application until the applicant being notified of the decision for 1997 and 1998 is also shown at Annex A. I am unable to provide information for 1996 as system reports that provide the actual average clearance times were not in existence until the following year.
  The increase in time taken to clear new claims is the result of revised guidance given to Adjudication Officers on 9 February 1998 which has led them to seek supporting evidence in a higher number of cases. Time taken for evidence to arrive is included in the clearance time figures.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of DLA claims received and average clearance times

  DLA claims received

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Normal Rules (NR)

  482,521

  491,167

  437,531

  Special Rules (SR)

  28,190

  26,421

  23,828

  DLA claims average clearance

  Normal rules (NR)

  N/A

  32 days

  37 days

  Special rules (SR)

  N/A

  7 days

  8 days

  Source:

  DBD Resource and Assurance Group.

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Welfare Benefit Advice
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total amount spent on welfare benefit advice in Wales in each of the past 10 years; and if he will estimate the amount of additional benefit claimed as a result of this expenditure in each of the past 10 years. [64658]

  Angela Eagle
  This is an operational matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 11 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will estimate the total amount spent on welfare benefit advice in Wales in each of the past 10 years; and if he will estimate the amount of additional benefit claimed as a result of this expenditure in each of the past 10 years.
  One of the most important role of Benefits Agency (BA) staff is to provide advice and information on benefit matters to our customers. This is part of the normal every day service delivery process. Advice and information is provided on a daily basis by any member of staff who works in the benefit related field of operations. We do not, therefore, separate out the cost of providing this service, regarding it as an integral part of the overall approach we take to customer service.
  As the BA does not maintain discrete information on the provision of benefit advice and information, it is not possible to estimate an amount of additional benefit claimed as a result of this service.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful in this instance.

  Pensions on Divorce
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will respond to the Social Security Committee's Fifth report of 1997–98, Pensions on Divorce HC869. [65652]

  Mr. Timms
  I have written today to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in response to the Social Security Select Committee Report. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Repeat Offenders
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what considerations he has given to the methods available for dealing with serious repeat offenders; and if he will make a statement. [65639]

  Mr. McLeish
  We are committed to taking all reasonable steps to protect the public from serious repeat offenders, many of whom may suffer from personality disorders. We have therefore decided to establish a committee to review the sentencing and treatment of serious violent and sexual offenders, including those with personality disorders, in Scotland. I am delighted that the hon. Lord MacLean, who is a Senator of the College of Justice, has accepted the Secretary of State's invitation to act as chairman of the committee. It will have the following terms of reference:To consider experience in Scotland and elsewhere and to make proposals for the sentencing disposals for, and the future management and treatment of, serious sexual and violent offenders who may present a continuing danger to the public. In particular:
  to consider whether the current legislative framework matches the present level of knowledge of the subject, provides the courts with an appropriate range of options and affords the general public adequate protection from those offenders;
  to compare practice, diagnosis and treatment with that elsewhere, to build on current expertise and research to inform the development of a medical protocol to respond to the needs of personality disordered offenders;
  to specify the services required by this group of offenders and the means of delivery;
  to consider the question of release/discharge into the community and service needs in the community for supervising those offenders.

  The membership of the Committee and its arrangements for taking evidence will be announced later.

HEALTH

  Social Services Authorities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the local authority social services authorities specifying in respect of each whether the chair is a man or a woman. [65317]

  Mr. Hutton
  Local authorities are not required to inform the Department on the details of the chair, therefore the information requested is not available centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Liquor Licensing
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government expect to announce proposals to reform liquor licensing in England and Wales. [65090]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Our review of liquor licensing will produce proposals for change as soon as possible, consistent with the thoroughgoing nature of the exercise.

  Female Offenders
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compliance of the practice of placing women under the age of 18 years in adult jails with the UK's responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [65009]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The United Kingdom has entered a reservation which allows the right not to apply Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child where mixing of children and adults in prison is deemed to be mutually beneficial, to allow for closeness to home or regime provision.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women aged 15, 16 and 17 years are currently imprisoned in adult women's prisons. [65006]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The currently available information relates to the population on the last day of November 1998 and is given in the table. Unsentenced 17-year-olds are held in prison accommodation. Those sentenced to detention in a Young Offender Institution are held in designated young offender accommodation within adult prisons.

  Population of 15, 16 and 17-year-old females in adult prisons on 30 November 19981

  Age

  Number

  15

  6

  16

  24

  17

  64

  1Provisional figures

  Crime Reduction Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for tackling crime. [65563]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to reducing crime, tackling its causes and ensuring proper punishment of those who break the law.

  We have already demonstrated our commitment by introducing tough new measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to deal with young offenders; drug misusers; sexual, violent and racist offenders; and those whose anti-social behaviour blights the lives of so many of our citizens. As part of our overall strategy, I also announced on 21 July 1998, official report, columns 913–16, that the Government were making available through the Comprehensive Spending Review £250m over the next three years for a new crime reduction

  159
  programme. In addition, extra resources were made available to the police, the Prison Service and probation services. The programme is based on concrete evidence of what is effective in reducing crime and tackling its causes.

  I have published today a briefing paper entitled "Reducing Crime and Tackling Its Causes" which sets out further details on the crime reduction programme and the range of initiatives which has been developed so far, including important projects on domestic burglary and targeted policing. I have placed copies of the paper in the Library.

  Domestic burglary is one of the most common crimes and causes enormous distress to victims. In addition to the measures in the crime reduction programme, therefore, I have decided to bring into force in December the provisions of section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. This provides for minimum sentences of three years for those convicted for a third time of this offence and will ensure that those who commit this crime repeatedly are severely punished.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the(a) current and (b) future use of special constables by the police force; [64963]

  (2) if he will estimate how many hours special constables, on average, work each week in (a) England and Wales and (b) Norfolk; what estimate he has made of future work loads; and if he will make a statement; [64960]

  (3) how many special constables are currently employed in (a) England and Wales and (b) Norfolk; what estimate he has made of the future employment levels; and if he will make a statement; [64961]

  (4) what estimate his Department has made of expenditure on special constables (a) in 1998–99 and (b) in each year of the planning period in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Norfolk; and if he will make a statement. [64964]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information required in respect of Norfolk Special Constabulary is as follows:

  (a) The average number of hours duty performed per special constable per week is 3.2 excluding time spent training.

  (b) Norfolk Constabulary currently has a strength of 342 special constables and the force seeks to sustain this level at least for 1999–2000.

  (c) The force estimates its expenditure on special constables in 1998–99 will be £80,200.

  Until recently, the number of hours duty performed by special constables and the cost of the special constabularies have not been recorded by the police forces of England and Wales. However, the Special Constabulary Working Group 1995–96 recommended that this information should be identified and all forces should have in place systems to collect this data. Forces will be asked to provide the total number of hours duty performed by their special constables from 1998–99. Most forces expect special constables to perform an average of at least four hours per week. Many special constables do more.

  The costs of special constables vary considerably from force to force and it is not possible to estimate the overall expenditure. Special constables are funded from the

  160
  Police Grant and it is a matter for chief officers how they distribute funding to their special constabularies. In the light of the Working Group's recommendation and improved administration of their special constabularies, forces should be developing systems to identify the costs in future.

  As at 30 September 1998, there were 17,304 (provisional figure) special constables in England and Wales. The figure has dropped from 19,734 during the previous 18 months. The principle reason for the decline in numbers has been higher recruiting standards to reflect that special constables are being trained and deployed on a wider variety of duties than before including more "front line" duties. As a result, the recruiting criteria is now very similar to that for regular officers and consequently a large number of applicants who would previously have been accepted into the Special Constabulary are being rejected. In addition, forces have weeded out the special constables who wanted only to perform "soft" duties, e.g. fetes, carnivals, etc., and 13 per cent. of special constables who resign to join the regular service.

  We estimate that the decrease in numbers will soon level out and that numbers will slowly increase in the next few years. We do not believe in putting a national target on the number of special constables. It is for the chief officer of each force to decide whether a target figure is appropriate and what that figure should be.

  Today's special is a police officer trained to professional standards commanding full confidence of regular colleagues and the public. He or she is able to perform many of the duties of the regular officer and many specials are trained and deployed on specialist duties. We believe this is an excellent use of a valuable resource available to chief officers and support this continued development of the Special Constabulary for the foreseeable future.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the penalties in respect of a conviction of a vehicle's registered keeper for failure to name the known driver of the vehicle following a road traffic offence. [64962]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to increase the maximum penalty available for this offence, which is currently a fine of £1,000, discretionary disqualification from driving and three penalty points on the licence. I wrote to the hon. Member on 17 December 1998 with further details.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63926]
  161
  Mr. Morley
  Expenditure by MAFF, since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail has been as follows:

  (a)£405,000

  (b)£1,071,000

  (c)£1,100,000.

  Badgers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he made of the research carried out by his Department's laboratories into the effect of trace element deficiencies in cattle resistant to TB, in reaching his decision to proceed with the cull of the badger population. [64981]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no wish to kill badgers and considered all alternative approaches before concluding that the culling trial must be an integral part of our wide ranging programme to develop a sustainable science based policy to control TB in cattle.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the compliance of the proposed randomised badger culling trial with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Berne Convention; [64802]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the recent decision of the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats to request the United Kingdom Government to postpone the randomised badger culling trial for one year. [64801]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are considering the recommendation of the Standing Committee.

  Cattle (Food Chain)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if all cattle born after 1 August 1996 will be eligible to enter the food chain. [64698]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: Subject to meeting health and hygiene requirements, beef from all cattle which meet the requirements of the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No 2) Regulations 1996 is eligible to enter the food chain. These Regulations are intended to prevent beef from cattle aged more than 30 months at the time of slaughter from being sold for human consumption unless the animal was certificated under the Beef Assurance Scheme, for which the age limit is 42 months, or the beef came from an animal born, reared and slaughtered in one of 14 countries which are exempt from the controls.

  The "over 30 month rule" was implemented following receipt of advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). The Committee identified, at its meeting on 9 November 1998, criteria whereby the controls on beef over thirty months of age could be reviewed in the future. It hopes to begin to address this at its meeting planned for March 1999. The Committee recognised that this would require careful study and would almost certainly need to be considered over several meetings.

  Animal Health
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of his discussions with the Home Office about possible criteria for further controls enabling his Department to take into account the treatment of animals in the country of destination before he issues official non-statutory health certification. [64986]

  Mr. Rooker
  BSE priorities have intervened and resources have not been available to progress this work but I hope that discussions with the Home Office will be resumed shortly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Women's National Commission
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the administrative arrangements within his Department relating to(a) the Women's National Commission and (b) the Women's Unit. [64091]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Women's Unit (WU) supports the Ministers for Women in ensuring that the interests of women are taken into account throughout Government. The Women's National Commission (WNC) is a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) which carries out an agreed annual work programme to help provide Government with the informed opinion of women through its member organisations which together represent more than 8 million women.

  The WU and WNC moved to the Cabinet Office following the Cabinet reshuffle last July.

  The Minister for Women, the right hon. Baroness Jay, carries Ministerial responsibility for the work of the Women's Unit and the Women's National Commission. The spokesperson in the House on women's issues is my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health.

  However, the Cabinet Office provides office accommodation and services for WU and WNC staff, the majority of whom are on loan to the Cabinet Office from a number of Whitehall departments. For line management purposes they report to Cabinet Office senior management.

  The Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office is the accounting officer responsible for WU and WNC expenditure. The Director of the Women's Unit holds delegated responsibility for the budget.

  The WNC has recently been subject to a quinquennial review and a report of the review's findings will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Transport Plans
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what way he is encouraging local authorities to improve local transport plans. [63578]
  163
  Dr. Reid
  Local transport plans are the essential building blocks of the New Deal for Transport. The Government are providing an additional £700 million over the next three years to help ensure their effective implementation. We have also issued guidance to local authorities on how to prepare their plans.

  Provisional plans are due for submission this July, so this year will see us begin to deliver on the benefits of integrated transport at a local level.

  Public Transport (Barnet and Enfield)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement concerning public transport links between the major health service sites in Barnet and Enfield. [63579]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have had no previous representations on this matter. The provisions of suitable public transport access to health service sites should be given careful consideration by all health authorities and trusts, working in partnership with local councils and transport operators.

  Aircraft Noise
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the impact on health of noise from aircraft, with particular reference to night-time noise; and what plans he has to reduce permitted noise levels. [63580]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have commissioned a research trial on the effect of aircraft noise on sleep disturbance, and research commissioned jointly with the Department of Health will include some study of the non-auditory health effects of aircraft noise. No research results are available for evaluation yet. We expect to publish a supplementary consultation paper on aircraft noise limits early in the new year.

  Air Quality
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve air quality. [63582]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Deputy Prime Minister and I hope to make an announcement tomorrow about the outcome of our review of the National Air Quality Strategy, and will set out our plans for improving air quality then.

  Non-unitary Authorities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the population of England now resides in non-unitary authority areas. [63583]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision of such statistics is the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, they advise that 46.2 per cent. of the population of England now reside in non-unitary authorities.

  Rural Bus Services
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions he has taken to encourage enhanced levels of bus services in rural areas. [63585]

  Dr. Reid
  We have made an additional £32.5 million a year available to English local authorities for new rural bus services. We have also announced support totalling £11.4 million for 46 projects in this year's rural bus challenge competition; there will be similar challenges in future years.

  Council Taxes (Shire Areas)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by how much he estimates council taxes in shire areas will increase over the next three years. [63586]

  Ms Armstrong
  Decisions on the level of council tax are a matter for each authority.

  M1
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of traffic congestion on the London to Northampton section of the Ml. [63588]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Traffic flows on the MI are continually monitored. Published stress levels show that north of Luton (Junction 10), the M1 generally operates satisfactorily. To the south of Luton the road experiences peak period congestion for at least half the days of the year.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure his targets for brown-field sites will be met. [63589]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our policy document, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", initiated a wide-ranging programme to help local planning authorities and developers bring forward more previously-developed sites for housing. This programme includes a full revision of the current national Planning Policy Guidance Note on housing (PPG3) to put far more emphasis on the use recycled land. A consultation draft of PPG3 will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the building of homes on recycled urban land. [63600]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our policy document, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", initiated a wide-ranging programme to help local planning authorities and developers bring forward more previously-developed sites for housing. This programme includes a full revision of the current national Planning Policy Guidance Note on housing (PPG3) to put far more emphasis on the recycling of land. A consultation draft of PPG3 will be issued in the New Year.

  Road User Charging
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the benefits of introducing road user charging. [63590]

  Dr. Reid
  Reducing congestion through road charging should improve travel times and reliability, reducing business costs and driver frustration; and reduce pollution, noise and nuisance.

  Local authorities will spend the revenues on improving local transport. Authorities will have to provide a detailed assessment of costs and benefits when submitting a charging scheme for approval.

  Train Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve the reliability and quality of rail passenger services. [63591]

  Dr. Reid
  On 26 November we agreed an action plan with all franchisees and Railtrack to improve performance. Measures include 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, and a new national passenger survey. There will be a wider-ranging National Railway Summit next February to look at longer term improvements.

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking which will enhance the reliability and quality of passenger rail services. [63594]

  Dr. Reid
  The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport in London and I met representatives of all franchisees and Railtrack on 26 November and agreed an action plan to tackle performance problems. Measures include 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint "hit squad" to identify and tackle the worst 50 blackspots, a national "trouble shooter" team to tackle punctuality problems, and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services. A wider-ranging National Railway Summit will be held next February to build on the measures and action identified.

  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in improving passenger rail services. [63599]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Although a number of train operators have taken steps to improve performance levels, overall performance has continued to fall. When the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and I met with passenger rail franchisees and Railtrack on 26 November we made it clear that current performance levels are unacceptable and that we expect to see progressive year on year improvements from the rail industry. An action plan to tackle short term performance problems was agreed at the meeting. There will also be a wide-ranging National Railway Summit next February to look at medium to longer term improvements.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what criteria he intends to measure the performance of his integrated transport strategy; and if he will make a statement. [63592]
  166
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our New Deal for Transport will have succeeded when we have a modern, integrated transport system that offers everyone more choice and a better quality of life. A range of indicators at national, regional and local level will be used to measure performance, as set out in the White Paper. In addition, we are setting up the Commission for Integrated Transport to monitor progress and advise on the development of new targets.

  Rate Support Grant Settlement
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to visit County Hall, Bedford, to discuss the 1999–2000 rate support grant settlement; and if he will make a statement. [63593]

  Ms Armstrong
  I currently have no plans to visit County Hall to discuss the provisional local government finance settlement 1999–2000. However, we have been consulting local authorities on our proposals and councils were able to request a meeting as part of that process. DETR Ministers will have met 72 authorities during the consultation period which ends today. Bedfordshire County Council did not request a meeting to discuss their representation.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in increasing the powers of council tenants to manage their own neighbourhoods. [63595]

  Ms Armstrong
  I intend shortly to consult on my proposals for a system of Tenant Compacts for all council tenants. The introduction of the Compacts is intended to provide increased scope for tenants to become involved, to the extent that they wish, in the management of their homes. They will be an important complement to the existing powers under the statutory Right to Manage. The role of tenants in housing and neighbourhood management is also being looked at through the work of the Government's Social Exclusion Unit.

  Neighbourhood Housing Allocation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of neighbourhood housing allocation. [63596]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Act 1996 requires local housing authorities to allocate housing on the basis of housing need. Specifically, households falling within certain prescribed priority categories must be given 'reasonable preference' in an authority's allocation scheme. These categories include families with dependent children, households with medical or welfare needs for settled housing and certain homeless people. Our policy is to encourage local authorities to have allocation policies which meet housing need in their areas, create sustainable communities and ensure efficient use of stock.

  BEST Bus Pensioners
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the delay in paying compensation to the BEST bus pensioners. [63597]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Discussions continue with the NBC pension trustees on achieving an out-of-court settlement of their claim for return of the BEST pensions surplus. We are giving high priority to achieving a just settlement without any unnecessary delay.

  A130
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to reach a decision on the PH bid for the A130 improvement scheme. [63598]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are continuing to consider the Essex County Council proposals for the A130. We will announce our decision on the project as soon as possible.

  Beacon Status
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made on selecting councils for beacon status. [63601]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are working closely with the Local Government Association in developing the scheme for beacon councils, and will be consulting on our proposals shortly. We aim to invite applications for beacon status in the Spring.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform the law relating to people living in houses in multiple occupation. [63602]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will fulfil our commitment to introduce a national licensing system for houses in multiple occupation. We plan to consult on proposals for such a system early next year. We will also seek views on changes to the existing law.

  Road Networks
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the condition of road networks; and if he will make a statement. [63581]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government have accepted a target to end the decline in condition of the motorways and trunk roads in England by 31 March 2002. We are also committed to restore the cuts in maintenance of English local authority principal roads.

  Our commitment is clear in decisions:
  to give first priority to maintenance in the Highways Agency's future investment plans; and
  to increase the principal road maintenance element of the local transport capital settlement from £80 million to £113 million (or by over 40 per cent.).

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out his proposals for a successor to city challenge. [63584]

  Mr. Meale
  The successor to City Challenge is the Single Regeneration Budget which began in 1994. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out details of a refocused SRB in his Housing and Regeneration Policy statement on 22 July 1998.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to agree criteria with the European Union for Objective 4 status relating to industries and areas adapting to industrial change. [64510]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment reached agreement with the European Commission on a programme to implement Objective 4 of the European Social Fund in all parts of Great Britain on 13 March 1998.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of 18-year-olds hold(a) a provisional and (b) a full driving licence. [64507]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The proportion of 18-year-olds holding licences is 40.5 per cent. for provisional licences and 34.9 per cent. for full licences.

  Rural Action Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his rural action scheme will continue beyond 31 March 1999; and if he will make a statement. [64671]

  Mr. Meale
  Rural Action for the Environment was established with funding from the Rural Development Commission, the Countryside Commission and English Nature to cover the scheme's initial three-year development phase until 31 March 1995. Following the successful completion of this phase, the three agencies extended their funding until 31 March 1999. By that point it was expected that Rural Action would no longer need to rely on Government funding.

  Two of the funding agencies—the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission—are due to merge on 1 April to form the Countryside Agency. Both they and, provisionally, English Nature have agreed to commit sufficient funds in 1999–2000 to support the monitoring and advisory costs of the Rural Action county networks which help administer the scheme. This will help to safeguard Rural Action by putting it in the best possible position to bid for project funding, while allowing the new Countryside Agency, together with English Nature, time to consider the scheme and make a decision on its longer term future.

  I welcome this approach.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the calculation of the sparsity factor in the social services elderly domiciliary care standard spending assessment is made on an enumeration district basis. [64575]

  Ms Armstrong
  The measurement of sparsity for small areas minimises the extent to which sparsity is obscured through the grouping together of sparsely populated areas with more densely populated areas. Enumeration districts are the smallest areas for which the data enables population sparsity to be calculated consistently for all local authorities.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the City of Westminster is to be allocated money for sparsity within the social services elderly domiciliary care standard spending assessment sub-block. [64576]

  Ms Armstrong
  Standard spending assessments (SSAs) are calculated in a consistent way by applying the same formula to all relevant local authorities. Four of the City of Westminster's 631 enumeration districts are sparsely populated. It therefore receives a very small amount by reference to the sparsity indicator in the formula. The amount within the social services domiciliary care Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) is some £1,500, which represents 0.0006 per cent. of the total SSA for Westminster City Council.

  Elderly Residential Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities he consulted prior to the provisional standard spending assessment settlement concerning the decision not to include those in residential care, nursing homes and long stay hospitals when counting the number of people aged 65 years or over for the purposes of calculating the social services elderly residential care standard spending assessment; and what their responses were. [64578]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) Sub-group is the forum for discussions between local government and Government Departments about possible changes to SSA formulae.

  Details of options for changes to the personal social services formula are set out in the Report of the SSA Sub-group for 1999/2000. Records of discussions with local government representatives on the appropriate client base for the elderly residential social services formula can also be found in the Sub-group reports for 1997–98 and 1998–99. Copies of these reports of the Sub-group are in the Library and are also available to local authorities on the internet.

  Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the emissions of(a) CO2 (b) SO2, (c) NOx, (d) fine particulates, (e) black smoke and (f) radiation created by the use of coal as a fuel for electricity generation; and what reductions in these emissions would be achieved by the use of gas as an alternative to coal. [65332]
  170
  Mr. Meale
  The following table provides estimates of the emissions created by the use of both types of fuel in 1996:

  Coal

  Natural Gas

  Emissions in tonnes per GWh if electricity generated (1996)

  CO2

  224

  116

  SO2

  8.22

  0.003

  NOx

  2.64

  0.33

  Fine particulates (PM 10)

  0.20

  —

  Black smoke

  13.2558

  —

  Radiation

  15 to 25

  15 to 25

  1Radiation measured in MBq per GWh

  The extent to which gas can realistically be regarded as an alternative to coal-fired generation depends on a range of factors which are discussed in the Government's Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation. There, the Government set out proposals for achieving diverse, secure and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. The Government also proposed that further abatement equipment be installed to reduce certain emissions from coal-fired stations.

  Freight Train Derailment (Barry)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Health and Safety Executive to publish the report of its investigation into the freight train derailment at Barry on 27 December 1997. [65265]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) intend to publish the results of its investigation into this incident before the end of January.

  Equal Opportunities Guidance
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will place DETR Centre's Guidance on Equal Opportunities in the Library; [64927]

  (2) if he will place a copy of his Department's Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment in the Library. [64867]

  Mr. Meale
  I have placed a copy of this in the Library.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's objectives are in providing performance-related pay. [64922]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department's objective in providing performance-related pay is to reward staff in a way which takes account of their performance.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies of appraisal systems have been carried out in his Department and the former Departments of Transport and Environment in the past five years. [64921]
  171
  Mr. Meale
  The following studies have been carried out in the past five years:Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions-an Investigation of the 1997/98 Appraisal System, Pearn Kandola, December 1998.
  Evaluation of the New Staff Appraisal Systems in the former Departments of Environment and Transport, Institute of Employment Studies, October 1997.
  Staff Appraisal: Report of the Working Group—part of the internal review of the Department of the Environment, 1995.
  Evaluation of Staff Reporting Bias in the Department of Transport, Civil Service College, October 1995.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the basis for the 4/5ths equality rule used by personnel management in his Department. [64923]

  Mr. Meale
  The 4/5ths rule is used as a preliminary "rule of thumb" indicator to check for statistically significant variations between groups.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what internal specialist advice was used to help(a) draw up the specification and (b) evaluate the tenders for the study into the differential performance markings in DETR (C). [64916]

  Mr. Meale
  The specification was cleared with the Department's procurement policy advisers. A copy of the draft specification was also sent to the Trade Union Side prior to issue for comment. Tenders were evaluated by Personnel Management against the criteria set out in the specification.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if DETR (c) operates, formally or informally, a system of quotas for staff performance markings. [64918]

  Mr. Meale
  No. As part of the standard setting procedure to promote consistent standards of marking across DETR(C), we published an indicative set of marks based on the previous year's results as a guideline for standard setting officers in the 1998 appraisal round. These indicative marks are intended as a guide rather than a "quota" to be achieved and contribute to a process of "norming" designed to ensure that the system is fair. The final decision on individual performance marks rests with reporting officers applying the criteria in the appraisal guidance.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many DETR (c) staff are in post in each DETR (c) building, excluding the Government Offices, broken down by(a) grade, (b) gender, (c) ethnicity, (d) part/full time working and (e) disability. [64805]

  Mr. Meale
  DETR(C) staff are based in approximately 50 buildings. Detailed breakdowns for each building cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many standard-setting meetings took place as part of the 1998 appraisal round in DETR (C); what records are kept of 172
  the outcomes of such meetings; and if individual civil servants' performance markings are discussed in such meetings. [64917]

  Mr. Meale
  About 160 Standard Setting Meetings took place at the end of the reporting year. Records of the outcomes were kept to make comparisons between the performance marks agreed at the meeting and those eventually recorded. The purpose of the standard setting process it to promote fair and consistent standards across DETR(C) and a fundamental part of meeting this purpose requires the discussion of individual performance.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 in(a) each agency associated with his Department and (b) each traffic area office broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part/full time working and (v) disability; [64803]

  (2) if the Cabinet Office's 4/5s rule used to check for potential adverse impact has been applied to civil servants' performance markings in the 1998 report round in each of his Department's agencies (a) MCA, (b) DVLA, (c) VI, (d) QEII, (e) PINS, (f) DSA, (g) VCA and (h) HA. [64825]

  Mr. Meale
  Staff in Traffic Area Offices are part of DETR(C) and are therefore included in the DETR(C) data already provided. With regard to executive agencies, I have asked Agency Chief Executives to reply separately for their respective agencies.

  Letter from Avil Beynon to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  1. DVLA's Chief Executive has asked me to respond to your request for a breakdown of 1998 staff appraisal marks in the Agency. I attach tables listing the following information:

  Gender/Working Pattern/Disability: Table A

  Gender/Working Pattern/Ethnicity: Table B

  Gender/Grade/Working Pattern: Table C

  2. In accordance with Cabinet Office guidance, where the numbers in any category falls below 5, the data has not been disclosed to protect the privacy of individual members of staff. Table A and Table B do not therefore provide a breakdown of performance by grade for disabled and ethnic staff. To do so would reveal individual performance marks. In Table C, where the spread of representation is below 5, the data is referred to as X.
  3. 1998 Annual Staff Reports (ASRs) have yet to be completed for Administrative Officers, Administrative Assistants and equivalent grades and so the figures supplied are for 1997 ASR markings for these grades. Excluded from the figures is a large number of permanent, fixed term and casual staff recruited in the period December 1997 to December 1998 who have yet received a formal appraisal report.
  4. Although the four-fifths rule has not been used as a guideline to check for any potential adverse impact, the Agency is in the process of harmonising the annual performance reporting systems. In future, this will help produce better analyses of the system and identify any potential Equality Proofing difficulties associated with performance appraisal.
  173

  ASR analysis—disabled staff—DVLA 1997/98 Table A

  Male box markings

  Full time

  Part time

  All grades

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  Totals

  —

  7

  —

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ASR analysis—disabled staff—DVLA 1997/98 Table A

  Female box markings

  Full time

  Part time

  All grades

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  Totals

  —

  19

  —

  34

  —

  —

  2

  —

  6

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  ASR analysis—Ethnic origin—DVLA 1997/98 Table B

  Male

  Full time

  Part time

  All grades

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  Totals

  —

  6

  1

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  ASR analysis—Ethnic origin—DVLA 1997/98 Table B

  Female

  Full time

  Part time

  All grades

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  Totals

  —

  12

  —

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  ASR analysis—by staff numbers—DVLA 1997/98 Table C

  Male box markings

  Full time

  Part time

  Grade

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  AA

  2

  90

  —

  169

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  33

  —

  —

  —

  SGB2

  —

  6

  —

  45

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TYP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  4

  141

  —

  267

  —

  1

  —

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  PERSEC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SGBI

  —

  8

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SM3

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SOGD

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  EO

  —

  60

  —

  67

  —

  —

  —

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  —

  —

  SPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ALIB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SM2

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CO4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SOGC

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  PTO

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  —

  48

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SOGB

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SE0

  1

  17

  9

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SPTO

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GRD7

  —

  8

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  GRD6

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  MED

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  9

  396

  15

  606

  0

  4

  1

  0

  3

  1

  36

  0

  1

  0

  ASR analysis—by staff numbers—DVLA 1997/98 Table C

  Female box markings

  Full time

  Part time

  Grade

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  AA

  2

  276

  —

  361

  —

  2

  3

  —

  90

  —

  223

  —

  2

  —

  SGB2

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TYP

  —

  15

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  17

  408

  —

  462

  —

  1

  —

  1

  65

  —

  190

  —

  1

  —

  174 175

  ASR analysis—by staff numbers—DVLA 1997/98 Table C

  Female box markings

  Full time

  Part time

  Grade

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  1

  2

  3+

  3

  3-

  4

  5

  PERSEC

  —

  12

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  SGB1

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SM3

  —

  6

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SOGD

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  EO

  2

  122

  —

  91

  x2014;

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  18

  —

  1

  —

  SPS

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ALIB

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SM2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CO4

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SOGC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  PTO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  1

  43

  —

  32

  —

  —

  —

  X

  X

  —

  X

  —

  X

  X

  SOGB

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SEO

  —

  6

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SPTO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GRD7

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GRD6

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  MED

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  X

  Totals

  22

  896

  4

  957

  0

  3

  3

  1

  181

  0

  442

  0

  4

  0

  Letter from Maurice Storey to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to reply to your questions about staff report marks in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).
  The enclosed schedule provides annual staff report mark details broken down by grade and gender for the report round ending 30 June 1998. Grade breakdowns by ethnicity, part/full time

  MCA summary of all grades

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Pay band/grade

  male

  female

  male

  female

  male

  female

  male

  female

  Pay Band A

  AA/CWA/TYP/SGB2

  0

  0

  16

  41

  79

  95

  1

  0

  Pay Band B

  PS/AO/WO/SM3

  0

  6

  52

  39

  120

  36

  0

  0

  Pay Band C

  AIO/AD01/ADO(WM)(SM)/SO/SWO

  0

  1

  117

  10

  85

  17

  0

  0

  Pay Band D

  IO/HEO/DO/HPTO/MS2

  2

  1

  27

  11

  32

  5

  0

  0

  Pay Band E

  SIO/SE0/IC/SPTO/MS1/SSO

  2

  1

  48

  0

  49

  3

  0

  0

  Pay Band F

  PPTO/G7/PI

  2

  1

  31

  2

  17

  3

  0

  0

  Pay Band G

  Grade 6

  1

  0

  5

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  7

  10

  296

  103

  388

  159

  1

  0

  Ethnic minorities (all grades)

  0

  0

  7

  2

  4

  2

  0

  0

  Part/full time workers (all grades)

  0

  1

  3

  27

  9

  38

  0

  0

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Disabled (all grades-no gender)

  0

  3

  3

  0

  Letter from Maurice Newey to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  Further to Mr. Meale's Written Answer on this, I am pleased to provide the information requested for Civil Servants in the Vehicle Inspectorate. 707 reports have been received so far.
  Table 1 shows these broken down into the various categories used in our Equal Opportunities monitoring process. Table 2–5 show the markings given by Vehicle Inspectorate Pay Band (explained in the Notes to the Tables) for the different categories of staff.
  176
  working and disability have not been provided where individuals might be identified as this would be contrary to Cabinet Office guidance on the confidentiality of staff records.
  An analysis of the Agency's performance markings did not reveal any material adverse impact on MCA staff and it was not necessary therefore to apply the Cabinet Office's 4/5ths rule.
  Performance marking standards continue to be monitored by the Agency's personnel branch to detect any potential adverse impact on staff.
  In accordance with Cabinet Office guidance, we have not given information in 2 categories, where numbers total less than 5 and where individuals might be identified.
  The Vehicle Inspectorate does not apply the Cabinet Office 4/5ths rule of thumb to its performance appraisal markings. For declared ethnic minority and disabled staff, the numbers are just too small to enable us to make any meaningful or reliable comparisons with other groups—though we are trying to improve the reliability of our

  177
  employee database to support our very robust Equal Opportunities policies in these areas. These are already particularly effective in our employment of women, who now make up well over 30% of our workforce and who increasingly are reaching middle and senior level management positions in the Inspectorate. Generally speaking,

  Table 1 Equal opportunities breakdown of reports returned in 1998 reporting year

  Band

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Disabled

  White

  Non-participant

  Ethnic minorities

  Part-time

  Full-time

  1

  98

  68

  30

  1

  62

  36

  0

  30

  68

  2

  235

  119

  116

  6

  179

  53

  3

  36

  199

  3

  212

  190

  22

  6

  182

  24

  6

  2

  210

  4

  117

  98

  19

  0

  107

  10

  0

  7

  110

  5

  32

  29

  3

  0

  31

  1

  0

  0

  32

  6

  10

  8

  2

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  10

  7

  3

  3

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Table 2 Performance markings by pay band and ethnic origin

  White

  Non-participant

  Band

  Total

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  1

  98

  1

  31

  30

  1

  16

  17

  2

  2

  235

  10

  120

  49

  4

  34

  15

  0

  3

  212

  15

  113

  54

  3

  12

  9

  0

  4

  117

  8

  66

  33

  1

  5

  4

  0

  5

  32

  3

  21

  7

  0

  1

  0

  0

  6

  10

  1

  6

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  In line with Cabinet Office Guidelines on confidentiality, it is not possible to provide performance markings for other Ethnic Minority categories, as numbers are less than 5.

  Table 3 Performance markings by pay band and gender

  Male

  Female

  Band

  Total

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  1

  2

  3

  1

  98

  2

  29

  35

  2

  0

  18

  12

  2

  235

  5

  71

  43

  0

  9

  85

  22

  3

  212

  15

  116

  59

  0

  3

  11

  8

  4

  117

  7

  60

  31

  0

  2

  11

  6

  5

  32

  2

  20

  7

  0

  *

  *

  0

  6

  10

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Note:

  *Denotes category totalling less than 5, disregarded under Cabinet Office guidelines for safeguarding the identities of individuals.

  Table 4 Box markings by pay band and working hours

  Part time

  Full time

  Band

  Total

  1

  2

  3

  1

  2

  3

  4/5

  1

  98

  0

  18

  12

  2

  29

  35

  2

  2

  235

  2

  25

  9

  12

  131

  56

  0

  3

  212

  0

  1

  0

  18

  126

  67

  0

  4

  117

  1

  4

  2

  8

  67

  35

  0

  5

  32

  0

  0

  0

  3

  22

  7

  0

  6

  10

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  3

  0

  Table 5 Total—all bands

  Disabled staff

  Total

  1

  2

  3

  13

  0

  10

  3

  Note 1 Vehicle Inspectorate Pay Bands

  Band 1 Tester, Administrative Assistant, Handyperson, Typists

  Band 2 Administrative Officer, Assistant Vehicle Examiner, Personal Secretaries

  Band 3 Executive Officer, Traffic Examiner, Professional and Technical Officer (PTO), Senior Personal Secretaries

  178 from reports received so far, a higher proportion of women employees are currently gaining Box 1 and 2 performance markings than their male counterparts.Please do not hesitate to let me know if you need any further information.

  Band 4 Higher Executive Officer, Higher PTO, Senior Traffic Examiner

  Band 5 Senior Executive Officer, Senior PTO

  Band 6 Principal/Unified Grade 7

  Band 7 Grade 6/Director

  Note 2 Key to VI Performance Marking Scale

  Box 1 Outstanding

  Box 2 Significantly above normal requirements

  Box 3 Meets normal requirements

  Box 4 Some improvement necessary

  Box 5 Unsatisfactory

  179
  Letter from Marcus C. Buck to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for the Department of Environment and Transport and the Regions, to provide information regarding the Staff Appraisal Markings for the Centre.
  The enclosed schedule details the combined Staff Appraisal Markings for the Centre. It was not possible, (if we are to compile with the Cabinet Office's ruling regarding confidentiality of individuals personal details) to show the information broken down by grade or ethnicity.
  The centre does not use the "Four Fifth's Rule". Appraisal forms are audited by the Human Resources Department to ensure fairness and the non-use of discriminatory comments or implications of.

  All grades/job bands combined

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  All staff

  —

  2

  14

  16

  7

  7

  Note:

  Unrecorded (did not qualify for an Appraisal marking for 98) Male 4, Female 3

  Letter from Derek Harvey to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  I attach a table of data for the Vehicle Certification Agency in response to your Parliamentary questions concerning the above.
  It has not been possible to provide a gender or ethnicity breakdown in paybands 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 because, in line with Cabinet Office guidelines, data relating to staff's personal details, when the numbers in any category fall below five, may not be disclosed in order to protect the privacy of individual members of staff.
  I can confirm that the four-fifths rule has not been used to check for potential adverse impact.
  You will also wish to note that there were no disabled or part-time staff in VCA at the time of the 1998 ASR round, hence no separate columns in the table.

  Analysis of pay system

  Gender

  Ethnicity

  Box

  Mark

  m

  f

  w

  o

  Pay band 1

  Box 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 3

  10

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pay band 2

  Box 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 2

  10

  6

  4

  —

  —

  Box 3

  12

  7

  5

  12

  —

  Total

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade: All staff combined. Period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Ethnic origin

  male

  female

  male

  female

  male

  female

  male

  female

  White

  2

  3

  574

  74

  431

  69

  2

  2

  Ethnic minorities

  1

  —

  3

  2

  10

  14

  —

  —

  Unrecorded non-participant

  —

  1

  23

  18

  92

  57

  4

  —

  Total

  3

  4

  600

  94

  533

  140

  6

  2

  Part-time

  —

  —

  1

  8

  8

  21

  —

  —

  Disabled

  —

  —

  6

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  180

  Analysis of pay system

  Gender

  Ethnicity

  Box

  Mark

  m

  f

  w

  o

  Pay band 3

  Box 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pay band 4

  Box 1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 2

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 3

  13

  13

  —

  13

  —

  Total

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pay band 5

  Box 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 2

  10

  10

  —

  10

  —

  Box 3

  3

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Total

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pay band 6

  Box 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 2

  2

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Box 3

  3

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Total

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pay band 7

  Box 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Box 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  1. w/o = White/Other

  Letter from Bernard Herdan to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  As Alan Meale promised in his written reply of December 1998, I am now responding to your Parliamentary Question about the 1998 appraisal performance markings for staff in this Agency.
  As part of the 1998 Pay Agreement with the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) it was agreed that the settlement date of the annual pay negotiations would change in 1999 to 1 August rather than 1 April. It was also agreed that the annual performance reporting cycle would be brought into line with the new settlement date.
  A revised annual report timetable has been agreed with PCS which means that all 1998 reports on DSA staff have been delayed until the first half of 1999. I am therefore unable to provide you with the information you requested for 1998 but I have attached details of appraisal performance markings for all DSA staff relating to the 1997 cycle.
  181
  Letter from Bernard Herdan to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  As Alan Meale promised in his written reply of December 1998, I am now responding to your Parliamentary Question about the application of the Cabinet Office's 4/5ths rule to 1998 performance marking for staff in this Agency to check for potential adverse impact.
  The 4/5th rule has not been applied in respect of staff in DSA. As you may know the rule is a guideline only, and is not a statistical test. It does not give an assurance that any differences are statistically sound nor prove discrimination one way or the other. However as part of the 1998 Pay Agreement with the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), we have agreed that a full equality proofing exercise will be carried out, jointly between DSA and PCS, on all staff performance reports completed on DSA staff in 1999. Meetings with PCS are scheduled for January 1999 for the equality proofing exercise to commence. The exact method of analysis, which might well include the 4/5th rule as a benchmark, will be agreed between both sides in normal negotiations.

  Planning Inspectorate Grade AA/DS/SGBI&2

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  1

  1

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2A

  6

  8

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2B

  8

  22

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  3

  14

  11

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  4

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  29

  42

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Grade AO/PS

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  2

  4

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2A

  13

  24

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2B

  28

  44

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  10

  3

  20

  30

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  4

  1

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  64

  102

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Grade EO/TM/SPS/Planning assistants

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  —

  4

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2A

  11

  8

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2B

  24

  27

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  3

  22

  6

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  4

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  57

  45

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1included within grade totals

  Note:

  *=less than 5 people in group

  Grade HEO

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  —

  1

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2A

  6

  6

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2B

  10

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  3

  7

  3

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  182
  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Questions in which you asked:

  1. whether, in the 1998 report round, we applied the Cabinet Office's "4/5ths rule" to the performance markings of Inspectorate staff; and

  2. what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to Inspectorate staff broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part time/full time working and (v) disability.

  The answer to your first question is "no".
  In answer to your second question I attach a table showing a breakdown of the 1998 performance markings for Inspectorate staff. Where there are fewer than 5 people in the ethnic minority, disability or part-time categories we have suppressed the information in order to maintain the confidentiality of personal information.
  183

  Grade HEO

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  4

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  23

  15

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Grade SEO

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  1

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2A

  2

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2B

  9

  1

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  3

  5

  1

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  4

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  17

  2

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Grade G6/7 (grades combined to preserve anonymity)

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  l

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2A

  3

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2B

  3

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  3

  2

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  4

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  7

  —

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1Included within grade totals

  Grade: Housing and planning inspector

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2

  17

  2

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  3

  20

  4

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  4

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  37

  6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Grade: Senior housing and planning inspector

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  2

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2

  99

  7

  *

  *

  5

  *

  8

  *

  3

  24

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  4

  1

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  126

  12

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Grade: Principal housing and planning inspector

  Ethnicity

  Disability

  Part time

  Performance mark

  Male

  Female

  m

  f

  m

  f

  m

  f

  1

  3

  1

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  2

  30

  2

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  3

  1

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  4

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Total in Grade

  34

  3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1Included within grade totals

  184 185
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 12 January 1999:
  I refer to your written Parliamentary Questions, Nos 64803 and 64825, which were tabled for answer by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I have been asked to reply to you with regard to information relating to the Highways Agency.
  In reply to PQ 64803 we are in the process of completing the Agency's annual exercise which monitors the way in which appraisal and performance marks have been awarded. We expect to have this work completed by the end of January and I hope you will agree that it would be best that I should write to you again when the information is available.
  In reply to PQ 64825 we use our own formula to determine whether there is any potential adverse impact on a particular group. This involves comparing the mean average performance mark for each group which we round up or down to the nearest whole number. If a particular group has a lower whole number than another group, this would merit further investigation.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many civil servants in each grade in DETR (C), broken down by(a) gender, (b) ethnicity, (c) part/full time working and (d) disability, will be paid performance-related pay if it is agreed to make a second-stage payment based on performance markings arising from the 1998 appraisal round. [64924]

  Mr. Meale
  If it is decided that the 1998 Settlement is to be differentiated according to performance then all staff with a C marking will get at least 2.8 per cent. whilst all those with a B2 will get 3.4 per cent.; all those with a B1 will get 4.0 per cent. and all those with an A will get 4.6 per cent., subject to an increase of at least 3.5 per cent. inclusive of any element for restructuring, which also formed part of this year's settlement.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the performance markings for civil servants in DETR (C) in each grade were in 1998, broken down by(a) gender, (b) ethnicity, (c) part/full time working and (d) disability; [64926]

  (2) what were in each grade the promotability markings awarded in the 1998 appraisal round for civil servants in DETR (C), broken down by gender, race and disability.[64920]

  Mr. Meale
  The performance and promotion data from the 1997–98 appraisal round analysed by my Department have been placed in the Library. In some areas it has not been possible to produce detailed breakdowns by grade without potentially revealing the identity of individual members of staff. In these cases data fields have been marked 'X' to maintain the confidentiality of individual staff records.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what equal opportunity training civil servants in DETR(C) received before the introduction of the present appraisal system. [64919]

  Mr. Meale
  Awareness of equal opportunities issues and avoiding discrimination and bias forms an integral part of the Department's training courses. Both former Departments' appraisal systems were introduced with 186
  training programmes covering equal opportunities issues, as did the refresher training for all staff in the new DETR(C) appraisal system.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions where were in each of the last five years the performance markings of civil servants in the predecessor bodies to DETR(C), broken down by(a) grade, (b) gender, (c) ethnicity, (d) part/full time working and (e) disability. [64925]

  Mr. Meale
  This information, relating to appraisal systems which have now been superseded, cannot be provided in the format requested without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Rural Action
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that Rural Action continues beyond its current funding cut off date of 31 March 1999. [64831]

  Mr. Meale
  Rural Action for the Environment was established with funding from the Rural Development Commission, the Countryside Commission and English Nature to cover the scheme's initial three-year development phase until 31 March 1995. Following the successful completion of this phase, the three agencies extended their funding until 31 March 1999. By that point it was expected that Rural Action would no longer need to rely on Government funding.

  Two of the funding agencies—the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission—are due to merge on 1 April to form the Countryside Agency. Both they and, provisionally, English Nature have agreed to commit sufficient funds in 1999–2000 to support the monitoring and advisory costs of the Rural Action county networks which help administer the scheme. This will help to safeguard Rural Action by putting it in the best possible position to bid for project funding, while allowing the new Countryside Agency, together with English Nature, time to consider the scheme and make a decision on its longer term future.

  I welcome this approach.

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the recovery targets under the packaging waste regulations for 1999. [65266]

  Mr. Meacher
  Proposals for changing the recovery targets were included in the recent consultation paper, the Review Of The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, published on 30 July 1998. I have had further advice from the Advisory Committee on Packaging, on this and on other issues covered in the review, as set out in Sir Peter Parker's letter to me on 22 December 1998, copies of which I am placing in the Library.

  Basking Sharks
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will propose the inclusion of the basking shark in Appendix II of CITES; and if he will make a statement; [65354]
  187
  (2) if he will set out the current timetable relating to CITES, indicating the deadlines for extending inclusion to the basking shark; [65342]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the removal of the EU reservation in respect of the Bern Convention's listing of basking sharks in the Mediterranean; [65370]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the impact of the Barcelona Convention on the status of the basking shark. [65369]

  Mr. Meale
  The next CITES Conference is due to be held from 10 to 20 April 2000. The text of proposals to amend the appendices has to be communicated to the CITES Secretariat at least 150 days before the meeting, ie by 12 November 1999.

  My Department is giving active consideration to the case for including the basking shark on Appendix II of CITES. A proposal prepared by Wildlife and Countryside Link has recently been sent to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for their assessment as the Government's scientific advisers.

  The UK is not a Party to the Barcelona Convention. The European Community reservation in respect of addition of the basking shark to Appendix II of the Bern Convention is due to be reconsidered when the Natura 2000 network is completed and there is a prospect of amending the annexes to the Habitats Directive.

  Marine Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the phrase, "historic levels", in paragraph 15 of the Sintra statement issued by the ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission; [65292]

  (2) what proposals he has to reduce concentrations in the marine environment of man-made radioactive substances. [65293]

  Mr. Meacher
  To meet our obligation under the OSPAR radioactive substances strategy the UK must, by 2020, reduce discharges to levels which will add negligible amounts to historic concentrations of radioactive substances in the marine environment. The ultimate aim is concentrations of man-made radioactive substances close to zero.

  My department and the regulatory authorities will be working closely with the nuclear operators who will be producing 20 year strategies for implementing these discharge reductions.

  The term "historic levels" refers to concentrations of radioactive substances in the marine environment, resulting from past discharges into the sea, which have yet to decay naturally to zero.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the impact of(a) the 6 per cent. fuel duty escalator, (b) full take up of local transport measures in areas greater than 25 km2, (c) full take up of local transport measures in London and in 1/3 of all areas greater than 25 km2 and (d) strict enforcement of 70 mph
  188
  speed limit on national traffic levels in the models used to calculate the carbon dioxide emissions savings given in the table on page 38 of the UK Climate Change Programme; [64995]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of cities which could reduce their road traffic carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. as described in paragraph 2.59 of the New Deal for Transport; and what changes to traffic levels, based on 1990 levels, such reductions would imply (a) in those cities and (b) nationally; [64989]

  (3) what forecast he has made of the levels of traffic reduction which would occur in (a) the urban areas concerned and (b) nationally if local authorities in cities at least the size of Southampton acted to reduce road traffic carbon dioxide by 0.8 MtC by 2010, as set out in paragraph 114 of the UK Climate Change Programme. [64994]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK Climate Change Programme Consultation paper and "A New Deal For Transport: Better for Everyone", published last year, presented estimates of the environmental savings which could potentially be achieved through the introduction of a package of local transport measures which were outlined in "A New Deal For Transport". These estimates included only those measures where the impact could be easily quantified, which included central area cordon charges and complementary public transport improvements. Other measures in "A New Deal for Transport" which are less easy to quantify would add to these savings.

  The estimates were derived using the 1997 National Road Traffic Forecasts framework in conjunction with information on the potential impact of the transport measures derived from more specific local transport models. The analysis suggested that savings of up to 20 per cent. in road traffic carbon dioxide emissions could be made in the centre of the busiest cities. Nationally, this translates into a saving of 0.3 to 0.8 MtC by 2010 depending on the number of cities in which the packages of measures were introduced.

  These estimates were presented relative to a baseline which incorporated the expected impact of the 6 per cent. fuel duty escalator. It is estimated that the continuation of this policy for the lifetime of the current parliament could reduce national traffic levels by 2 per cent. compared with what they would otherwise have been in 2010.

  If there was full take up of the package of local transport measures in urban areas greater than 25 km2 (such as cities the size of Southampton or larger) it is estimated that this could reduce national traffic levels by a further 2 per cent. on the forecast level by 2010, and by around 20 per cent. in the centre of the urban areas concerned. Alternatively, if the measures were only introduced in London and a third of urban areas greater than 25 km2 national traffic could be expected to be reduced by around 1 per cent. on its forecast level. The traffic, and carbon dioxide, reduction which could be expected in specific individual cities would depend on the exact form in which the measures were introduced, and on the particular characteristics of each city and its population. It is therefore not possible to estimate the precise number of cities where savings of 20 per cent. could be achieved.
  189
  The Climate Change Programme Consultation paper also presents an estimate for the potential carbon dioxide savings which could be achieved through the strict enforcement of 70 mph speed limits. The analysis underlying this estimate was based on survey information of the extent and severity of speeding, and an assessment of the emissions saving from reducing such activity. The analysis could not be used to predict what impact the enforcement of speed limits would have on traffic levels.

  The answer I gave the hon. Member on 3 November 1998, official report, column 458, indicated that my Department will be undertaking further analysis of the impact of the New Deal policies on road traffic—taking into account information from local authorities on what measures they plan to introduce—in the context of preparing reports under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of traffic, expressed as a percentage of traffic levels in 1990, has been assumed to calculate the 22 to 27 per cent. reduction in forecast road traffic carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 referred to in paragraph 2.26 of the New Deal for Transport. [64990]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The reduction in road transport carbon dioxide emissions of 22 to 27 per cent. which was presented in "A New Deal For Transport: Better for Everyone" was estimated relative to energy projections which were published by the Department for Trade and Industry in 1995. The reduction includes the impact of a number of policy measures including the 6 per cent. fuel duty escalator, the EU Strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new cars, and the potential impact of those local transport measures which were quantified in A New Deal for Transport. In addition, the figures were also influenced by the switch to the use of the 1997 National Road Traffic Forecast modelling framework as a tool for estimating transport carbon dioxide emissions.

  Using the National Road Traffic Forecasts model, it is estimated that with these policies in place traffic would grow by 37 per cent. by 2010 relative to 1990 vehicle kilometre levels. This analysis assumes that the improvements in energy efficiency which arise from the EU Strategy to reduce carbon dioxide from cars would not lead to offsetting increases in vehicle use. As indicated in my answer to question number 64989, further analysis on the impact of the measures contained within A New Deal for Transport on traffic levels is planned.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the amount which road traffic levels would need to be reduced in order to reduce road traffic carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010, on 1990 levels. [64991]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The publication of the Climate Change Programme Consultation paper in October 1998 began the national debate on how to meet our legally binding Kyoto target, and how we can move beyond this towards a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Part of this national debate will focus on how specific sectors of the economy, including the transport sector, can contribute towards meeting our climate change targets.
  190
  Carbon dioxide levels could be reduced from the transport sector in a number of ways, each having different implications for traffic levels. Until it is clear how the transport sector will contribute to meeting our climate change targets it is not possible to provide an overall assessment of how traffic levels will be affected by the contribution.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the reduction in carbon dioxide from(a) road freight transport and (b) private car use on a 1990 base by 2010; and what proportion of this reduction would be (i) as a result of improvements in engine efficiency and (ii) from reductions in the number of lorry-kilometres travelled. [64992]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Forecasts of the change in carbon dioxide emissions from different parts of the road transport sector can be made using the National Road Traffic Forecasts modelling framework which was published in 1997. This model can be used to split changes in emissions over time between changes in underlying energy efficiency and vehicle use, but only from a base year of 1996.

  Assuming that fuel duty is increased by 6 per cent. per annum in real terms for the lifetime of the current Parliament, and that no other policies are introduced, between 1996 and 2010 it is forecast that total carbon dioxide emissions from cars will grow by 6 per cent. This growth is made up of two counterbalancing effects. Over the period, vehicle kilometres are forecast to increase leading to a growth in carbon dioxide emissions of up to 28 per cent. This is offset by improvements which are forecast in the underlying energy efficiency of vehicles which is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 22 per cent.

  It is forecast that carbon dioxide emissions from road freight between 1996 and 2010 will increase by around 3 per cent. This change is made up of a forecast improvement in underlying energy efficiency of up to 18 per cent., which is offset by an expected increase in vehicle use of up to 22 per cent. This analysis is based on the assumption that the efficiency of Heavy Goods Vehicles improves by one per cent. per year.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes in traffic levels, expressed as a percentage of 1990 levels, was assumed in order to calculate the carbon dioxide emissions forecast for 2010 from road traffic given in paragraph 127 of the UK Climate Change Programme. [64993]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The forecast of carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic given in the Climate Change Programme Consultation paper was estimated using the National Road Traffic Forecasts which were published in 1997. This forecast does not include the impact of the policies which were outlined in A New Deal for Transport. Relative to total traffic levels in 1990, the central forecasts predict that total vehicle kilometres will grow by 40 per cent. by 2010.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  191
  assessment his Department has made of the consequences for congestion of the introduction of night-time rules for mobile workers in the EU Working Time Directive. [64982]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The European Commission's draft proposal was published only in December. We will examine it thoroughly taking into account the effects on road transport and congestion and seek to ensure in negotiations on the draft directive that sensible and balanced decisions are reached.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relative damage caused to roads by(a) 38 tonne lorries, (b) 40 tonne lorries and (c) 44 tonne lorries with standard axle arrangements. [64983]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As indicated in the recent White Paper on the future of transport, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", 38 tonne, 5 axle lorries and 44 tonne, 6 axle lorries, both with drive axle weights of up to 10.5 tonnes, cause about the same amount of road wear. 40 tonne, 5 axle lorries, which have an 11.5 tonne drive axle weight, cause about a third more wear than the aforementioned.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many 44 tonne lorries are licensed to operate on United Kingdom roads. [64984]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of vehicles licensed to operate at 44 tonnes on combined transport operations at 30 September 1998 was 2,560. This figure does not include a number of vehicles licensed under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to carry abnormal and indivisible loads, and which may operate at weights at or above 44 tonnes.

  New Deal (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made on the New Deal for communities in Liverpool. [63564]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have received an outline bid on behalf of the Kensington Partnership Forum for New Deal for Communities support. The bid covers parts of the 192
  Smithdown and Kensington Wards of the City. No decisions has yet been reached on which of the 17 Pathfinder bids will progress to the next stage. I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in the last 12 months about bus company mergers and take-overs. [63408]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Mergers and take-overs in the bus industry are chiefly matters for the competition authorities. However I do receive such representations from time to time, including the letter of 26 October last from my hon. Friend.

  London Underground
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made towards the injection of private capital into the infrastructure of London Transport Underground. [63563]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are making very good progress, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 14 December 1998,official report, columns 623–34, during the second reading debate on the Greater London Authority Bill. Work is now under way to restructure London Underground in preparation for a competition to be held for the private sector to operate and invest in the upgrading of the Underground's infrastructure, into an operations company, which will remain in the public sector, and three infrastructure divisions. Subject to bids for the infrastructure divisions representing Best Value for the public sector they will transfer to the private sector for the duration of the Public-Private Partnership.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning planning permission for opencast mining at Avenue Cokeworks, Wingerworth, Derbyshire. [63577]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since 1 May 1997 my right hon. Friend has received six representations from local pressure groups and 11 representations from members of the public requesting that the planning application be called in.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
The Right Honourable Sir Nicholas Addison Phillips, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and created Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers, of Belsize Park in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Alexander of Weedon and the Lord Mustill.

Official Secrets Act 1989
2.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to replace or amend the Official Secrets Act.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is less than 10 years since Parliament considered how to deal with matters which should properly be kept secret. The result was the Official Secrets Act 1989. We believe that the Act provides a sound basis for protecting sensitive official information, and we currently have no plans to replace or amend it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which was certainly satisfactory to me. While there was general agreement in 1989 for deleting Section 2—the catch-all section—of the 1911 Act, are the Government now glad that the provisions in the present Act concerning former members of MI5 and MI6 are available to be invoked, although in Opposition the present Government Front Bench voted against them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was not on the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench in 1989; and of course circumstances change. After all, we are now in Government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it seems that I am to use a second barrel! Are those Members of the Liberal Democrats Party who are attending the Cabinet Committee, and who are not Privy Counsellors, expected to sign statements under the Official Secrets
76
Act? It appears that they see more confidential information than Back-Benchers of the Labour Party in another place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Liberal Democrat Party is notoriously law abiding, and I am sure they know their duty.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, will the Minister consider the position of the expert scientific committees? I refer, for example, to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines where the operation of the Official Secrets Act inhibits outside scrutiny.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that that is a different matter. The Question is directed to the Official Secrets Act 1989. Essentially that deals with matters which have to be kept secret: that is, national security and intelligence matters. Different provisions of the Act relate, for instance, to matters of defence, special investigations, and interception of communications; but none of those matters bites on the problem to which the noble Earl referred.

House of Lords: Smoking Rules
2.46 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked the Chairman of Committees:
What progress has been made with the review of the rules on smoking in the public rooms of the House of Lords.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee set up an informal group on smoking last Session. The group, which is charged to,
"undertake a review of smoking in the House",
has met twice and has gathered information on smoking in the workplace from the Health and Safety Executive and the Health Education Authority. The group is now in the process of constructing a questionnaire which it intends to circulate to Members of your Lordships' House in order to find out what changes, if any, your Lordships would favour. It aims to report to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee by Easter this year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether he, the Committee and the working group have read the White Paper Smoking Kills in which the Prime Minister said that 120,000 people will die in 1999 from illnesses directly related to smoking? Has the Minister also noted that hundreds of people die from passive exposure to tobacco fumes? Does not he agree with the Government that totally smoke-free workplaces are the ideal and should not your Lordships' House show an example by making every public room and corridor in this end of the Palace of Westminster smoke free?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, from the murmurs from all parts of your Lordships' House, there

77
is clearly a great deal of interest in the latter part of the noble Lord's Question. However, I shall not say more than that at this stage because I would not wish to pre-empt the work of and any recommendations that might be made by the working group.
In relation to the preamble to the noble Lord's Question, I should say that I am not a member of that group. It was set up by your Lordships' Administration and Works Sub-Committee. I have not read the White Paper to which the noble Lord referred but I read the reports about it at the time. I cannot say this afternoon whether it has been read by the members of your Lordships' working group. I shall make inquiries and ensure that if they have not yet had an opportunity to read it, it will be drawn to their attention.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at his age, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does not look bad considering he has had to endure smokers all his life? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that at my ripe old age, having started smoking in the pigsties aged 11, I do not look too bad? Secondly, does the Minister agree that until a substance has been declared illegal, there should be freedom for those who wish to indulge?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, when I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, rise just as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was about to ask his supplementary question, I was about to suggest that the noble Baroness was rather "quick on the draw". I shall say no more about her interest in smoking.
The substantive point made by the noble Baroness is a consideration which will be taken into account by the working group in the course of discussion in relation to any recommendations which it might make. I agree with the noble Baroness that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, looks extremely good. However, if I may say so, the noble Baroness looks absolutely splendid! She brings great joy to this Member of your Lordships' House.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness put the case for smokers with her usual charming understatement. However, does not my noble friend agree that, just as those adults such as the noble Baroness who wish to smoke should be totally free to do so, those who do not like to eat and drink where there is smoke also have a right to their decent eating habits? As a start and even before the informal committee reports, would not my noble friend consider making at least some of the eating places in this House free from smoke?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, some of the eating places in your Lordships' House are already smoke-free areas. I shall not specify them now because it would take up too much of your Lordships' time, but I shall see that a note is made available indicating which areas are subject to those restrictions.
78
It is the case that, though smokers and non-smokers do not exactly have rights—one hesitates to use that word in certain contexts—they certainly have interests in these matters. The considerations that the noble Lord put forward this afternoon are those which are already in the mind of the working group in its consideration of these matters.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, having heard the noble Baroness, does the noble Lord agree that it is acceptable to recognise that there are exceptions to every rule? There is incontrovertible evidence that smoking is a major cause of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Is the noble Lord aware that in the state of California there has been a ban recently on smoking in all public bars? There is now statistical evidence to show that that has greatly improved the health of the bartenders. Are not we in a situation in this House where we should be considering not only the health of your Lordships in general, but also the health of our staff?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific American experience of which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, spoke. However, I shall see that that is drawn to the attention of the working group if it does not already know about it. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, with all his expert medical experience, that there is significant evidence in relation to the effects of passive smoking. In fact—perhaps I should have said this in answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—it was some of the evidence on passive smoking that led to the setting up of the working group in the first place.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, if your Lordships agree that there should be some restriction on smoking, I am sure it will also be agreed that it is necessary to provide some sort of club room where noble Lords who wish to smoke may do so. Will the Chairman of Committees therefore assist us to get back the Pugin Room?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, we are now on much more dangerous ground. Strictly speaking, the point in relation to the Pugin Room does not arise out of this Question. However, I can tell the noble Lord that your Lordships' committees have been keeping a close watch on that room. He will know, as I am sure many of your Lordships know, that, again strictly speaking, the room still belongs to your Lordships' House but for many decades has been on loan to another place. Those of us who are privileged to be Members of your Lordships' House and had the benefit of being Members of another place are entitled to use the Pugin Room. I would be happy at any time, until it is restored to your Lordships, to take the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to the Pugin Room as my guest. I am grateful to him for giving me notice beforehand that he intended to put that question.

Disabled People: Community Care Provision
2.54 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to reverse the Gloucestershire judgment in relation to community care provision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the House of Lords' judgment in the Gloucestershire case did not change the law but confirmed the legal position to be that which the Department of Health always believed applied: namely, that authorities may take their resources into account in assessing the needs of a disabled person and deciding what services to arrange.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, the fact that the Law Lords' absurd judgment ruled that local authorities can take account of their resources when assessing the needs of disabled people means that any local authority can say to a quadriplegic, someone who is totally blind and totally deaf or someone completely paralysed, "We have no money so you have no needs". It is hard to think of a more preposterous proposition. Will my noble friend therefore urge the Government to change the law so that disabled people receive these services as a right and not according to the whim of the local authority?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are aware of the strength of feeling of my noble friend and others in this area. However, I must stress again that it is our belief that the House of Lords' decision did not change the law; it simply confirmed the legal position to be that which applies under the Act. Resources are only one of the considerations to be taken into account; other relevant factors must also be considered. Pressure on resources cannot be used as an excuse for taking arbitrary or unreasonable decisions. After the debate on my noble friend's Bill in 1997 the department issued guidance on the implications of the judgment, which clarified that local authorities have continuing responsibilities towards disabled people.
Lord Rix: My Lords, people with learning disabilities and their families are fearful of the ongoing erosion of local authority services, particularly with regard to day services and respite care. In view of the Minister's response, will she give an assurance that people with learning disabilities and their families will receive day services and respite care as an absolute priority in local authority service provision?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is important to recognise the measures that have been taken, particularly those set out in the White Paper Modernising Social Services, which seek to promote independence, improve protection and raise standards in
80
order to benefit all disabled people. Extra resources are being made available and guidance will be drawn up under the Fair Access to Care initiative to be issued to local authorities in relation to how, in turn, they should draw up their eligibility criteria for social care. A whole range of work is being done, including work on a charter for long-term care setting out what users and carers can expect from health, housing, and social services. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel that people with learning disabilities and their families can be reassured that the Government are taking action across a broad range of issues to improve services for disabled people.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the essential question of funding on this issue and the increased co-operation between health and social services is improving the situation on the ground, but that nonetheless the recommendations of the Royal Commission on long-term care are awaited with interest? Is she able to give the House any idea as to when we may expect that report?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are all looking forward to the publication of that report which will be tremendously important in terms of working out a fair system for funding care for elderly people, and which will lead on to consideration of how to improve the current system of discretionary charging for non-residential services. I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an exact date in that respect. However, we have made clear that we hope that publication will take place before too long. In the same way, when we have that, together with the new carers' strategy, it will be easier to assess how we can make real progress in the area.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if a local authority takes the view that its resources are not sufficient to allow it to provide appropriate care for a mentally handicapped person or a person in care, can the Minister tell the House what mechanism exists to validate that local authority's decision? Alternatively, is it left entirely up to the local authority in question?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that it is clear from the judgment and from the law that, once a local authority has decided that it is necessary in order to meet the needs of a disabled person to arrange a service listed in Section 2 of the Act, it is under a duty to arrange such a service. However, the measures that I outlined earlier, including the Fair Access to Care initiative—which will ensure that we do let local authorities know how they should draw up their eligibility criteria—will help. Moreover, in terms of improving the quality of care and ensuring that there is no unacceptable variance, the eight regional commissions for care standards, which will regulate domiciliary and residential care services, will be most important in this area.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is in many ways dodging the issue, which is not about new initiatives of one sort or another; indeed, it is

81
about the inability of both parties in government to finance, under the present basis, free medical healthcare for everyone? Therefore, is it not time that the whole question of financing the National Health Service was re-examined with a view to people who can clearly pay more—for example, in the case of prescriptions—doing so?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is well wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I shall answer it. No, I do not think that it is time for a fundamental reassessment of the funding of the NHS. I believe that we have ample proof that a publicly-funded, free at point of use service is both efficient and something which is envied throughout the world. Nearer to this question is the importance of how we fund long-term care for the elderly. That is why we set up the Royal Commission and why we are so anxious to see what it will recommend.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, if the Government are adamant that local authorities must take account of their resources when identifying the needs of disabled people, can my noble friend say whether they are planning to ask doctors only to diagnose flu when the money is available to treat it? If that is not the case, and if the Government recognise the absurdity of that proposition relating to health, why do they not recognise the absurdity of it as regards community care?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I must disagree with my noble friend. Indeed, I do not believe that the analogy is applicable. Perhaps I may throw back to my noble friend an analogy which I believe to be more direct. Other community care legislation allows for resources to be taken into account. If resources were exempted from being taken into account when arranging services under Section 2 (which was the area covered by the Gloucestershire judgment), that would, in turn, create an anomaly which would be unfair to other social service users.

Acheson Report: Inequalities in Health
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which of the recommendations of Sir Donald Acheson's report Inequalities In Health they are proposing to implement.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the whole Government are firmly committed to reducing health inequalities. A range of initiatives is already helping to carry forward Sir Donald Acheson's recommendations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear when Sir Donald was appointed that his findings would contribute to the development of a new health strategy. We shall be publishing a White Paper on that strategy shortly.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does not Sir Donald's report demonstrate statistically that many of the health
82
inequalities today are due to the previous government's deliberate policy of widening the gap between the rich and the poor, not least by lavishing on the richest 5 per cent. of this country generous tax reliefs at the expense of the rest of us? While I appreciate that this Government cannot be expected to remedy these inequalities at a stroke, perhaps I may urge upon them the need to launch without delay an educational campaign to ensure that the people of this country recognise the case for a fairer distribution of income, and the need to repudiate the absurd disclaimer that they are not in favour of a policy of tax and spend. How can a government spend unless they raise taxes? For example, how do the Government expect to improve the status and income of nurses, which are so essential to the health service, unless they spend money? Can my noble friend the Minister say how they will raise that money?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have to point out to my noble friend that we are certainly spending money on the health service. Like many of my noble friends and others, I know that my noble friend welcomes the massive injection of funds that we are putting into the NHS. However, to respond to my noble friend's points about the Acheson report, I can say that it certainly illustrates the growing divide in health status between the rich and the poor. Indeed, I would not quarrel with her that poverty is a principal source of ill health. That is why we clearly set ourselves targets both as regards reducing inequalities and improving access to health services for those who are most disadvantaged. It is also important to recognise that we are taking action across a broad range of government areas, not simply in terms of health but in terms of the environment and social security, by way of a whole series of measures which contribute to reducing health inequalities and social exclusion.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, can she confirm whether or not the Government are actively considering the whole question of adopting Sir Donald's principal recommendation about health impact assessments? In particular, can the Minister say whether or not she believes that a prime candidate in that respect would be social security disentitlement?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. If we are to make sure that we look at the effect of government policies in the round, we cannot put on departmental blinkers in any assessment of the effects of one area of policy on another area of policy. Across Whitehall we are working to ensure that all departments whose work and policies impact on health are assessed to ensure that the implications are taken into account when policies are drawn up. Of course, social security is a prime candidate in that respect.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the greatest health inequalities is dental health? Indeed, in the city of Blackburn, which is where the noble Baroness who tabled the Question comes from, over 100 children a week have to have teeth extracted. Can the Minister say

83
when the Government will consider putting fluoride into the water system which would do so much to help the really poor children who receive no dental treatment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to point out the health inequalities in dental health. I believe that the House had an opportunity to debate at length the issues surrounding fluoridation only recently. Indeed, this raises great passions on both sides of the debate and answers will be forthcoming in the White Paper to which I referred earlier.
Lord Rea: My Lords, although I recognise the Government's efforts in removing people from benefit and putting them into the employment sector, does my noble friend the Minister not recognise that many people will still be on benefit, among whom will be the poorest people, and that that will include a disproportionate number of families with children? Will the Government implement recommendation 3.2 of Sir Donald's report, which says:
"We recommend uprating of benefits and pensions according to principles which … improve the standard of living of those who depend on them and which narrow the gap between their standard of living and average living standards"?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is absolutely right that we focus our attention on improving the living standards of the poorest households. The best way for many people to get out of poverty is by helping them into work and giving them the opportunity to improve their incomes and lifestyle. There will be others who, for various reasons, do not have those opportunities. In particular, as my noble friend pointed out, the children of such families need support. The Sure Start programme is particularly important and I am sure that my noble friend acknowledges that the allowances for children in income-related benefits that were increased in November 1998—for example, that for the eldest child of £2.95 a week—are a reflection of the need to provide targeted help for some families.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, about inequality of incomes at present, is it not correct that old Labour had the right goal in wanting less inequality of income but the wrong means, whereas the present Government give the impression that they have abandoned the goal? How do the Government intend to restore the goal of less inequality of income in this country?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is clear that we are looking closely at what we need to do to improve the income and general support available for those people who are suffering from the effects of poverty. I believe that there is an understanding that issues surrounding deprivation go far wider than income levels. That is reflected in our debate on health and the issue of income. Health inequalities and deprivation are very much linked, for example, to poor educational attainment, which in turn leads to a poor income later in life. The poor environment in which many children are being brought up on some of our worst estates, with
84
the highest levels of crime, also reflects on people's opportunities. The Government are trying to take a broad and cohesive approach to those problems, and not look at them in separate boxes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, recommendation 38.4 is that the Government should establish a review of the relationship of private practice to the NHS. Will the Government do that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we shall be looking in detail at all the recommendations that Sir Donald Acheson made to see which of them we need to take forward. It is particularly important to focus on those areas that he highlighted and on which we can take action in terms of a public health strategy. That is why the report was such a valuable document in terms of forming the White Paper that will soon be published.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, bearing in mind that the report recommends policies that promote the sexual health of young people, will the Government undertake to do everything possible to speed up the work of charities that help to get homeless young people off the streets before they slip into prostitution, with all the dangers of venereal disease and HIV infection that that brings with it?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the health of young people and adolescents is an important area on which to focus. As the noble Earl pointed out, voluntary organisations play a particular part in driving health education that is focused and which will be received well by those groups. Sometimes it is more appropriate for that work to be done more effectively by voluntary organisations than by the Government. In the past, we have certainly provided support for such organisations and I shall be surprised if we do not continue doing so.

Business
3.11 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on Ashworth Special Hospital.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Lockwood be appointed to serve as a member of the committee in the place of the Baroness Rendell of Babergh.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 14) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to.
1. Appointment of Sub-Committees
The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committees and Panel—

Finance and Staff Sub-Committee
L. Boston of Faversham (Chairman)

L. Astor of Hever

L. Colwyn

L. Gladwin of Clee

L. Harris of Greenwich

B. Jay of Paddington

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank

L. Sheppard of Didgemere

L. Strathclyde

L. Weatherill

L. Williams of Elvel

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Administration and Works Sub-Committee
V. Allenby of Megiddo

L. Berkeley

L. Boston of Faversham (Chairman)

L. Carter

L. Colwyn

B. David

V. Devonport

Harris of Greenwich

Henley

Hilton of Eggardon

Methuen

Rawlings

Renfrew of Kaimstorn

Weatherill

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

Library and Computers Sub-Committee
L. Avebury

L. Butterworth

E. Erroll

L. Hoffmann

L. McIntosh of Haringey

B. Nicol

E. Northesk

B. Platt of Writtle

B. Rendell of Babergh

L. Renfrew of Kaimshorn (Chairman)

L. St. John of Bletso

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Refreshment Sub-Committee
L. Acton

L. Burnham

L. Carter

L. Chesham

L. Colwyn (Chairman)

B. David

L. Graham of Edmonton

L. Harris of Greenwich

L. Lawrence

L. Palmer

V. Thurso

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Advisory Panel on Works of Art
L. Chorley

L. Cobbold

L. Crathorne

E. Drogheda

V. Falkland

Hilton of Eggardon (Chairman)

L. Hindlip

L. Lloyd-Webber

L. Morris of Castle Morris

B. Smith of Gilmorehill

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2. Staff of the House
The Committee was informed of the decision to appoint a temporary Trainer in the Computer Office and of a Senior Sous Chef (Banqueting).
3. Official Shorthand Writer Services
The Committee was informed that a revised agreement had been approved with W B Gurney and Sons relating to the provision of shorthand writing services to the two Houses of Parliament.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I refer briefly to paragraph 2, concerning the staff of the House. Will the Chairman of Committees confirm that all appropriate staff members of the House have proper contracts of employment?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sorry but I did not catch the final words of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees confirm that all the appropriate members of the House of Lords staff have proper contracts of employment?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, strictly speaking, I do not believe that question arises from the report of the Select Committee. I would—I assume safely—assume that they have indeed got that. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 13,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 14 to 47,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 48 to 62,

Schedules 3 to 5,

Clause 63.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Third Pillar: ECC Report
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Enhancing Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Third Pillar (6th Report, Session 1997–98, HL Paper 25).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after consultation with those concerned, I hope that the House will allow me to say that it has been agreed, contrary to the list of speakers that has been circulated, that my noble friend Lord Bridgeman will speak from the Opposition Front Bench before the Minister, in the normal way. I will then conclude the debate, also, I hope, in the normal way.
It is often forgotten that some of the most important work of the European Union is done inter-governmentally. We hear a great deal in your Lordships' House about the European institutions but in the inter-governmental work of the European Union, those institutions play no part. The only institutions capable of disciplining and controlling the decisions of Ministers in inter-governmental negotiations are the national parliaments. The Maastricht Treaty introduced that innovation.
Many of your Lordships are, to put it broadly, for the European Union but are suspicious that its institutions are undermining our own national institutions. It is therefore particularly important, for those of your Lordships who take that view, that inter-governmentalism should be made to work.
Your Lordships first addressed that matter in 1993, in a report that was completed and presented to the House during the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. That report dealt with both Titles V and VI of the treaty. This report was made by a relatively new sub-committee of your Lordships's European Scrutiny Committee—
88
Sub-Committee F. Because the sub-committee deals only with home affairs, the report addresses solely Title VI—which excludes any consideration of foreign and security policy.
Before being translated elsewhere, I had the honour to chair Sub-Committee F. I owe a great debt of gratitude to all noble Lords who were tolerant enough to serve with me during my time in that office. Noble Lords who have chaired committees of the House will be aware how much your Lordships owe to the work of the parliamentary clerks and advisers. In this case, because of the speed with which the report was completed, noble Lords who served on the Committee and I, as chairman, owe a particular debt to our clerks and advisers.
One of the greatest difficulties we faced in preparing the report was that, halfway through, the final text of the Amsterdam Treaty was published. That text had a significant bearing on our work. I will begin by briefly outlining its innovations and why they had an effect that made us reconsider some of our preliminary conclusions.
The Amsterdam Treaty redefined the Maastricht Third Pillar. In particular, it divided the Third Pillar in two. The first part, which originally dealt with asylum, immigration and visa matters, was incorporated in Pillar 1—that is, the traditional European Community's part of the European Union. It is now known as Title IIIA. The other part remained in the Third Pillar, largely comprising police matters and judicial co-operation in criminal affairs. The situation was further complicated by the decision of member states in the Amsterdam Treaty to incorporate the Schengen agreement in the Treaty on European Union. The United Kingdom and Ireland decided not to take part in either change.
The Amsterdam Treaty also contains certain matters that concerned the scrutiny of the Third Pillar. The first and perhaps most important came under Clause K11 of the revised treaty, which, for the first time, obliged the Council of Ministers to consult the European Parliament on all Third Pillar matters. A minimum period of consultation of three months was laid down; but that period can be extended. Unlike the Community Treaty, once the period has elapsed, irrespective of whether or not the parliament produces an opinion, the European Council is entitled to go ahead and legislate.
The second change, which comes in Article K6, was the new requirement for Third Pillar proposals, made by member states or the Commission, to be published in the Official Journal. I trust your Lordships agree that that is a significant step forward. One of the greatest difficulties in trying to scrutinise Third Pillar legislation in national parliaments is identifying the actual text that is before the relevant Council working party or steering group.
The third change, which appears in a clause that has yet to be fully worked out, requires that once a Third Pillar proposal has been published, in circumstances where that proposal is made by the Commission, a period of six weeks shall elapse until the matter can be put on the Council's agenda.
One final matter to which I would like to refer your Lordships are the new proposals in Articles 191 and 151 on transparency, both of which will give the citizens of the European Union the right to gain access to certain documents issued by the European Parliament, Council and Commission.
When we began the work in committee, we knew none of that. Although we tried our best to incorporate those changes in our final recommendations, we were not always successful. I trust therefore that the Minister, when he kindly replies, will—if at all possible—set his reply in the context of the Amsterdam changes.
The committee is essentially asking, in order to fulfil its scrutiny task, to have before it the right documents at the right time. I concede that that request is not as simple as it sounds. Unlike legislative procedure in your Lordships' House, or even in the European Community, there is little by way of structure in the operation of the Third Pillar. Decisions are made at five different levels. They are the level of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, COREPER, the so-called K4 Committee, three steering groups, and below these a morass of working parties.
Either the presidency or a member state, or in some circumstances the Commission, can introduce, at any moment into any one of those committees, a proposal for a change to the law or for some other common action. Once that is done, there is no limit to the speed at which—or there was no limit, until the Amsterdam Treaty, and there is no limit at the moment because the treaty has still to be ratified—the Council could act. A document, for example, might appear before your Lordships' scrutiny committee on the Friday of one week and on Wednesday the following week it could become a decision of the European Council, without any opportunity for the House to exercise proper scrutiny.
One of the reasons for that was that in 1993, when your Lordships debated the previous report, we could only extract from the Government a commitment to show us the text of the Third Pillar proposal once it had been agreed by all member states. One only has to make the point for your Lordships to understand why scrutiny by your Lordships' House had become, at that stage, otiose.
One of the most positive features of the work of Sub-Committee F was the extremely positive way that both the Home Secretary—the right honourable Jack Straw—and his officials responded to our new proposals, particularly in respect of the matter that I have just drawn to the attention of your Lordships. It appears—and I eagerly await confirmation from the Minister—that the Government will now accept that once a proposal is initially made by the Presidency or a member state or the Commission, in the form of a text, and whether that text is put to COREPER, the Council, the K4 Committee or a steering group or working party, that text will be placed before Sub-Committee F and your Lordships will be able to begin work on it. If your Lordships recall that, following the changes to the Amsterdam Treaty, no decision can be taken on the text before three months plus six weeks, this will
90
dramatically change the ability of your Lordships' House to get to grips with any serious problems posed by the text.
Home Office officials cautioned us that the text being seen by this House at an initial stage will be subject to negotiation and change. However, I understand that the Home Office will make its best efforts to keep your Lordships' committee abreast of any substantial changes that will be made in the course of negotiations. So those, if they are to be confirmed by the Minister, are indeed big steps forward for this House.
There has also been some renewed flexibility in the kind of documents that your Lordships' House will be entitled to scrutinise at this stage. Until now, essentially, your Lordships' House has been able only to consider documents that would ultimately end in primary legislation. But now your Lordships will also be able to consider, along the lines that I have already explained, proposals that will lead to secondary legislation, and, I believe, proposals that affect any of the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom. Those, if confirmed by the Minister, will also be substantial steps forward.
On the more general question of imposing a scrutiny reserve, which exists for Community legislation under the First Pillar and which the Government have always resisted under the Third Pillar, I await the Minister's comments with great interest. A long debate took place in your Lordships' sub-committee about this matter. It seems to members of the committee illogical that the Government should continue to resist a scrutiny reserve. One of the arguments advanced by the Home Office is that, in cases both of primary and secondary legislation, another place and this House will always have the opportunity to debate these matters in public. But as noble Lords are well aware, once an agreement has been made by the United Kingdom Government in the Council of Ministers, there is very little flexibility left in the national parliaments.
It is therefore my submission to the Minister that the concession of the scrutiny reserve in Third Pillar matters should not be a difficult one to make and, in the context of the timetable that will inevitably be imposed on the Government by the Amsterdam Treaty, will be easily containable without prejudicing the urgency that governments sometimes feel is needed in relation to particular pieces of legislation.
The sub-committee was extremely keen to have, as early as possible, agendas of the meetings to which I have already drawn your Lordships' attention. I believe I am right in saying that the Home Office has again reacted generously to this proposal, although I understand that there may be some difficulties in producing agendas for working parties and steering committees, only because those agendas tend to emerge very shortly before the meeting.
In conclusion, I once again thank those of your Lordships who worked on the sub-committee with me and all the Clerks and advisers who served the committee. Without their help, this report would have been impossible to produce. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Enhancing Parliament Scrutiny of the Third Pillar (6th Report, Session 1997–98, HL Paper 25).—(Lord Kingsland.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I joined the committee for this inquiry and was happy to serve under the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I much regretted his moving on to other matters and that I was then forced to take over as chairman.
I wish to emphasise what an important area of scrutiny this is; how rapidly the area of co-operation in justice, home affairs, policing, judicial matters and civil liberties is, and how rapidly it has grown over the past 10 years. Perhaps anticipating the remarks of my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I also wish to emphasise how much this would continue, whether or not Britain were inside the European Union. The European Union enables us as a Parliament to get something of a handle on what is going on internationally.
International integration, whether European or global, has the consequence of transferring authority from legislatures to executives. Governments negotiate; and when they have negotiated, they cannot unpick what has been agreed. If parliaments are to have a handle on this growing field of international co-operation in policing, intelligence, security, visas, asylum seekers and refugees, this is one of the important ways in which we can begin to do that.
I also wish to thank the Clerks who assisted the committee. Also, we were much assisted in our work by the development of a small group of non-governmental organisations concerned about civil liberties and the legal dimensions. I refer in particular to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Justice and Statewatch. I wish that there were more such organisations. This is an area that has not yet begun to break the public surface. It worries me that, as it grows, it will in time throw up particular scandals and difficulties which the popular press will begin to pick up. It is therefore part of our job to educate the public, in so far as we can catch their attention, and tell them what is happening and how rapidly matters are developing. After all, throughout the experience of British participation in European integration, it has been the British habit to allow new areas of integration to develop by stealth, not admitting the implications to the public or the press. So on the whole government has not spelt out the implications of discussions under way or obligations about to be assumed in relation to discussions by working parties or proposals put advanced.
I remember Kenneth Clarke, when he was Home Secretary, arguing fiercely in terms of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. One of the strongest arguments, he said, for ratification was that it would for the first time bring this large and important area within the purview of the European Union—after which he added, "And even if we don't ratify the Maastricht Treaty, we shall have to go on co-operating because it is a necessary part of our Home Office business."
92
It is also in the nature of this area, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, remarked, that it is not easy to catch documents as they go through. There is a flow of policy; there are discussions, particularly under the Third Pillar, as under the second, and because the approach is informal, matters move from general discussions and working parties to agreement, sometimes very rapidly. It therefore seems appropriate to us as a committee of this House that we should take a broad approach to scrutiny, examining detailed proposals but also attempting to follow the general drift of policy and co-operation. Scrutiny which looks at only each specific proposal may see only the trees and miss the wood.
As we discovered in another inquiry during the past year, this is an area in which nearly a third of the meetings currently serviced by the Council secretariat are concerned with the Third Pillar and over a third of the documents are concerned with the Third Pillar. The area also concerns the whole range of European Union external relations. The question of why immigrants attempt to enter the European Union—what is the "push" factor—concerns matters of aid, foreign policy, the stability of the regions from which they come. I was glad to discover in Brussels last week that on a Dutch initiative there is now at last a cross-pillar working group on the implications of aid, asylum and refugee policy for European Union external relations as a whole.
I hope that the Government will see this as an area in which public debate and public scrutiny are desirable as far as possible. We were helped in this inquiry by the extremely open response that we received from the then rather new Home Secretary, Jack Straw, who was very co-operative indeed. Throughout the time that I have so far served on the committee, we have had an extremely open relationship with the Home Office. Ten years previously, when I worked at a research institute, I had some professional relations with the Home Office as international police co-operation was developing. I remember then a classic Ministry of the Interior, deeply suspicious of talking to foreigners and by and large unable to admit that any of its members spoke any language other than English. The transformation one sees now is remarkable and creditable and I trust that this good relationship with our committee will continue.
The Schengen acquis experience, however, has not so far been encouraging. We did report on this separately, as fellow Members of the House of Lords will remember. The potential fog of signing an Amsterdam Treaty which incorporated an acquis which had not yet been agreed and which the British Government had not yet seen, but which the British Government had nevertheless agreed to opt out of while retaining the opportunity to opt into bits of it when they understood quite which bits there were, is not entirely one of the most creditable aspects of British international obligations, let alone our efforts to maintain parliamentary scrutiny. That is something which we intend to keep under scrutiny as far as we can.
We say in this report that co-operation between national parliamentary scrutiny and the European Parliament is something which we wish to develop. That is also included in the Amsterdam Treaty which will

93
shortly enter in force. Over lunch today the Clerk to the sub-committee told me that, for the first time, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament hopes to convene a joint meeting with national parliamentary scrutiny committees on this subject in March. That again seems to me to be an area which we should be hoping to develop, not just between this national legislature and the European Parliament but with other national legislatures, as they attempt to do their job. Article 39 of Title VI of the revised Treaty of European Union spells this out, as does Article 67 of the revised EC Treaty.
May I emphasise the extent to which the Amsterdam treaty does transform this situation? The treaty itself will, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has already explained, transfer a number of these areas from the Third Pillar into the first. Visas, asylum, refugees, will thus become part of the Community pillar proper. There is already on the table, agreed at the Vienna European Council in December, an Action Plan for Freedom, Security and Justice, which is due to be discussed further at the first-ever special European Council devoted to justice and home affairs, to be convened in October in Tampere, in Finland. I am not sure, and I do not think anyone yet knows, quite what the agenda for the Tampere European Council will be. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will give us some indication in summing up. I hope that the Home Office will be able to consult with our committee before the summer on what the agenda for that special European Council should be. That seems necessarily to be part of what we should be doing as scrutiny.
I managed to dig out the German Presidency's statement of intentions for the first six months of this year in terms of what it sees as the major priorities for the European Union's future business. If I may quote:
"The expansion of justice and home affairs policy pursued constantly throughout recent years will receive further impetus with the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. The action plan to construct an area of freedom, security and justice adopted … in Vienna sets ambitious goals in this field for the next five years. The German Presidency will do its utmost to ensure the smoothest possible transition from the Maastricht to the Amsterdam treaty regime. It will consistently use the extended possibilities and instruments for co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs … (It) will be guided equally by the desire to strengthen internal security and to guarantee citizens' rights".
We are therefore trying to scrutinise a rapidly moving, rapidly developing area.
Sub-Committee E reported earlier last year on the development of external relations in this area. The Americans are extremely anxious to co-operate with European police forces, intelligence services and others in combatting organised crime, drugs and other areas. I emphasise again, therefore, that this is not a purely European matter. It is a matter in which the British and our European partners are also engaged with the Americans, the Japanese and many other third governments.
As this moves from the Third Pillar to the First Pillar, thus the Commission will become more heavily engaged. Having been in Brussels last week, may I just signal to the noble Lord the Minister that the
94
Commission is currently utterly unprepared to take on that task, in terms of staff and in terms of having planned for the takeover. That seems to be an area where the British Government, having half opted out of the transfer, may not be in the best position to exercise influence. That is one of the problems of choosing to opt out; but at least in matters of good government we might persuade others who are more closely involved to push the Commission in the right direction.
I also note that there is an intelligence dimension here which, in the nature of events, our sub-committee has not touched upon. There is a committee of parliamentarians, the Intelligence and Security Committee, which does touch on this, and I have read their last two reports. I think the development of much closer co-operation between national intelligence services internationally is another reason why that committee of parliamentarians ought perhaps to be converted into a full parliamentary committee, because we need to know rather more of what is going on. After all, intelligence services are co-operating precisely in the fields of organised crime, organised immigration crime and the combatting of drugs. There is therefore rather more scrutiny needed in that area.
Third Pillar instruments are matters of international law and of international conventions and do not therefore, even under the Amsterdam Treaty, come under the full scrutiny of the European Parliament and others. My noble friend Lord Lester may touch upon the problem of making sure that conventions are given proper scrutiny in our House. I would end by encouraging the Government to be more open in informing and educating Parliament and the public, to thank the Government for being so co-operative with our committee so far, and to hope that that co-operation will continue.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I at the outset pay a tribute, which I am sure will be echoed by the whole House, to the diligence and the scholarly way in which this committee has gone about its business under the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and, latterly, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
One of my observations when I had the privilege of being a commissioner was how much attention was paid by the Commission to the works which were produced by this place and, indeed, elsewhere. It is idle to suggest, as perhaps some on the sceptic wing do, that notwithstanding its value it is ignored. It is not. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will know that, too, from his tremendous experience in the European Parliament. May I also thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for the very generous tribute they have made to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for the way in which he co-operated with the work that they undertook. I am delighted that that happened. Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and there are many problems here, but nevertheless that was a good start.
Transparency, integrity, accountability, parliamentary scrutiny, all go to the heart of how we can best inform our public, not only in this country but elsewhere, about

95
what is going on in Europe in so far as the entirety of the work of Europe is concerned—not simply the Third Pillar.
In ranging over the subject of public scrutiny and parliamentary scrutiny this important report deals with a number of key issues. Not least in importance is the observation on how these issues that we are deliberating impinge on the liberties and the lives of all the citizens of the European Union. It is therefore key in ensuring that decisions which are reached by Ministers are, and are seen to have been, considered properly. Parliament has a vital role in that regard.
Occasionally it is said that some parliaments elsewhere in Europe do not set a good example. Others, however, set an example that we would do well to examine carefully. Although it does not relate directly to the Third Pillar, I well recall going before the German Parliament to be interrogated on matters affecting both environment and transport issues with which I have dealt. Included in my interrogators were members of the European Parliament—without a vote, it is true, but perhaps better able to play a part in the interrogation of commissioners and officials, which is important.
In parenthesis, I have to say that I should like to see that happen in this country. I can see no real objection, other than blind prejudice, which would prevent it from happening. Why should we not look for help and advice in being able to scrutinise? After all, that is one of the most important roles that Parliament has to fulfil. It includes being able to examine the motives of those who help to make the law.
There are many issues, but an important one dealt with at the beginning of the report was the timing of the way in which documents are deposited for scrutiny. That is critical, because if Parliament is to have a substantive role in being able to scrutinise properly then it must have sufficient time to be able to examine the documents that are germane to those considerations. Overall, the message that I, as well as the House, received in relation to the report is that there should be an effective practical presumption in favour of depositing Third Pillar proposals in good time.
I believe that by their initial reactions the Government have shown that they are not likely to be grudging in that respect. I am delighted that that is the case. The role of government should be to co-operate to the maximum, within reason, and there are certain difficulties with which the report deals. I believe that the Government have established a good augury in relation to it.
There should be no real disputes when it comes to the full text of the proposal, yet there have been. One of the points made in the report is that there is a need for guidelines to identify areas where genuine difficulties for governments to comply with their obligations may arise.
I was also pleased to note from the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Wallace, how much they praised the work of those non-governmental organisations which gave evidence to the deliberations. Justice, referred to in paragraph 26 of the report, identified the problems associated with the way in which some Third Pillar proposals are negotiated. The answer,
96
or part of it, to the problem which was raised is spelt out clearly. It is that the Government should provide an explanatory note to the committee, giving the nature of the proposals, the implications for the country and how the Government stand in relation to those negotiations.
I was also glad to see the views of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set out in paragraph 305 of the evidence and referred to in paragraph 33 of the report. They were that those matters within the Third Pillar proposals which have consequences for the United Kingdom's human rights obligations should fall within the major criterion of significant importance in determining whether a proposal should be deposited in Parliament. That is an extremely important observation.
What is clear and undesirable in the longer term is the variation of practices between different member states. I believe it is important to develop a common set of criteria. As I have indicated, there is already a great deal of room for co-operation between parliaments which is likely to happen. But in the interim, before Amsterdam becomes an everyday part of our political life, there is a need for effective guidelines here in the United Kingdom. Those should be at least as liberal, if not more so than the most liberal elsewhere.
At the heart of the problems which have been raised is the question of confidence and trust that are reposed by governments in the Parliament. It is of supreme importance that, where significant changes occur in the course of negotiations, the committee should be brought into the confidence of the Government. It needs to know at the earliest opportunity what those changes will be and how the Government stand in relation to them.
The scrutiny reserve regarding Third Pillar proposals is a most important issue because legislative actions often flow from that state of affairs. Parliament needs to have an input into those deliberations. Should there be a minimum time to scrutinise the instruments that are deposited? That is one of the critical questions raised in the report. I believe that there needs to be that. It is extremely important that, as paragraph 65 states, the committee must be able to have time to do what it did in connection with the report. That is, to take advice from outside organisations like Justice and the others referred to. Therefore, that degree of time is central to the successful operation of what is to be done in relation to scrutiny.
I shall not dwell on what the committee proposed in relation to the time limit because it was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but I think it is absolutely right.
I turn from that to the issues of secrecy and confidentiality. It reminds me in many ways of issues of confidentiality which are raised frequently by big business in areas like pharmaceuticals. It is often overdone. While it is important that, where absolutely essential, those criteria should be invoked, nevertheless the Government should be as willing to inform the committee on why they have taken a particular stance in that respect. There is a duty on the part of Ministers to be as open as possible. I hope that questions of secrecy and confidentiality will not be embarked upon

97
too readily. The idea that certification should be required from the Speaker of another place and the Lord Chancellor here seems to be excellent. But Ministers should be prepared to explain when and why they are invoking secrecy and confidentiality.
I turn from that to my penultimate point, the role of the European Parliament. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, important new responsibilities will arise in this connection in relation to the Amsterdam Treaty. Those responsibilities will require the council to consult the European Parliament before adopting any framework decisions and various other matters.
As I understand it, the Government have had some reservations, especially in relation to the time that this will involve. There are very real advantages, and I was glad to see that these were spelled out by the former chef de cabinet of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, Mr. Adrian Fortescue. I do not need to embark upon those because they are spelled out very well, very vividly, in his evidence. I believe that what he has had to say in that respect is very pertinent indeed and I hope that it will be acted upon.
I conclude with the question of the role of the European Ombudsman. It has now been extended to the Third Pillar and the Government are entitled to take credit for the initiative that they took in that regard. It was an excellent suggestion. The Government proposed the amendment and were able to persuade other member states to agree to it. This can be a very powerful incentive to greater openness and transparency.
On this note I conclude as I began, by thanking those who participated in the outstanding work of the committee. I am sure that it will achieve very widespread notice, not only in this country but throughout the European Union.

Business
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we take the Statement on Ashworth Special Hospital, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Ashworth Special Hospital
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
"Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the report of the public inquiry into the Ashworth Special Hospital conducted by his Honour Judge Peter Fallon QC.
98
"This inquiry was established by my predecessor in February 1997 to investigate allegations by Mr. Steven Daggett, a former patient of Ashworth Special Hospital, that there was misuse of drugs, financial irregularities, possible child molesting and the circulation of pornographic material in the personality disorder unit at the hospital. I should also pay tribute to the work of my honourable friend the Member for Halifax who brought this matter to the attention of the Government. She subsequently received threatening phone calls which she believes came from people whose trade in pornographic videos was interrupted by her intervention.
"It is difficult in this short Statement to do justice to the inquiry report which is 473 pages long. The executive summary alone covers 44 pages. So I will highlight the major points in the report.
"The inquiry sat for a total of 66 days, taking evidence from a wide range of witnesses involved in Ashworth Hospital, both past and present. The report presents a shameful picture. The general allegations made by Mr. Daggett were largely true. There were serious financial irregularities, drug abuse, pornography and a poor quality of patient care.
"Mr. Daggett's main allegations referred to Lawrence Ward in the personality disorder unit. A ward within a personality disorder unit, set inside a special hospital, had been repeatedly visited by a seven year-old girl who was allowed unsupervised contact with patients guilty of sex offences against children. Her father brought her into the personality disorder unit and, without let or hindrance, gave her unsupervised access to one patient who had a history of molesting young girls, including indecent assault and attempted rape. She also visited another patient who was locked up in Ashworth because he had kidnapped, tortured, sexually assaulted, mutilated and eventually murdered a 13 year-old boy. I am glad to say that the inquiry report concludes that there was no proof that the girl was abused, but that she was being "groomed" for later abuse.
"The inquiry asked how a young girl could have been allowed to visit such men. It was told that Lawrence Ward was special and that there were not many incidents. All the patients were allowed to roam around much of the hospital unaccompanied. For a time routine searching did not take place. The inquiry was told that the ward espoused the philosophy of a "democratic community".
"I should emphasise that the present inhabitants of this so-called "democratic community" have between them committed murders, manslaughters, indecent assaults, indecent assaults on children, assaults or woundings with intent and a host of other offences.
"The inquiry also concludes that a small group of patients, led by the child murderer, was intimidating patients and staff and had gained a grip on the ward. It also concludes that there was a drugs problem on Lawrence Ward and that it was endemic throughout the hospital, but that there was no direct evidence that nursing staff were involved.

99
"The financial irregularities arose from a shop on Lawrence Ward, from the sale of pornographic materials, including videos, and from people conducting credit card businesses. From the report, Lawrence Ward appears a veritable outpost of the enterprise culture. The father who brought his daughter into Ashworth Hospital also supplied pornographic videos, which it seems he was allowed to deliver by car to the ward without being properly searched. There was a shop on Lawrence Ward which was supposed to sell confectionery and soft drinks. Its turnover, starting at £50 per month, soared to £14,000 between January and October 1996. The child murderer also ran an unofficial shop from his side ward.
"Unbeknown to senior managers, several patients, including Mr. Daggett, had been allowed credit cards. Eventually, when managers decided to end this arrangement, patients were forced to cut up their cards. But they retained the numbers so that they could renew them or continue to use them in phone transactions. Security was so slack that Mr. Daggett managed to change his name by deed poll, acquire a new passport and driving licence and use a credit card to take out a large sum of money prior to absconding.
"The inquiry found that security was so lax that neither patients, staff, nor visitors were properly searched. They confirm Mr. Daggett's claim that on Lawrence Ward the patients' rooms were not properly searched. This was illustrated when a full-scale search in January 1997 revealed a stock of children's underwear in the room of the man who had molested girls and male pornography in the room of the child murderer. Both of them had VCRs used for copying videos. A previous search of the bootroom on the ward had revealed 41 pornographic videos.
"The inquiry set out to find how this deplorable situation had come about and how it had been allowed to persist. What it found out is a shameful story of confusion, indecision, mismanagement and incompetence. Some of the professionals and managers failed to show a glimmer of common sense, let alone live up to the standards of their professions. The whole thing was a mess from top to bottom.
"In the past Ashworth had operated a harsh and repressive regime. Following scandals in the early 1990s the Blom-Cooper inquiry in 1992 recommended a more liberal approach. The Fallon inquiry concludes that these recommendations were implemented without proper consideration of their differing impact on different patient groups in the hospital. As a result, the patients with personality disorders enjoyed most personal freedom and reduced security. The report says that it was quite predictable that these failures could be abused by some of the patients.
"What is clear is that, because of the failure of top management to lay down and enforce clear rules for both patients and staff, security became less and less important. As a result, more and more problems arose but nobody attended to them. As the report says, "all too often the core principles of security were absent".
100
"Nobody was seen to be in charge of the personality disorder unit. That was because nobody—with the possible exception of the patients—was really in charge. The senior management was out of touch. Psychiatrists seem to have been incapable of carrying out their proper professional functions. Management decisions, if known, were frequently ignored by both staff and patients. The internal monitoring system did not work. The members of the board do not seem to have known what was going on. The external monitoring system did not work. Events within Ashworth were not reported to senior officials of the NHS or the Department of Health. Reports into serious incidents were suppressed.
"The Fallon report concludes that the whole system was at fault. I am sure that that is right. But the report goes on to criticise the individuals. I am sure that is right too because so many people at Ashworth failed to do properly the jobs they were paid to do.
"The report criticises a number of people by name. Ashworth Hospital Authority has already taken disciplinary action against some people and some others have left Ashworth. In the case of those criticised in the report who are still employed by the NHS whether at Ashworth or elsewhere, I expect their current employers to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings in the light of this report. In at least one case this report will be drawn to the attention of the General Medical Council and other professional regulatory bodies. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has already commenced disciplinary action in one case.
"The report recommends that Mr. Paul Lever, chairman of Ashworth Hospital Authority, should step down in accordance with the principles of public accountability, and he has done so. Anne Marie Nelson, former chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority and present chairman of the High Security Services Commissioning Board, has also resigned.
"The running of Ashworth and terrible incidents at Ashworth were the subject in the 1990s of a whole succession of inquiries and reports. In 1990 one patient was murdered on Owen Ward and another on Forster Ward. In 1992 the Director of Security carried out security audits at Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton. Her recommendations for greater security at Ashworth were ignored. At about the same time a task force which was implementing the Blom-Cooper report described Ashworth as over custodial. The Fallon report describes the task force's policy as a recipe for disaster.
"In 1993 an inquiry into the women's services at Ashworth (which are not part of the personality disorder unit) produced a damning report. In 1995 there was an internal investigation into a hostage-taking on Owen Ward. The report was 59 pages long with appendices covering 385 pages. Again it was a damning indictment of what went on, but staff were shown only a nine-page summary and so was the official responsible for implementing its

101
recommendations. Neither the Owen Ward report nor the Swan report was made available to the Health Advisory Service before the publication of its review of progress post-Blom-Cooper in 1995. Also in 1995 and again in 1996 patients attacked members of staff with razors. Later that year the discovery in mail addressed to a patient of a machine for embossing share certificates led to an inquiry which revealed security breaches, scams and money-making ventures in the personality disorder unit. Reports were prepared on all these incidents but no machinery was put in place to see that changes and improvements were made, and no one was ever given that task. I am determined that this report will not suffer the same fate.
"The Fallon report makes 58 detailed recommendations. Some cover the operational procedures at Ashworth. I am giving the hospital authority four months to develop an action plan to implement the necessary changes within the hospital and I am appointing Ian Pirnie to chair the authority during this process. Mr. Pirnie presently chairs the Morcambe Bay Health Authority. I expect that he will bring to this task the leadership and management skills that he demonstrated as an admiral in the Royal Navy.
"Other recommendations cover the general role and organisation of the special hospitals and their relationship with the rest of the National Health Service. These will be the personal responsibility of Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of the NHS. I have given the task of ensuring progress on the more general recommendations which apply across government to Chris Kelly, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health. All three will report directly to me and all three will be expected to deliver.
"The inquiry team gave final clearance to its report on Wednesday of last week. The printed edition arrived this morning. It is being published this afternoon. A detailed response to all its recommendations will be published as soon as possible. In the meantime I can say that the Government broadly accept most of the recommendations and I can give an immediate response to some of those which will be of most concern. First, security. The report recommends that security should be given a higher priority; that searches of patients and staff should be introduced; that no visitors should be allowed in Ashworth without being searched; and that there should be regular searches of patients' rooms. The Government accept these recommendations. We give top priority to the safety of the public and we have already taken action.
"All aspects of security have been tightened up. New rules have been introduced. And management are making sure that they are implemented for people entering and leaving the Ashworth site, within the site and on the wards. Further investment in extra security staff is being made from 1st April this year, with an extra £1.5 million going to the special hospitals and
102
a further £4.5 million investment in physical security measures at Ashworth. This means that fully effective searches can be made of all visitors, staff, patients, goods and vehicles, including, where appropriate, x-rays, metal detectors and sniffer dogs. I have arranged for an independent review of all aspects of security including the use of post and telephones at all three special hospitals which will report direct to Sir Alan Langlands. The Social Services Inspectorate will conduct inquiries into the social work aspects of Ashworth and subsequently the two other hospitals, and report direct to me.
"Visits by children. We have already changed the rules on child visitors and gone beyond the recommendations in the report. In September last year we put a stop to child visits to ward areas and visits by children not close relatives of the patients. No visits are allowed unless judged to be in the best interests of the child. All visits by children must be off the ward and must be supervised. Any visits by a child must be by prior arrangement. These rules apply at all three hospitals, and I wish to make clear that anyone who breaches any of these rules can expect to be summarily dismissed from his job.
"The report recommends a review of the whole system of accountability within the NHS and between the NHS, officials of the Department of Health and Ministers, particularly in relation to the special hospitals and more generally. I share some of the inquiry's concerns about the system that I have inherited from my predecessors. I have made clear to the House who is to have personal responsibility for dealing with the various aspects of this report and that they will all report direct to me. That must be just for the present.
"The health Bill which we will be introducing shortly will put in place stronger and clearer accountability arrangements for the whole of the NHS and will end the internal market which has clearly inhibited more active management by the NHS Executive and regional officers. As recommended in the Fallon report, the commission for health improvement will cover the special hospitals. In addition the board of every hospital, including each special hospital, will have for the first time a statutory duty for the standards of treatment and care that they provide; there will be clearer powers for the Secretary of State to issue directions; and new arrangements for commissioning specialised services. I am giving further consideration to the question of overall accountability in the light of this report.
"The inquiry was set up to consider the personality disorder unit, not the future of the whole hospital and its high security psychiatric services. However the inquiry team recommended the closure of Ashworth Hospital. The Government do not accept that recommendation.
"In the policy document Modernising Mental Health Services on which I reported to the House on 8th December 1998, we made clear that we wanted to see a closer integration of the high security services with the other secure services and the reconstitution

103
of the special hospitals as NHS trusts. For the foreseeable future the three special hospitals must continue to be the main providers of high security services. There is no practical alternative in the short term. To announce that the three special hospitals had no long-term future but that they could not be replaced for a good many years would run the risk of making them even more difficult to manage than they are now. In any case I do not believe that the problem at Ashworth is the bricks and mortar. The problem is management and that is what we are determined to tackle.
"The personality disorder unit at Ashworth is not a decrepit Victorian dump. It was purpose built. Work started in 1976 and was completed in 1984. Replacing it with smaller high security units spread around the country would not guarantee better security, higher quality treatment and care or more effective management. Those would still have to be planned, organised and worked at.
"The members of the inquiry team gave a great deal of thought to how best the legal, medical and penal system should deal with people suffering from severe personality disorder. They make a number of very useful recommendations for far-reaching changes. I very much welcome these ideas which will be given careful consideration by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and by me as we develop new and more effective ways of dealing with people suffering from severe personality disorder whether presently in prison, in hospital or the outside world. Public security will be our main priority. The Government will also make sure that the recommendations in the Fallon report are made available to the teams reviewing the Mental Health Act and mental health services.
"The result is that this may lead to change in the role of the Ashworth personality disorder unit, the scale of operations there and how they are organised. It could well mean breaking the hospital up into smaller physically segregated units. But we do not contemplate its closure. We do, however, agree with the inquiry team that a new form of reviewable detention is needed for those people with a severe personality disorder who are considered to pose a grave risk to the public. We therefore announced in our strategy document Modernising Mental Health Services in December that we would be working up proposals that will ensure that the safety of the public is the prime concern and that a new regime is established for this difficult group of people.
"Since the Fallon inquiry got under way, there have been a lot of changes at Ashworth. The process of change has not been without its problems but progress is being made. The quality of the medical staff has improved substantially as a result of new appointments; management has improved; security has been tightened. But there is still a long way to go.
"I should add that, despite the catalogue of disasters accurately outlined in the Fallon report, many of the staff at Ashworth have been trying hard to do a good job. They work in very difficult
104
circumstances. The patients in the personality disorder unit are often highly intelligent and manipulative as well as dangerous. They have to be looked after and checked on 24 hours of every day so that the rest of us can be secure. We owe it to the staff to make a fresh start at Ashworth and to encourage the good staff and management, partly by getting rid of the bad ones. The new arrangements and the new people should deliver a better performance all round.
"A natural question which will arise in the minds of most decent people is, 'How is the little girl getting on?'. I have checked. She seems to be doing pretty well. She is living a settled life and, under a court order, her father has no contact with her. She was being exploited by the adult world. I am determined to ensure that from now on the adult world looks after her instead. I hope that all will respect her privacy.
"Finally, I should like to thank his honour Peter Fallon, and the other members of the inquiry team and their secretariat for the thorough way in which they have gone about their business and the report they have produced. They have done their job. Now it is up to us to do ours".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.22 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this very full Statement which has been keenly anticipated for some considerable time. This inquiry, under the chairmanship of Judge Fallon QC, was established nearly two years ago by my right honourable friend Mr. Dorrell, then Secretary of State for Health, in the light of extremely disturbing allegations of wrongdoing at Ashworth Hospital. It was the strong wish of my right honourable friend that the inquiry should be thorough and that its findings should be published in full. Therefore, I welcome today's Statement and the accompanying substantial documents, notwithstanding their content which, to all of us, can only be a matter of profound dismay. I join the Government in paying tribute to Judge Fallon and his committee for the work that they have done, which has clearly been considerable.
The main purpose of the Fallon inquiry was to review the clinical policies and management of the personality disorder unit at Ashworth. Uppermost in everyone's minds when the inquiry started its work were the apparent woeful lapses in security and discipline at the hospital; and unfortunately those fears have been fully borne out. But leading on from that was the concern shared by many, including my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State, that the reporting chain and the associated chain of accountability between Ashworth and Department of Health Ministers had failed. That aspect of the matter has also been covered in the report and I believe that the conclusions confirm what many already realised.
However, some of the Statement is couched in terms which imply a failure by officials in the Department of Health and by Ministers. I do not believe that Ministers can be held to blame for things of which they were not

105
aware and of which they could not have been expected to be aware. I should be grateful if the Minister will confirm my understanding that the relevant officials in the Department of Health were indeed unaware of the serious nature of the activities which were taking place.
From this side of the House, we support all the report's central recommendations relating to security, discipline and accountability. However, I have a question about the role of the commission for health improvement. It appears from the Statement that the commission will, in the case of special hospitals, concern itself not just with clinical matters but also with matters of management and reporting. Is that a correct reading of the Government's intentions? What will now be the role of the Health Advisory Service and the Mental Health Commission?
The inquiry recommends the closure of Ashworth and the Government have rejected that proposal. I agree with the Government that the difficulties experienced at Ashworth do not relate to the bricks and mortar so much as to other factors. But I believe that they relate to more than just management. One of the comments made by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper in 1992 was that special hospitals are inherently unmanageable. To the extent that that is true, it reflects more than anything the ingrained culture of those institutions which management alone will find it very difficult to change. I do not say that that is impossible, but it is an extremely demanding brief.
I understand the Government's reasons for rejecting the closure option but it must be said that that recommendation by Judge Fallon is underpinned by some extremely careful analysis. To reject such a recommendation creates a heavy degree of responsibility on the Secretary of State's shoulders, as he must be aware. It is a responsibility to ensure that the alternative measures which he has proposed deliver the results that are required. I hope that the Government are confident that the measures to be taken will properly safeguard the public; will promote patient care; and will cure the long-running and intolerable problems at Ashworth. The Opposition stand ready to support the Government in implementing those measures but it really is vital that in the months ahead, the regime at Ashworth should be characterised by effective and transparent accountability. In the meantime, will the Minister say whether staff shortages are in evidence at Ashworth and, if so, in what areas?
At the heart of all this are the wider issues identified in the Statement; namely, the relationship between high security psychiatric care and the wider NHS and the integration too with the other secure services. I do not wish to initiate a more general debate on those matters this afternoon, but I urge the Government to look for new and imaginative ways of delivering the kind of secure therapeutic regime which Judge Fallon has so carefully identified and recommended and which will also overcome the inherent tendency of the present system, in its broadest sense, to hold patients in maximum secure surroundings for longer, sometimes far longer, than need be.
106
I look forward to the Government's further proposals as soon as it is practicably possible to bring them forward.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. There is a huge amount for which to thank his honour Judge Fallon and his colleagues. There is a great deal of meat in the report which most of us have not yet had time fully to digest.
There is a sense of shock and outrage, rightly, which rings through the Secretary of State's Statement. That certainly comes home very keenly to all of us from that Statement. Ashworth's situation was obviously a catalogue of terrible failures. First, I strongly welcome the Secretary of State's immediate proposals in response to the report. Clearly, there are many other aspects of the very long report which need to be considered. In particular, those are a review of security; the involvement of the Social Security Inspectorate; the restrictions on children; better accountability provisions; and also the involvement of the commission for health improvement when it is formed.
However, we know that the Secretary of State has emphasised very strongly, particularly in relation to the closure recommendation, that the problem is essentially one of management and not one of bricks and mortar. I share some of the reservations of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in that respect. It has had three chief executives in six years and I understand that a very able manager, Hilary Hodge, was put in by this Government as chief executive. She was forced to resign by the staff of Ashworth, and it appears to be the case that the staff were at that time, and probably still are, too powerful relative to the senior management, despite a statement about changes having taken place in the management of Ashworth. So we have grave doubts about the continuance of this institution, together with that of other special hospitals. Maybe these hospitals are unmanageable and therefore it needs to be demonstrated very quickly that the culture can be changed and the argument about the closure of Rampton, Broadmoor and Ashworth over creating smaller and more regionally-based units can be overcome.
We on these Benches are prepared to see whether these hospitals have a future. I have some sympathy with the Government's desire to see whether that culture and management can be changed, and in particular whether that can be done not only by changes of staffing and management but also by the physical changes that are being suggested. This can only be done on the basis that proper inspection and review systems are instituted. I ask the Government whether they will be ensuring that the commission for health improvement will have the necessary expertise to carry out this particular kind of inspection.
Will the Government also consider whether there are problems now in the hospital regarding under-staffing in terms of the number of psychiatric nurses available. This obviously goes hand in hand with the question of

107
nurses' pay elsewhere in the National Health Service. We need to ensure that only appropriate people are contained in these institutions, particularly in the light of the Secretary of State's determination to improve security in Ashworth. Will the Government be reviewing these aspects and ensuring that only those patients who are appropriate for this institution are contained within it?
Will they also ensure that the institutionalisation of staff does not occur again? Do the existing staff need to be dispersed? At the very least staff need to rotate through other institutions in the course of their careers. To this end, will the Government ensure that the Prison Health Service is merged with the NHS to ensure that this type of rotation can take place? In that context I ask the Minister: is she able to say when she thinks that the prison service health review will be published? There also need to be continuing education programmes for the staff so that they may be brought into much closer contact with the remainder of the NHS. Clearly the creation of these hospitals as special trusts may be a step in that direction.
In summary, we from these Benches welcome the steps already announced. We have an open mind about the future, but the Government need to be confident that they can make the necessary changes. What is needed is not only a vigorous response, as set out in the Statement, but also vigorous implementation. I ask the Minister whether she will keep an open mind and contemplate the closure of Ashworth if results cannot be achieved in short order. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is an area in which all parties need to work together on a non-partisan basis, to make absolutely certain that these dreadful events never again take place.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken from the Front Benches for their considered responses to the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly said, it was a shocking document. It is a situation that I think we all find devastating regarding the events that have been described.
If I may deal with some of the points that have been raised, I think we are right to put emphasis on the need to make sure that special hospitals will continue to have the main responsibility for providing high security services. However, we recognise that the cultural difficulties are perhaps the most difficult, indeed the most important to address, to provide absolute confidence that these sorts of events will not be allowed to recur.
Perhaps the most important thing in all this is to end the isolation of these institutions. These sorts of events take place when institutions of whatever size are isolated from the rest of the therapeutic health and even prison communities, with which they are meant to interface. I believe that our proposals for ending special health authority status, for making these hospitals into trusts and for ensuring that they have relationships, professional and otherwise, with other NHS bodies will be crucial in all this.
108
In terms of issues like the rotation of staff, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred, these will be made possible by relationships of that type in the future. Likewise, I think that the recruitment of staff, which is always a problem, will be eased by its being part of a wider professional network. There is some evidence that at Rampton, which is beginning to develop these relationships with neighbouring psychiatric and health institutions, they are actually having more success in recruiting staff.
Referring to the matter of staff shortages, the NHS executive and the three special hospitals are undertaking a comprehensive review of workforce issues, and will consider any of the issues raised in the Fallon Report about staffing. There have been, and still are, difficulties about recruiting sufficient staff of the right calibre but, as I say, we expect that position to improve as a consequence of the partnership arrangements between high security services and the providers of other secure services.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the transparency of accountability relationships. I set out in the Statement how we are taking action to ensure that those will be effective and transparent. There are very clear personal responsibilities which are outlined in the Statement for all to see. I agree that it does place an awesome responsibility on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. That is correct, but I think that in taking the steps he has to ensure that until we have the new arrangements in place those people who have been named in the Statement will be responsible to him for the changes which have to be implemented, he is very clearly taking that responsibility on board.
With regard to the issue of whether or not we should contemplate the closure of Ashworth at some time in the future, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think one has to look at the reasons behind the recommendations for closure. It was not a matter of closure for its own sake but it was because of the problems of size, isolation and security. We need to take action on all those fronts.
The noble Lord asked how we were going to ensure that only appropriate patients were admitted to Ashworth. I believe this is a major issue because it contributes to the size and therefore the difficulty of management and the creation of a possible "isolation culture" within the institution. We have in hand action to try to deal with this. There are, for example, roughly one-third of patients at Ashworth who do not need high security provision: they need medium security provision. We are taking action to ensure that such provision is available. Again, we have to look very carefully at the people with learning disabilities who are admitted to special hospitals. We also have to look at the position of women in special hospitals. There is evidence, again, that if we provide dedicated services, sometimes they will need security but it may be medium security and not high security for a small number of patients. We hope it may be possible in some way to deal with the problem by breaking up the larger units into smaller ones.

109
So far as the commission for health improvement is concerned, I would ask noble Lords to await the publication of the Bill to see the exact powers it contains. It will be important that the quality and management of the regime, the delivery of clinical governance, is inspected. Also important is the delivery of the national service framework for mental health in which high security services will have a part to play.
That is not a simple task. It is a complex matter which will involve a large amount of work. There are interrelationships with healthcare and with the Prison Service to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. It is important that we recognise that these are health service establishments. We have to be aware that perhaps a third of the patients within them do not have custodial sentences. I believe that the right direction is to integrate these services into the NHS.
Finally, perhaps I may confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that officials and hence Ministers at the Department of Health were unaware of the serious nature of the events. As the Statement says, events and reports were not reported to senior officials of the NHS or the Department of Health. Reports of serious incidents were suppressed. As soon as they became aware and there was evidence, there was action at the Department of Health, although some of the events have been finally explained only with the publication of this report.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to say a little more about the issue of scale. If I heard the Statement correctly, it stated that that could involve breaking up the hospital into smaller units. In order to help me understand the size, how many patients are in the personality disorder unit?
I share the dismay of your Lordships' House at this disturbing and deeply disappointing report. Among several visits to Ashworth I visited on the day that Louis Blom-Cooper arrived to start the inquiry. Part of our dismay relates to the swing between what the report describes as an over-custodial approach and what is now seen to have been, in some instances at least, a very lax approach. It is difficult to say it in this context, but during my visits I have no doubt that I saw some extremely devoted and skilful staff. I know that morale has been at rock bottom over many years. The task before management today is very great.
The point has been made that there are fine buildings with wonderful facilities. A large institution makes it possible for a wide range of facilities for long-stay inmates. Does the Minister feel able to expand on the break-up of the hospital into smaller units?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the detail of how that might be achieved has to be an issue for the senior management within the hospital. About a third of patients in high security hospitals have a primary diagnosis of severe personality disorder. Currently there are 97 in the personality disorder unit at Ashworth.
110
If we look at the potential for moving into such units patients who could be managed in medium secure units and the development of specialist programmes related to the new form of reviewable detention, those provide possibilities for reducing the numbers in the personality disorder unit. There are also difficulties of size with regard to the type of people about whom we are talking. They are often highly intelligent and highly manipulative. There are self-evident difficulties about managing this specific large group of patients.
My noble friend rightly points out that within the hospital as a whole there are groups of patients other than personality disordered ones. I believe that there is potential for scaling down the size of the operation by making sure that those who need medium secure accommodation are moved into such accommodation. Equally, I believe that services for women and those with learning disabilities give the opportunity for separate management off site.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his remarkable speech? Perhaps I may support his view that this is a matter which should be dealt with on an all-party basis. Does the noble Baroness accept that the essence of making the system work in the future is the inspectorate?
I speak with some experience. I spent quite a bit of my life in high security institutions. It makes no difference whether it is a prison or a hospital. Each inevitably develops its own sub-culture. It is not just a question of management. In our present system management is often totally subservient to staff but it should be impossible for a situation to arise in future about which the ministry does not know. I wholly accept that officials did not know, but they should have known. It was their job to know: it was their duty to know; and if they had known they would have acted.
The only way to achieve that aim is by snap, unauthorised inspections on the spot. I have seen it happen in prison camps; and even that did not always work, but at least such a system stands the chance of working.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's bipartisan approach on this issue. I agree that the quality of the inspectorate and the task that it performs is a vital component in ensuring that we do not have to consider such a report again. However, this is one strand, an important strand. I believe that the accountability arrangements are important too. No inspectorate can be present for 24 hours a day. We have to ensure that management all the way up the line is held accountable; and that the systems for both clinical governance and, I believe importantly, for the regional commissioning of high security services—at regional level they will be another check on the quality of the service delivered—are part of a framework which ensures that a culture is not allowed to develop which takes the institution out of the mainstream.

111
I agree with the noble Lord that the commission for health improvement and other means of inspection are tremendously important but they are one weapon, and not the only weapon, in achieving what we both believe needs to be done.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it fell to me nearly 20 years ago to receive the report on Rampton. The House will remember that a television programme called The Secret Hospital disclosed a horrifying state of affairs at Rampton where, as my noble friend said, there was a classic example of the staff being totally in charge and the management totally incapable of managing.
I wish to address only one question to the noble Baroness. I understand entirely why the Secretary of State is extremely reluctant at this stage to contemplate disbanding the so-called special hospitals. There has been a great deal said—and I agree with much of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend—about the culture that develops in such institutions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, talked about the violent swing from the reaction against over repression to what one can now see was a disastrous policy of laissez faire, if it is fair to so describe it. Those situations can only happen where there is this pattern of isolation.
I have listened with interest and enthusiasm to what the noble Baroness said about what is being done to try to break down the isolation. I believe that such isolation lies at the heart of why these institutions from time to time appear to go so disastrously off the rails to the huge disadvantage primarily of patients but of many others as well.
I ask that Ministers do not close their minds to the view that perhaps institutions of this size in the modern world with all its pressures are, as Judge Fallon said, inherently unmanageable. I recognise all the difficulties of trying to get communities to agree to establish separate smaller units within their own areas. One is very well aware of all the resistances that build up. Nevertheless, what has come through the discussion this afternoon, and I am sure will be in the debate following the report, is the question of how these cultures arise and flourish in the way they do. The answer is because they are isolated. They tend to be self-contained. They contain the problems that the rest of us, I fear, shuffle off onto the special hospitals. That is how these situations occur. I ask Ministers to recognise all the difficulties. In this case there are three large, fairly isolated, separate units very much of their own character containing a wide range of patients with different problems and needing different treatments. Can that ever be the right solution to this problem?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have listened to the remarks of the noble Lord with great care, given his experience in this field. I am sure that he accepts and understands the reasons why we do not have alternative facilities readily available. We do not have guarantees that alternative bricks and mortar would
112
not produce the same cultural difficulties. We have robust plans in hand to end the isolation of these units, and we can see a way of reducing size by focusing on the specific needs of specific groups and ensuring that they can be met. For those reasons we have clearly taken the view that it would not be appropriate to decide to close the hospital at this point, when we are looking at a completely new policy on personality disorder and a completely new structure and accountability for the special health services.
I am sure, however, that we would all agree, having seen this report, that we must keep a close eye on the effectiveness of the arrangements that we put in place and on whether they deliver the higher quality of care and reduce the problems that give rise to this report.
The Blom-Cooper recommendations were taken and applied across the board to all the patient groups within the hospital with very great problems caused by the application to the personality disorder unit where it was singularly inappropriate to relax the security. We do not want to fall into the same trap by applying the answers to the problems of the personality disorder unit—which contains a minority of the patients in the institution—across the board. I believe that we need a more focused and differentiated approach within an overall strategy of reducing isolation, ensuring that we have high levels of security, inspection and accountability.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Third Pillar: ECC Report
4.56 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the distinguished former European Commissioner, I was not a member of the committee which produced the report we are debating. I therefore have no hesitation in giving unqualified praise to my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his colleagues for their work and for tackling this subject with such constructive focus.
I believe that we should banish all illusions that this is a rather obscure and dry matter. It is of massive importance to the way in which our democracy shapes and the way in which we tackle the trends towards globalisation and internationalism which tend to dominate more and more aspects of everybody's lives at all levels.
There are two groups of reasons why we should pay close attention to the report, its recommendations and what we can do to reinforce them. The first is the obvious point which the report makes; that is, that the Government recognise that accountability and responsibility for actions taken under the Second and Third Pillar regime—security and foreign affairs and justice and home affairs—rests in the national parliaments. Paragraph 5 of the report makes clear that the European Parliament has a very limited say, not

113
really amounting to accountability and influence over policy, in the way we believe that it should work. That is no fault of the European Parliament. They were given only very small additional powers under the Amsterdam Treaty. However, this is not a matter where the European Parliament can play much of a role.
When we come to the various different aspects of the new international role developing we shall find that the European Parliament's role in other areas is extremely limited. I do not share the over-optimistic view of some enthusiasts who propound "the third way" and so forth, and that the European Parliament is somehow a model for the future, neither a world government on the one hand nor a national government on the other. I believe that is completely wrong and that the pattern will not be so linear. The pattern of accountability in our democracies will develop in rather different ways. That is a matter to which we must pay acute attention because accountability rests here in the Houses of Parliament, and we must make it work.
The second reason why I believe this is so important is that it is not just a transitional phase. There are some who believe that the Second and Third Pillar are just temporary waiting rooms before the whole area of activities covered, particularly in the Third Pillar, collapses into the community proper and the whole thing becomes "communitised".
The view that this is just part of the road towards communitisation held back by one or two sensitive souls who do not want to go the whole way to supra-nationalism is very strong indeed. One hears that view put forward in a number of quarters. Indeed, it could be argued that some issues have already been transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, reminded us, from the Third Pillar into the full community system, and even one or two issues from the Second Pillar. Some quite considerable and sensitive issues, including those of visas and refugees, have gone into the community system.
It could therefore be reasoned that this is all part of a pattern and that we need not waste too much time on accountability over the matters that remain in the Third Pillar—it is all hurrying along the railway tracks to something different. But that again is a completely wrong understanding of present and future trends. It is a linear projection which once again will not be sustained by events.
I suspect that the future will not be a more supranational or communitised pattern in dealing with these sensitive affairs. They go to the heart of national democratic legitimacy and the world—particularly democracies—will seek ways of reconciling the desire for retained national accountability and keeping the thread of control all the way from the voter up through the national institutions to these activities. They will be reluctant to surrender them to some higher authority governed by some higher model like the European Parliament. The pattern will be much more in the direction of what some American commentators are now calling "transgovernmentalism"—that is a little more than intergovernmentalism; it is a whole arrangement of networks between states dealing with a vast variety
114
of sensitive issues while retaining the elements of national accountability. This is part of that scene. This is not just intergovernmentalism; it is transgovernmentalism and we must make it work. If your Lordships' House is to be reformed, as we are told daily that it is, then it may be that in that new pattern of reform your Lordships' House will play an even more decisive and effective part than it does already. It will presumably be more assertive—for various reasons—than it is already and therefore there may be opportunities for building a still more effective system of calling to account transgovernmental activities.
In another place I had the privilege of working on the committee which gave a great deal of thought over several years to the questions of scrutiny generally, calling to account the activities of the Council of Ministers and, after Maastricht, scrutiny over and the parliamentary input into the policies and proposals which circulated in the Second and Third Pillar areas. It was not a scrutiny committee; it was a foreign affairs committee of the other place. Nevertheless, the matter worried us a good deal and we gave it a great deal of thought.
To give a shorthand conclusion, on which I shall expand in a moment, scrutiny is not enough. The concepts of scrutiny exercised properly and effectively by other committees of both Houses were, and are, not enough to exercise accountability over this area, which is growing, of transgovernmental activity. We felt that it would indeed grow. We believed strongly that it is a vastly expanding area, particularly when we deal with the justice element—the juridical affairs. In that regard we are surveying a world in which the old, clearly defined boundaries of what was a juridical concern in which a national government could exercise some kind of direct accountability and control are being blurred. The simplicities of a world of nation states and activities confined within the territorial limits of those states have gone.
It is not simply a question of facing the fact that there will be constant pressures from centralising forces in other parts of Europe—in Brussels and in other parts of the Commission, despite subsidiarity—and reasonable and rational arguments put forward, which will be hard to refute, for more centralisation, maybe communitisation, of these affairs; it is also that the whole concept of juridical space is changing and being eroded. That makes it more difficult to devise the right and effective means of calling to account what is going on in those areas.
One may ask what sort of things I am talking about. But one only has to think about the globalisation of capital markets and the moves of vast blocks of capital around the world at record speed being involved in all sorts of new problems of regulation far outside the European framework to see that the enforcement of regulation and the whole assessment, control and proper enforcement of laws and rules governing it will require something that goes beyond the traditional nation state limits.
The same applies to information. But one has only to think for a moment of the Internet and the growing difficulty of various national administrations to control

115
movement—whether of trade or of information, some of it poisonous—across the Internet. There is also the sensitive area of immigration where at this moment many people within the European Union take the view that enormous difficulties are arising because the laws of the Italian states on immigration are calling the shots on the entire movement of immigrants inside the whole European Community. The question is, if legislators in different countries want to exert some kind of control over their immigration laws, how do they get a grip on Italian immigration laws which are the ones which decide who gets into their countries?
It is therefore an area which is becoming much more complicated and difficult to police and control. The report comes to grips with some, if not all, of the needs for moving forward extremely effectively. First, as my noble friend Lord Kingsland said, it is a question of the right documents and the right time; early depositing of the right documents. I agree with the implication of the report. In his evidence Professor Birkinshaw supported the fact that it is not just a question of looking at documents which may turn into primary legislation or even looking at documents which may turn into secondary legislation; it is also a question of having an oversight of the continuing stream of papers, memoranda, even ideas and perhaps thinking aloud by national government departments—I will come to a broader dimension in a moment—which may be about to operate in this area with results which will emerge in the Council of Ministers and be turned into policies and measures of various kinds.
So, early deposit of the right documents is also a conclusion to which we came in another place. Secondly, we need an early "inkling"—to use a non-technical word—of what the Government are thinking; in other words, moving upstream from the point where documents start appearing; having a committee which can converse with Ministers and the authorities about ideas that may take shape and move suddenly from being mere ideas into being legislative instruments.
Thirdly—the report rightly refers to this—there is a need again to have an inkling of what other governments are thinking. As the report rightly indicates, this nation may find itself involved rather suddenly in a whole process of law-making and regulation-making, the provenance of which lies in the ideas of other governments way back. Schengen may be a good example of that, though there may be many others as well.
Fourthly—recommendation 22 of this excellent report—it will need legislatures; that is, first and second chambers of the member state countries of the European Union (I repeat, this is not just a European Union question) and other countries to co-operate closely with each other in relation to their experiences and to learn what is coming before their own governments. This may tell them what is on the table. To some extent that is going on. Judges co-operate; courts exchange experience on various judgments on an international level right outside the normal official purview. That is transgovernmentalism; it is a pattern of co-operation
116
between states which does not involve the official government. That is already taking place and is creating an international pattern in these areas.
I close on the fact that the fashionable view exists that nation states are fading away. That is totally erroneous. They are forming new roles. The state is changing its shape rapidly. But when it comes to global problems, it is the state that will be harnessed to their solution rather than any fancy new world level or supranational level organisations.
It is not just the state but also the non-executive parts of the state (of which the legislatures are a good example). We have a role to play in this new interface. There are also—and this has been mentioned by other noble Lords—the non-governmental agencies which are co-operating with each other with increasing intensity and creating a network world as against the old pattern of hierarchies of governments and officialdom. If one wants examples, the world's regulation of banking has been influenced most in the last two years by the Basle Committee, which is a group of voluntary nationals and senior bankers, rather than by the international monetary institutions.
As I have said, it is judicial co-operation between national judiciaries rather than a world court or even (dare I say it?) the European Court of Justice, which is setting the pace in shaping an international pattern of jurisdiction to oversee an increasingly internationalised world.
I believe that the new global order will be held to account not by the supernational parliaments or international courts, but by national legislatures, and that is rightly so because that, and nothing more than that, is what democrats and citizens will tolerate. We have to find the best way of doing this and this report makes a massive and practical contribution to that goal. It does not achieve everything but it takes us a long way forward and I repeat my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his colleagues.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I share the congratulations due to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and his committee. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, whose remarks I found most interesting and I agreed with almost all of what he said. There is a huge contrast between what is for the most part the necessarily somewhat dry procedural focus of this debate and the huge significance of the subject matter because this topic takes us to the heart of the construction of the citizens' Europe, a term I always prefer to "people's Europe", not only in the content (which affects citizens' security and civil liberties) but also in the way that law is made, the degree of accountability, and the right of citizens to participate either directly or through their parliament in making the laws which will apply to them.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the respective roles of national governments and parliaments and the European Parliament. I take the view (not that I necessarily have any bias between the European level and

117
intergovernmentalism) that the intergovernmental method always throws up flaws in accountability. It is much more difficult for 15 national parliaments to keep track of a European executive, but the key is to have a partnership between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right: not everything will be gobbled up at Community level. Those areas which remain areas of national co-operation must go on increasing the techniques and the depth of bringing governments to account.
As a non-member of the European Select Committee, I very much echo the tribute that Justice paid to the fact that the House of Lords European Select Committee reports are widely respected for their expert attention to legal and procedural implications of Third Pillar proposals. I do not like this House being too incestuous but, as I am not a member of the committee and I am quoting an outside organisation, I think I can draw attention to that.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the need to retain such expertise in a reformed second Chamber. Scrutiny of European legislation is very much a function that must be retained and, as I have said before in this House, I know from my time in the European Commission that House of Lords Select Committee reports do carry great weight.
Lord Kingsland drew attention to the fact that the committee was making its report at the time that the Amsterdam Treaty was being finalised and the committee took account of that to some extent. Incidentally, I am not entirely sure why it has taken 18 months to arrange this debate. Perhaps I should have asked that before the debate started, but it is a pity that such a long time has elapsed.
The Amsterdam Treaty changes were considerable in relation to the Third Pillar, partly taking matters out of the Third Pillar and into Community competence in the area of freedom, security and justice. I regret that the UK opted out. I hope that in time our Government will see the advantages of some inclusion. The Amsterdam Treaty strengthened the general principles and objectives of the treaty on European Union in regard to citizens' rights, fundamental human rights, measures against discrimination, and on openness and transparency. They gave a role to the European Court of Justice in relation to the Third Pillar, although regrettably not for citizens to have a direct right of access to the European Court of Justice, and the formal right of the European Parliament to be consulted on Third Pillar matters as well as the protocol on the role of national parliaments. All this was a considerable advance in the Amsterdam Treaty and we look forward to the treaty coming into force.
In relation to openness I did note the remark by Adrian Fortescue of the Commission that in the future, as more legislation is likely to be initiated by the Commission rather than by member states or by the Council and, as the Commission's instincts were more for openness and transparency than were those of the Council, it was more likely that documents would be put in the public domain. I thought that introduced a nice note of competition perhaps in the light of events
118
of this week where the Commission's record on openness and transparency was put under scrutiny by the European Parliament.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive my interruption. I have to say that, although the Commission comes in for a lot of stick, from my experience it has in the past been much more open and transparent in dealing with First Pillar matters than the Council has been until recent years. That is improving, as this report indicates, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested, but I think it is not unfair to say that the Commission has been rather better in terms of transparency than the Council.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for that intervention. As a former official of the European Commission I did not like to be seen congratulating the commission, but I think it is true that, because the Commission is often overstretched, as has been focused on this afternoon, it needs external input and information and so it is rather keen to let people have information documents so that they can get comments and assistance.
The report we are looking at this afternoon brings up two interrelated issues. One is parliamentary scrutiny and the other is secrecy. What the report emphasises is that early and thorough parliamentary scrutiny should be regarded by government as a benefit, not a burden. It is likely to lead to better legislation, and will probably save time, energy and possibly expense later on. I understand from the remarks made by noble Lords that the current Home Secretary and his staff at the Home Office may by now share this view rather more than they did in the past, and that is all to the good. Certainly the report on the Schengen acquis that we debated in November contained correspondence on differences of opinion as recently as last February, if my memory is correct, over whether the Home Office had interpreted correctly the criteria on making documents available.
Today's report shows a gap in the past between promises and practice which needs to be rectified; for example, adding a new unilateral criterion from the Home Office side such as whether the text had to be reasonably close to the final version. We look forward to that reticence being removed. The introduction that we look forward to in the Amsterdam Treaty of a formal scrutiny reserve and a minimum six week period for scrutiny is welcome, though I must confess that I am unclear whether this applies to member states' proposals as well as to those from the Commission and whether it applies to all third party matters. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten me either today or at a later date.
I turn now to secrecy. It is vital that any definition of "confidentiality" should be interpreted narrowly. I welcome new Article 191 A in the Amsterdam Treaty (I believe it is now 255) which confers on citizens a right of access to European Parliament, European Commission and European Council documents. Rules and limits on this right of access are to be drawn up by the Council and the European Parliament under the

119
co-decision procedure. I hope that those limits will be narrowly drawn to meet real operational and security requirements. The public interest should generally be defined as openness and not as secrecy. To me, that is the definition of the public interest.
I am wary of the declaration accompanying Article 191A that allows one member state to block the communication of a document in the possession of the Council or the Commission if the document originated from that member state. Perhaps the Minister could also indicate how that is likely to work and tell the House whether there will be any limits on that right of veto. But those rights of access lie in the future. At present, we have a wholly unsatisfactory situation where there are tiers of inclusion with the public at the bottom. At the top are governments and their civil servants, some European Union civil servants, followed by national parliaments and the European Parliament, pressure groups and then the public.
According to Justice, the Home Office never distributed Third Pillar texts or explanatory notes and claims to be constrained by the 1993 Council decision. It was left to your Lordships' committee to decide whether to let the advisory groups have the document in question. It surely cannot be right to put the onus unfairly on Parliament to be a gatekeeper. It seems to me that it draws Parliament into a web of "clubiness" and—dare I use this term?—cronyism which I find rather distasteful. It makes third party access a lottery. A pressure group or a member of the public has to know if the document exists, and then hope that the committee is carrying out an inquiry on it, before access to the document can be gained. I do not see how that can be acceptable. Therefore, I hope that the rules drawn up in future by the Council and the European Parliament will end that culture of secrecy and put access to documents on a true basis of citizenship rights in the spirit of a European freedom of information charter.
I have one further comment and question about the publication of Third Pillar initiatives in the Official Journal. The Amsterdam Treaty says that this will happen, but I am rather unclear as to how it relates to the protocol on national parliaments, where, as I said, it refers only to Commission proposals being sent out to national parliaments. In other words, will there be publication of all Third Pillar proposals, whether they come from the Commission, the Council or member states, bearing in mind the fact that national parliaments only get sent those from the Commission? That would mean that the public would get more than the national parliaments.
In this transitional phase, between where we are now and the Amsterdam Treaty, it seems to me that there is another complicating factor; namely, that last March, under the UK presidency, Justice and the Home Affairs Council declared themselves in favour of making available to the public proposals in the field of justice and home affairs at the same time as these were made available to the European Parliament. There was no mention of national parliaments in those presidency conclusions. I wonder whether national parliaments at present in this transitional phase will also get those proposals.
120
I turn now to my conclusions. It is possible that I am confusing your Lordships as much as I am confusing myself, but I believe that we have a number of anomalies which need to be ironed out. It is one of my conclusions that we need strong co-operation between national parliaments and the European Parliament so that whatever rights apply are aligned. There is one further anomaly that I have noticed; namely, that national parliaments will be consulted on common positions under the Third Pillar where the European Parliament is not. That means that there is a whole network of people with different information.
I began by saying that I was concerned about the rights of all citizens, but I also mean all residents. I say that because we have non-citizen residents in this country—third country nationals—as in other member states. In terms of black and Asian ethnic minority citizens, we have anecdotal evidence at least (which was highlighted in the evidence to the report on the Schengen acquis) of discriminatory behaviour experienced by ethnic minority Britons travelling in the European Union. There are also the rights of third country nationals with rights of residence in this country but who are not citizens of the European Union, which by analogy are less.
I hope that the provision in the Amsterdam Treaty about combating discrimination on the grounds of race will be exploited by the Council in order to increase the security of black and Asian citizens and third country nationals who are ethnic minorities so that we end the situation of two or three classes of people in the European Union.
I conclude by saying that, for the third time in a debate on European matters, I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. On the two previous occasions I believe that the noble Lord expressed himself in considerable disagreement with what I had said. However, perhaps this will be third time lucky.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I shall not disappoint the noble Baroness. It is not so much a matter of disagreement; indeed, it is the fact that she starts from a quite different position from mine. My sole interest in these matters is how Britain is governed and how its citizens benefit from the form of government that they enjoy. The noble Baroness's interest is based on the assumption that there are persons called "Europeans" who live at the grass roots and are creating a new world. I cannot go into that because, as I said, it is very remote from my own interests.
I read the report now before the House with great interest. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his colleagues on making clear, with some difficulty to a limited mind, what the problems are in relation to this particular question of Parliament and the so-called Third Pillar. It is perhaps typical of your Lordships' House that this report has had to wait for a year or more to be considered and that a good deal has happened in the interim; and, indeed, may happen quite shortly if and when the Amsterdam Treaty comes into force. I must

121
say that it is a little blurred. I believe that a general member of the public might find even the notion of three pillars a little difficult to assimilate.
I have always thought—and think so now more than ever—that it was a great and obvious mistake of this country to agree to any pillar, any set of measures, relating to justice and the law. We have in this country, along only with the Republic of Ireland, a system of common law that we share with the United States and certain countries in the Commonwealth based on an entirely different set of principles from those governing the majority of Continental European legal systems which are in their origin at least Napoleonic, if not earlier. I cannot see how they can be married effectively and see no reason why they should be. Why should there be an approximation of laws and procedures in courts which is not found necessary for the transaction of normal human relations with other countries not in the European Union, though many of them are, of course, in Europe geographically speaking? Therefore, it is extremely difficult to visualise what advantage the citizens of this country can gain from that particular approach.
The most interesting and novel part of the report was the description as to how the conventions, or agreements, which are to eventuate in some form of primary or secondary legislation are arrived at. On reading the description of the five levels at which matters are considered, it seemed to me a matter that is difficult to assimilate for those who are brought up in the British tradition of government, where there may be consultations, a White Paper and a legal text. One knows who is responsible for it. One can ask questions and argue in this House and another place about its validity, and it is a matter that the public can understand. But when one reads that texts are produced only at a late stage, following an agreement on principle without a text, one begins to think—if I may refer to the interruption to our debate—that there is a culture in Brussels more peculiar than the culture that apparently exists in the secure accommodation unit at Ashworth Hospital. There are ways of doing things that suit some people and may not suit others.
I wish to put an important point to the Minister. It must have cost a great deal of Civil Service time—particularly that of members of his own department, but also in the other departments involved—to engage in these discussions. If those energies had been available to the Minister's department for dealing with internal problems, which he has admitted exist in relation to, for example, asylum seeking or immigration, would not the department have been in a much better position? In other words, should not the manpower costs figure in our consideration of European affairs as much as the financial costs, which look like being brought rudely to our attention by the German Government during their presidency?
It is therefore difficult to see that much can be done by Parliament in these circumstances. It is difficult to see how the greater, or earlier, circulation of documents on which the report lays great emphasis will have an input into a system of this kind. If the Government are
122
prepared before embarking on any of these endeavours to seek advice from Members of this House or another place, through the European Committee, for instance, it is always open to them to do so. However, we should be asking a lot of our colleagues on the European Committees—it is many years since I have served on one; the Whips have seen to that—to take responsibility for, as it were, prodding the Government from time to time.
It looks as though by far the most important part of a common policy is that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, with whose remarks I find myself almost wholly in agreement. I refer to the problem of the movement of people, whether seeking refuge for asylum or as part of what looks like becoming increasingly a movement of peoples motivated by the perfectly legitimate wish to better their economic position. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that under the Amsterdam Treaty that matter will now be dealt with at Community level. We come to the very familiar problems of how one handles Community legislation and how the opinions of Parliament are made manifest towards it.
So we are in a situation in which one could easily take the points made by the witnesses to the committee and others and say: yes, of course it would be nice if one had the documents in time, and to have an opportunity to think about them. However, I suspect that that is secondary to the real question of how we are to tackle the serious problems that are before us.
It was conceivable that the answer would not lie with national parliaments but with a European parliament of some kind. It seems cruel to talk about the European Parliament this week, when it is once again in the process of showing itself up as a toothless dragon. If we still had, as was the case, a European Parliament representative of the national parliaments, not of an apathetic and uninterested electorate, perhaps there would have been some scope for advance along those lines. We do not have that, and we are unlikely to return to it. All one can say is that when one looks at Europe, defined as the Union, and when one thinks of the opportunities that it has thrown away—particularly in regard to embracing, as looks increasingly improbable, other countries in Europe outside the original core—one can only be sad. And sadness is what comes to my mind whenever I think about the European Union.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by reiterating what a number of other speakers have said regarding the importance of the topic covered by the report. I am a member of Sub-Committee F, but joined the committee only after my noble friend relinquished his position there, although I served under his leadership in the Conservative Group in the European Parliament. It is a position to which I hope to return. (I daresay that will horrify my noble friend Lord Beloff.) The "apathetic electorate" have no part in having placed me here and are about to turf me out, so they may feel inclined to the idea that I may contribute something there.

123
The report approached the subjects under consideration, dealt with under the aegis of the European Union and the Third Pillar, in terms of a series of specific issues. I wish to stand back and view the scrutiny process as a whole in the wider political context of the European Union system of international relations here in Western Europe, and in a manner somewhat similar to that adopted by my noble friend Lord Howell.
For reasons that were not planned, a great deal of my political life has involved the consideration of matters relating to the Community and subsequently the European Union, and from a number of different perspectives. Over that time, I have become convinced of a number of relatively simple points. The first is that science and technology, telecommunications and improved transport mean that, increasingly, countries will have to work together over a wide range of topics. We live in a world where at present there is effectively a seamless transition in a number of areas between what traditionally might have been called domestic political matters and, in contrast, what were traditionally known as foreign affairs. In practice, the traditional demarcation between them—indeed, the distinction between them—has more or less ceased to exist. I believe that the vast majority of our citizens accept this and recognise that we have to work together to provide a coherent legal framework across more than one national jurisdiction. As part of this, I believe it is recognised that a satisfactory process for taking political decisions is needed. This, in turn, inevitably involves sensible give and take. What is equally clear is that a large number of people are, to a greater or lesser extent, unhappy about the systems which are in place for doing this. I suspect that the single greatest reason for this unfortunate state of affairs is that it is widely felt that there is inadequate democratic control and scrutiny of what is going on and that it is not backed up by consistent and even-handed enforcement in the areas where these joint decisions are taken.
The European Union system clearly involves two different but parallel ways of doing business. First, the old Community system has developed, involving significant Commission and European parliamentary involvement. More recently we have seen the development of an intergovernmental system which, after Amsterdam, will have some European parliamentary involvement and which in practice does have some peripheral Commission involvement.
It is important that we distinguish this way of doing business from traditional, classical diplomatic intergovernmentalism, from which it is obviously derived and with which it shares certain characteristics. I believe that this is a new development and should be seen as such. It is distinct from the way in which sovereign states did business together traditionally.
In the case of the Community system, even after the Amsterdam provisions come on to the statute book, and certainly in the case of European Union intergovernmentalism, the member state governments are, in my view, the single most important element in the decision-making process. As has been pointed out
124
by my noble friends Lord Kingsland and Lord Howell, it follows that the greatest instruments of scrutiny and accountability are the national parliaments.
If one looks at the theoretical basis of the way decisions are taken in the European Union, there is clearly a strong linkage between the Council of Ministers and their equivalents in the Second and Third Pillars, and national parliaments. One of the big difficulties, however, is the perception that there is a lack of success on their parts in achieving adequately comprehensive scrutiny and accountability. This in turn is at the root of much of the major concern which there is in this country and in other countries in the Union regarding the way in which the European Union system operates. Whether or not one is a supporter of a particular way of doing business, it is nonetheless damaging for democracy in general and for individual countries if there is an erosion of confidence in the way in which government is carried on.
In this country the natural focus for political debate is set in Parliament here in Westminster and, in particular, in the Chamber of the other place. If one looks at the way in which European matters are debated in Parliament, traditionally there is relatively regular debate regarding high profile political events and issues as they occur. I think, for example, of debates about the conclusions of a European Council. I am of the view, however, that, because the "devil lies in the detail", it is not these to which much of the public's concern is addressed. For example, if the European Union decides that it should have an asylum policy between its member states, that is clearly a matter of constitutional significance. As far as many citizens of these countries are concerned, however, at that point it is essentially an abstraction. What matters is the detail of the policy itself and the way it affects real people in a tangible way.
If I might be allowed to use United Kingdom parliamentary terms, I believe we are perceived as having plenty of second reading debates but hardly any committee and report stages. Indeed I noticed, as my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, noticed, that the report we are discussing this afternoon was ordered to be printed on 31st July 1997. That is a date in the calendar which is etched in my mind because it is my birthday, and I can assure your Lordships that I feel a great deal older now than I did then.
If this assessment is correct, quite clearly it has a whole range of serious implications, which I have neither the time nor the expertise to go into now. I would like therefore to turn to the Kingsland report itself and to try to amplify it, if I can, by some of my own experiences in Sub-Committee F.
In terms of transparency, accountability and basic democratic answerability there are a series of identified weaknesses in the way in which the Third Pillar operates. It is a matter of satisfaction—and I say this not in a grudging way—that the Government have responded positively to a number of the points contained in that report. When there has been political debate about treaty changes in the past, governments of both political parties have emphasised the qualitative political

125
differences between items which are dealt with under the Community system and those which are dealt with under the Second and Third Pillars. They have expressed their view that these distinctions justify the entirely different way in which they are dealt with under the auspices of the Union. I am certainly not one of those who decry European Union intergovernmentalism. On the contrary, I am very much unconvinced by those who argue that the Community system, with its developed role for the Commission and the European Parliament, is appropriate for all business taken at European Union level. On the other hand, I have to admit that many of the proponents of intergovernmentalism seem to have the worst of all of the arguments that I have heard canvassed.
I should like to add my support to the very important proposition made by my noble friend Lord Howell about the changing nature of the nation state in the world as it is now developing. It is important to be clear, however, that the European Parliament is not a supranational substitute for national parliaments in watching over European Union business. On the contrary, it is complementary. There is a very considerable degree of community of interest between them. I believe that the scrutiny process in particular would be substantially strengthened if that were more widely recognised on both sides.
In discussing European matters reference is often made to the so-called democratic deficit. There are certainly a number of areas where, by our standards, there do seem to be deficiencies in the way the Union works. One such is focused on the way in which the Council of Ministers meets and the fact that it is held in camera. There are good and fair arguments on both sides, but I hope that I have illustrated by my remarks this afternoon that it is not only in the instruments and the institutions of the Union that one might find ways of achieving the proper scrutiny of matters conducted at a European level. As has already been mentioned, national parliaments have an extraordinarily important part in this process, where we have seen certain developments outlined by the Government and where I believe there is a great need for further expansion in the future as appropriate. Sadly, if one looks across the range of what is currently being dealt with at a European level, it is arguable that the worst deficiencies are to be found in the intergovernmental activities of the Third Pillar.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the incorporation of the Schengen acquis. I have to confess that the word which springs to my mind when considering what has happened is "fiasco". It seems to me that it could be accidental to sign a treaty and for a parliament to introduce the necessary legislation for some agreement where there might have been a misunderstanding about the meaning of the words. But surely it is careless and reflects no credit on anyone involved, ourselves included, that in this instance we appear to have signed up to something in which the words themselves have not been properly identified. There is a salutary lesson to be learnt from that episode.
126
It is the nature of the European Union that any business conducted under it and any political debate about it is always under the shadow of the next IGC. We know that before too long there will be a further inter-governmental conference, dealing with matters of enlargement.
I conclude by asking the Minister the following, in the hope that when the Government consider treaty changes in the future they will specifically take into account the need for a thorough scrutiny of matters dealt with at European level by national parliaments. I ask that when they consider those matters they spell out and explain the implications of what is involved, the general constitutional grounds, what the financial implications might be, or how it affects the convenient conduct of government business. They should also specifically take into account how the matters they wish to be dealt with at the European level can be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny by parliaments in all the member states.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that if and when the Government do that, just as they deal with these other matters, they will be able to spell out in terms to this Chamber and the other place, precisely how they assess those things.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with much interest and mounting apprehension. When one hears the anxieties about justice and home affairs under the Third Pillar which have been expressed by a number of noble Lords who are not exactly noted for their Euro-scepticism, one is perhaps entitled to be fearful of the extent to which those vital areas of our national life are already influenced more than they should be by Brussels.
I intervene briefly to underline a general point about our parliamentary scrutiny of proposed European legislation which has not yet been fully made this evening. The point is that there are large areas, such as all of our industry and commerce which are covered by single market legislation, and such as our environment—there are large areas of our national sovereignty where even the famous scrutiny and reports of your Lordships' House may have little or no effect because, even if the Government agree with your Lordships' findings, they can themselves be outvoted in the Council of Ministers. The proposed takeover directive comes to mind in that respect, as does the droit de suite. The former risks virtually destroying the mergers and acquisitions system in the City of London, and the latter our art market. Aspects of the water directives perhaps come to mind and, of course, our old friend fraud, where the Community has consistently ignored the blandishments of the British Government which have been widely inspired by your Lordships.
Those regrettable situations where we have sold the pass makes this debate and the Minister's reply this evening all the more important. The British Government have not yet ceded our sovereignty over justice and home affairs to the qualified majority vote in Brussels.

127
Justice and home affairs are still largely decided by intergovernmental agreement. In other words, we still have the veto.
If the Government therefore follow the recommendations of this excellent report, particularly that in paragraph 59, they will do much to preserve that sovereignty where it belongs, which is here in the British Parliament. I say that because, as other noble Lords mentioned, paragraph 59 recommends that the Government should accept a formal scrutiny reserve in the areas under debate. I think that that still means that the Government would not agree to any proposal under the Third Pillar in the Council unless the scrutiny reserve had been lifted by our parliamentary Select Committees. One might, just in brackets, add that it would be quite a good idea if the same suggestion could be made for the common foreign and security policy. But that is not the object of the debate this evening.
I put it to the Minister that if the Government do not intend to accept that form of constraint, he should come up with some way of guaranteeing that the will of Parliament will be able to prevail over that of the Executive in decisions taken in Brussels under the Third Pillar. I look forward to his reply with much interest.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this debate has been enriched by well-informed and thoughtful speeches by noble Lords with particular knowledge and experience of European law-making and parliamentary debate and scrutiny: the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with his great experience in the European Parliament and here, and my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, distinguished in the foreign field. There was the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, a former successful commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, a former official of the European Commission, my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, a distinguished parliamentarian. We heard from the eminent editor of the Federalist papers, and former Gladstone Professor, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who always adds a great deal to all debates in this House.
We are here on a rainy, windy dark January afternoon and it is difficult, on an occasion like this—as my noble friend Lady Ludford pointed out—to bring an apparently dry subject to life and explain why it is important. Even if it is not read by the rest of the world, this debate will tend to illuminate rather than obscure the main issues.
Perhaps I may say for myself what a pleasure and privilege it has been to serve on a sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on a subject of real practical importance to the peoples of this country and Europe. He may not thank me for saying so because it may bring him into disrepute in some sections of his party, but I pay tribute not only to his experience and skill but to the commitment he showed when we were doing our work during a difficult time. In the political climate of the time, which we tend to forget was of a deeply divided government and a soured political atmosphere about Europe, he managed to give us leadership. As a sub-committee, we were not divided
128
in any way between Europhiles and Europhobes. We were not divided by political party, we served without any rancour. I believe that the report, to which I contributed only a small part, served Parliament very well.
As has been pointed out, the report was concerned with enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the way that international treaties are made and their content, under the auspices of the European Union and its institutions. All noble Lords agreed, and it is obvious that there is a need to respond to the democratic deficit, the want of parliamentary control over the executive, whether it is the British Executive or the European executives. It is especially topical for us to debate this now when the Westminster Parliament is devolving, and has devolved, legislative powers down to the Scottish Parliament, down to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and when there is widespread public concern about the proper role of the United Kingdom Parliament in being able to call the United Kingdom Government and the governments of Europe effectively to account.
It is essential to ensure that what governments do on the international plane is effectively scrutinised by the Westminster Parliament and other national parliaments in partnership with one another and in partnership with the European Parliament. It is essential for the executives to be called to account nationally and trans-nationally. The report observed in its introduction that Parliament owes a duty to the public to ensure that Ministers are made fully accountable for their actions in the Council, that matters falling under the Third Pillar can have serious implications for the rights and freedoms of the individual. Parliament must ensure that its procedures for monitoring work under the Third Pillar are effective. I have listened to your Lordships during the debate, and everyone agrees with that basic principle.
There is often a great deal of time-wasting, excessive flattery and self-congratulation in this House. I will not add to it, but I would like to say that it is true that this House and its European Communities Committee, chaired by Lord Tordoff, and the sub-committees, really have been in the vanguard of promoting more effective scrutiny of European Community legislation, as well as British delegated legislation, than any other legislative body across Europe. It is a matter of great satisfaction that what we do is read with admiration right across Europe. I very much hope that, when this House is reformed, those attributes will be properly safeguarded.
It is a most welcome change that the present Government have endorsed the modern democratic principles of transparency, consultation and parliamentary accountability upon which the Kingsland Report is based. In the Labour Party Manifesto, there is an undertaking to overhaul the parliamentary process for scrutinising European legislation. As someone who is not a member of that party, I would say that the Government have done so. They are fulfilling that commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that he was particularly concerned about how this country is governed. I am sure that he did not mean to say that he

129
was not equally concerned that the rest of Europe and the other countries of Europe should also be well governed. He said that he opposed the Third Pillar on justice and home affairs because of some conflict between what he called the Napoleonic justice system and the tried and tested system that we know so well, of common law. I think that he suggested that you could not marry the two together, that it was somehow a question of oil and water.
I disagree. The underlying principles of justice and respect for basic human rights—as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, knows better than anyone, as he is a distinguished historian of political ideas and thought—spring from British 17th century political thought and from the age of the European enlightenment in the 18th century. It is true that there are major procedural differences between the civil law and common law but, as someone who has had to learn to swim in a different legal environment since I joined the Bar in 1963, I and my colleagues have learned that the two European courts—much attacked by Europhobes—have worked well in partnership with national courts, one dealing with justice under the treaties of the European Communities and the other with human rights. Members of the British legal profession—Scots, English and Northern Irish—with different legal systems, have worked well together. We have worked well together with our colleagues in European countries. I believe that the new generation is well placed to work within European law. Our senior courts have proved at least as competent as any in Europe in interpreting and applying European Community law. If one looks beneath the surface differences between the different legal systems, one finds common principles.
I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that mutual assistance is vital across countries for policing, for countering serious crime and terrorism, and for enforcing criminal and civil justice. National territorial jurisdictions cannot in isolation from each other work successfully. Not only is there a vital need for co-operation and assistance between and among national courts: that need is vital also between and among national governments and between and among national parliaments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as the noble Lord was good enough to mention my few remarks, I wonder if he will give way.
I do not think that I indicated otherwise in my remarks. All I would say to the noble Lord is that I do not see why you have to have the absurdity of the European Union to reach that excellent collaboration.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, of course I am one of those who does not regard the European Union as absurd. If one starts from that premise, obviously the conclusions will be vitally different. The point I emphasise is that transnational co-operation within the European Union and beyond is essential in the modern world.
We on these Benches welcome the Government's response to the 29 conclusions and recommendations made in the Kingsland Report. The first Government
130
response was in November 1997 to 22 of those conclusions; the second was in November 1998. As I think all noble Lords have said, overall the response given by the new Government has been very positive and satisfactory.
We are delighted that in the Government's initial response the Home Secretary emphasised the Government's commitment to the principle of greater openness. Mr. Straw also said that he wanted to give Parliament the fullest possible opportunity to examine in detail draft European Union legislation on justice and home affairs matters before it was adopted by the Council of Ministers. We greatly welcome this. We are also glad that the Government have agreed to treat all Third Pillar documents as documents depositable for scrutiny. They have given an assurance that exceptions to this rule will be rare. It is enormously encouraging when compared with the ice age that was broken on 1st May two years ago.
It is vastly encouraging to note that the Government have refrained from making distinctions between the various types of documents that will be subject to scrutiny, particularly because Third Pillar documents take several forms—that is, conventions, agreements, joint actions, joint positions, decisions and recommendations. We are pleased that the Government have made a commitment to interpret the exceptions for confidentiality and secrecy narrowly.
We also welcome the Government's commitment to providing a detailed and speedy report on the activities of the Justice and Home Affairs Councils. It will provide Parliament and the public with a very useful way of staying abreast of new developments.
Looking beyond the European Union—and I am very glad to see the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Bridges, in their places as I know that both of them are particularly interested in this subject—there is a need for broader parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty-making function. International treaties, with both European Union and non-Union countries, cover a multitude of subjects—from air transport to the environment, from human rights standards to defence obligations—and many have a knock-on effect for our domestic legislation.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that one cannot change private rights or obligations under our legal and constitutional system except through legislation approved by both Houses of Parliament. I see, therefore, no menace in the Third Pillar or in the treaty-making function provided that that principle is always adhered to, which I believe it is.
While the making of an international treaty is done by the executive under prerogative powers, there has been concern in many countries about democratic accountability. Many countries in the European Union and the Commonwealth have adopted much better procedures than we have for working in partnership with government when they make treaties. Under the European Union we now have a very good system—which is getting better as a result of the response of the present Government—of scrutinising what is being done in public international law by governments under the

131
Third Pillar. But we do not yet have a good system for doing the same thing with international treaties and conventions that go beyond the European Union.
I introduced a Private Member's Bill a couple of years ago—the Treaties (Parliamentary Approval) Bill—which the previous Government were kind enough to treat benevolently. As a result, we have an explanatory memorandum procedure under what is called the Ponsonby Rule. But we still have no treaty scrutiny committee in this House or another place. We have explanatory memoranda but that is not good enough. Australia is well ahead. The Australian Senate has a well developed treaty scrutiny committee. I very much hope that the Government will build on the work of their predecessors and support the idea of a treaty scrutiny committee that can work in the wider field.
In short, we welcome the Government's response both to this report and to that of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. Further work needs to be done on how best to tailor the scrutiny procedures of this House to those of another place to ensure the effective co-ordination of scrutiny activities and greater accountability in treaty-making activity both within and beyond the European Union. But without reservation we welcome the general approach and commitment of the Government to enhancing parliamentary scrutiny.
6.11 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the members of his committee on this excellent report and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today. We on these Benches give a very warm welcome to the report with its emphasis on transparency. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightfully pointed out, the United Kingdom gives as great a scrutiny to European Union legislation as any other member with its Select Committee and six sub-committees. Having served on Sub-Committee C I am aware from witnesses of the respect in which the reports of the Select Committee are held within the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has also made reference to this.
In its consideration of Third Pillar matters Sub-Committee F is particularly close to the legislative process of the Union. It is all the more important that it is afforded every facility to do its job as effectively as possible. Predictably, we have heard a wide spectrum of views on the state and future of the European Union. But the recommendations of this committee are very largely of housekeeping. It is pleasing to note the remarks by several speakers about the co-operation of the Home Secretary and his department, although I do not necessarily agree with the geological interpretation of the events of 1st May put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. However, we look forward to hearing from the Minister further confirmation of the progress of the assistance that is being received.
The recommendations include a suggestion that the Government should provide explanatory notes to the committee at the early stages of legislation. My noble friend Lord Howell has taken this a little further and
132
suggested that it is very much a matter of the Government taking the committee into their confidence both as to their intentions and, just as importantly, the intentions of other member states. Another recommendation is that it is most important that the committee should be kept informed of subsequent developments in the drafting of legislation. Several noble Lords have referred to the five levels and the complications that can arise with presidential and Council interference at that stage. The provision of agendas in advance of meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council and detailed reports of those meetings afterwards are all very welcome in assisting the committee in its work.
We appreciate that there are aspects to do with such matters as policing that must remain confidential but, as paragraph 76 of the report of the committee makes clear, exceptions for confidentiality and secrecy must be strictly interpreted. In the light of that, we urge the Government to bear in mind continually the need for a presumption in favour of transparency. We very much welcome the proposal for an ombudsman and the valuable role to be played by non-governmental organisations.
Therefore, we are very much in agreement with the recommendations of the committee for an even more effective role for itself and hence for Parliament. I again congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his committee.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a masterly report and I hope that the Government have responded fully and generously, as most noble Lords have indicated. I congratulate both chairmen of the committee that has produced this excellent report. I hope that we have demonstrated fully by our response that we believe in strong and effective parliamentary scrutiny which is essential for the proper conduct of government business. This is true of all government business, European as well as domestic matters. I am grateful for the tributes to the Home Secretary. I am just as grateful, if not more grateful, for the tribute paid to the work of the officials which is laborious, unsung and generally done outside the public eye.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I believe partly to tease me, asked whether the officials would have been better occupied attending to domestic matters. It is very rarely that I can tease the noble Lord back by suggesting that that is a shade over-simplistic in these days. As regards the appropriate conduct of our affairs perhaps I may cite a few examples: asylum; immigration; law and order; international crime; money-laundering; and drug dealing. All of those matters must be dealt with in the wider European context. We would fail hopelessly in our domestic duties if we did not encourage and empower officials to deal with their European colleagues. I shall say no more about the noble Lord's point.
I can fairly say that no major point in the report has not been favourably accepted by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, points out,

133
very full responses have been made by the Home Secretary to deal with most of the questions that have been posed by noble Lords: one in November 1997 with an undertaking to reconsider and take matters further and a final letter in November 1998. I do not believe anyone can suggest that any proposition put forward by the committee in its report has not been carefully attended to. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said—I am happy to endorse it—virtually every proposition has been agreed to. Those that have not are largely ones not within our present gift.
We have a very good system in your Lordships' House—it is probably the best—of scrutinising European business, but I agree that historically the system has not always kept up with new demands and changing circumstances, as the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Howell pointed out. We must be constantly alert to the fact that we are dealing with shifting circumstances and therefore must alter our procedures accordingly. That indicates the timeliness of this report and the Government's response to it. It was our manifesto pledge to overhaul the system of parliamentary scrutiny of European business, and I am grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we have delivered on that. The report makes a number of very important recommendations, virtually all of which we have accepted. Many relate to the scrutiny of the Third Pillar. Those were implemented in 1997 and we believe that they are working well. Some recommendations had implications for business outside the Third Pillar, which is why our response was dual: one in 1997 and one in November 1998.
There has been debate in another place. Relevant changes to the system were put in place at the end of the previous parliamentary Session. I shall deal with a few of them in a moment or two. An important one is that the European Scrutiny Committee in another place (recently renamed) now has the remit and work of scrutinising all European business including Third Pillar business. I concede that this was essential to remove the anomaly that the elected Chamber had no role in scrutinising the Second or Third Pillars. A scrutiny reserve resolution now applies to all three pillars of European business. Subject to very narrowly defined exceptions, that prevents Ministers from agreeing in Council to any measure on which parliamentary scrutiny has not been completed. That gives the parliamentary scrutiny body an extremely important power.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked, with particular reference to paragraph 59, what was the Government's response. That is set out fully in Jack Straw's letter of November 1998, but perhaps I may quote from it to assist your Lordships. It states:
"The Government agrees that it is essential for parliament to play an effective role in scrutinising the Third Pillar. The Government welcomes adoption by the House of Commons of the proposal of the Modernisation Committee to amend the scrutiny reserve resolution so that it extends to the Third Pillar".
I believe that the following words are those which the noble Lord wishes to hear:
"The amended resolution now prevents the Government from agreeing any Third Pillar proposal until scrutiny has been completed. The only exceptions to this rule would be those specified within the
134
resolution itself; that is, that the Minister considers that the proposal in question is confidential, routine, trivial or the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has already been completed or for other special reasons".
I am happy to give that reassurance, which I hope is helpful to the noble Lord.
The scrutiny reserve resolution—and this topic has been raised by several noble Lords—now applies to all three pillars. Therefore, we cannot agree in council with any measure until scrutiny has been completed.
An improved system of reporting to Parliament on the preparations for and outcomes of justice and home affairs Councils is now in place. Those are extremely important changes, some of them quite fundamental. I am happy to reiterate that the Government have excellent relations with the committee and that we intend to maintain and build upon them. I entirely agree that one achieves a better product, to use the jargon, if one fully co-operates and listens to other views. Obviously the obtaining of the views of others depends on the provision of information to them at as early a stage as possible and in as full a manner as possible.
We wish to continue our excellent relations. We are extremely grateful for the work that the committee has already done. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, invited me to set my reply in the context of the Amsterdam Treaty. I am happy to do that. We welcome unreservedly the treaty's provisions on openness. We look forward to ratification by all member states. At the moment of course, in the nature of things, we cannot unilaterally implement the provisions but we are extremely keen on two aspects: to encourage openness among some of our European partners who have not perhaps the same two-year tradition of openness that we have; and I undertake that in so far as is sensibly possible, we shall keep the committee and/or your Lordships' House fully informed on progress there.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked further whether or not all proposals that were ever tabled would be put to Sub-Committee F, including proposals relating to secondary legislation. Yes, we undertook to supply all proposals to the sub-committee in our reply to it. I know that the noble Lord knew that and simply wished me to inform your Lordships of it.
The noble Lord asked also about agendas. We are committed to sending agendas of JHA Councils in advance. There is a difficulty—and this is not a fudge—in sending the agendas of supporting committees. There are so many of them; they meet so regularly; I could not undertake to be able to provide them all in time for proper scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about the agenda for the Tampere Heads of Government Council in Finland in October. It is early days. We do not yet know what is being proposed. We intend to contribute fully to the discussions leading to decisions about the agenda, which should be useful. However, I cannot give any further detail at this stage. Your Lordships may not find that surprising as October is a little way away.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis raised questions about the European Parliament possibly supporting the domestic Parliament here, helping in its scrutiny role.

135
The report recommended that national parliaments and the European Parliament should explore together the possibilities for mutual support. That is not a matter for the Government to take further. If there are any particular views about co-operation between the domestic legislature here and the European Parliament, we should look favourably on them. In an endeavour to be helpful, I should say that the Scrutiny Committee takes evidence from whatever source it pleases.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked also for guidelines about deposited material. We have amended Standing Order No. 143 in another place and that therefore, applying to your Lordships' House with similar effect, gives that clear definition.
The question was raised also by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis about the minimum period for parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Amsterdam provides that. The scrutiny reserve resolution gives the Scrutiny Committee a good deal of power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to paragraph 115 of the Select Committee's report. I believe that it is conclusion 29 but it is not identified as such. However, I understand the point which she made. The response to that is found in Jack Straw's letter of November 1997:
"The Government agrees with the view expressed by the Committee in paragraph 115 … that it is important for there to be an opportunity for early Parliamentary scrutiny of proposals under the new Title. The Government's view is, however, that the United Kingdom is unlikely to wish to participate in the majority of such proposals. It accordingly suggests a modified procedure, whereby all proposals under the new Title would be deposited, but a full Explanatory Memorandum would be produced only in the following circumstances: … in the case where, at deposit or afterwards, the Government decided to participate in the proposals; or … where the Committee considered it necessary to request an Explanatory Memorandum, such requests to be made within one month of deposit of the proposal".
The dual proposals provide the opportunity for the Government to take the initiative or, if the Government do not take the initiative of offering an explanatory memorandum, the committee would be able to require it.
The noble Baroness raised a further question which related to the minimum period for parliamentary scrutiny and whether or not that would apply to proposals by member states, the Commission or third parties. We believe that the minimum period should apply to all proposals from the Commission and from member states. The question of third parties may be a matter of legal interpretation under the Amsterdam Treaty. However, that is our plain stance.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, observed that having Council meetings in camera as a general practice is not desirable. He recognised the obvious need for secrecy in some circumstances. That is entirely consistent with our approach. Some meetings will have to be kept confidential. Some do not need to be. We support greater openness in Council meetings wherever possible. I welcome the recent development that the first ever open debate held at a JHA Council was held under the United Kingdom presidency. So it can be done, given goodwill and a certain amount of persuasive effort.
136
I hope that I have dealt with at least all the themes which have been enunciated if not every specific question. The Government are very grateful for the report. I hope that we have demonstrated that by action and not simply by words. Personally, I was extremely grateful for the quality of the debate which your Lordships have provided.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to say for the first, but I hope not the last, time in the life of this Government that I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply to this debate. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. Your Lordships' contributions have greatly enhanced the usefulness of the report. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government of Wales Act 1998 (Housing) (Amendments) Order 1998
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will undoubtedly recall Section 140 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. By that section the functions of Tai Cymru, including its regulatory functions, were transferred to the Secretary of State on 1st November 1998. I think this ought to be a non-controversial order. It is made under powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Act of 1998. It is designed for one purpose only, to close a loophole in the landlord and tenant legislation which arises by virtue of the transfer of the functions of Tai Cymru to the Secretary of State for Wales.
The order preserves the status and rights of tenants of residential buildings acquired or disposed of by the Secretary of State in the exercise of functions previously exercised by Tai Cymru. Specifically, it would allow the Secretary of State to offer assured or secure tenancies to housing association tenants if it proved necessary for him to do so by virtue of Part III of the Housing Associations Act 1985.
The Secretary of State's intention to lay an affirmative order to correct this was acknowledged in the Notes on Clauses prepared for the Lords stages of the Government of Wales Bill, in which a number of your Lordships took part. By virtue of current legislation the Secretary of State cannot offer secure or assured tenancies. This cures that difficulty. It amends a number of pieces of legislation to protect the rights of tenants who find their tenancies have been taken over by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his functions in relation to the regulation of registered social landlords.
I have to say that it is very unlikely that the Secretary of State would ever have to exercise these functions. When the functions were transferred to the Secretary of State from Tai Cymru, Tai Cymru held no tenancies. Indeed, at no time between its creation in 1989 and the

137
transfer of its functions to the Secretary of State on the 1st November 1998 did Tai Cymru ever hold tenancies under the powers in Part III of the Housing Associations Act 1985 or by virtue of any other powers. I repeat therefore that it is very unlikely that the Secretary of State would have to take over housing association tenancies or otherwise grant assured or secure tenancies, but we have to bear in mind possible interested tenants and we are simply providing for that eventuality, as we promised in the Notes on Clauses which I mentioned earlier. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
6.33 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his exposition of the order. It was indeed considered by the Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place on the 10th December, and generally agreed to be non-controversial; and so it is, within its own fairly narrow terms and in so far as any order which changes primary legislation can be non-controversial.
However, there are a few points I should like to raise and I feel justified in doing so since neither this House nor the other found much time or inclination to discuss the all-important subject of the future development of housing policy and housing action in Wales during the passage of the Government of Wales Act. I hasten to add that I am not seeking to initiate a general debate on housing: that would be totally inappropriate.
However, it would be helpful to us to know just how the substance of this order, which inserts the Secretary of State for Wales into the three Acts referred to, relates to the Government's plans for the devolvement of responsibility for housing to the national assembly of Wales. During the discussion of the order in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, said that although it was unlikely that the Secretary of State would need to exercise the default powers available to him under the Housing Associations Act of 1985, they should be available to him, "or later the assembly", he added. Indeed his last words to the committee were to the effect that these responsibilities would be transferred to the assembly. I could not but notice that the Minister did not make much reference to the assembly. Can he confirm that it is the Government's firm intention to transfer these powers and responsibilities to the assembly in due course? Perhaps he could expand on the likely future path of housing policy evolvement.
I am sure the Minister will appreciate our concern as to how various parts of the housing jigsaw will fit together in Wales. Any light that he can throw on this, including the role of the local authorities, who also have their housing responsibilities, would be helpful and enable us to see this order in its broader context.
I am sure that the noble Lord will also appreciate the degree of concern about the timing and, indeed, the purpose of this order. As I understand it, the functions of Tai Cymru: Housing for Wales, were taken over by the
138
Secretary of State, as the Minister said, on the 1st November last year and this order comes into effect on the 15th January this year while the assembly comes into being in May. It seems slightly odd to be transferring powers and responsibilities to the Secretary of State—and that is, after all, what we are doing in spite of the somewhat euphemistic terms of the explanatory note at the end of the order—at this late stage. That is particularly so when Parliament has been told that Tai Cymru never required these powers because it had no housing association tenants throughout its existence and the Secretary of State is most unlikely to have any either, except conceivably in the event of a housing association's financial failure and the failure of the Welsh Office to make adequate arrangements for an alternative landlord.
We are not quite clear as to why we have to have this short-lived order. Of course, as the Minister said, there is a gap in legislative provision which we were told about in the Notes on Clauses for the Government of Wales Bill. We were told that that gap would be filled by an affirmative order; and that is the order before us. However, we have no illusions. This order is indeed a stop-gap to deal with a situation most unlikely to arise and is in any case to be superseded in a matter of months by another order transferring the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State to the assembly. Am I right in this or is a longer timescale anticipated for that transfer? That might indeed be the case if, for example, there were to be a wholesale reallocation of housing powers between the assembly and the local authorities requiring fresh primary legislation, but there is no reference to such legislation in the Queen's Speech. I am also aware that other measures, unspecified, might be laid before us, and so that comment of mine is purely speculative. Is the real explanation for this order possibly that powers cannot be transferred to the assembly without first passing through the Secretary of State for Wales?
To conclude, in so far as the order enables tenants of registered social landlords, including housing associations, to retain their security of tenure, and, where applicable, rent control should their homes be acquired by the Secretary of State, the order is very welcome. The Government have already decided to abandon Crown exemption from landlord and tenant legislation in this instance, and it is difficult to see how they could do otherwise without lessening the rights that tenants previously enjoyed. I very much hope that the Minister can answer in particular the point about the Government's future intentions with regard to transferring these powers and responsibilities to the national assembly of Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the order has been described as non-controversial, and from these Benches I welcome it. It is pleasant to see that the provisions of the Government of Wales Act are being put into effect and that the necessary transfers are taking place.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked about the machinery. As I understand it, this order is a staging post on the way to transferring responsibilities to the assembly which will itself determine housing policy within the constraints of the existing primary legislation that affects the remainder of England and Wales. It is an

139
interesting illustration of what I have always regarded as a fundamental flaw in the Government of Wales Act: that primary legislation will remain in the Westminster Parliament and cannot be altered or amended by the Welsh Assembly. That is unlike the position in Scotland.
It looks as though this order is the first of many such alterations to primary legislation which will have to take place at Westminster in order that the powers and functions can be properly transferred over to the assembly. However, even with that qualification, we welcome the order.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I confirm to them, although they use different language, that it is indeed a staging post. It is entirely consistent with what I said on many occasions from this Dispatch Box: that during the interim various responsibilities were to be lodged with the Secretary of State because of the interim nature before May.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is quite right. These powers will transfer to the assembly. They will be part of a general transfer order. Subsequently—the noble Lord is right again—where there are other providers of housing for tenants they will determine their housing priorities within their own areas, whether those areas are geographic or specific to tenants.
One needs to remember that the order applies only to registered social landlords: that is, housing associations. There is no deep ploy to alter housing policy when the Assembly takes over. The Assembly will determine its own priorities and will decide whether or not it wants discussions with local authorities about the provision of housing in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is right. Primary legislation will not be able to be amended by the Welsh Assembly. I cannot give a timescale on transfer. It depends entirely, as it should, on the friendly co-operative agreement between the Assembly and the Secretary of State. I think that I can put it fairly in this way. The Secretary of State is simply a custodian and a trustee of various powers and responsibilities which by virtue of the Government of Wales Act must be transferred to the new assembly, I think to the general agreement of most of your Lordships' House.
The reason that we need to take these powers for what is likely to be a relatively short period of time is that we cannot leave some tenants in the limbo of uncertainty. After all, the home that one occupies is so central to one's life that there should not be uncertainty. I hope that I have made it plain that these powers are unlikely to be used; and if there is any worry or uncertainty the powers are available to the Secretary of State in circumstances which are virtually impossible to arise. I hope that I have assisted your Lordships. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Violence on Aircraft
6.43 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further measures they propose to deal
140
with crimes of violence on board aircraft; and how they intend to ensure that those found guilty of such crimes receive appropriate punishments.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I must declare a partial interest as a director of a small airline operating mainly inter-island flights in the Channel Islands. I am glad to say it is only a partial interest, as, so far as I am aware, the airline has never had an incident of the type we shall discuss in this evening's debate.
If one walks down the street and sees a fight outside a pub, one can cross to the other side of the street or turn back and avoid it. Furthermore, the chances are that the police will arrive within minutes. In a thin metal tube at 35,000 feet there is no escaping, and that is one reason why violent and disruptive behaviour aboard an aircraft is so alarming and threatening to innocent passengers and flight crew alike.
There have been a number of disturbing incidents reported in the press in recent months, and I shall refer to some of them, but I do not want this debate to cause undue alarm among the travelling public. The vast majority of flights are trouble-free, but because there seems to be no centralised reporting system of incidents it is not possible to say whether there has been an increase or not, bearing in mind the continual overall increase in air travel.
My first question therefore is whether it would be possible for either the DETR or the CAA to formalise one system of reporting which could then lead to scientific research into the causes and seek remedies for the problem. Secondly—I refer to the second part of my Question—there are inconsistencies in the way offences are dealt with. In one case involving disruptive behaviour on a British charter aircraft and where a diversionary landing was made in Spain the offender was dealt with there in what can only be described as a token manner, receiving, I believe, only an overnight stay in jail. In what seems to be a similar incident, where a diversionary landing was made to eject the troublemaker in Portugal, where he was arrested, he was then tried in Coventry Crown Court and received 18 months—in my view a quite appropriate sentence. But why the difference?
The industry needs the Government to support the right of airlines to report incidents to the police in the UK and to encourage other states to take powers to ensure that offenders receive proper punishments when UK airlines report incidents overseas. On that point, noble Lords may recall that I introduced the Civil Aviation (Amendment) Bill in this House in 1996. This, unusually for a Private Member's Bill, became law and allowed for the first time offences committed on board United Kingdom-bound foreign registered aircraft to be tried here. I understand that it has been a success and a number of offenders have been dealt with who would previously have got away scot-free. I believe that the Government are trying to persuade other countries to take similar powers, and this is to be welcomed. I should like an assurance from the Minister that foreign offenders arrested here are dealt with in the same way as a UK citizen would be, and—convenient though it might be—are not just sent packing after a token night in the cells.
In a very serious incident recently involving an Airtours flight in Spain a stewardess was seriously injured by being hit on the head with a bottle. The offender, who was British, was bailed. He jumped bail the first time in early December and was only persuaded to return to Spain by the Daily Mirror and was again bailed to appear on 18th December. I understand that he did not appear on that occasion either, and his present whereabouts are unknown. Meanwhile the stewardess is still recovering from her injuries, but it looks as if the offender is quite likely never to be punished for this horrendous attack. While I am no expert on Spanish law, it appears to me that it is simply not taking this case seriously. In this country I would like to believe, in particular as the offender already had a criminal record, that he would have been brought straight up before the magistrates and either sent down by them or remanded in custody to appear before the Crown court.
I know that the Government take this matter seriously, as does the airline industry, and that a number of initiatives are under way. A disruptive passenger action group has been set up at Gatwick. An ACPO working group has been formed to consider police powers at airports and the adequacy of legislation and sentencing in relation to offences committed at airports. The Government have held meetings with interested parties and have announced a number of initiatives. This is all to be welcomed and no doubt the Minister will expand on that in his reply. Further, I very much welcome the proposal that the air navigation order be amended to make it an offence to interfere with crew members carrying out their duties. One problem seems to be that offences under the ANO are not arrestable by the police excect in certain circumstances, and I believe that this new offence and the existing offences of endangerment, drunk on board, etc. should be made arrestable offences. Will the Government do that? If it requires primary legislation the Minister can be assured of support from this side of the House.
I said earlier that research needed to be done into the causes of these incidents. How many, for example, are drink related? Airlines should refuse boarding to passengers who are drunk and should not serve those who are drinking excessively. I know that they try to do that, but it is sometimes easier said than done. There is also the problem of people drinking their own supplies of drink rather than those offered by the airlines. Unfortunately there seems to be a breed of holidaymaker these days which regards being permanently plastered as essential to having a good time.
Other incidents can be smoking related, and I suppose here again I have a vested interest. Smoking may not be that serious, but tampering with the smoke detector in the lavatory certainly is. I wonder, I know controversially, if the airlines were to reconsider their ban on smoking in all sections of the plane, that might help.
An airline can, of course, refuse to carry a passenger again who has behaved badly, but it is much more difficult for the industry generally to set up a blacklist, for reasons of data protection and so forth. It is also probably not possible for the Government to endorse such a blacklist.
142
Nevertheless, will the Government at least ensure that that subject is included on the agenda of an ICAO meeting so that it can be discussed internationally?
Lastly, it is essential that the airlines give the best possible training to their staff to deal with these incidents. It is also vital that the airlines give all necessary support to their staff who have been involved in incidents. It can be an alarming experience to have to appear as a witness in court opposite someone who has behaved in a violent manner towards one. The best counselling, the best lawyers and the best support are the least the aircrew can expect from their employers.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Government and the industry are working together to tackle this unpleasant problem, and I look forward both to the debate which is to follow and to the Minister's reply.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is to be congratulated on the opportunity he has given the House of debating a problem which, as he said, is causing increasing concern to the airlines, the CAA and the police; that of violent and disruptive passengers on aircraft entering or leaving the United Kingdom, whether or not it reaches the threshold of criminality presupposed in the Question.
There is common agreement that such incidents have increased enormously over the past few years, though statistical information about the extent of the problem and its causes is lacking. The CAA has a system of mandatory occurrence reporting covering all incidents which have a potential effect on flight safety, most of them involving disruptive passengers. The criteria for reporting are laid down in CAP 382, The Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme—Information and Guidance, but the decision on whether to report a particular incident rests with the operator. The CAA tell me that due to the subjective nature of the assessment by reporters of the seriousness of incidents against the criteria, reporting thresholds are not consistent but vary considerably between one airline and another. Subject to that proviso, 104 incidents of disruptive behaviour by passengers were reported under the MOR scheme in 1997.
Another way of looking at the problem is to ask how many prosecutions of disruptive passengers there were at the main UK airports. According to the police at Heathrow, who gave me this information yesterday, of the 63 cases brought in 1997, 25 were of drunkenness, eight of endangerment of flight safety, two of failing to obey a command, seven of smoking in a prohibited place and 21 of affray. However, the cases that are brought to court form only a small fraction of the number of incidents of disruptive behaviour dealt with in Articles 55 to 59 of the Air Navigation Order. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, stated, those are not arrestable offences because they carry maximum penalties lower than the five years' imprisonment mentioned in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
In answer to a Question on 19th November, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told me that the Government had no plans to increase the penalty for endangerment or to

143
make the other ANO offences arrestable. Only in the case of affray would the police have had the power to detain the passengers who committed the offences that came to court from Heathrow. In all the other cases, either the CAA or the CPS would have to decide later whether to prosecute. The CAA say that it is desperately difficult to investigate such incidents when the witnesses are dispersed and crew rostas make it hard to arrange interviews. They quote a recent case where the decision was taken not to proceed because the incident took place on an outbound flight from Manchester to Tenerife when the crew were based in Dublin, most of the passenger witnesses lived in Lancashire or Scotland and the accused lived in Bristol, which was where the law said the case had to be tried.
The CAA also say that offenders escape justice by giving false addresses because they have no access to personal databases from which the individuals can be traced. Therefore, if one looks at the cases which come to court, one is missing a large number which are dropped because of such practical difficulties or because the facts do not appear to the CPS or the CAA to satisfy the public interest test for prosecution.
At Gatwick in 1997, police were called to aircraft on about 120 occasions and prosecutions ensued in about one-third of those cases. It would be interesting to know why no charges were brought in the rest of the incidents. The Gatwick police tell me that they are rarely called to the departure gates, though ground staff have instructions, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, pointed out, not to allow drunken or disruptive passengers on board and the police are the only people qualified to make a professional judgment on whether an individual is drunk. One can understand the reluctance of staff to antagonise a person who may already be exhibiting aggressive behaviour. Perhaps authorities at airports could give some thought to the idea of having video cameras at departure gates linked to the police so that they could observe suspected offenders.
It now seems to be agreed by the police, the airlines and the Minister, Dr. John Reid, that we should seek ways of recording more accurate information about the extent and causes of disruptive behaviour by passengers. I understand that at a meeting held between the Minister, the airlines, the police and the CAA on 25th November it was decided to set up a small working group, chaired by the DETR, to examine incident reporting and the commissioning of research into the causes of disruptive behaviour.
Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, it would be a first step for the airlines to agree to report all incidents in a standard format while ensuring conformity with the Data Protection Act. British Airways, for example, have voyage reports dealing with any events which, in the opinion of the captain, should be drawn to the attention of the management, including low level disorderly behaviour by passengers. As a next stage they have air safety reports which may be specifically about disorderly behaviour. Under the latter heading there were 350 incidents in 1997, which I believe was a 400 per cent. increase over the previous year. Britannia, which has a similar system of reporting, had 331 incidents in 1997 and Airtours had 70. Therefore,
144
it can be seen that the number of such reports is much larger than either the number of reports under the MOR scheme or the number of prosecutions.
It may not be too difficult to look at those air safety reports and ensure that all airlines followed an agreed set of rules so that the reports could be aggregated and compared between airlines to see whether any of them had developed techniques for prevention which appear to be more successful than others.
Airlines had already decided, at a meeting of the UK Flight Safety Committee on 3rd November, that they would pool the information they collect and decide exactly what should be recorded. Presumably the task of working out the detail is now entrusted to the DETR chaired working group. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us the deadline for reporting and whether their findings will be made public.
Another point of agreement seems to be that prevention is better than cure. That is exemplified by the UK Flight Safety Committee's Conduct 99, an initiative designed partly to minimise the number of incidents. The airlines have agreed to review the training of their staff in conflict management; to review their policy on serving excess alcohol and dealing with drunk passengers, and to adhere strictly to the rule that drunk passengers should not be allowed to board aircraft.
It was decided that clear notices should be displayed in any area serving alcohol within an airport that it is an offence to board an aircraft while drunk, and that such passengers will not be allowed to board. It was also decided that training should be given to those who sell alcohol in airports in relation to dealing with drunk passengers. Those two recommendations are addressed to the British Airports Authority, though it was not clear whether or not it attended the meeting. Could we be told whether BAA accept the idea of notices, not just where alcohol is sold, but also at the departure gate? Will it be asked to add an obligation concerning training into tenancy agreements with retailers selling alcohol? Also, what does BAA think can be done if a salesperson notices that someone is the worse for wear?
The UKFSC list also includes recommendations addressed to those promoting travel. It proposes that literature should be responsible, particularly when it concerns holidays for younger age groups. Details of unacceptable behaviour should be given in literature, it says, and the CAA has already distributed 10 million pamphlets on unacceptable behaviour, with airline tickets. The pamphlet tells passengers that if they are guilty of drunken or disorderly conduct, they can face a £5,000 fine or two years in prison, or both.
All those latter recommendations concern the abuse of alcohol, either directly or indirectly, and subjectively one would say that a great many of the more serious incidents are fuelled by alcohol. Barbara Ellen, the Observer columnist, reported an incident she witnessed on a flight home from New York last week in which a drunken passenger punched his girlfriend in the face and headbutted one of the pilots, then tried to get out of the plane through one of the emergency doors at 30,000 feet. Amelia Gentleman wrote in the Guardian

145
of 5th September about a passenger who drank a quarter of a bottle of whisky before getting on the plane then when she was refused further alcohol on board kicked, headbutted and bit members of the crew. In another Guardian report, by Sara Hall, a drunken passenger smashed a vodka bottle over the head of a stewardess, and raked the jagged edge over her back causing injuries that needed 18 stitches. I believe that was the incident referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in his speech. The Daily Mail of 17th November reported a drunken father and son on an Air 2000 flight to Malta causing such a brawl that the captain had to lock himself in his cabin and divert to Milan. In the Mail on Sunday of 8th November, Christopher Leake reported on a drunken passenger who went berserk on a BA flight to Capetown after being told not to smoke.
In spite of that and a great deal more anecdotal evidence, examples of which are summarised in Alcohol Concern's On a Wing and a Beer: Alcohol Induced Sky Rage, there is a tendency to play down the role of alcohol, portraying it as one of a large number of factors which may cause disruptive behaviour. The Minister himself, Dr. John Reid, says that alcohol abuse is not the major cause of misbehaviour, while recognising that there is a lack of reliable information. He thinks it would be wrong to single out alcohol-related incidents for particular attention.
One of the reasons for that attitude may be that most people drink and do not like to admit that what they see as a harmless and agreeable habit may be the cause of enormous problems in our society. Nobody would dare to suggest that airlines should be discouraged from serving endless free drinks or that people who do not drink should not involuntarily subsidise the passengers who do. If the more serious incidents which come to the attention of the media are related to alcohol abuse it would be irresponsible not to pay special attention to them.
We should bear in mind, also, that when incidents are reported or are the subject of prosecutions, alcohol may well be a factor, even if it is not the main heading. Thus in the Heathrow police figures mentioned, drunkenness was the charge in 20 out of 41 cases, but may well have played a role in other cases where the charge was under one of the other Navigation Order offences. In the Flight Safety Committee's survey of disruptive passengers during August 1997, 186 incidents were reported, of which 55 were directly concerned with drunkenness; but, for instance, how many of the 74 who smoked when forbidden had been drinking as well? I hope that in the standard format of reporting which is to be adopted, the staff will be told to assess the offending passenger's alcoholic state, whatever the main reason for the report may be.
We are living in an age of violence and, as Professor Helen Muir of Cranfield University says, when aggressive and violent behaviour occurs on the streets, at football matches and in schools, it is not surprising that those incidents occur on aircraft as well. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said, the potential for such an incident to lead to the loss of 400 lives in a jumbo flying at 35,000 feet makes this behaviour
146
literally intolerable. I hope we shall hear from the Government that a more vigorous policy will be pursued against "sky rage", and that we shall seek the co-operation of other governments in adopting measures that will cut the risk in their jurisdictions as well.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, it is fortunate that my noble friend Lord Brabazon asked this Question. I do not want to be repetitive, but we all know that violent passengers are a menace to the safety of an aircraft as well as a serious disturbance to fellow passengers and airline staff. "Air rage" is becoming a serious matter and the public are wondering what can be done about it and how it can be done. I sincerely hope that this evening we may come a little closer to the solution.
My specific interest relates to the concern shown about the matter by the Air Safety Group, of which I am president. Also, the Minister and I have had a little correspondence about it. From the published reports of incidents, drink is the main problem, and a lot of drinking at airports and on board an aircraft is due to stress. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned how we live in a violent world. It is an unfortunate sign of the times that, though we live in a world with so many means of making life easier than it used to be, life has become more hurried; impatience sets in at any and every delay, particularly in transport, because of stress. That is but one example; human nature being what it is, there are many others. We can sympathise because many of us know what it is like. But, when we see the results of disruption on aircraft, we see the necessity for some law to act as a deterrent with its threat of legal action.
Last year, on 22nd July, Mr. Tom Brake—the Member in another place for Carshalton and Wallington—raised the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government adopt the US Federal Aviation Administration ruling that no liquor should be consumed on board an aircraft other than that provided by the operator either as a complimentary drink or purchased as part of the bar sales. The Minister, the right honourable Glenda Jackson, replied that she did not see how that could be enforced.
At present airlines have to provide their own arrangements for dealing with violent passengers. There again we see that, were a definite law to be enforced, it could produce a reduction in the number of passengers being tempted to let their feelings of frustration or fear—such as when a passenger is taking a first flight—get the better of them. The cabin crew would be confident that they had the power of law to back them up.
When drink is the main source of the problem, there are two likely reasons. First, the passenger may be under the influence of alcohol bought as pre-flight drinks; secondly, alcohol other than that purchased at duty free shops may be brought on board and consumed. Many airlines do not specify the weight or size limit of hand baggage. Arguments over what can and cannot be taken into a cabin can be a source of aggression against the crew by a passenger who has already had the proverbial "few". A warning in relation to the limits on hand baggage should be printed clearly on each ticket and not just included in a mass of small print.

147
On 3rd November 1998, a seminar was held by the United Kingdom Flight Safety Committee. Among the salient points raised were the limitations of the powers of control by airline staff. There is a difficulty in gathering evidence in a moving environment where crew and passengers disperse in a hurry and are unwilling to be delayed, particularly where the process falls under a foreign jurisdiction. Existing legislation was not designed to cope with the advent of the disruptive passenger, for which there is no specific offence. Many public order offences only allow arrest at the time when the offence is taking place. By the time the aircraft lands, the action is likely to be over and the arrest cannot be made.
A policy of zero tolerance by airline operators has been suggested. This could be dangerous. Combating violence with violence may result in cabin staff committing offences, inviting legal action against themselves. No airline staff or police are free from law breaking. Last Sunday the Mail on Sunday had an item whose headline was "Captain accused of pilot rage on BA jet". The case was that one of the passengers thought there was something wrong with the aircraft, left his seat just before the plane was going to take off and tried to get into the flight cabin. The captain had to force him back to his seat, but the passenger has been attempting to sue British Airways.
To sum up, the problem seems to require two solutions: a definite law to act as a deterrent and to help airline staff, and an investigation into sources of stress where air travel is involved. In any crowded airport there are many examples of this. What is needed is clear guidance for staff with an accent on the needs of aircraft commanders, the support of airline management, the support of security forces and also—and this is important—the education of the public as to its legal responsibilities. I look forward very much to what the noble Lord the Minister has to say.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, like others of us, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon for asking his Question tonight. He was perhaps a little modest in defining his locus standi, but so be it. Apart from the directorship he mentioned, I recall him as a respected aviation Minister and also one who on retirement (if that is the right word) devoted himself to taking "the Brabazon Bill"—the Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act of 1996—through this House. By doing so he addressed the very problem of air rage, or at least one element of it.
I referred to a problem, but my noble friend's question leaves definition of that problem rather open, have the benefit of advice from the Board of Airline Representatives in the United Kingdom, from British Airways, from British Midland, from the Civil Aviation Authority and from Virgin Atlantic, but in a way I have only scratched the surface. What about the Association of Chief Constables, or BAA Plc, or indeed other privately owned airports, or the municipal airports, or the British Transport Police, or BALPA, the pilots' association, whose President, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is not with us this evening?
148
I could have listed many more parties to this problem but prefer to turn to the numbers—statistical information, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, called it—not an easy subject nor easy data to come by. Is the problem one quantifiable by media coverage, where several rather violent issues, which have been mentioned by other noble Lords, have been highlighted while the coverage of road rage seems to have declined? The numbers seem to conflict. BA reports 260 incidents in the year to November last. Around 81 per cent. of these were smoking related, which I think has a bearing on the discussion we have had about drink. This suggests to me that, when drink and smoke and then drink and smoke are replaced by drink and then drink, the problems posed increase out of all proportion.
In addressing the problems of air rage, perhaps we should consider how people's behaviour changes in a non-smoking environment, we should consider stress, as has been mentioned. We should consider the UK Flight Safety Committee's figure of 168 incidents compared with the British Airways' figure of 260 incidents which I have already mentioned. Perhaps we should be looking at how to examine the alleged 400 per cent. increase in air rage incidents (a four-fold increase, but from what?) alleged by the magazine Air Transport World. In other words, I believe we should put knee-jerk reaction on hold until we have defined the problem. Only by doing so can we begin to address the issue. Before we tackle where we are going, we must define—and again noble Lords have said this—the point from which we are starting.
Having defined the problem, we can move on. Rightly or wrongly we have taken the first step, and I congratulate DETR on doing so. Using my knee-jerk reaction allusion. I hope we make progress in a more measured way, establish the problem and then address the solutions. Firstly, is air rage a long-haul or a short-haul problem? Is it a scheduled service or a charter problem? It has been mentioned that holiday-makers want to have fun from beginning to end. Is it an international or a domestic problem? Is it absolutely and only a drink-related problem? I very much doubt that. After all, I am sure that all noble Lords who have spoken will agree that they have seen boorishness on buses, on trains and on ships, none of them notable for their free refreshment policy.
Secondly, we need a defined method of reporting incidents. Again that has come up. We are largely in agreement so far tonight in many respects. We have to have a defined method of reporting incidents. I have already mentioned the difficulty of defining numbers. Thirdly, we need to address enforcement and legislation through police initiatives, through black lists, but I understand that there are civil liberty and data protection implications. It does seem to me that they are the same for another problem we have—football hooliganism—and I wonder if the two could not be addressed in parallel. Then I think we need international action. I mentioned the professionals who advised me; I mentioned the professionals whom I have not approached. May I mention the DETR and the Home Office as the UK bodies concerned with getting it right before DETR and the Foreign Office go off to the world to spread the gospel.

149
Common standards of security and of carriers' liability, Warsaw Convention style, remind us that things will not be easy. But aviation safety has evolved, and this is a safety issue. It is one where I believe we could be a star, indeed the leading player. To advance the cause will require industry and government co-operation. The industry may find itself having to fund some quite considerable costs. As I said, safety is paramount and I believe that these costs are worth funding. Define the problem, make sure that wheresoever in the world offences occur they are appropriately punished, and then we shall have something of which to be proud. The whole issue will take time but it will be time well spent.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps I could very briefly intervene in this debate, having worked very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on the Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act. I congratulate him again on the successful passage of that Bill and I thank him for raising the issue again. I know he has closely followed these matters since the passing of that Act and I am grateful to him for introducing this debate.
Noble Lords, particularly the last noble Lord who spoke, referred to international action, but really the problem has to be dealt with first of all at home and that is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, did in introducing to the House the Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act to fill a serious lacuna concerning criminal offences taking place in foreign aircraft arriving in this country. I suggest in this debate, therefore, that we first and foremost address what we can do at home. Having examined a number of cases in which violence has taken place in aircraft, I have to say that, while not all have been drink-related, many have. I also have to tell your Lordships that in the great majority of those cases which have been drink-related the offender has begun his drinking well before he boarded the aircraft. There is a very great discipline among air-crew in watching passengers. There are very few examples, if any, of alcohol supplied by the crew having played a part in raising the temper and the misbehaviour of the offender.
My second point relates to the fact that the alcohol is often not only consumed by the offender before he joins the aircraft but he has also made matters worse, and compounded his disability through alcohol, by continuing to drink alcohol during the flight. I said that I believe we should pay attention to such matters from a home base. Therefore, I have two suggestions to make, one of which I picked up from the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. First, certainly so far as concerns British-registered aircraft, I suggest that it ought to be an offence to consume on an aeroplane alcohol which has not been provided by the operator. My knowledge of this is based only upon the reports that I have read, but I understand that in the very serious Airtours case which took place recently, in which the air stewardess was hit over the head with a bottle of Vodka, the passenger had been consuming substantial amounts of alcohol that he himself had brought on to the aircraft.
150
My second suggestion regarding starting at home is concerned not only with warning the retailers and alerting them not to provide alcohol to passengers who are about to board aircraft and who have clearly already been affected by alcohol. I applaud all the suggestions about notices, and so on. However, the airport authorities do not have the power, for example, to carry out a breathalyser test on such passengers. It is very difficult to know how much alcohol someone has consumed. Therefore, if there were powers given by our legislation to enable airport operators in the UK to apply a breathalyser test to passengers who are about to board an aircraft, the matter could be established quite clearly as to whether or not the passenger in question is fit to travel. I make those two practical suggestions because I believe that we must start at home as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, with the Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act 1996.
7.21 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am very grateful to have the opportunity of speaking in this evening's debate introduced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Since I have been deputy chairman of the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse I have, over the years, stood up to speak from these Benches mildly to criticise the drinking culture in this country as regards violent behaviour and have received little support. Therefore, I am very glad to have the support tonight of my noble friend Lord Avebury who, I see, gives as much vigour to alcohol abuse as he does to the evils of smoking.
In the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse we have during the past three years paid particular attention to violence and alcohol. However, I fear that we have been remiss in that we have probably not paid enough attention to violence on aircraft. Indeed, we produced quite a detailed report for the previous government for which we took evidence from many experts in such matters, such as police officers, probation officers, prison governors, and so on, regarding the difficulties of alcohol-related violence in particular sectors of British life.
I am afraid that violence related to alcohol, not only on aircraft but also in hospitals and on buses, has recently become more and more of an occurrence. However, under the present Government, I am glad to say that we have had some very productive and friendly discussions with the Home Office on the subject of alcohol and violence. A short while ago I took part in discussions with Alcohol Concern and the chairman of the all-party group. I am happy to say that it is my understanding that the Government are considering such matters most carefully and are looking for legislation whereby some remedies could be applied. I look forward to the outcome.
One of the important comments made during our discussions with the Home Office was made by Mr. Boateng. As a lawyer, he is absolutely right. He said that the cultural attitude to drunkenness in our country, which differs to that in some other European countries, is aggravated somewhat not only by the tolerant view that many take to friends and relatives who

151
become drunk and disorderly and misbehave in a way which would not be tolerated elsewhere, but also by the view taken in the courts. Where drunkenness is related to crime, it is often seen and presented as a mitigating rather than an aggravating factor. That is true and is, perhaps, the basis of the problem.
Many of us have travelled with airlines over the years and have witnessed instances of drunken and disorderly behaviour. As mentioned by other speakers, that happens not only on the ground but also in the aircraft itself. We must face the reality that cultural behaviour in relation to alcohol is not easy to change. We have, happily, seen some changes in drink driving but unfortunately, as statistics show, such instances occur mainly with young males. It is a habit for them to go out, usually at a weekend, and to drink a lot very quickly. That can result in disorderly and often violent behaviour.
It is my own experience, gained especially from going on holiday, that often the tendency to drink starts in the airport. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, it often happens as a result of stress brought on by the frustrations involved in flight delays. Perhaps I may make a suggestion here for charter companies, whose flights are often subject to delays due to no fault of their own. When there is a significant delay of, say, three or four hours' duration and much drinking takes place, I believe that it should be incumbent upon them to observe very carefully the behaviour of the passengers who will ultimately go on the flight. They should ensure that those who are not in a fit condition to fly are prevented from doing so.
I absolutely agree that zero tolerance on an aeroplane is, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, a difficult concept to apply. Those who are flying aircraft are not in the business of controlling unruly people. Perhaps I may quote an ancient Russian proverb which, roughly translated, is as follows:
"A drunken man thinks that the sea is only knee deep".
People in that frame of mind on an aircraft are indeed dangerous and should be prevented from boarding the flight in the first place.
I do not have very much more to say, apart from the fact that some connection has been made this evening with smoking. Again, perhaps I may mention my noble friend Lord Avebury who today made a vigorous attack on smoking. I sat on my hands listening very quietly as I serve on the committee which is examining the issue of smoking in your Lordships' House. Perhaps your Lordships will indulge me further and allow me to use another quote. This one comes from King James I of England, who took a fairly strong view on smoking and drinking. In a short publication entitled, A Counterblast to Tobacco, he said:
"Smoking is a branch of the sin of drunkenness which is the root of all sins".
I can assure noble Lords that the committee will not be taking King James I very seriously, but that quotation may be of interest to my noble friend. However, I believe that the airlines should be congratulated on what they have done as regards smoking. I took a non-smoking trip to New York over Christmas. I should say that I went
152
backwards and forwards in order to get a cheap flight. I actually went to Brussels first and then on to New York. I had a very agreeable flight in the company mostly of Hasidic Jews, who do not suffer from the habit of drinking, and some very mild-mannered family groups from other countries in Europe, which perhaps do not have our cultural problems.
Airlines need to deal with drunkenness. They have dealt with smoking but they need to deal with drunkenness with a much more serious attitude so as to prevent such people boarding the aircraft in the first place. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's reply because I am absolutely certain that the Government are taking drink and violence most seriously. I look forward to hearing some productive suggestions which may be incorporated in legislation in due course.
7.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for raising this issue and to all noble Lords who contributed. Violent behaviour is unpleasant wherever it occurs. Unfortunately, stress, drunkenness and violence afflict us in many areas of society but they are particularly unpleasant when they occur on board an aircraft, where people cannot escape the situation. Violent incidents can also have extremely worrying implications for the safety of the flight concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and others, graphically illustrated such instances.
The Government are concerned about the problem of disruptive behaviour. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others pointed out, my right honourable friend John Reid, Minister of Transport, called together representatives of airlines, airport operators, the police and aviation trade unions last November. The objective was to ensure that appropriate action to address the problem is taken by all concerned. That meeting identified a particular problem to which several noble Lords have alluded—the collection and consistency of information about violent incidents. I must stress—in part echoing the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans—that although violent crime on aircraft is extremely serious, it is also extremely rare. In 1998 the Civil Aviation Authority recorded to December some 89 incidents of inappropriate passenger behaviour under its mandatory occurrence reporting scheme database. I accept that there may be some inconsistency of reporting. Nevertheless, standards of reporting are laid down. That database should contain reports of any incidents on UK-registered or UK-operated aircraft that the commander considered to be
"endangering, or if not corrected would endanger, the aircraft, its occupants or any other person".
Without attempting to associate the different sins in which James I and VI engaged, of those incidents less than a majority were directly associated with alcohol although that may have been a factor in others. In fact, 27 of the 89 incidents related to alcohol or drugs abuse, 18 involved smoking where prohibited, three involved a combination of both and three involved the carriage of

153
dangerous goods. The remainder of the incidents largely concerned abusive behaviour. The cause is difficult to determine and, again, may be alcohol-related. Only 38 incidents involved physical violence.
I accept that there are substantially differing statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed to other sources of information, and higher levels of violence are reported by the airlines themselves. Several noble Lords referred to a survey of 10 UK airlines by the Flight Safety Committee in August 1997, which reported 186 incidents for that month alone, which suggests 3,000 such incidents a year. Even that figure, appalling though it is, should be compared with the 85 million passengers who are carried per year and the 961,000 aircraft movements annually.
Violence on board aircraft remains a serious problem and the meeting last November presided over by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport established a working group with the airlines, police and trade unions to consider ways of centrally collating reports of incidents. It is likely that we shall need to draw a distinction between different sorts of incidents and, in particular, to identify those that are not serious enough to be reported to the CAA under the mandatory scheme. The working group will consider also whether any research into the causes of disruptive behaviour is necessary and, if so, how it might be funded.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of whether the courts have sufficient powers. UK courts clearly have sufficient powers in most instances. Section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 applies UK criminal law to acts committed on board a British-controlled aircraft when it is in flight anywhere in the world. That means that a person committing a criminal act such as assault on a UK airline while it is in flight outside the UK can be tried and punished in the UK. UK courts can deal also with crimes of violence on board foreign aircraft landing in the UK, as a consequence of Section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 being amended by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in 1996. I congratulate the noble Lord on that amendment and his legal adviser, my noble friend Lord Hacking, who was also involved. The importance of that successful amendment was demonstrated only last week, when there were press reports of a disruptive passenger on board an American Continental Airways flight into Gatwick. If that event had occurred before the noble Lord's amendment, the UK courts would not have had the power to deal with that offender.
Sentencing in the UK is, of course, a matter for the UK courts. It is useful that the Court of Appeal ruled recently that where an offence had been committed on board an aircraft, it could be appropriate to impose a more severe punishment than had the same offence been committed in a public place on the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked for an assurance that UK courts treat UK nationals and non-UK nationals the same way. I assure the noble Lord that they do. When offences are committed on board UK aircraft or aircraft landing in the UK, the nationality of the offender is immaterial. I believe that the courts have established that.
154
In addition to normal criminal offences, a number apply specifically to aircraft passengers. Under the Air Navigation Order the four relevant offences are to enter an aircraft when drunk or to be drunk on an aircraft; recklessly to enter or negligently to act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person therein; to smoke in situations where smoking is prohibited; and to fail to obey the lawful command of the commander of the aircraft.
The offences of drunkenness and endangerment are punishable by a substantial fine of up to £5,000 on summary conviction or up to two years' imprisonment and a fine on conviction on indictment. The two other offences carry a maximum penalty of a £2,500 fine. I believe your Lordships would accept that those penalties are adequate for the type of offences that they are designed to cover. A number of additional offences have been suggested, including a ban on passengers taking any alcohol except that supplied on a complimentary basis by the airline operators. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, suggested that was the FAA rule in America. Most UK airliners ban passengers from consuming their own alcohol on board and there is no substantial evidence to suggest that breaches of that rule are a substantial problem. It would be difficult to turn such a ban into law. Nevertheless, it is something that the airlines themselves will be considering.
The other problem that arises relates to arrestable offences. The airlines and the police would like offences under the Air Navigation Order to be arrestable. There are clearly problems involved because they are not arrestable on the ground. I have some sympathy with that view and accept that enforcement of the articles would be easier if the police had the power of arrest. There are two legislative ways that could be achieved. Either the maximum penalty for the offences must be increased to five years' imprisonment, which would require an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1982, or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would require amendment to bring the relevant offences within the definition of "arrestable" offences.
One would have to make a distinction between the various offences covered by the Air Navigation Order. A maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment would be regarded by most noble Lords—whatever their opinions of smoking in this place or elsewhere—as an excessive penalty for smoking where prohibited or failing to obey the lawful commands of the commander of the aircraft, although that is possibly more marginal. Either case would require primary legislation and we will be considering that in due course.
There are other examples where the Government have considered disruptive passenger behaviour that may fall short of endangering the aircraft but which interferes with crew members in the course of their duties and has the potential to divert them from proper safety duties and cause considerable unpleasantness to them and other passengers. The Government intend an amendment to the Air Navigation Order to prohibit behaviour of that kind. Without pre-empting future Queen's Speech debates, I welcome the putative support from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, were we to come forward with such a change.

155
The other problem relates to offences committed abroad which are pursued abroad and prosecuted in foreign courts. Not all states have taken jurisdiction for crimes committed on foreign aircraft en route to their airports. Consequently, the police in those states have been powerless to act against people who have committed acts of violence on board UK and other aircraft. The Government have raised the matter recently with the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We have offered to provide an aviation law specialist to serve on the working group that it has established to examine that problem.
Where jurisdictions do have rights, I know that some airlines, like some noble Lords in this debate, have been concerned that the jurisdictions have not regarded the offences seriously. One must have some sympathy with the Spanish authorities in that respect. They have to deal with a number of English drunks in all kinds of circumstances. It is also true that people jump bail within the UK jurisdiction, as well as in Spain. I appreciate that the airlines' concern is that lenient treatment will send the wrong signals to offenders. Airlines are particularly concerned where the offence has occurred on a British aircraft and could theoretically have been capable of prosecution either in the UK or in the country of destination. However, there is a problem that, where action has been taken, even if it has ended in relatively lenient treatment, it is difficult for us to argue that we should try the same offence twice—in other words, charge the offender again on that person's return to the UK. We are attempting to engage in ICAO and elsewhere with other governments to try to agree a more common approach to these problems.
Arising from our increased appreciation of these issues and from the meeting held in November, I wish to sum up some of the actions being taken by the Government. We are considering amending the Air Navigation Order to introduce the offence of interfering with cabin crew members. We are pressing for action internationally to ensure that crimes on board aircraft will be prosecuted appropriately in all states; and we have set up a working party to ensure the better collection of information. As the noble Lord suggests, more consistent collection of information will help identify areas for further action not only by the Government but by the airlines and airport operators in respect of behaviour at airports and by the police. The Government and the airlines are working closely together in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether BAA, for example, was involved. Although BAA members were not present at the November meeting, they were represented there by the Airport Operators Association. On the issue of notices warning people about alcohol, the CAA is considering the need and the scope for posting such notices.
I was also asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, what is the deadline for the working group to report. We have not set a precise deadline. The first meeting of the working group will be held on 1st February. The timescale will be decided at that meeting. The preliminary discussions will be held in private but it is intended that the findings will be published.
156
The airlines have taken on responsibilities as well as the Government. Reference has been made to the Flight Safety Committee and the commitment to Conduct 99, which set out a 12-point plan for combating disruptive behaviour and alcohol abuse on aircraft. The CAA has published a leaflet, Travelling Safely, which provides guidance to passengers on drinking and drink-related offences.
Finally, we ought all to register our sympathy for the air crews who have to deal with this kind of problem. They are often in a very difficult situation and have to make fine judgments in relation to the safety of their passengers and aircraft. Our sympathy is with them. We are now engaged in a co-operative effort with airlines, airports and the police to tackle this scourge of air rage, sky rage, or whatever we may choose to call it. It is very unpleasant, and noble Lords on all sides are agreed that we must have a more effective strategy. The Government are committed to taking that strategy further, not only in this country but internationally.

Alternatives to Prison
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of their welcome for the 3rd report (Session 1997–98) of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee recommending greater use of alternatives to prison (HL Deb, 19th October, col. 1172), what steps they intend to take to give effect to the report.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am asking the Government whether they will take steps to give effect to the report of the all-party Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. The committee made a number of recommendations, but above all called for a great reduction in the prison population and much greater use of alternative services.
It is always an honour to open a debate in this House. Tonight, I salute the eminence of the official Front Bench speaker. I cannot help thinking that there are three other speakers of special interest. I cannot discuss penal questions without bringing in morality, and one cannot bring in morality without bringing in Christianity. If we want Christianity explained to us, that will be done shortly. Also, we are to hear a speaker who is closely associated with the present Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is a Christian Socialist. I do not know about my other noble friend who is to speak but presumably we have a first-hand spokesman for the Home Secretary. Either he has been making up the Home Secretary's mind over the past few years or the Home Secretary has been making up his mind. Either way, we are lucky to have him on the list of speakers. Then there is the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, son of a famous Home Secretary—who would of course be horrified by the later manifestations of Conservative policy represented by Mr. Michael Howard. So we have three eminent unofficial speakers and eminent people who will speak officially.
We cannot discuss this question without reflecting yet again on the extraordinary change in penal policy introduced by Mr. Michael Howard when he became

157
Home Secretary, with the full approval of the Cabinet. I do not want to seem too personal. When I met Mr. Michael Howard the other day, he was very generous. He said he did not bear any malice against me. He did not regard my remarks about him as personal. So I can therefore go forward and say boldly that he introduced what is regarded in history as the Howardite revolution. I hasten to say that it was a revolution in the wrong direction. What was the result? There was an increase in the prison population. In four years it increased by 50 per cent. although overall crime was decreasing. If you wanted to achieve something notable in this world, you could not achieve much more than that, could you?
It might be asked whether there was any justification for that revolution. I suppose that one justification was that it was popular. Many people do not know much about prisons and do not like prisoners. So in that sense it went quite well. When Labour came into office, a programme was announced and our policy was to be "tough on crime". That sounds very much like Howardism. It was announced along with a statement about being tough on the causes of crime. That was a far-reaching objective. For a time, that seemed to be what we were doing: we carried forward Howardism. The present Home Secretary—a good Christian Socialist, for which I admire him—wrote an article in The Times seeming to prefer the views of his constituents (the man in the pub or the street) to the express views of experts.
But more recently there have been helpful developments. More money has been made available for prisons. It is hard to know how much difference that is going to make if the prison population greatly increases, but on that subject there are encouraging signs. In the 26 pages of the Home Office reply they say that for a long time the prison population was escalating but that now it has slowed down and that recently there has even been some diminution in the prison population. Is that the result of policy? Certain steps have been taken and they have had some slight effect. The real question, however, is whether the atmosphere will be completely altered.
The Government are inclined to say, "We cannot alter the prison population, given the amount of crime. That is for the judges". That is not quite good enough. When all is said and done, in the age of Howard, in spite of the decrease in total crime, the prison population increased. The atmosphere was completely altered by the policy of Michael Howard, supported by the Cabinet. That policy was in contradiction to that of earlier Home Secretaries, including, going back some way, that of the father of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who will be speaking later. It had been a long trend of a policy which had reduced the prison population down to just over 45,000. Then Michael Howard came along and, by some means or other and no drastic legislation, it was increased by 50 per cent. A new message was issued: "Prison works". We have to pause for a moment to ask ourselves about the meaning of that.
On the face of it, prison would only work if there were to be an enormous increase in the prison population and an enormous expenditure on prisons—prison staff and buildings. As no one thinks that, however, the idea that prison works and therefore that the prison population should be increased means that in practice the standards in prisons are deteriorating. The whole idea of rehabilitating prisoners is abandoned. Nearly everybody, including the all-party Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, has abandoned the idea of "Prison works"—have abandoned Howardism. I am therefore asking the Government to make it as clear as possible that they have abandoned the Howardite dream of prison working.
The Home Secretary is a brilliant Minister. I am bound to say that if I were ever in trouble—and it can often happen even to the oldest of us—however bad my case was, he would look after it; he would see that some extraordinary excuse was produced for me.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Bad upbringing!
The Earl of Longford: The noble Lord says that I would not be able to pay him enough!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I said bad upbringing!
The Earl of Longford: At any rate, he would put some rosy face on the issue.
Nevertheless, he now has no excuse. For a long time Mr. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary—a good Christian Socialist—was committed to this idea of prison working. He never said "Prison works", but said "Tough on crime". Now there is a change of tone. He gave a very good lecture not long ago to the Prison Reform Trust and it raised our hopes. Now we have this all-party committee on which even the most reactionary Conservative MPs seem to be represented. Now he has no excuse for not setting out to try to reduce the prison population.
How is he to do that? Reading their own 26-page document, it is not at all clear but I think that one can be hopeful. In that document they point out the tremendous escalation in the prison population. Until recently it was reckoned that the prison population would be doubled between 1993 and 2005. Today we are told that the Government welcome this report. I am therefore asking them in the clearest possible way what are they going to do about it? I wonder. It stands at the bar.
7.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us the opportunity for this debate. His long record of perseverance on matters of prison reform and his courage, so clearly rooted in his Christian faith, are admired not only on these Benches but also by many Members of your Lordships' House.
There are in the cathedral city of Wakefield two major prisons: one in the city centre, for men; one just outside the city, at New Hall, for women. I have visited them both often. To take a celebration of Holy

159
Communion in those prisons, and particularly on a Christmas morning, is one of the most moving experiences that I have in my ministry.
There is no doubt, though, that in both of those prisons there are people who, for the security of the community and for their own good, need to be there. Especially in the women's prison, from my own observations and from the stories I pick up from chaplains and senior prison officers, I know that there are enormous frustrations felt by the prison staff at not being able to concentrate on what they see to be their main role: that of looking after those inmates who clearly do have to be in prison.
We in the Church in our pastoral roles, often have to pick up the pieces. This happens when, for example, by putting a woman in prison, her whole family is effectively imprisoned too and becomes dysfunctional, and then another chain of events is set in motion, sometimes leading sooner or later to the custody of yet other members of that same family.
Sir David Ramsbotham's assertion that around 70 per cent. of female prisoners do not need to be there may sound over-robust, but I suspect that he may be right. Incidentally, Sir David Ramsbotham is the son of a previous Bishop of Wakefield. That ecclesiastical connection is quite appropriate because the Church of England, as your Lordships will know, has long been involved in prison welfare and in recent years has taken a particular interest in prison reform, alongside other denominations. Why? Because of Christian belief in the dignity of humankind made in the image of God; because of Our Lord's clear concern and prophetic message for those who, in all kinds of ways, were captives; and because of the social concern for justice within the whole community which rightly lies at the heart of the Church's witness.
The Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England made a written submission to the inquiry, which led to the report from the Home Affairs Committee. That submission emphasised another aspect which I suggest has to be taken seriously if the Government really do intend to make greater use of alternatives to prison. It concerns the inadequacy of the level of resources for caring for young offenders under the age of 21. We in the Churches welcomed the proposed arrangements in the then Crime and Disorder Bill for effective supervision of identified offenders and preventive measures for those at risk. However, as your Lordships recognise, they require an increase in resources. There is no other way, in the light of the huge number of offenders who are unemployed, without formal academic qualifications, on drugs, have previously been in care, are from disturbed family backgrounds, or have diagnosable mental disorders.
What a tragic irony it is that at the very time when, over the past decade, the problems were increasing, the funding available for youth and community workers declined substantially and child and adolescent mental health services were significantly withdrawn. An eminent American criminologist, Jerry Miller, wrote some years ago about what happens, not least in terms of custodial sentencing, when resources decline and options available are few:
160
"The less the resource, the more punishment was seen as beneficial for the youth. When the person making the diagnosis is aware of the variety of alternatives or non-institutional options for treatment and handling, he or she gives less extreme, less rigid and less restrictive diagnosis. Wanting this, the diagnosis becomes more judgmental and punitive".
The experience of youth workers, teachers, chaplains and community workers in the Church of England echoes that. It has been a constant feature of recent years that young people in trouble have been denied resources which would have been beneficial for them and saved many from custodial sentences.
So, in applauding the Government's priority in fighting youth crime, I hope that the Minister will agree with the warning in the report:
"It would be unfortunate if the agencies charged with this fight were unable to do so because of insufficient resources".
Certainly, the Government's response to the report and its recognition of resource implications in the youth justice Bill are encouraging. Maybe the Minister can be encouraged to be even firmer than—I hope he will forgive me for this—the rather pale admission in paragraph 102 of the Government's response to the report that,
"Some additional resources may be needed".
I turn now to the contribution of voluntary workers in meeting the needs of young offenders and providing options which are alternatives to prison. I note the welcome emphasis made by the Minister in your Lordships' House on 10th December, when he referred to,
"the importance of the voluntary organisations … which do so much good in this field".—[Official Report, 10/12/98; col. 1027.]
That assurance from the Minister is very encouraging. Certainly the Churches are willing to play their part, not least ecumenically. As restorative projects grow for justice, as set out in the new youth justice Bill, I am sure that co-operation with the Government which is encouraged by the Minister will grow.
There is no shortage of good examples of such voluntary work: the youth offender institutes, schemes in London and Newcastle of mentoring young people and initiatives like the Langley House Trust, working with young people in drug rehabilitation centres in Lancashire and the West Midlands.
On the subject of drugs, I commend the initiative of the special drugs courts which have been pioneered in my city of Wakefield, where people are sentenced to drug treatment rather than to custodial sentences. One young lad in Wakefield who was sentenced by the magistrates to such non-custodial treatment has said that as a result of the treatment he feels able, for the first time in his life, to relate to other people. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury put it in his Prison Reform Lecture:
"The language of justice [must be] dominated by the aim of restoring broken relationships".
8.4 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I too welcome the debate and its introduction by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I have also long admired his approach to prison reform; he has always been willing to swim against the tide and

161
go against popular opinion when it was intolerant. At one stage for a while I was a Home Office Minister. I learnt that a good Home Secretary from time to time must go against public opinion when it shows itself not only to be intolerant but to be crying out for remedies which are totally self-defeating.
I do not claim to speak with any particular expertise, I shall concentrate on one aspect: prison and drug addiction. I speak with a special interest. I am chairman of a charity concerned with the treatment of drug abuse called ADAPT. The initials stand for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment. What I shall say is based on a session I had with about 20 former patients of the charity who had given up drugs after treatment. They talked frankly about their lives in the presence of a journalist. They were men and women aged between 25 and 35, mainly men. Most had spent almost all their adult life in prison. In some cases they had been addicts before they went to prison and in other cases they had been confirmed in their addiction while there.
One matter on which they were all agreed is that it is always easy to get drugs in gaol. I believe that is fairly generally accepted now. It helps to pass the boredom of a long sentence. They stated that there was an acceptance of it by the prison staff who were only too happy to see a prison quiet and sedated. Occasionally there would be searches of cells, but that was strictly for show, it was signalled well in advance, everyone knew which cell would be searched and nothing would be found.
I do not say that that is necessarily the case. I report what the former patients said, on which they all agreed. Some first became addicted to heroin and other hard drugs in gaol, and none of them in that group would ever confess in prison that they were addicts. If they were, they would be sent to the hospital wing. So far as they were concerned, that wing was full of weirdos and loonies and they certainly would not want to go there. Much better to do your time quietly and under the influence of drugs. That does not suggest that any cure for addiction based essentially on treatment in prison is likely to be successful.
When those people left prison, they would have enough cash to get their first bit of "gear", as they called it. They all knew where to find dealers and, after that first shot, life became a perpetual hunt to try to steal enough for the next shot. The Select Committee in the Home Office stated that on average those people needed about £80 a day. The figure which we use on the whole is that they tend to need about £100 a day. That means they must steal about £300; so on average the cost to the nation of a drug addict is in the nature of £100,000 a year.
It is the view of many policemen to whom I have spoken that 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of crimes are in some way drug-related. That is not inconsistent with the report of the Select Committee which stated that the Probation Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers found that the addicts known to them committed about one-quarter of all recorded crime. They know only a small proportion of the total number of addicts.
162
The group of people also stated that until they had their fix, they were not human. As the right reverend Prelate said, they cannot relate to anyone, they are totally obsessed. It is not that they hate people or society. Those who have been cured are normal and pleasant people. It is just that they could not feel or act like normal people except for a short time after they had had their fix. If they were lucky, they might steal something worth thousands of pounds which fell off the back of a lorry. That meant that they could have a few days in which they could deal in drugs to support their habit rather than steal. Of course, if they were caught they were classified as dealers and inevitably went to gaol.
Most of them only came to look for treatment when they became desperate. They were from broken families, they were mothers who had lost their children, people who realised that all their friends were dying and they would be dead unless something was done. Then something finally makes them seek treatment. It is only when they really wish to have treatment that it is likely to be effective.
The lessons seem clear. First, prison is the worst way of dealing with addicts and yet—perhaps because of the pressure of public opinion—many magistrates and some judges still insist on prison in the case of addicts. There have been cases where someone was out on bail, successfully completed their course, had to go back before the magistrate or the judge because they had been on bail, and were then sentenced to prison. Of course, all the good work was immediately undone.
The second clear conclusion is that money invested in treatment—especially in residential treatment, which can be surprisingly successful—pays for itself in spades. It saves lives, it prevents the misery of the addict, the misery of the addict's family and the misery of the addict's victims. It could save society hundreds of millions of pounds.
My third conclusion is that at present the priorities are still wrong. Last year saw a decrease in the number of residential places which were available for treatment. Several residential homes had to close for lack of funds. That really is a disgrace.
Fourthly, the process of obtaining treatment and getting a local authority to agree to spend the money is extremely tortuous and slow. It need not cost any money for this treatment to be more sensibly devised. If local authorities do agree to pay for somebody's treatment, the payment is often slow and very late. There are many charities, including our own, which are caused acute cash flow problems.
Fortunately, the Government are beginning to recognise the problem. There will be more funds available after April, which is extremely good news. I am not sure that there is an effective cost benefit in the spending of funds because money spent on drug treatment is so much more effective than money spent on prisons. I am not sure that the Government have really sufficiently grasped that spending a few more million pounds on the new development of sentencing people to residential and other forms of treatment is a much better way of dealing with crime than building more prisons or sending addicts to gaol.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe that the Government deserve enormous credit for the way they have begun the process of re-establishing confidence in community sentences. In considering the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's report, it is important to bear in mind the very difficult situation that the Government inherited in 1997. At that time the infrastructure for constructive regimes inside and outside prisons had been badly damaged. I can say this with considerable confidence having entered the Home Office in May 1997 as the Home Secretary's policy advisor. It was not unlike a US cavalry force relieving a beleaguered fort in a John Wayne film.
The previous government had failed to match the Prison Service's funding to their rhetoric about "prison works". The present government have delivered their manifesto pledge to audit prison service funding and, in July 1997, added more than £40 million to the prison budget.
In 1997 constructive regimes had been reduced and preparation for early release curtailed. The Probation Service budget had been cut and its professional qualification had been abolished. Sentencers had been encouraged to opt for longer sentences, irrespective of whether the Prison Service was funded to cope. Average sentence length increased in Crown Courts from 21 months to 24 months between 1992 and 1997. The Audit Commission's perceptive analysis of the failings of the youth justice system had been dismissed by the previous Home Office Ministers. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has drawn attention to the shortcomings of strategy and practice in his thematic reports on young offenders and women prisoners.
This is the background against which we have to consider the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee report. Of course there are shortcomings in the Probation Service but these cannot be put right by inadequate funding and denigration, which is what it has suffered in recent years. The Probation Service now recognises that its primary duty is to protect society and that it has to work closely with the Prison Service and police in discharging this responsibility. Most people in the Probation Service now appreciate that evidence-based practice is essential, and the guide on this issue, which was issued by the Home Office and published last October, will foster effective practice. The Probation Service knows that community sentences have to be enforced if sentencer and public confidence are to be maintained. I am pleased to have played a part in restoring the Probation Service's professional qualification in the form of the new Diploma in Probation Studies.
These changes are critical to producing effective alternatives to prison, along with the realistic budgets that the Government are now restoring to the Probation Service. Without this restoration of morale and greater clarity of purpose we cannot have a credible strategy for community punishment. Everybody is impatient for change but time is needed to restore the damage done in the period before 1997.
164
One of the most encouraging features of the past 18 months has been the Government's willingness to expand the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative deprivation of liberty to prison. The introduction of home detention curfews and the national roll-out of curfew orders with electronic monitoring present the opportunity to reduce the unnecessary use of prison that has been a feature of our recent past. We need to explore how technology can be used more as an alternative to bricks and mortar for curbing liberty and an alternative to prison and punishment for offending behaviour.
Two areas that I should like to see considered are those of secure remands for juveniles and day prisons for women and some male offenders. There is a danger of swamping secure facilities for juveniles with secure remands. With national roll-out of electronic monitoring the opportunity will be there to make greater use of it, through youth offending teams, as an alternative to very expensive secure remands, which can cost £2,000 to £3,000 a week.
I remain unconvinced by the rapid increase in recent years in prison sentences for women. The female prison population increased by over 70 per cent. between 1992 and 1997, double the male rate of increase. Many of these women were sentenced for drug offences and the consequences for the families of these women, especially their children, are rarely fully understood and measured. I believe we have to look for alternatives to conventional custodial sentences for many of these female offenders.
I accept fully the Government's response that weekend prison is unlikely to be viable. However, I should like to see a willingness to experiment with using electronic monitoring to curtail movement at home and to ensure attendance at day facilities where programmes for tackling drug dependency and offending behaviour could be provided. These community approaches might be a better alternative for many female and male offenders involved in drug related offences.
The new detention and training order for juveniles under the Crime and Disorder Act could provide a model for new sentences for adults with part of the sentence served in prison and part in community supervision. The successful introduction of the home detention curfew would make this easier and more publicly acceptable. There is no particular reason why, for many offenders, courts should not order sentences with a short custodial element to bring home the seriousness of the offence but with the bulk of the sentence served under community supervision, with compulsory participation in drug treatment programmes and other programmes for tackling offending behaviour.
Finally, I want to say a few words about sentences. The Times yesterday carried a report headed "English judges getting tougher". This was based on a report on international comparisons on criminal justice being compiled by NACRO. It shows that after American judges, English judges impose the stiffest sentences. We need to build up the credibility of alternatives to prison so that courts have the confidence to use them without

165
fear of losing public credibility and the kind of tongue-lashings they occasionally received from Ministers before 1997.
Major improvements have been made by the Government as their response to the report of the Home Affairs Committee shows, but this country still has more people in prison and for longer periods than is necessary for public protection. Over time we need to shift the balance further towards strictly enforced and demanding community alternatives if we are to reduce re-offending.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, I also thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate on such an important subject and pay tribute to his unceasing work in this field over such a long period, including his founding chairmanship of the charity The New Bridge, which does excellent and innovative work to improve the lot of prisoners and the community. I fear that future generations and their historians will look back in horror at our penal system and the way we treat those who are locked up in our prisons. We lock up not only murderers and rapists and other dangerous criminals but also fine defaulters, people who have committed an error of judgment on our roads, or elsewhere, which have resulted in serious accidents, the mentally ill and disordered who have often been let down by our health system and very many others for whom prison will do no good and whose presence in prison will produce no benefit to society.
Under the present system we let out some of our most dangerous criminals when they are at least as dangerous as when they went in, to the consternation of the societies to which they return. Such criminals need humane but secure accommodation, not as punishment but to protect the public and themselves. What is required is the possibility to impose the sentence "until safe to release". But for the majority of others prison is expensive, damaging and often counter-productive. Alternative sentences, suitably resourced, are desperately needed. Equally important as their development is the need to sell them to the public. They must be seen by the public as being both relevant and appropriate. A proper publicity campaign needs to be mounted to explain and expound alternative sentences as they are developed, as I trust they will be. The depth of the public's misconceptions in this area is revealed by the British Crime Survey. This has been blamed on the media and the way that crime stories are treated. But one would have thought that more could be done by the Home Office to keep the public abreast of the facts as they relate to crime and punishment. At present some sentencing seems to be geared more to placating the victims or their families' rage. While that is understandable, surely it is not a reason for blighting further lives when often a simple mistake has had disastrous consequences. There have been some honourable exceptions to this tendency where victims' families have shown great support for the culprits.
I hope that in the long term prison will be confined largely to those criminals who pose a continuing danger to the public and that alternative sentences will be found for the rest. These must not be soft or easily ignored. It
166
may be said that the deterrent effect will be lost, but by far the greatest deterrent for crimes where a calculation of benefit is made is the likelihood of being caught. For very many crimes committed in passion or when drunk or drugged or in rage deterrence is irrelevant and sentencing should concentrate on curing the problem rather than, as is so often the case, adding to it by time spent in prison. It appears that criminals come out of prisons better equipped as criminals, are more likely to be on drugs, and to have serious diseases. The pressure of numbers means that the system is too stretched to provide much rehabilitation that may alleviate these problems. In addition, their families may have been broken up. Society therefore suffers on all fronts. I hope that the Government will see it as worthwhile to put major resources behind the search for and development of alternatives to prison.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I too join the chorus of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the recent admirable report of the Home Affairs Committee on alternatives to prison sentences and, with the figure of 66,000 always before our eyes, to hear the Government's thoughts on this vital subject. As long as the noble Earl patrols his particular patch, there is little danger of the prison system being taken for granted and no chance whatsoever for self-congratulation on the part of the Prison Service or whatever government happen to be in power at the time.
In addition to expressing pleasure that the Minister is to wind up this short debate, I congratulate him on his stamina. As far as can be ascertained he will have played a leading role in nearly all of today's business other than the taking of Prayers. I can assure him that I shall be studying the ordination list for the Church of Wales with more than usual interest in the months to come.
I have a particular interest in this subject. Indeed, I made my maiden speech many years ago on this topic in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose expertise and wise judgment in this area command respect on all sides of this House. I also recall ruefully that on such an important subject it was particularly difficult to abide by the convention of impartiality normally observed on such occasions. Since that time there have been some improvements and the readiness with which the Government have responded to the very real problems highlighted in the report leads me to hope that there will be more in the near future.
While it is true that the number of people imprisoned for non-payment of fines, for example, has declined markedly in recent years, the fact remains that we are still sending far too many offenders to prison who do not have to be there and who will suffer as a result of being there. I hasten to add that I exclude from these remarks any sentencing policy related to repeat offenders which may have been floated earlier today. Although steps are being taken to draw up national sentencing guidelines, too often what is received by way of sentence in the lower courts in particular is something of a lottery. For example, why should theft in the North West attract a prison sentence but not in the home

167
counties? The very essence of local justice is that it should take account of local circumstances, but only so far.
The only practical way of reducing the prison population is to have viable alternatives. In the time available I propose to concentrate on one of the most important of these alternatives: the community service order (CSO). The report identifies weaknesses in the system as it now is and the action that needs to be taken to rectify the situation. First, it is clear that the information relating to the success or otherwise of CSOs just is not there, although, disappointingly, there appears to be an indication that recidivism is as common among ex-CSO offenders as among those who receive custodial sentences. If this is irrefutably the case, we need to know why, and the sooner the better.
Secondly, according to a 1995 Home Office study, the record of CSO placement visits by sentencers is abysmal: 26 per cent. of JPs and judges, with only 7 per cent. recorded for stipendiary magistrates. Speaking from recent experience as a magistrate on what I would categorise as a go-ahead bench, I can testify to never having been given the opportunity to go on such a visit—I was unaware of anyone else who did—whereas prison visits were an annual feature of the training year, and rightly so.
I hear murmurings in the report that judges are busy people and they may not be able to find the time to do this. However, community service work for the most part takes place on Saturdays. Magistrates are busy people who hold down other jobs and frequently must work in their spare time. I make that point for what it is worth. We are promised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice will draw the attention of judges to this important duty. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will do the same for stipendiaries and magistrates. I should be grateful for assurances from the Minister that that exercise will be monitored closely.
Thirdly, the public perception of such orders prompted, it must be said, by the tabloid press in its silliest mood, is that making such an order amounts to an easy option for offenders compared with anything else other than, perhaps, probation itself. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, the very title "community service order" and the implication in some quarters that its execution represents some sort of voluntary contribution to society is profoundly mistaken. It is not a piece of voluntary work and a title like "criminal work order" would be far more appropriate.
The report draws attention also to the deplorable use of the word "client" in some extreme cases. What a load of modern codswallop—I apologise for the unparliamentary language. Since when did the words "criminal" and "offender" become no-go areas?
Lastly, I deal with the important subject of breaches of such orders. Failure to deal with those promptly and adequately only confirms the public's view that the whole thing is a con and a soft option and, in any event, defeats the purpose of the original sentence. If the police are unable to serve warrants, then with a heavy heart
168
I seek an assurance from the Minister that trials with private security firms will be put in hand as a matter of urgency. I also ask the Minister to comment on the possibility of including a new offence—that of deliberately breaching a CSO—in the next criminal justice Bill, which will surely be coming as predictably as the leaf fall next autumn, alongside other goodies like transferring to magistrates the decision on mode of trial in each-way cases. The Minister knows that that is a preoccupation of mine. Some of us look forward to that with relish.
I have no time to mention fines, but roll on hypothecation, I say, and the incentive for courts to collect promptly. Nor am I able to mention the tragic mothballing of the suspended sentence other than by a few adventurous sentencers in favourable circumstances.
I conclude by referring to another preoccupation of mine in the area of detention of young offenders. I do not refer to the secure training centre, that ill-judged venture of the previous Administration, as we are now at last, sadly, seeing in Kent; nor yet the young offenders' institution. I am referring to secure local accommodation. I am considerably heartened by the Government's response to the report when they observe in their publication No More Excuses:
"The Government believes that present arrangements for the provision and management of secure accommodation are inefficient and incoherent and in need of reform".
Amen to that. We need more local secure accommodation urgently as a practical and proved alternative to STCs and YOIs. We need them all to conform to rigorous national standards and we need regular inspections to ensure that they do.
I welcome this constructive all-party report and I welcome too what I detect is a readiness by this Government to take account of the undoubted weaknesses in the system which it highlights. Like all of us taking part in this debate, we look for a substantial drop in the prison population, allied to a more effective use of resources in the provision of alternatives to custody.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I apologise for having missed the noble Earl's contribution. I was delayed at another meeting. I hope that he will forgive me as I forgave him when he last postponed this debate.
The noble Earl is right to raise this issue once again. The Home Affairs Committee has produced its report and we now have the Government's response to it. The noble Earl will have seen that I included my concern about prison overcrowding when I spoke on health and home affairs during the debate on the Queen's Speech. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again in the time available to me. However, I take this opportunity to identify areas where the present Government have a distinct approach to criminal justice matters as compared with their predecessors.
We can all be critical of prison overcrowding, and rightly so, because if there is one matter which concerns all practitioners in the criminal justice system, it is the

169
end product of that system; namely, prisons. The Home Secretary has adopted a more constructive line than the previous Home Secretary, Michael Howard, in relation to the prison population. But whether all his actions will mean a reduction in the prison population has yet to be seen. For his sake, I hope that he will achieve such a reduction.
There are a number of areas which need to be highlighted. He has dropped Michael Howard's "prison works" rhetoric which encouraged the courts to imprison so many more offenders. He is introducing a system of early release of short-term prisoners under electronic tagging, which should reduce the prison population by about 3,000 when it is introduced in January.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for raising that matter. However, I have a concern about that which I raised earlier in a question to the Minister. About 50 per cent. of people who sleep rough in London alone are youngsters who are involved in the criminal justice process. Those people will not benefit from electronic tagging because no system has yet been developed which can help them in terms of early release from the prison situation.
The Home Secretary is introducing a new drug treatment and testing order which should certainly be a better option than imprisonment for drug-addicted offenders. He is also encouraging the probation service to develop supervision programmes based on the evidence of what works best in reducing re-offending. He is also planning to legislate for shorter time limits for the pre-trial process, which should reduce the population of prisoners on remand.
Of course, we should like the Government to go further and argue strongly and clearly that the courts are over-using prisons and that they should be used much less. I explain why that is necessary. Let us look at the sentencing climate. It is now well established that sentencers' decisions can be affected by the media and the political climate. It is possible for Ministers to talk up or talk down the prison population. The last Home Secretary's "prison works" rhetoric helped to do the former.
It is important that Ministers should continue to devote high profile speeches to the case for greater use of rigorous but constructive community sentences. They must highlight the case for particular types of community sentences; for example, drug treatment orders, cognitive skills and anger management programmes, reparation and community service and programmes geared to women offenders. If such speeches are sold to the media by the familiar techniques of trailing them beforehand and highlighting the key points to the media on the day, that can help promote a more balanced climate. That effort needs to be sustained over a considerable period of time.
Let us look at what sort of information is available to sentencers. Sentencers see their failures in that those who re-offend return to court, sometimes repeatedly, for further offences. However, courts do not see their successes. They do not see those who do not re-offend again after community or financial penalties. If
170
sentencers' confidence in community sentences is to be increased, it is important that they receive more systematic feed-back on the success of individuals whom they and their colleagues have sentenced and on the overall success rates of local community supervision programmes. Sentencers should also receive regular information on the problems which current levels of imprisonment are causing for local penal establishments. I strongly urge the Minister to use area criminal justice liaison committees for that purpose.
Community sentences are rightly an alternative to custodial arrangements. While the research on what works is still far from comprehensive, there is now a sufficient body of evidence to indicate that some types of community supervision programme are more effective than others in reducing re-offending.
The Home Office should build on the excellent work of the Chief Inspector of Probation by drawing up a "national curriculum" of the most effective types of community supervision programmes and taking steps to ensure that those are available to courts in all areas.
I should fail in my duty were I to miss out two groups of people who require special consideration when sentencing is considered. Let me first refer to women prisoners. The number of women in prison has more than doubled in the last six years. Sending a woman to prison not only punishes the offender but is also likely to have a damaging effect on her children. Whatever the reason for the dramatic increase in the number of women in prison—and more analysis of the reasons is needed—it cannot be true that there are now twice as many women as five years ago from whom society has to be protected. The "national curriculum" of community sentences should pay special attention to ensuring that there is adequate provision of programmes which can provide a realistic alternative to custody for women.
Finally, with regard to our approach to mentally disordered offenders, a large number of mentally disordered people are held in prison service establishments. They should not be there, but ought instead to be in hospital or to receive the care and treatment they need in the community. There is a need to build upon and expand existing schemes for psychiatric assessment at police stations and courts, to divert mentally disordered offenders from the prison system into the health services, and to improve the speed with which prisoners who have slipped through these nets can be transferred from prison to hospital. A number of pilot projects have demonstrated that diversion programmes have an important role to play.
I thank the noble Earl again, but I have no doubt that the Minister whose responsibilities now include prisons is as keen as many of us to ensure that prisons have clear objectives and are used only when no other alternatives are available. It is in all our interests to see that we have a manageable prison population. Building more prisons is not the answer.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating

171
this debate. His deep concern for and interest in the penal environment in this country is a subject of great admiration. We are fortunate indeed to have the benefit of his wisdom and experience in this House on these matters.
The need continually to seek alternative treatment to the essentially negative effect of prisons has been sensitively and sincerely treated by all sides of this House; but may I, on the practical side, say that we on these Benches are acutely aware that the pressure on both costs and accommodation in this country's prisons cannot be ignored. We are convinced that for serious offenders a prison sentence remains the only effective punishment. There is no doubt, too, as poll after poll has shown, that the public support proper sentencing and any perceived easing will drastically undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
We do welcome the initiative of the Home Secretary today in his decision to implement the dictum "the third burglary means prison". Nevertheless it is essential that alternatives to prison sentences must be considered and these have been dealt with in detail in this debate tonight: probation, community service, attendance sentence orders, compensation, confiscation orders, cautioning with restorative justice and fines, and so forth.
It so happens that today we see the introduction of electronic tagging under the Crime and Disorder Act, a subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has referred. We support electronic tagging. This was somewhat slow to be accepted by the police, but it has now gained wide acceptance. There must, however, be a note of concern, which is that tagging is in danger of being used as a way of releasing prisoners early. For instance, prisoners hitherto sentenced to six months' imprisonment could expect to serve three months in prison and then be discharged. Under the current electronic tagging arrangements, provided that their application for tagging is granted, they will serve only six weeks in prison and then six weeks being electronically tagged, and will be released thereafter.
However, I welcome it in one particular respect. The use of tagging for young prisoners on remand—a subject to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred—can mean that some, at least, are not thereby sent to adult prisons: the worst possible location for a young remand prisoner. This, I know, is a concern of the noble Lord.
I hesitate to lecture such a distinguished member of the Criminal Bar as the Minister, but if alternative sentencing is indeed to assist in deterring an offender from committing future crimes, or in protecting the public, or as an example to others, then it must be seen in that light. Alternative sentencing must not be driven solely by consideration of cost or of overcrowding, and it most certainly must not come to be regarded as a backdoor to an easier life for the prisoners. So in that light I seek a reassurance from the Minister that, notwithstanding all the alternatives to custody which the Government have the right and duty to evaluate, that they still accept that for serious crimes there is no alternative to a prison sentence.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I readily give that assurance. I think the Home Secretary has said it more times than I can recall. I have said it myself. For some serious offenders prison is necessary in the public interest: for deterrence, for punishment and for the protection of the public. The central duty of any government, let alone any Home Secretary, is the protection of the public, but the protection of the public does not solely depend on prison sentences. In July 1998 the prison population was 66,500 and on the 12th January of this year it was 64,378: a decrease.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, misheard me, I think, when he was offering to instruct me if he ever got into serious criminal trouble. I did not say I would not represent him. I said I would find some mitigation for him: namely, an hereditary peerage, born into an over-privileged family, taken away from his family far too young as a child and therefore never having had a proper chance in life.
In some ways this debate has been a shade disappointing. Your Lordships have been tilting at windmills whose locations have been moved and whose sails have been taken away. It is almost impossible for me to describe the transformation in attitude towards dealing with crime, its prevention, its deterrence and public protection, that has occurred since May of last year. I shall be quite brief because I simply invite your Lordships to study the Crime and Disorder Act, and see the themes and philosophies which have been expressed by the Home Secretary and myself on so many occasions, to look at what we are doing in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act and to see what has been done under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in the Youth Justice Board.
Many of the observations made tonight are of historic interest only. We do not believe that prison works. We believe, as Jack Straw has said, that for those who have to be in prison you have to make prisons work. It is rather depressing to note no recognition by some of your Lordships of the work that is done by the Prison Service—the rehabilitative, dedicated and skilled work which actually makes prisons work, because it gives those who have never had an opportunity a chance of making something of themselves.
It is gloomy not to hear a better recognition of the work done by the Probation Service and it is distinctly disappointing not to recognise the fact that we have actually instituted for the first time ever a prison probation review so that we will come to the conclusion—an amazing one—that for the Prison Service and the Probation Service to work together with the same population at the same time is rather a good idea. Your Lordships, I think, might have recognised that a little more graciously.
There is an extraordinary amount of work being done at the moment: exciting, brave, bold. It is not kowtowing to any momentary spasm. It is, I repeat, recognising a central fundamental duty of the Home Office to see to public protection; and public protection depends on public confidence. It is idle to say that those who go to prison are simply unfortunate. Tell that to the elderly

173
single woman whose house has been burgled. That crime is wrongly described as a crime against property: it is a crime against the person, sometimes with effects that never disappear. In those circumstances, a penal sentence is not only necessary but essential, and it is wholly justifiable.
Let us look at the themes behind the Crime and Disorder Act. They are for early intervention. There was much scoffing among the ill-informed about the purpose of that Bill simply being to lock up 10 year-olds. Nonsense, my Lords. Early intervention means that the 10 year-old does not become the 17 year-old incarcerated juvenile prisoner or the 27 year-old recidivist who eventually stops committing crime at 45.
Let us look at the local plans rightly devolving decisions about local concerns and worries to local communities, setting forth for the first time the statutory purpose of the youth justice programme; namely, the prevention of crime and the reduction of juvenile offending.
Look at the early intervention in juvenile cases and family assistance. None of those tasks has been addressed in the past 15 years and more. We have begun the work in the past 18 months. The right reverend Prelate misquoted. I know that Biblical quotation may be a distinct speciality, but he chided me with the rather pale observation that,
"some additional resources may be needed for national implementation of the new range of youth justice services".
I must say this to the right reverend Prelate. I have read the whole citation. I read it to your Lordships. The Government's response states:
"One of the Government's purposes in piloting the youth justice provisions is to enable us better to assess the resource implications … In doing so, we will be looking at how the new arrangements can build on existing provision and how, through new ways of multi-agency working, the youth justice measures can be delivered most cost effectively. We recognise"—
this is the citation given by the right reverend Prelate—
"that some additional resources may be needed for national implementation of the new range of youth justice services"—
the right reverend Prelate paused there, but I continue—
"and the pilots will help us explore this fully".
I do not put that in a tendentious way. I simply express a degree of regret that all the work which is already well under way is barely being recognised by some of your Lordships. It is worth going to prisons to see what is being done on anger management programmes, drug offending programmes, and so forth.
The home detention curfew is a tool to manage the return of offenders to the community. As Mr. Kenneth Baker, when Home Secretary, said in his evidence to an earlier House of Commons committee, we need to recognise that almost all offenders go back into the community. The home detention curfew is designed to manage exactly that. We know the indicators for re-offending: no home; no job; no community ties. The
174
purpose of the home detention curfew is to see whether one cannot manage people back into a job, a home and community ties. If it does not work, the sanctions are severe.
What are we doing about the Probation Service, which in so many aspects is coincident with the Prison Service? We are encouraging the Prison Service and Probation Service to work together. I pay tribute to the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the National Association of Probation Officers for the open-minded approach—I do not say that it is more open-minded than some of the observations tonight because that would be indecent, but wholly right—to the proposals that we are making. I have said to them, and I repeat to your Lordships, that if they fail, we fail; and they are happy and open-minded about a new constructive way.
What about resource? The former government's proposals for the forthcoming year for the Probation Service were a diminution of £6 million. Jack Straw has struck that out at a stroke and increased the amount by £18 million. That is a £24 million difference. Prison additional spending over the next three years is a further £660 million. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, about the real menace of drug-taking as a contributory factor to crime whether or not inside prison. We are ring-fencing money for dealing with drug-taking in prison; and we are ring-fencing money for the drug treatment and training order outside prison. It has never been tried before. That is a source of constant shame to us all.
We should not be dismal. We should consider what has been done and what is being done, and it is a good, promising start. There is a lot of work to be done. We are starting on a long, difficult journey. It will not always be popular. Jack Straw knows that better than anyone. Nevertheless, he is determined to do the right thing. I believe that, if this debate is related to the response, Alternatives to Prison Sentences, it will be very difficult indeed for the chairman, Chris Mullin, or any of the members of that admirable committee of another place to say that we have not responded fully, promptly and faithfully.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may venture to ask whether my noble friend is aware that anyone who visits prisons once or twice a week, as I do, has seen no improvement since Labour came into power.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I visit prisons regularly. I dispute what my noble friend says. It is not the evidence I hear and see on every occasion. I further pay tribute to what members of the Prison Officers' Association are doing in conducting new, vigorous courses which are a distinct improvement for many young men in the Prison Service today.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Tuesday, 12th January 1999.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in this Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Initial steps by Secretary of State]:
The Lord Redesdale The Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("day") insert ("not later than four years after the day on which this Act is passed").
The noble Lord said: I start with a simple probing amendment. The timescale of four years which I chose seemed applicable. I realise that the sale of the CDC will not take place; indeed I do not believe that the CDC will look for potential investors until the back end of the year 2000. After that the Secretary of State will have to choose a time for the sale to take place which is most advantageous to the CDC.
However, there is nothing in the Bill that places a limit on when the sale should take place. Therefore there is the danger that the CDC could be left in limbo for a period of time once this Act comes into force before the Secretary of State has proposed the date and time of the sale. The purpose of this amendment is to obtain some assurance from the Minister. I realise that we would not undertake this Bill if the sale was not to take place as soon as was advantageous. However, I should like some indication of the likely timescale of such a sale. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it is important that we proceed with the transformation as soon as is practicable after the enactment of the Bill. I should like to reassure him that there is no danger that the CDC will be left in limbo. It is intended to proceed with the transformation as soon as is practicable after the Bill has been enacted. We shall need to undertake a number of administrative steps before transformation can be effected, some of which are quite simple. The only reason not to proceed quickly would be if some unforeseen major difficulty arose which would not make it appropriate so to do. In that case it would not be helpful to have an enforced time limit. As the noble Lord said, we would not proceed with this Bill if we wanted a delay. In view of my comments I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. That was the assurance I sought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 15 agreed to.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF CORPORATION'S OVERHEADS, ETC
(" . No securities in the Corporation shall be issued until the Secretary of State has commissioned from a leading firm of consultants a comprehensive review of the Corporation's overheads, working practices and main office records of efficiency measures to maximise private sector investment potential.").
The noble Baroness said: I would like to thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss this Bill in greater detail and also to thank him for his clarifications during the Second Reading.
First, we need to clear up a misunderstanding. During the Second Reading debate, the Minister felt that I did not understand the difference between part privatisation and public/private partnership. He explained, too, that the difference between the two lies in the destination of the proceeds. That is highly innovative semantics, which I cannot accept.
The Oxford English Dictionary, under the heading "privatisation", refers only to the source of money, namely, the private sector, and not its destination. The label "partnership" appears to suggest that the public and the private sectors are on an equal footing. In this case, this is not true, as the public partner has powers to veto changes on crucial areas, such as the investment policy, the business principles, the right to appoint directors and their number. This verges on the "control freak" attitude which is characteristic of much of new Labour's approach towards private partners. I appreciate that the rationale attached to the golden share is to entrench the development focus of the CDC, but it may well dampen private sector interest.
We are not here, however, to make an issue of labels dreamt up by spin doctors. As stated during the Second Reading, we welcome the Bill, and we want to make sure that the operation will be successful. The intention

CWH 3
behind our amendment is to air the issues more fully and to suggest a mechanism which will ensure the successful launch of the CDC in the private sector. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the support she has expressed again in principle for the Bill and most of its provisions.
Let me start by referring to her point about privatisation and public/private partnership. I am perfectly prepared to accept the dictionary definition in relation to the source rather than the destination of the proceeds, although it is a hugely important political point that we want to make, and perhaps I chose the wrong occasion to make it. Any proceeds from the private sector will go into the development budget rather than into the Treasury pot.
Even in semantic terms, I do not agree with the noble Baroness that partnership requires that the partners should be on an equal footing. There can be minority and majority partnerships, and this is indeed what is proposed in this Bill. It is proposed, in primary legislation, that the participation of Government in the ultimate partnership shall be not less than 25 per cent, which is deliberately a significant element and justified by the word "partnership". In that context, I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness has proposed in Amendment No. 6 that the participation of Government should be capable of being reduced to 5 per cent rather than 25 per cent. I suspect that the noble Baroness's preference for part privatisation is wish rather than reality, because that is the direction in which the noble Baroness's later amendment would move us.
On the specific issue of Amendment No. 2, we entirely agree with the noble Baroness that every attention should be paid to the need for value for money. However, we have difficulty with the wording of the noble Baroness's amendment, but in the context of the Moses Room I need not make too much of that. What is a leading firm of consultants? What are they consultants in? Are they management consultants, accountancy consultants, financial consultants, dare I even say marketing consultants? What do the words "leading" and "comprehensive" mean? There are many relatively trivial difficulties with which I need not detain the Committee. However, we recognise the importance of questions of efficiency and value for money, and we shall have regard to these issues in preparing for the public/private partnership. We expect to "benchmark" the CDC against similar organisations, which means, of course, that if it were appropriate to use outside consultants we would not hesitate to do so. Despite being a little aggressive in my opening remarks, as was the noble Baroness, I generally express support for the thinking behind her amendment. However, I ask her in the circumstances to withdraw it.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Requirement to issue securities]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 6, at end insert—
("(7) No securities shall be issued to any third parties unless—

(a) the proposed balance sheet of the Corporation, as at the date of issue of the said securities, has been laid before Parliament; and

(b) a motion in favour of the issue of such securities has been approved by each House.").

The noble Baroness said: The effect of Amendment No. 3 to Clause 16 is that the issue of securities to third parties is conditional upon Parliament having the opportunity to express its view on the proposed balance sheet. In other words, the issue of securities is conditional on the approval of Parliament. The reason for this is simple. At Second Reading, both myself and my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford stressed the importance of a strong and attractive balance sheet as regards the success of the public/private partnership.
Let me remind the Committee of his words,
"The absolute key is that it should have a strong balance sheet, one that is not undermined when the going gets rough again, as inevitably it will".
I asked a number of questions as to how this is to be achieved. The Minister said:
"Filing will be immediate and the restructuring of the balance sheet will take place as soon as possible".
However, the Minister was not able to give us an idea as to how this would be achieved other than by a schematic, not so simplistic, hypothetical example.
I cannot believe that the DFID and the CDC do not have a pretty clear idea of what they want to achieve at this stage. If they do not, why is that the case? Or, are they bogged down in discussions with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue?
Furthermore, we believe that Parliament must have a say not only in enabling the privatisation to take place, but also in the privatisation itself. It is not acceptable to argue that although it is justifiable to require parliamentary involvement at this point that is not practical because of commercial sensitivity and timing. The preparation for an issue of securities involves the launch of a prospectus and takes up to six months, during which time this parliamentary procedure could easily take place.
At this point I would like to add in relation to Amendment No. 2 that before Clause 16—which is central to the Bill, as it concerns the requirement to issue securities—is built into the Bill, it should be made sufficiently flexible to take into account market conditions and other such factors.
We all agree that the CDC is a healthy organisation. However, we are concerned about the degree of readiness to operate in a manner more akin to that of private enterprise. As the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, said at Second Reading,
"many co-venturers from the private sector have perceived CDC as insufficiently financially motivated to make CDC a welcomed partner".—[Official Report, 7/12/98; col. 728.]
It is clear that CDC has to undergo a change in corporate culture and practices. It must do so in order to be able to increase returns significantly and to be perceived to be sufficiently financially driven to be an active partner in the private sector.
I understand the Government have already sought professional advice concerning private sector interest in the public/private partnership. Would the Minister not agree that a review of the cost structure and operations of the CDC would be helpful both in reassuring private investors and in helping the CDC effect the corporate culture of transformation? I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me begin again by saying that we have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that the capital structure before the introduction of private capital should be all above board, if I may put it that way—although, as I shall explain, I do not believe it is entirely appropriate that it should be subject to parliamentary approval. I shall give chapter and verse to show why that has not happened in the past.
First, the noble Baroness picked me up on a word that I used at Second Reading which I acknowledge was not entirely appropriate. I said that we would move to filing "immediately" whereas what we intend, of course, is "as soon as is practicable". Here we are in danger of getting into semantics, but if the Committee will forgive me, it is important, at least in my thinking, that we should get any potential conflict out of the way.
It might seem that a duty to do something immediately has to be complied with more quickly than a duty to do it as soon as practicable, but in the context of laying a statement before Parliament the two expressions come to the same thing. "As soon as is practicable" is an onerous duty. The only circumstances that would justify a delay are those that make it impracticable to lay the statement, not those that merely make it difficult or inconvenient or place a strain on resources. In plain language it means "as soon as you can". The message is very clear: this is not a duty that the Treasury or the Secretary of State or, in practice, their officials can choose to ignore or leave to another day. Since guarantees are not lightly given on the spur of the moment, officials usually have plenty of time to prepare the statement in advance and ensure that it was laid quickly after the guarantee was given.
"As soon as practicable" is a well-defined, legally precise phrase imposing a legal obligation as soon as it is feasible, having regard to all the relevant knowledge, circumstances and resources. On the other hand, "immediately" gives a full sense of needing to be complied with sooner. That is why I apologise for the use of the word "immediate", on which the noble Baroness picked me up in her speech.
She also thought that I was insufficiently precise about the process of financial restructuring in the example that I gave. I am sorry about that. Let me try to be a little more helpful to her. As she will recognise, the balance sheet needs to be restructured to reflect the format of a Companies Act company and establish a
CWH 6
suitable financial structure for CDC to move forward. The format of a Companies Act company essentially recognises the ownership of the company by its shareholders and draws a distinction between the two principal funding sources available to the company to support its operations, debt and equity. CDC's current balance sheet merely reflects the historical funding that it has received from the Government in the form of loans.
CDC currently does not have any share capital. Once it is restructured, CDC will be in a legal form which will provide a vehicle for the introduction of private sector capital through the sale of shares and the function of debt. This in turn will establish a more appropriate financial structure for CDC and provide a cost of capital over and above which CDC must generate a required return.
The restructuring will be achieved by initially converting a proportion of CDC's historic loans from the Government into share capital which will be owned by the Government and held by the Secretary of State as nominee. The conversion will be achieved by the waiver of existing loans made by the Government in return for the issue by CDC of new share capital. All the share capital initially issued by CDC will be owned by the Government.
The new balance sheet will also contain loans from the Government on commercial terms. The amount of these will be set to balance the need for capital efficiency with an appropriate degree of risk and to allow the business to grow in the future. Post the partnership CDC will be able to raise the funds it requires to support its ongoing operations by borrowing from the private sector on commercial terms.
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to waive loans made to CDC while CDC remains wholly owned by the Government. Since the Government will initially own all the share capital in CDC, there will be no loss in value through the waiver of these loans, simply the substitution of share capital for the existing loans. When the Government subsequently sell part of their shareholding they will effectively receive value for the financial support they have provided to date.
I hope that that gives a little more detail about the cost structure about which the noble Baroness asked.
Lord Redesdale: We have talked about the changing of loans into share capital. Do the Government have any indication of what percentage of the share capital the Government will be taking with this transference of loans in the future CDC?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a matter which will not be decided only by the Government. It will be decided by the Government together with the potential private partners. It is, therefore, really too early to make an estimate. Clearly, the higher gearing from private capital that can be obtained in the form of equity, the more money there will be available for investment in emerging economies, which is the ultimate objective of the whole exercise. However, one cannot anticipate the level or the percentage at which that figure will come out.

CWH 7
Turning now to the wording of the amendment of the noble Baroness, she is asking that the proposed balance sheet should be laid before Parliament and approved under the affirmative resolution procedure. I suggest that it is impossible to draw up a balance sheet on the date of issue of securities, as suggested in the amendment, because transactions affecting the balance sheet will take place throughout the day. Requiring parliamentary approval for the issue of securities is not practicable in terms of the timetable. These are things that happen virtually all at one time. The amendment would undermine the ability of the Government to negotiate a deal.
In any case, although the issue of securities may be part of the capital structure, it is not the whole part. There could be, for example, a waiving of debt at a different time. Financial restructuring will balance the need for capital efficiency with an appropriate degree of risk. What we are doing here is not new; provisions of this kind have been included in other legislation dealing with statutory corporations being turned into plcs without further parliamentary scrutiny. In any event, I emphasise to the noble Baroness that there will be a prospectus, or some other similar sales document. There would have to be one, although that does not need to be on the face of the Bill. The objectives could not be achieved without a prospectus and that would include the relevant balance sheet information.
I suggest to the noble Baroness that it would be unprecedented for Parliament to be involved in approval either of the prospectus or of the balance sheet, as is proposed in this amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for his very clear explanation. This is an extremely complex subject, one which I should like to leave at the moment and return to at Report or Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Acquisition of securities]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall seek to attract private sector investment in the Corporation by the issuing of securities at market value not less than two years after the day on which this Act is passed.").
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is to ensure that the sale of CDC shares is not rushed and that the proceeds from it are maximised. At Second Reading, the Minister may have misunderstood me. I did not ask him when precisely the flotation would take place. Of course, as the Minister said:
"timing depends on a number of factors, including market perceptions of pre-emerging markets and of CDC's track record and forecast performance".—[Official Report, 7/12/98; col. 723.]
My concern was fuelled by the analysis of the figures presented in the DFID press release of 14th July 1998. It appears that the Government intend to sell the CDC in two tranches: the first some time in the year
CWH 8
2000–2001 and the second some time in the following year. Eighteen months, or less, from now seems a very short time to turn around CDC in order to improve its returns and forecast performance sufficiently to be attractive to the private sector.
The Minister will no doubt point out that this process had already started at the end of 1997, when the Prime Minister announced that the CDC would be transformed into a public/private partnership. If this period is included, CDC would still have fewer than three years to turn itself around. We would like to give it more time to do so, without postponing indefinitely the injections of private capital. In order to do so, we would like to set a time antequam it is not possible to proceed with the sale, unless the Minister persuades us that our concerns are unfounded.
The amendment also seeks to prevent the Government from selling off CDC too cheaply. Having accused the Conservative Government of selling off the utilities too cheaply, the Labour Government, so sensitive to the ethical question, would scarcely wish to commit the same sin. However, in view of the difficulty of improving returns significantly and quickly, they may be tempted to resort to an elementary commercial trick: decrease price to increase demand. That would be a shame; in particular, if it is true that the proceeds of the sale would be ploughed back into the development through DFID. What assurances can the Minister give us that the sale will take place at the right price? I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: The effect of the amendment would be that it would not be possible to offer shares in CDC to potential private-sector participants until two years after passage of the Bill.
The noble Baroness has expressed concerns about the proceeds from the sale not being maximised. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that the timing of the sale will depend on a number of factors. In particular, we want to ensure that there is an opportunity to maximise the potential from the sale, particularly given that the proceeds would be used for development, as the noble Baroness rightly stated.
There is clearly a need for CDC to build a track record of successful equity investment in preparation for sale. Our intention is to create a long-term partnership in which government will have a significant stake; it is not to exit CDC.
A decision on the timing of the sale will be taken in the light of what is best for development. These interests would not be served by going to the market too early. Market conditions are one factor and if those were right, say, 20 months after enactment and if CDC was ready, we would not want to miss the opportunity. A two-year time limit would then be an unnecessary restriction.
I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that what we are seeking to do is to maximise proceeds from the sale when the market conditions are right, but we do not want to restrict the potential for doing that by putting a time limit on it.

CWH 9
In the light of that reassurance, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the matter so clearly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(3) No securities in the Corporation shall be issued until a memorandum setting out how the proceeds of any such issue shall be treated by the Treasury has been laid before Parliament and a motion to approve it has been agreed to by resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment to Clause 17 is designed to ensure that the destination of the proceeds of the sale is clear before the sale takes place. We strongly believe that the ethically-minded investor in particular would want to know where the money raised from the sale of shares is to go. We feel that Parliament and the ethical investor have a right to know.
The Minister will remind the Committee that the Prime Minister said to the Open Business Forum of the Commonwealth Heads of Government on 27th October 1997:
"I can also promise that all the money the Government raises from this sale will be ploughed back into our development programme".
This promise was reiterated in the White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty. Last summer, DFID, on the occasion of the Comprehensive Spending Review stated:
"The CDC will receive an injection of private capital through the sale of a majority share … It will provide receipts for the Dfid budget".
Finally, at Second Reading, the Minister said:
"The proceeds from introducing private capital into the CDC will be used for development assistance programmes … and not go straight into the Treasury pot".—(Official Report, 7/12/98; col. 739.]
The accumulation of statements to the effect that the proceeds of the sale will be earmarked for development is encouraging but not entirely reassuring. Will the Minister give assurances that this will be the case for the duration of this Parliament? We want to ensure that the Government do not wriggle out of this promise and that the rights of the potential investors are protected by giving Parliament the opportunity of expressing its opinion on the treatment of the proceeds. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness said that I would remind the Committee of the Prime Minister's statement of 1997, but she has saved me the trouble and I am very grateful to her. It is certainly true that every single statement by Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, from the beginning of this exercise to date and from now on, has confirmed that it is the intention of the Government that the proceeds of any sale should go into the development budget rather than into the general Consolidated Fund. We have already agreed with the Treasury that the proceeds will be used for the development programme. This will be reflected
CWH 10
in the public expenditure accounts. As the noble Baroness knows, the Comprehensive Spending Review, which was carried out last year and which resulted in the Statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review, operates for three years ahead. Therefore, it is prudent that the Comprehensive Spending Review should include, as it does, provision for receipts from privatisation towards the end of that three-year period.
As we do not know the date of the final stage of the public/private partnership, clearly there might need to be some moving of these receipts from one year to another. We cannot be any more precise than that. Nevertheless, I can confirm that the Government's income and expenditure plans include the provision that receipts from the public/private partnership will go into the development budget, and only into the development budget. It makes sense for us to have an allocation in advance of the sale in order to plan expenditure and make best use of it, rather than spending receipts in one particular year. I hope that that assurance, which is very firm, that we not only intend that but have already made our plans contingent on that, will reassure the noble Baroness.
If I may make one of my petty little points about drafting, I do not believe that the amendment should be to this clause. Clause 17 is about the acquisition of securities by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. The amendment should really be to Clause 16 which is about the issue of securities. However, that should not inhibit the noble Baroness, if she is not satisfied, from coming back to this in a redrafted form on Report if she so wishes. In the meantime, I hope that she will think it appropriate to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Lord for his reassurance and take his point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Minimum Crown share-holding]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("25") and insert ("5").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 6 seeks to reduce the minimum government holding in CDC from 25 per cent to 5 per cent. This is a probing amendment. As we know, Clause 18 is the key clause. The clause sets out the basic structure of the public/private partnership. The Secretary of State holds the golden share, which appears to bestow on the Secretary of State more rights than those retained by the Government in other privatisations.
The Government will also retain at least 25 per cent of the ordinary share capital. What consideration led to setting that percentage? The Government appear to think that the stick of the golden share will become acceptable to private investors because of the carrot represented by the Government's commitment. As the provision is structured, while the Government hold the golden share, they would also shoulder the largest share of risk. Why would this structure entice private sector investment? We very much doubt that it would. I therefore question the figure of 25 per cent. Why not have a figure of

CWH 11
15 per cent., or indeed 5 per cent? The lower the shareholding the Government retain, the higher the proceeds which would go to DFID. Would this not be highly desirable? The Minister will no doubt point out that, at least initially, we are more likely to see a government holding of around 40 per cent. If the Government indicated that they would retain participation higher than 25 per cent., would this not affect negatively private investors' interest? Would not such a holding be a form of double insurance, as my honourable friend Mr. Wells pointed out in another place? Is it really necessary?
Finally, have the Government set targets for divesting from CDC? What figure would they regard as a success? I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I take the opposite approach from that taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I believe that 25 per cent. would be a good figure. I ask the Minister whether, without the 25 per cent. holding, the guarantees that have been put in place at the moment would hold true in the face of other investors holding a larger percentage? Would the golden share have any meaning if the Government held less than 25 per cent? Further, what would be the negative outcome to the CDC in its operations abroad if private investors believed that the Government were divesting themselves of these shares and pulling out of something which was so successful?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: For the first time we have a disagreement on a political issue rather than simply differences as regards having confidence in the Government's intentions or interpretation of the legislation. I profoundly disagree with the noble Baroness as regards the suggestion that it should be possible, without legislation, for the Government to reduce their percentage shareholding below 25 per cent. I gave my reasons for that in part when I responded to the noble Baroness's speech on her Amendment No. 3, which appeared to say the opposite; namely, that we should have continuing assurances that the Government will maintain their firm interest in the Commonwealth Development Corporation after the public/private partnership has been established.
I also disagree with the noble Baroness about the purpose and effect of the golden share. The golden share does not mean that the Government will take the largest share of the risk; the golden share will ensure that the ethical investment policies, which are the fundamental basis of the CDC and will remain so, are enshrined in legislation, and are protected and cannot be changed without the will of Parliament. It is one thing to have a golden share, but it is another to convince investors that we are also willing to put our money where our mouth is. For the Government to put a significant minimum into these investments—which are defined by the memorandum and articles of association of CDC plc—and in order to attract the private investment we want, we think it is necessary both to insist on investment policies and to maintain a substantial economic interest to enable the Government to continue to have a stake in
CWH 12
and benefit from CDC's future success. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for what he said in that regard.
In practice the 25 per cent. shareholding is significant, as the noble Baroness well knows. This is the point below which the golden shares can be redeemed by CDC without government agreement. That is in Article 11(F)(ii) of the draft articles of association. The golden share contains rights over a number of important areas such as investment policy and the right to appoint directors. We believe that the market would not respond positively if the Government's retention of such rights were not backed by this substantial interest in CDC through their ordinary shareholding.
Under company law, 25 per cent. is the level above which minority shareholders have the right to block unwanted changes in the articles of association, so it has a legal as well as an economic significance. I urge the noble Baroness to think again about this matter, on which I am sorry to see that we disagree. I believe that the attraction for private shareholders must be based on a real commitment by government—not only the negative commitment of the powers conferred by the golden share, but also the positive commitment of government investment in the new CDC. In those circumstances I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for his explanation, but I am still not convinced. I feel that the golden share will still enable the Secretary of State to dictate policy: for a private investor investing in a company this automatically changes the aspect of the investment. Secondly, I do not feel that the 25 per cent. holding would necessarily give the investor confidence that the Government are taking this seriously. For the moment, I should like to come back to this on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 26 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
COMMENCEMENT
(" . This Act, other than this section and section 27, shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has—

(a) prepared a report on the liability of the Corporation after registration to corporation tax; and

(b) laid the report before the House of Commons.").

The noble Lord said: It was difficult enough to table this amendment to any part of the Bill so I hope that the Minister will not use the "petty drafting" argument in this case. This is, I believe, the central amendment of the Bill and although I am speaking to Amendment No. 7 which stands in my name, I also support Amendment No. 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
The purpose of the amendment, which concerns tax, is not political in the sense of "party political", although anything to do with tax obviously has a political

CWH 13
implication. However, if the tax situation of the CDC is not dealt with and the CDC is faced with paying corporation tax, that could lead to the failure of the CDC as a successful corporation.
It was suggested that the CDC would have to make a return of around 15 per cent. Although that has not been set down anywhere, I believe that that is the figure that is being discussed. If the CDC is forced to repatriate its profits to this country and is then asked to pay corporation tax, that will eat into its profit margin of 15 per cent quite considerably. What level of return could be obtained if corporation tax were payable? Other companies in this field avoid this pitfall by going offshore. Is it possible for the CDC as regards its future role vis-a-vis government investment to be based offshore? I find that hard to believe. However, if that is not the case, the Government will be forced to make special tax provision for the CDC. I realise that the Treasury is loath to establish a tax precedent for any individual corporation in case other companies see a loophole. However, I believe that the CDC is unique and that an exception should be made to the usual rule.
I realise that this is not a situation that has passed the Government by and that the Government will consider this matter carefully. I hope that the Minister can give us some indication of the Government's thinking on the issue of tax. I hope that he can enlighten us on that matter because if the Bill is to proceed through the Chamber without this matter being resolved the CDC will be flawed. It will not be a success and the laudable aims that are set out in the Bill will not be achieved. I beg to move.
Baroness Rawlings: I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on Amendment No. 7. In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 9. As he so rightly said, this is the most important of all the amendments. The effect of Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 is to make the coming into force of the Act conditional upon achieving for CDC an advantageous tax status or permission to go offshore.
Again, this is not a wrecking amendment. The Bill would not be wrecked by the amendment but by the failure to solve the tax issue. The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, the amendment reflects our conviction that it is imperative for the success of the partnership that the CDC is tax efficient. The Minister agreed with this point at Second Reading. However, we differ on the importance we attribute to such a status.
The Minister seems to believe that the CDC experience and expertise, as well as the Government's shareholding, will be sufficient to provide comfort to private investors especially in the context of growing interest in ethical investment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I suffer from cynicism. I believe that private investors will look primarily at results. Unless the tax status is advantageous it will be difficult significantly to improve the current downward trend of the CDC's returns while maintaining the development focus in the current economic conditions. Indeed the Minister appears to be at odds with the Secretary of State, who in another place said that if we do not solve
CWH 14
the problem of the tax treatment it would be so disadvantageous that it would not be viable as a means of attracting private sector funds.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State. Because of the importance which we ascribe to the tax issue, we feel that it is prudent to solve it at the outset. If a solution is not found with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, we fear that it may be impossible to attract sufficient private investors. If this is the case, the project is seriously at risk. In such circumstances, would the Government abandon it?
At Second Reading, I asked a whole range of questions on the issue to which the Minister gave such economical answers that we were really none the wiser. Has the Treasury vetoed the proposals of the Secretary of State to create a new category of organisations as regards tax and investment funds? If that is the case, what other avenues have been explored?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fully recognise the importance of these two amendments. I do not in any way intend to underestimate them, or indeed to criticise the drafting or the motives of those who have tabled them because the amendments have been tabled out of a genuine desire to help to achieve what the Government wish to achieve from this legislation. I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the way in which they have proposed these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that this change would not work if the Bill passed through this House in its current form without assurances on taxation. I have to disagree with him on that. It would not work if the Bill passed through Parliament without some taxation provisions, which I fully acknowledge are not available at the moment. I had hoped that by the time we reached Committee stage we would have something definite and final to say about the way in which this problem will be solved, but, as it is, I do not believe that I can do more than read out the current state of play.
The CDC needs to be tax-efficient if it is to be able to achieve its goal of investing in developing countries using private capital raised, within the context of a competitive private investment market dominated by offshore funds. I think that noble Lords opposite will agree with that. In order to compete directly with offshore funds for private capital for investment in its area, CDC would need to provide a similar return. Again, I think that noble Lords would agree with that. A material UK tax charge within CDC would make this less achievable. The Secretary of State for International Development has said publicly—the noble Baroness has reminded us of this—that it is politically unacceptable for CDC to go offshore.
The Department for International Development, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue are working together to produce a tax solution that will encourage investment in the poorest countries through the CDC public/private partnership. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposals. I cannot go any further than

CWH 15
that at this time, but I fully acknowledge the sincerity and helpfulness of the approach taken by noble Lords opposite.
Lord Redesdale: Obviously, we were hoping for a more definitive answer at this stage. The Minister has set out his view that the Government will solve this problem, but he has given the impression that the answer may come after the Bill has passed from this House to the other place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not intend to give that impression. Clearly, it would be helpful—to me at any rate, if to nobody else—if we were able to resolve these issues before the Bill leaves this House. All I said was that that is not essential for the legislation. The Bill would still be effective even if amendments were introduced in another place.
Lord Redesdale: On that basis, I should like to return to this at a later stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
COMMENCEMENT (No. 2)
(" . This Act shall not come into force until the investment policy of the Corporation has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment is to make the coming into force of the Act conditional on both Houses approving the investment policy of the CDC. This is not a wrecking amendment. It is designed to ensure that both Houses have a say beyond the setting-up of the purely formal framework, and that the privatisation of the CDC transformation is properly carried through. Parliament should have the opportunity of discussing the fundamental elements of the partnership. The intention is to ensure that the investment policy does not unduly restrict the commercial freedom of CDC and thereby hinder the earning of a satisfactory return for the shareholders. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by reiterating the concerns about the geographical restriction to investment contained in the investment policy. I say only that the investment policy merits a full discussion.
The intention of the amendment is also to ensure that the investment policy is effectively in place before the transformation of the CDC starts. At Second Reading, the Minister said:
"The investment policy will be put into place before private participation is invited".—[Official Report, 7/12/98; col. 722.]
I hope that he can give assurances to that effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Amos: We fully recognise the need for scrutiny. Drafts of the first investment policy, along with the memorandum and articles of association and the progress report on the statement of business principles, have been placed in the Library of the House. We welcome comments on those documents and shall, of course, give careful consideration to any comments which are received.
However, it is important to say that after consideration of those comments, we do not intend to make any substantial changes to the draft currently available prior to transformation. We shall place the final version in the Library of both Houses.
The mechanism for subsequent amendments to the investment policy after it has been adopted is set out in the articles of association. This allows for any necessary adaptation in the light of changing circumstances. Agreement to any change would be a ministerial decision which would be accountable to Parliament in the normal way.
I remind the Committee that Parliament has not had any role previously in approving the investment policies of the CDC while it has been a statutory corporation. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I hope that, following my explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness for those reassurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Short title and extent]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported to the House without amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past four o'clock.

  Afghanistan: Support for NGOs
  Afghanistan: Support for NGOs
  Sure Start
  Sure Start
  Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
  Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
  Crime
  Crime
  BSE Cull
  BSE Cull
  Tallow Stocks: Destruction
  Tallow Stocks: Destruction
  Armenia and the British Council
  Armenia and the British Council
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  GCHQ: Dismissed Staff
  GCHQ: Dismissed Staff
  EU and UK: New Jobs
  EU and UK: New Jobs
  Flora and Fauna: Extinct Species
  Flora and Fauna: Extinct Species
  Spray from Heavy Vehicles
  Spray from Heavy Vehicles
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge