Sitting of 23 June 1999

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

Capital Punishment (Caribbean)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.33 am
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to raise this issue in the House today, Madam Speaker, during a period of particular crisis caused by the hangings that have taken place in Trinidad and Tobago and the possibility of a large number of hangings in other parts of the Caribbean.
I have always been strongly opposed to capital punishment, but this is not just about capital punishment and the hanging of people who may or may not be guilty because the process of justice is not what it ought to be in some Caribbean countries. It is about human rights. I am not just a British Member of Parliament with not much else to do poking his nose into the affairs of other sovereign countries. Many people and organisations have expressed deep concern and sought to intervene in the attempts to carry out—and now, sadly, the carrying out of—executions in the Caribbean. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has condemned Jamaica. One of Her Majesty's inspectors of prisons went there and reported that the prison conditions were the worst that he had ever seen. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I have visited Ministers and the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, who expressed his concern and told us of how he had sought to intervene. These are matters of universal concern to all who are troubled by the human rights records of several countries.
At their Edinburgh meeting in October 1997, the Commonwealth Heads of Government
"reaffirmed their commitment to the fundamental values of the Commonwealth … and emphasised that democracy, good governance, sustainable development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing."
I am sorry to say that a considerable number of those who signed that communiqué did so hypocritically, because they are not maintaining such standards in their country. The situation in Jamaica and Trinidad is particularly troubling. The hypocrisy involved in the way in which the matters are dealt with is almost as troubling. For example, Caribbean Justice, which is working hard on the issues, told me that because approximately 30 per cent. of the population of Trinidad and Tobago is Catholic and the Catholic Church there is opposed to the death penalty, the executions earlier this month were timed to avoid the feast of Corpus Christi. I do not know why the Government bothered.
1090
I shall use one case as an example of the hypocrisy and violation of human rights in Caribbean countries. Anthony Briggs was due to be hanged yesterday in Trinidad. I have made inquiries about what has happened in that case. On Sunday 20 June an Associated Press report said:
"The Trinidad and Tobago Appeals Court of Appeals agreed Saturday with a lower judge's ruling that killer Anthony Briggs' motion"
to avoid execution
"was 'plainly hopeless, bound to fail."'
The report went on:
"On Friday, his lawyers appealed, saying he still had a petition pending before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission."
I shall return to that body later. The report continued:
"Judge Nolan Bereaux said at midnight Friday there was no evidence that the appeal was ever made. 'I thus rule the constitutional motion is plainly hopeless, bound to fail.' he ruled. 'It is an abuse of process and it is frivolous and vexatious, and I refuse the application for a stay.' The appeals court, headed by Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide, agreed several hours later"
that Mr. Briggs should hang.
Mr. Briggs is one of between 70 and 100 people on death row in Trinidad, which has a population of just over 1 million. It is as though there were 5,000 people on death row in this country.
The next day, an agency report said:
"Killer Anthony Briggs got a temporary stay of execution from the British Privy Council Monday, one day before he was scheduled to be executed.
The Privy Council … said it would give a temporary stay of execution until a date next month when it will hear full arguments."
The report continued:
"Lawyers representing Briggs said an order imposed on the Trinidad and Tobago government last year by the Inter-American Human Rights Court was never lifted.
The order was imposed following moves by the government to hang Briggs who had a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission ruled on the petition in March and recommended to the government that Briggs be paid compensation or be considered for either an early release or commutation of his death sentence.
The Commission said that Briggs had remained in jail too long before he went on trial for the 1992 murder of Shammi Ramkissoon."
The courts in Trinidad were perfectly ready to authorise the execution of Mr. Briggs. Indeed, if they had had their way, they would have executed him even though the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said that he should be paid compensation and released. That is what I am dealing with in today's debate; it is not simply some kind of bleeding-heart opposition to capital punishment, although I admit that I am strongly opposed to it.
There are other examples. The last hanging in Trinidad was in 1994 when a man called Dan Ashby was hanged while the Privy Council was considering his case.
I have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South on issues relating to capital punishment in the Caribbean for many years. A number of men on death row in Jamaica took to writing to me. Some of them have been on death row for nearly 20 years. They started there as young men and have reached middle age while waiting on death row.
Until the Pratt and Morgan ruling by the Privy Council, there were some 270 people on death row in Jamaica. That is another example of the violation of human rights.

1091
The Pratt and Morgan ruling said that keeping men on death row for more than five years was cruel and inhuman treatment. When I went to Jamaica, I met the Governor General, who said that men on death row should be executed or released.
After the Pratt and Morgan ruling, the number of people on death row in Jamaica was gradually reduced, though not as speedily as it should have been in accordance with the Privy Council ruling.
I went to Jamaica and visited all the prisons in Kingston where I met the men who had been writing to me. I was appalled, not only by the abominable conditions, especially on death row, but by the way in which those in charge of the prison conducted themselves. When I was talking to two of the men who had been writing to me, the man who was in charge of prisons and who had insisted on accompanying me to all my meetings was abusive to them in my presence. That led me to wonder how they were treated when not in the presence of a visiting British Member of Parliament, given their treatment when I was actually there.
The conditions on death row in particular were unspeakable. Prisoners have no furniture and no eating implements. They have a theoretical short exercise period which to a considerable degree is not observed, so they rarely see daylight because there is no lighting in their tiny cells. As a result, they have eye problems, but they are denied access to a doctor. Their only access to any hygiene is a stand pipe outside the death row block, which they have to use for washing and cleaning food. The conditions in other prisons, where people are not being held ready for eventual execution, though not quite as bad, are still dreadful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, who has also had correspondence with people on death row, told me what I had already guessed—that those on death row had been made to clean the place up before I arrived. If that was what it was like when it was cleaned up, I shudder to think what it was like when there were no visitors.
Like others, I was rather complacent in believing that hangings would not be resumed in the Caribbean. I thought that the saga would continue and that many would be held in intolerable conditions but not executed. Trinidad has shown that that complacency was totally unjustified and we now hear reports that Jamaica, where there are still some 50 men on death row, is preparing to conduct hangings.
It was reported in The Independent yesterday, that
"Percival Patterson, the Jamaican Prime Minister, said during a visit to Canada that the Trinidad nine"—
there were nine executions there—
"had set an important precedent."
The zeal for hanging has been stimulated by what has taken place in Trinidad.
Trinidad and Jamaica are not the only countries involved. It is difficult to find the exact figures, but it appears that there are 300 people on death row in Caribbean countries. Helping them presents great problems because there is very little opportunity for pro bono work by lawyers in those countries. There are some very brave lawyers, one of whom I met when I was in Jamaica.
1092
The Commonwealth Caribbean death penalty project, which is one of a few projects that provide help for men on death row, has run out of funds. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, whose work on this matter I very much respect, asking whether overseas development funds could be provided. She wrote back saying that it was not within the scope of her Department. I very much hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), whose answers to parliamentary questions show his concern, will be able to say that at least some finance will be made available for that project.
There are several eminent firms of solicitors in London who do pro bono work for death row prisoners in the Caribbean. I recently gave an affidavit to one who was seeking to assist a death row prisoner. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: when firms like Simons Muirhead and Burton and Clifford Chance do pro bono work, it demonstrates that it is a matter not simply of nosey parker Members of Parliament interfering, but of important areas of concern to everyone who cares about the rule of law.
I received a letter from Simons Muirhead and Burton describing the problems of those on death row or in Jamaican prisons relating to access to legal advice. It said:
"There are approximately 300 prisoners under sentence of death in the Caribbean. Legal aid is not available to enable such prisoners to appeal against conviction and sentence to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, nor is legal aid made available for domestic or international human rights challenges …
Prisoners under sentence of death in the Caribbean do not have the financial resources to challenge their convictions at the JCPC, or to establish violations of their domestic or international human rights. There are very few lawyers in the Caribbean prepared to represent prisoners on a pro bono basis".
I wish to pay tribute to the London firms and solicitors who are doing this work, which is difficult.
Any of us with constituents in jail will be well aware that there are large numbers of people in jail who claim their innocence—whether accurately or not. However, owing to the rough and ready systems of justice in these countries, not only are people who will have undoubtedly committed murder liable to be hanged after suffering bad conditions in prison, but it is quite likely that innocent people are suffering in the same way. After all, if we in this country can keep people in prison for 14 years who were wrongly found guilty of murder—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South at this point—I do not rule out that the same is likely to have happened in these countries.
All over the Caribbean, the reintroduction of hanging—or the danger of it—is prevalent. In Barbados, there is an intention to reintroduce hanging. Last year, St. Kitts had its first hanging since 1981. In the Bahamas, Trevor Fisher and Richard Woods were hanged on 15 October 1998, notwithstanding the fact that each had petitions pending to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that their rights, enshrined under the American declaration on the rights and duties of man, had been violated. These were the first executions in the Bahamas for three years, and were carried out despite a démarche from the EU—which has been active on these matters—on both cases, and a request from the IACHR that the Government preserve their lives, pending its decision on the petitions submitted by the two men on

1093
7 June 1996 and 28 August 1996 respectively. A recognised legal process was involved, but the hangings took place all the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has been particularly concerned about the situation in Belize, and has been active on that matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, in a recent letter to me, said that she was working with Penal Reform International in Jamaica and Belize. That is another country causing deep concern.
Those countries are so keen to carry out hangings that they are revoking international agreements to do so. They are withdrawing from international bodies which provide recourse to the possibility of executions being prevented or postponed.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, until recently, Belize had a Lord Chief Justice who professed to hear messages from God?
Mr. Kaufman: I once had a chief constable who said the same thing for a while. It appears to have spread from one continent to another. One of the messages from God that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai was "Thou shalt not kill." There was no proviso in that commandment that it should exclude judicial killing.
Mr. Mullin: This Lord Chief Justice was hearing the opposite messages from God.
Mr. Kaufman: I cannot regard myself as the greatest expert on religion, but it seems to me that the ten commandments were unequivocal.
Governments in the Caribbean are withdrawing from international agreements to carry out hangings. On 16 December last year, Guyana informed the United Nations Secretary-General of its withdrawal as a party to the optional protocol to the international convention on civil and political rights. Like Trinidad and Tobago, it then immediately reacceded, with a reservation purporting to exclude the UN Human Rights Committee from considering petitions brought by people under sentence of death relating to the capital proceedings against them. This course of action was instigated following the decision earlier in the year by the Human Rights Committee on a petition brought by two men under sentence of death.
The Human Rights Committee concluded that both men had been deprived of a fair trial and thus, if executed, would be arbitrarily deprived of their lives. It recommended not only that their death sentences be commuted, but that they should be released. The Guyanan Government said that they would not follow the recommendation. If one does not like a verdict, get rid of the judge—that appears to be their attitude.
Trinidad and Tobago has done the same thing. The Government set strict timetables for the Human Rights Committee and the IACHR to consider petitions made on behalf of people under sentence of death. In May 1998, Trinidad and Tobago notified the secretary general of the Organisation of American States of its intention to withdraw as a state party to the American convention on human rights, which came into force last month. That unprecedented step removed the obligation on the Government to guarantee the rights enshrined in the treaty to people within its jurisdiction.
1094
Last August, Trinidad and Tobago's withdrawal from the optional protocol to the ICCPR became effective. Like other countries that are following that practice, Trinidad and Tobago immediately reacceded as a party to the optional protocol, with a reservation precluding the Human Rights Committee from considering any communications by a person under sentence of death relating to the capital proceedings against them. Jamaica has gone through the same kind of charade, and has paid no attention to requests by Her Majesty's Government to change that position.
We are not dealing with a zeal to hang, obnoxious though that is. We are dealing with deliberate violations of human rights and the rule of law. We are dealing with countries which, where their wish to violate human rights clashes with their international commitments, then withdraw from those commitments in order to be able to carry on with the hangings.
The Commonwealth has made statements about human rights to which these Governments have subscribed. There is to be another meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Durban in November. No doubt these countries will go through the same hypocritical charade and pay their respects to human rights in the communiqué with their fellow members of the Commonwealth—and will then go on violating human rights as they have done.
In Trinidad, one of the bodies entrusted with overriding human rights is called—almost hilariously—the mercy committee, which is chaired by the National Security Minister. It was the mercy committee that ordered the execution of Mr. Briggs, and it would have got away with executing Mr. Briggs if the Privy Council—which had authorised the hangings in Trinidad and Tobago—had not withdrawn that authorisation.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the firm stand that he has taken on this matter. When it became evident at the beginning of this month that hangings were to go ahead in Trinidad and Tobago, I telephoned my right hon. Friend's office and asked if it would communicate my concerns to the Government of Trinidad. Not only that, but my right hon. Friend wrote to me on 2 June saying:
"I, too was concerned that Trinidad and Tobago was considering resumption of executions after a de facto moratorium of five years. Together with our EU partners, we have made clear to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on a number of occasions that we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Baroness Symons, as Minister responsible for our relations with the Caribbean, has followed up these representations by meetings with the High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago in London.
Most recently, Baroness Symons spoke to the Minister of National Security"—
he chairs the mercy committee—
"on 10 May while he was visiting Britain and in repeating our abolitionist views raised the case of Dole Chadee and his associates"—
the men who were hanged. My right hon. Friend continued:
"On 17 May, after these men had lost their most recent appeal, the UK joined other EU partners in démarching the Government of Trinidad and Tobago once again in Port of Spain.
If the executions of Dole Chadee and his associates do go ahead I will be pressing for a public statement by the EU as we did recently when the Philippines resumed executions."
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the firm and clear position he has taken and for the firm and clear position taken by the European Union.

1095
What those countries say to persons such as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me, and institutions such as the EU, the UNCHR, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and all the others, is, "Keep your nose out of our business. We are sovereign countries and we can do as we like. You are intruding on our sovereignty by saying such things." I suppose that there is an argument for that, but they cheerfully allow their sovereignty to be intruded on in other ways. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development provided me with details of the financial aid being provided by this country and the EU to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean which have the death penalty. It is significant that the two countries which receive by far the greatest aid are Trinidad and Tobago, which received £20.4 million in 1997, and Jamaica, which received £45.6 million.
It is of course countries in the Caribbean which have taken a strong stand in insisting on the retention of preferential treatment by the EU for, in particular, their bananas. Our Government have responded to that. If people will not respond to appeals to their better nature, or if they do not have a better nature, it seems to me that we should re-examine the generosity with which we deal with some of their requests for help. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development might argue that it would not be fair to the people of the country to punish them for what their Governments do, but we are told by those Governments that they have overwhelming support from the people of their countries. Much as I dislike using such pressure, if that is the only kind of pressure we have, we should use it; and I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to do so.
Some of us in this House, together with lawyers and other outside agencies, have been a nuisance to the Governments involved for a long time. I intend to continue being as big a nuisance as I can be until we get them to acknowledge that human rights are universal. We have just been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations declaration on human rights, article 5 of which states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
These countries are undoubtedly inflicting such treatment or punishment, and it is time they stopped.
10.4 am
Mr. Edward Garnier: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on achieving this Adjournment debate on what is a most important but often neglected subject. I also join him in commending the work of the pro bono solicitors in London who act without charge for the capital defendants before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his promotion to the Front Bench and I look forward to many contributions from him on foreign policy matters. I am speaking from the Back Benches deliberately because the subject does not fall within my Front-Bench responsibilities, and also because I am speaking from a personal position as a long-time opponent of capital punishment. I have been an
1096
opponent since the first time I realised that such things went on, which was in the late 1950s or early 1960s, when I was about 7, 8 or 9 years old. The only exception is that the state must reserve to itself the ability to resort to the death penalty in time of war. However, this Parliament has taken that punishment away and, as I understand the position, we no longer have any form of capital punishment in this country.
Most Caribbean countries that used to be part of the British empire are now completely independent, although they are members of the Commonwealth and it must, therefore, be a matter for the people and Governments of those countries to make up their own minds about domestic criminal justice policy, subject to international convention obligations. I was concerned to learn from the right hon. Member for Gorton that several of those independent Caribbean states are resiling from their obligations under international conventions, albeit rejoining them under some sort of ruse. I deprecate that, but I am not sure what we can do about it—apart from the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman—save to note it.
I made a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to three Caribbean states in the autumn of 1996, shortly before the election. I visited Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. During my visit, I met politicians, lawyers and judges operating in the courts of the east Caribbean jurisdiction. I met the then acting chief justice of the east Caribbean, and I also met a retired chief justice of the east Caribbean who sits from time to time—at least, he did so then—as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council here in London.
The general rule is, as I discovered when I was in the Caribbean, that elected politicians tend to support the death penalty. It is popular and Governments who execute murderers have a good chance of getting re-elected. To be fair, it may also be the case that politicians believe that capital punishment is a just and proper way to punish serious criminals. It is another generalisation, but I observed that judges and lawyers tend to take a different view. They are broadly opposed to capital punishment, although obviously there are some exceptions, and they wish to keep the Privy Council as the final court of appeal.
The position among lawyers may be changing, as most lawyers in the Caribbean aged under 45 were not trained in London at the Inns of Court, but are trained and qualified in Caribbean law schools and universities. Some are also trained in the US and Canada. There is a difference in attitude towards links with the Privy Council, just as there is a difference in attitude towards the usefulness or otherwise of capital punishment.
It is not my intention this morning to discuss the role of the Privy Council as the court of final appeal. It is to draw attention to the poor facilities available to courts and lawyers in the Caribbean. There are very few law libraries. Lawyers often work alone or in small chambers, and lack proper facilities or books. The jurisdiction of the east Caribbean is huge, stretching from the northern boundaries of south America to the northern Caribbean.
The right hon. Member for Gorton made a stark point about the absence of legal aid. Most defendants charged with capital crimes are poor and many are addicted to drugs. They have no access to the high-quality lawyers whom big bank balances would command. There are as a result huge differences in the fire power available to the

1097
prosecution and the defence: prosecutors have the advantage of funding from the state, whereas defence counsel and defendants generally do not.
The problem identified to me by one senior judge was that he often heard advocates pleading and conducting trials on behalf of capital defendants without even an out-of-date copy of "Archbold", the standard text on criminal law in this country. To appear before any court here with an out-of-date textbook would be deemed negligent in the extreme, but to do so on behalf of a client at risk of his life with no text, not even an out-of-date one, and no law reports is appalling.
The judge to whom I spoke had to deal as fairly as he could with the cases before him. His practice was to return to his chambers at the end of a working day and do all the work himself. He would place himself in the defence counsel's position, look in his own library for the relevant authorities and principles, and reconstruct the defence case. He did that as a matter of duty, as he did not want to be responsible for being in charge of jungle justice—an expression that I do not use lightly.
The judge wanted the job done well, but that was impossible. He urged me to see what this country could do to increase or improve the level of assistance to the judicial systems of those Caribbean states. I made some inquiries of the previous Government when I returned, and discovered an organisation called Bookaid. With the assistance of Sir Nicholas Bonsor, one of the present Minister's predecessors in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I contacted that organisation to find out what could be done. I urge the Minister to encourage the work of Bookaid in sending out modern legal textbooks.
Assistance need not be confined to books, which tend to disintegrate in the Caribbean's humid climate, where many lawyers' offices and courts are not air conditioned. However, that does not mean that we can do nothing. Personal or collective access to the internet is available all over the world, and I urge the Government to do what they can to provide internet links. That would give lawyers and judges in the Caribbean direct access to legal judgments, precedents, textbooks and so on. Those resources are available in my chambers at the touch of a button, and they could be just as easily available in the Caribbean.
We complain, rightly, about some of the prison regimes in the United States and about how some states execute capital defendants who for many years have been lingering on death row. Some recent executions have been for crimes committed when the prisoner was under 18. Although we might have moral scruples about the justice system in the United States we have no moral responsibility for it, as that country has been independent for more than 200 years.
However, we have a moral responsibility to the Caribbean, which remained under our governance until relatively recently. We have a responsibility to ensure that the legal system, judges and lawyers are properly equipped to do justice.
The question of whether the Caribbean people require the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to remain as their final court of appeal is a separate matter. I urge the Government to do all that they can to ensure that books and access to legal knowledge are available as widely as
1098
possible to bolster the Caribbean justice system which, as the right hon. Member for Gorton rightly said, is from time to time questionable.
10.16 am
Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall make a shorter speech than I originally intended, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has summarised the issues with clarity and force. I shall confine myself to drawing the House's attention to a couple of quotations and asking some questions to which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, we have worked closely on this issue for a number of years. My interest arises from the pitiful letters that I began to receive from people on death row after the release of the Birmingham Six in April 1991. I receive letters from prisoners around the world, including many on death rows in the United States, but the most pitiful are from the Caribbean. I shall quote from one letter sent by a man in Trinidad who was on death row for more than 10 years before his sentence was commuted as a result of the Pratt and Morgan judgment of the Privy Council.
In a recent letter, the man wrote:
"I thought with the commutation of the death sentence I would have been given the opportunity to advance my education that would enable me to become a progressive and constructive human being so that, if and when I come out of prison, I will not have to return to the life that caused me to hurt other people to survive … Briefly, this is how I squander my days in prison … I share a cell with ten other inmates, the noise of the other inmates makes it difficult for me to sleep, read, pray or study properly. At 7 am the cell is opened. I am given butter, bread and coco water for breakfast. I then stand in an open yard hoping to get a shower. Around 10.30 am I receive rice and peas water, then I am locked back into the cell. Around 3 pm the cell is again opened and I receive supper of butter, bread and sugar water. My health has deteriorated badly. Brutality controls the prison. A few weeks ago a prisoner who was serving a life sentence was murdered by a prison officer … the deceased had lived 30 years of his life in prison … I am hoping that I will not be murdered by anyone in this institution. I continue to beg God to forgive me my sins and to forgive those who wrongfully treat me badly."
That is just one of the many similar letters that I receive, and I decline to walk by on the other side of the road.
The other passage that I want to place on record comes from a distinguished Trinidadian lawyer. Several years ago, he told a BBC television programme:
"The legal aid system is a great barrier and a great handicap"
to
"persons on death row getting legal representation. It is very restricted … The maximum a lawyer gets if he does a legal aid matter is, I think, the equivalent of around £300. Based on that, you have very young lawyers who are sometimes very inexperienced dealing with capital cases."
The lawyer went on to say that many capital cases
"are based on confessions to the police"—
we are, or at least we used to be, familiar with that phenomenon—
"who do not have any real investigative machinery … You have situations where if people are just suspected, they are arrested. They are kept in police stations. They are made to sign confessions. Then you go before a jury in an environment in which you have a high crime rate, which is a lot of pressure on a jury system in a small country—and you have lawyers who are very inexperienced having to defend these people. You have a situation where the dice is loaded against the accused person."

1099
The lawyer who made those remarks was Mr. Ramesh Maharaj, now the Attorney-General of Trinidad and playing a leading role in the drive to remove safeguards such as the Privy Council and to speed up application of the death penalty. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that lawyers in the Caribbean tend to be against the death penalty because they know how convictions are achieved, while politicians tend to favour it because they know public opinion. Mr. Maharaj has been both lawyer and politician. As a lawyer, he was strongly against the death penalty. As a politician, he is strongly in favour of it.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Maharaj came to see me. He is charming and courteous, and he cheerfully admits to having reluctantly changed his mind on the death penalty because that is what the voters want. To me, he seems an acute example of a politician willing to do anything for votes. That phenomenon is hardly unique to Trinidad and Tobago, but as, in his case, it involves killing people, I find it particularly distasteful.
I shall conclude with three brief points, all touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. First, we are not talking of far away countries over which we have little influence. We have a lot of influence with many Caribbean Governments, and we should exercise it. Belize—not strictly in the Caribbean, but greatly affected by what happens there—depends heavily on the United Kingdom to help to preserve democracy and to protect it from its neighbours. Belize also receives much aid and other assistance. I welcome the provision of such help, but as my right hon. Friend said, if such countries will accept that much interference with their sovereignty, they must not be surprised when we ask what happens in their jails.
When the high commissioner of Jamaica tells me that his country has a sovereign right to do what it wants, I accept that that is so. However, we have a sovereign right not to provide Jamaica with aid, trade preferences and debt relief. The Government are rightly committed to an ethical foreign policy, seeking to forge a clear connection between the countries that we choose to help and the degree of democracy and civilised behaviour in them. That principle should be applied forcefully in the Caribbean. It is time to make our minds up, because there will be a massive bout of hangings in the Caribbean if certain politicians have their way. We have given Jamaica and Trinidad enormous debt relief over the past year, despite the problems mentioned by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps we should be a little less generous.
Secondly, a two-tier court of appeal has been proposed, comprising a Caribbean court of appeal for death penalty cases—no doubt it will be expected to dispose of cases swiftly—and a civil court of appeal that would remain with the Privy Council. Politicians know that many international companies with which Caribbean countries do business would not accept a Caribbean court of appeal to deal with civil actions. They are anxious to retain the business, so they have sought a device that will enable them to hang as many people as possible as quickly as they can while preserving their commercial arrangements. I hope that we will have no truck with that two-tier idea. It is not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I hope that he will pass on what I have said to his colleagues.
1100
Finally, I hope that the Minister will express himself strongly against the recent decisions by Trinidad and Jamaica to opt out of the optional protocol of the international convention on political and civil rights. They have opted back in on everything except matters relating to the death penalty. Those decisions are a provocation, and I hope that we shall be robust against them.
I welcome the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton for arranging it.
10.26 am
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done the House a great favour by raising this subject for debate. As it has developed, the debate has justified our allocating another occasion and rather more time to it. A series of complex issues has been raised, and the House ought to consider those issues at more leisure.
Capital punishment has caused me some anxiety in the recent past, not least because I feel discomfort—even repugnance—at the notion that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should still have a role when the United Kingdom has finally, once and for all, abolished the last few remaining instances in which the death penalty might be applied. I hope that I do not offend the right hon. Gentleman by saying that he has a personal Richter scale of language, but today the force of his argument and his calm and rational introduction were powerful. He did himself and the House a great deal of justice.
More than half the countries of the world retain the death penalty. Last year, four of them—China, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States of America—accounted for 80 per cent. of all executions. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), my opposition to the death penalty arises from conviction.
I entered professional practice in 1968, three years after the abolition, to all intents and purposes, of the death penalty. I never had the burden carried by others at the Bar—especially when legal aid was less freely available than it is today—of being engaged in what used to be called capital cases. However, I successfully prosecuted and unsuccessfully defended cases in the High Court in Scotland in which, but for the passing into law of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, capital punishment would have applied. Nothing in my experience persuaded me that my conviction that capital punishment was wrong required any revision.
At the time when their independence was gained, politicians of the newly independent countries of the West Indies opted to retain the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because it provided legal and judicial expertise not available in their domestic legal systems. It was always envisaged that the time would come when that would no longer be so, and that those countries would eventually manage their legal systems without recourse to the United Kingdom.
The constitutions of the Caribbean countries provide that their legislatures can abolish the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by a constitutional amendment, usually requiring the approval of a two thirds majority. So the mechanism exists whereby those countries could, as it were, repatriate to themselves the responsibility that now rests with the Privy Council.

1101
In recent times, some powerful arguments have been addressed as to whether that legal connection should be maintained. I commend to the House an article written by David Pannick, QC, in The Times of 15 June this year. It was a powerful article by someone whose reputation in these matters is very considerable indeed. He argues that independent nations should be encouraged to develop their own judicial, as well as their political, autonomy. He also argues that colonialism is still colonialism, no matter how benevolent its administration.
I found one passage of that article especially compelling. David Pannick states:
"Our senior judges are put in the unacceptable position of being asked to administer such rules."
That is a reference back to the rules relating to capital punishment. He continues:
"They have responsibility but very limited power."
It is now time for us to ask ourselves whether it is right that the Judicial Committee, and the distinguished judges who make up that committee, should continue to have the responsibility for determining issues in a form of punishment that is regarded by almost everyone in the United Kingdom as barbaric and which is one that we have expunged from our own legal system.
There is a paradox contained in the argument that the Judicial Committee should cease to have any responsibility, in that the risk might be that any influence that we in the United Kingdom have would be substantially diminished. As long as those appeals come before the Judicial Committee, it can be argued that there is a degree of influence. If we repatriate—if that expression is correct—that responsibility to the Caribbean itself and take the Judicial Committee out of the process, it could be argued by some that we would have even less influence than we have at present.
As I said when I began my remarks, I do not pretend for a moment that these are anything other than complex and difficult issues. However, as long as that responsibility remains vested in the Judicial Committee, this House cannot be regarded as exempt, or barred politically or in any other way, from passing judgment on Administrations in those countries that persist in the application of a punishment that we regard as wholly unnatural.
I was interested in the reference made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to the Attorney-General of Trinidad. The Attorney-General was recently quoted as saying that
"it is wrong for any country or group of countries to transplant their legal culture into the Caribbean. We respect their laws of punishment, and they must respect ours."
Very well; but just as we respect their right to pass political comment on the nature of our system, they must, in turn, respect our right to do so as well.
This debate may well cause annoyance in some countries of the Caribbean, but as long as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still has a legal responsibility for these matters, this House has a legitimate interest in them, and those countries cannot expect that we will be silent in the face of the continuing use of a punishment which people in this country find so repugnant.
10.34 am
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I share and associate myself with the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). During the few minutes available for my speech, I want to speak on a narrower point, but one that is of considerable concern. There is one residual responsibility for Ministers and for the House in respect of dependent territories, especially those in the rather peculiar position in which Bermuda stands on the issues that we are debating.
I refer to Bermuda because, although I hate to do so, I am briefly going down the ministerial memory lane. Rather poignantly and sadly, the last time—as I recall it—that a United Kingdom Minister made a decision that led to the execution of two people was the decision made in December 1977 by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Owen, to endorse, or approve, the execution of Burrows and Tacklyn, one of whom had been accused and found guilty of the murder of the then Governor of Bermuda, Sir Richard Sharples. It is sad to recall that last occasion on which a UK Minister made a decision that led to the execution of two people.
At that time, I was the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and have vivid memories of the incredibly difficult and awful decisions that were taken. Behind the scenes, painstaking discussions were held with Mr. Gibbon, the then Premier of Bermuda, to try to avoid that outcome. I remind the House that the flawed advice received by my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary was that
"racial harmony, respect for law and order, and the security situation, would suffer … if a stay of execution were granted."—[Official Report, 5 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1015.]
As a result of the execution, a large part of Bermuda went up in flames; we had to send in British troops to restore law and order; and my right hon. Friend had to make a statement to the House on 5 December 1977.
I refer to those matters because, interestingly, capital punishment in our dependent territories—especially in respect to the position in Bermuda—is referred to in the White Paper on overseas territories that has just been published. As a result of those tumultuous events in Bermuda in 1977, the House approved an Order in Council that abolished the death penalty in the dependent territories. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South referred to Commonwealth countries and former colonies in the Caribbean where people are now being executed. When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us what stance he will take on the issue of capital punishment in any future constitutional discussions with our remaining dependent territories in the Caribbean—if there is to be further constitutional development in those territories.
What is the position of Bermuda? As I understand it, Bermuda is excepted from the present Order in Council. Presumably, therefore, it remains possible for Bermudan courts to pass sentence of execution on people found guilty of murder. What will be the position? I hope that my hon. Friend will give us a clear statement of Ministers' views on that matter.
Where, inevitably, there is a residual responsibility, not only does such responsibility rest with the Judicial Committee, but it also falls on Ministers—as it did on me

1103
in the 1970s—because the final move for anyone threatened with the death penalty is to appeal for clemency to the Queen. There are usually huge appeals for clemency—as there were in the case of Burrows and Tacklyn, when a petition from Bermuda with 6,000 signatures arrived on ministerial desks. Ministers do become involved; it is not only a judicial matter, it becomes a highly sensitive political issue.
On another occasion, as a Minister I refused—and through me, the then Secretary of State refused—to approve the execution of a man in the British Virgin Islands. That led to a most serious situation, when large crowds gathered and put our governor under siege. We had to take appropriate action to safeguard the governor.
We all accept that in the Caribbean these issues are highly emotional, and sometimes they summon the demons from the deep. However, we must take a clear and principled stand. Certainly, in cases in which the British Government, British Ministers and this House retain a residual responsibility for those matters, I hope that we shall take a firm stand, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. We must say that, however much we may respect the views and opinions of the peoples of our dependent territories, including Bermuda, when it comes to the death penalty and capital punishment, neither Ministers nor this House will support or approve it—as sadly, in 1977, we once did.
10.40 am
Mr. Archie Norman: I too offer my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on raising this issue, and I commend other hon. Members—notably the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—for their outstanding contributions to the debate. I am very much in awe of the expertise and first-hand knowledge that they bring to bear, and I was swayed by some of the points that they made during the debate.
The concern raised in this debate is right and understandable. It is to do with the question not just of capital punishment but of human rights, prison conditions and several other matters mentioned by the right hon. Member for Gorton. There can be no defence for cases of miscarriage of justice or inadequate legal support. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned the Briggs case—to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred—and there can be no defence for the prison conditions to which he alluded.
It is important to reflect on the fact that views about capital punishment vary in the House—although apparently not among hon. Members assembled in the Chamber today. I share the convictions expressed by other hon. Members and their opposition to capital punishment. I have opposed it all my political life. It is important to note that we have always made capital punishment an issue of personal conscience and free vote in this country.
The real question at hand is whether, in adopting a foreign policy approach to this issue, there are solutions that, first, are likely to succeed and, secondly, can fit into a foreign policy framework that is consistent and sustainable. In both cases, the balance of judgment is very difficult. This is not an easy matter: it is not simply a question of our expressing our rightful moral concern about the issues involved.
1104
Capital punishment has always been the subject of a free vote in the United Kingdom Parliament and we must appreciate that the Caribbean countries have noted our approach. We must remember that there is a broader context to this debate. There is widespread support in the Caribbean for the continuation of capital punishment. That is not to say that issues of human rights and the legal process are not important and valid, but popular support for capital punishment in the Caribbean is considerable and, according to recent polls, runs at between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. The issue is generally included in the election manifestos of most political parties in the Caribbean and the vast majority of elected politicians support it—perhaps for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South mentioned. It is a fact that it is the democratic will of certain democratic countries that capital punishment should continue. We must therefore consider carefully the manner in which we raise the matter.
We must remember also that the number of people on death row and the high number of executions in Caribbean countries is due to a frightening increase in organised crime. That will affect the Caribbean people's perception of any comments that we may make about the issue. The social context in the Caribbean is very different from that which prevails in this country—that is perhaps obvious, but it is important to recognise that Caribbean countries are no longer idyllic island paradises that are unaffected by crime.
The number of people on death row in the Caribbean reflects, to some extent, the incidence of serious crime in those countries. There were 1,010 murders in Jamaica in 1997 compared with 748 in the United Kingdom, whose population is approximately 24 times as large. The murder rate in Jamaica is among the highest in the world, and even the Bahamas has a higher murder rate than the United States. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of murders are drugs related. This is serious, organised crime so it is understandable that the people of the Caribbean adopt a serious approach to tackling it.
Although they do nothing to mitigate the questions that have been raised about human rights and the legal process in the Caribbean, these are important background factors that should determine and inform our approach to influencing the situation. The increase in organised crime in the Caribbean is continuing at a frightening rate. Perhaps the Minister will explain how we can not only address questions of capital punishment and human rights but help those countries to deal with their crime problem, which lies at the heart of the issue.
As we are dealing with former colonies, it is important that our approach be informed by the background of attitudes in the Caribbean. The Caribbean Community and Common Market—CARICOM—has agreed to establish a Caribbean court of justice, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that our role in the Caribbean's criminal system is coming to an end. There is thus a danger that our moral outrage will accelerate our diminishing influence. The Privy Council is already deeply unpopular in some quarters in the Caribbean. We have a long history of involvement in this area, but we must recognise that, if our approach is tactless and overbearing, we will diminish rather than increase our influence.

1105
We need to maintain an element of sustainability in foreign policy and consistency in our approach. It has been pointed out in the debate that many other countries have capital punishment. Some 30 out of 50 Commonwealth countries maintain systems of capital punishment, as do 128 countries world wide. Many of those countries, such as Uganda, India and Pakistan, are big recipients of overseas aid from the United Kingdom. In pursuing our foreign policy objectives, we must consider carefully the attitudes that we adopt to capital punishment in those countries—especially since it is often hard to maintain that their systems of justice are perfect. It is a question not of ignoring the problem but of ensuring that we maintain—and are seen to maintain—a degree of consistency.
We have relatively limited leverage in this area because of the background factors and public opinion in Caribbean countries. The aid budget is important and perhaps more could be done through that budget to tackle the crime problem in the Caribbean. Perhaps we could provide the sort of legal support outlined by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. There are solutions to these problems and things that can be done to address them. It is right to raise the issues, and we must be persuasive and forthright in so doing. Capital punishment is a disturbing issue and I find convincing, and sympathise with, the points made by right hon. and hon. Members this morning.
We operate, however, in a world where practical results matter. We have granted the Caribbean countries democratic rights and we must respect their decisions. The democratic weight of opinion in those countries is overwhelming, and we must respect the people's views. So our approach must be human rights based. We must do all that we can to influence prison conditions, the treatment of people and the handling of legal cases. There is every reason to adopt quiet persuasion and to consider what can be done through the aid budget and the United Nations. However, as an ex-colonial power, it behoves us to be extremely sensitive and persuasive in our handling of the issue. It may be that a light touch is needed.
10.48 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I strongly welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to apply for this debate. He raised an important issue, and the quality of contributions this morning—it sounds patronising, but it happens to be true—has been outstanding. Our message will ring across the oceans to each of the Caribbean states mentioned this morning.
I begin with the pleasant task of welcoming the first contribution by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) from the Front Bench. I am sure that his thoughtful and well-researched speech has been well received both here and outside this place. He has set himself a high standard to live up to.
The background to the debate is that, after capital punishment had been in disuse for some years, a number of states began to withdraw from some of the important international human rights conventions last year, giving a strong signal of intent to resume capital punishment. The circumstances of that have been detailed by hon. Members. That was followed by executions in the
1106
Bahamas and in St. Kitts-Nevis. Earlier this month, there were nine executions, about which the House has heard, in Trinidad and Tobago. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said, the comments made by Prime Minister P. J. Patterson a little under two weeks ago suggest that Jamaica is about to take the same course.
We should place it on record that revulsion is felt by any civilised human being at the crime of murder—there is no disagreement about that. Murder is generally considered to be an horrific crime and, in its most extreme cases, revulsion for the crime and the criminal is a natural and understandable human reaction.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments concerning the death penalty. My own views, like those of every hon. Member who has spoken, have been consistent for many years, although I do not have a closed mind and we must constantly re-examine the arguments. It is worth reiterating that taking away a human life by judicial process is futile. All studies suggest that capital punishment has no long-term deterrent effect and, as has been said in the debate, we know where our own judicial processes have been flawed. Happily, capital punishment has not been used recently, although it would have been carried out in certain cases in a previous era. We know that innocent people have been executed and, for them, there can never be any attempt at recompense.
The House has consistently rejected the reintroduction of the death penalty over many years. In 1997, the Government recognised that and Parliament abolished the death penalty for treason and piracy and removed it from armed forces legislation. We have ratified, or will ratify, various protocols, such as protocol 6 of the European convention on human rights and the second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. As hon. Members have said, foreign policy has to take account of the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Under the UK presidency of the European Union, we agreed EU guidelines to press for abolition of the death penalty.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to consistency. We have raised specific cases in many countries, including the United States, China, Iran, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Philippines and others. We have also made our policy on the death penalty clear in the course of normal contact with many other countries. We are not singling out Caribbean states because they are small or even because of our close and friendly relations. This is an important issue of principle and humanity—principle is universal and non-discriminatory, as is the bond of humanity—so there is no difficulty in saying to the House that we do not need to keep silent on it.
We have a particularly close relationship with the countries of the Caribbean and, at the end of this week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will travel to the European-Latin American and Caribbean summit in Rio de Janeiro. He will make a major contribution on the issue of drugs and the need for co-operation across Latin America and the Caribbean and the consumer countries of Europe. Britain already co-operates strongly on a bilateral basis in parts of that region, but we need to improve our response and recognise that, in the modern world, drugs are often the motor for crimes of excessive greed and, in particular, violent crime. I believe that such co-operation is addressing some of the fundamentals which, ironically, dictate what the House is discussing this morning—murder and capital punishment.

1107
A particular concern for the United Kingdom is ensuring that the anxieties of our close friends in the Caribbean are given proper weight in the summit proceedings. It is right that the United Kingdom, of all countries, should shoulder that task. The historical ties that bind us are strong and the links run deep in cities such as Manchester, which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton represent. Many of our constituents come from the West Indies and their children and their children's children are respected constituents. Their influence is powerful and for the good. We trade extensively with the Caribbean and have close contacts at every level. The Government have taken, and will continue to take, numerous initiatives, beginning with the UK-Caribbean regional forum in Nassau in February last year, to develop and enhance our relationship and reflect the depth and closeness of these links in a modern context.
Sadly, we find ourselves in fundamental disagreement with close friends over the specific issue of capital punishment, but the frequency and depth of our dialogue means that we can seriously engage Caribbean Governments. We understand the context that exists in many Caribbean countries and their particular problems, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) gave us a graphic account of the strength of feeling that exists. We do not deny that and we do not intend to diminish the impact of violent crime in Caribbean countries.
Crime, and particularly violent crime such as murder, is increasing. A high proportion of murders are domestic—that is the case everywhere—but many are related to the increasing drugs menace. The islands find themselves on the drug trafficking routes from source to user countries, so they are vulnerable to the extraordinary violence that results from that horrific trade. The consequences are tragic.
We have sympathy for the Governments who valiantly attempt to enforce the law and make their communities safer, often with extremely limited resources. We need to be mindful of the fears of citizens, their demands for tough action by Governments and the pressure under which Caribbean Governments are put by the action of other states.
We want to establish that, although we sympathise with the difficulties of Caribbean Governments, we fundamentally disagree that capital punishment is the solution. However, we can do more than stand on the sidelines. We are finding ways of helping Caribbean Governments with the problems of crime and criminal justice. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made that
1108
very point. The work of our police advisers and technical co-operation officers in the region involves training Caribbean police forces in modern techniques, and building the capacity of those institutions to improve crime prevention and fight the growing problems of youth crime and violence. That is a practical step towards introducing real deterrence.
We will build on our work on prison reform; I heard the comments of hon. Members on conditions in some of the Caribbean states, in particular Jamaica. When my noble Friend Baroness Symons visited Jamaica in October last year, she raised the issue of prison conditions with the Jamaican authorities. We are working hard in countries such as Belize to find alternatives to prison, because conditions are often horrendous. We will help with the introduction of greater use of non-custodial prisons. That may not help in respect of capital crimes, but it will alleviate the pressure on the prison system. We are assisting with criminal justice reform and helping to simplify court procedures and improve legislative drafting.
A number of suggestions have come from hon. Members. I shall happily discuss with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton the funding for the Caribbean death penalty crime project, which he discussed. It will help if we take that forward bilaterally at first and I am more than sympathetic to the concept, which is consistent with what the Foreign Office is doing through the human rights project fund.
I am also sure that we can find imaginative ways of helping to ensure that relevant, up-to-date information is available through modern technology such as the internet, and possibly through the British Council. We can certainly look at those issues. We are funding Caribbean Justice, which is holding a conference on the death penalty that will bring together lawyers and other interested parties. We also intend to help there.
Development assistance was referred to, but I must disappoint my hon. Friends on that. I shall tell them why. We have no bilateral programme with some countries—the question of consistency is important in that—but we are determined to help the most marginal countries out of poverty. Poverty creates the conditions for crime and we would turn our back on the reality of violent crime if we cut all forms of assistance. We are not prepared to cut programmes for those who help with judicial reform.
I have not been able to deal with some issues, and I shall write to hon. Members about them, but the message from this important debate will travel to the Caribbean. Strong feelings are held in this country as well as in the Caribbean and we have done the House and our friends in the Caribbean a service by raising this important issue.

Teenage Pregnancies
11 am
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful for the opportunity to open a debate on this subject.
The Government have just published a report on teenage pregnancy prepared by their social exclusion unit. The standard of the document makes it easy to read, and it has lots of useful diagrams and heartfelt comments from concerned adults, like the Prime Minister, who talks about our shameful record—rather like a Victorian parson pontificating in the pulpit. The best bits are the quotations from teenagers themselves, which illustrate the reality of their predicament. I fear that the rest of the report is much of the same: it refers to more task forces, more focus groups and more concerned adults who will minister to those teenagers, while studiously avoiding some of the simple remedies offered by the pharmaceutical industry, most essentially, emergency contraception and possibly easier terminations. There are one or two novel bits, such as punishment for teenage fathers, including losing their car or having their benefit cheques docked by £5 a week.
If we are to discuss a subject as serious as this, we must put it into perspective. When devising solutions for perceived problems, it is important to look, first, at the comparison between this country and other parts of the world and, secondly, at the number of people involved. Although it has often been said that we have the worst record in Europe, we do not have the worst record in the world. Other English-speaking countries, particularly the United States, New Zealand and Canada, have higher numbers than ours. In England, there are some 1.7 million teenage girls in the 14 to 18 age group. The report says that 90,000 of them become pregnant each year; it does not say that they are all unmarried or not in partnerships. However, that is only 5 per cent. of that age group. If we take the 14 to 16 age group, about which there is a great deal of concern, the figures are 880,000—under 1 million—and 8,000 live births, which is less than 1 per cent.
I am not sure that I agree with the Prime Minister that that is an altogether shameful record. I agree that it is 8,000 too many births to girls in that age group, but the fact remains that 99 per cent. of our young girls are not getting pregnant each year. It is important to bear those facts in mind because we sometimes become quite hysterical and get things out of proportion, which does no good.
The experience of pregnancy and birth for those very young girls may be extremely traumatic. No one would pretend that, at that age, they are ready to raise children: they are hardly more than children themselves. However, we cannot marry them off or expect them to set up partnerships with the fathers of their children, who are usually just as young as they are. Nor can we simply walk away from the problem.
I am not altogether scornful about or averse to the Government's suggestion that hostels may have a role to play in helping those young people to get their act together, get back into education and begin to pick up the threads of their young lives so that they do not find themselves stuck in the groove of early and continuous maternity until it is almost too late.
Lorna Fitzsimons: First, may I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate? Does
1110
she agree that when we talk about hostels, it is important to point out that the report specifically refers to independent supported accommodation for under-18-year-old single parents? Does she agree that, as politicians, we must act responsibly and be specific, because the media have not?
Mrs. Gorman: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady. I am sure that she is aware that many of those young children are in care homes to begin with, so the prospect of their being in an institution—I hate that word—or some kind of accommodation where they can be looked after and which specifically caters for their new maternal condition has merit.
The very best solution would be for those young girls to stay with their own families—with mum. It would certainly be much cheaper. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a single parent raising a child alone will cost the taxpayer at least £83,000 in benefits from the child's birth to when it reaches the age of 18. That is without the cost of housing benefit, if that person lives alone, is unable to work and therefore cannot support herself as she might like to.
A child raised in a conventional family costs some £50,000 from birth to the age of 18. About a fifth of that—£10,000—is met by child benefit, so it seems perfectly obvious, from a financial perspective, that the best policy would be to support and encourage the families of those young girls to keep them at home instead of paying the teenagers to tough it out on their own. The plans that the Chancellor devises should take that into account.
I should like a pound for every time that I have been to a Chancellor in the run-up to a Budget to try to make that point to him. I say "him" because it is always a him. We are yet to have a woman Chancellor, who might be more sympathetic to that point of view. The best place to raise children is within the existing family, and that is also the most cost-effective course.
Mr. John Healey: Although it is true that we have a male Chancellor, does the hon. Lady not concede that for the first time we have three female Ministers in the Treasury team? That must be a step forward.
Mrs. Gorman: Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me: we are always the bridesmaids, never the bride. I shall wait to see the outcome.
How do teenagers view these matters? Girls who find themselves pregnant are often obliged to leave their family home, simply because, in that way, the welfare system will pick up the bills. Why should parents who live in crowded accommodation encourage their daughter to stay at home, with the extra costs, the inconvenience and a noisy mouth to feed—the new baby—when the welfare state dictates otherwise? When Governments do more, people do less, and when something is subsidised we tend to get more of it.
I do not believe that young women have babies to get flats. That is a calumny; it is not true, and we should stop saying it. I certainly do not support the tabloid press, which often makes that extremely chauvinistic point. However, we must stop subsidising teenage sex so much

1111
and must promote the role of the conventional family both in dealing with their own teenage children and in taking in their children's children wherever possible.
That is what used to happen—perhaps before the welfare state began. Although the welfare state means well, it does not always produce the right solutions to the problems that it perceives. We should not take the line that because the welfare state has not achieved its goals, we need more of it. Sometimes we need to stand back and ask ourselves whether we can do things better. There are other options.
Shona McIsaac: Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not just stand back, but take a step back? Is not the most cost-effective solution ensuring that young women do not become pregnant in the first place? Really good contraception education would give them the self-confidence to say "No" or "Not yet".
Mrs. Gorman: I could not agree more, but I feel like saying "I wish". In fact, there is a great deal of education of this kind, but it seems to go over the heads of school children. One teenager is quoted as saying, more or less, "Our religious education teacher gave us the facts. She was shaking with nerves, and I felt embarrassed for her." That, I imagine, was the end of the lesson.
Not all girls who become pregnant come from conventional homes. Some, possibly quite a large number, are already in care, and we should consider the nature of the places where they are in care. I recently visited a very nice, very modern care home for children from difficult backgrounds, which contained one young teenage girl and six boys. They all slept in the same corridor; admittedly, the girl's room was at one end and the boys' room was at the other. The staff told me how much "teasing" the girl received from the boys, and expressed doubts about the merits of the arrangement. Their solution was to admit a few more girls to balance things out. Mine would have been to take the girl out of the hostel and put her with other girls.
I am a great advocate of allowing girls to grow up together. I went to a girls' school, and I do not think that it did me much harm. Girls often thrive when they have the support of their own sex. Politically correct ideas about modelling care on the orthodox, traditional family mix of the sexes are not always right. Young girls and boys in care are being brought up by people who are basically strangers, and who work on a rota basis, coming in for eight hours and then disappearing again. We should ask ourselves whether the social services have got it right, given the inordinately large number of children who come from disturbed, dysfunctional or broken homes.
The report quotes one young woman as saying:
"It sometimes seems as if sex is compulsory but contraception is illegal".
Quite. Young people have more than enough exposure to sex as a supposedly jolly pastime, but, as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) pointed out, an obstacle course awaits them when they need access to contraception in emergencies.
Our abortion rates are much higher than those of other European countries. They are particularly high in the leafy suburbs of the southern counties, where families are more
1112
clued up and girls are more ambitious. When a girl becomes pregnant accidentally, her family ensures that she is given treatment so that she can get on with her young life and develop her career and prospects, rather than having to raise young children before she has completed her own preparation for adult life.
The cheapest contraception of all—if it is made available quickly enough—is emergency contraception, which costs just £1.35. Some girls, however, wait much too long before drawing attention to their pregnancies. Some go through with it, give birth and then dump the baby.

Pontificating on its high horse the other day, the Daily Mail observed that at the beginning of the last century about 5 per cent. of young women were becoming pregnant, whereas 40 per cent. more were becoming pregnant nowadays—although 40 per cent. of a relatively small number is not a huge amount. Girls today, however, do not face the prospect of the workhouse. They do not smother their children at birth, as they frequently did in those barmy early Victorian days, or dump their babies on the steps of workhouses. If the numbers have risen, that is partly because girls are no longer intimidated and made to feel desperately ashamed, as if becoming pregnant was all their own fault. They are more open about it. We should welcome that, and not prate too much about the high incidence of pregnancy.
We are told that the number of such pregnancies is much lower in Holland. That is generally believed to be because Dutch society is much more open: parents discuss all aspects of sexuality with their children, and access to general practitioners is much easier, as is access to help for those who unintentionally become pregnant.
I do not think that we can change our own society overnight. Our prurient attitude is demonstrated by the amount of bonking that we see on television: it is far more frequent than the weather forecasts. Moreover, we are not given the gloomy news; we are only given the jolly news. These television sessions always seem to finish with a burst of pleasure for the parties involved. In real life, that might apply to one of the parties, but young women often find that they are not as thrilled and delighted as they expected to be. They take part in sexual activity because of peer pressure, but it may not turn out to be such a treat as they were led to believe.
Shona McIsaac: This country may have given the world page three, sex on television and saucy seaside postcards, but are we not still phenomenally prudish when it comes to discussing sexual relationships and contraception? Our teenage girls still believe the myths that were around when we were young—"You can't get caught the first time," and so forth. I return to my main point: the solution is good sex education and contraception advice at a young age, so that the problem can be sorted out before girls start having sex.
Mrs. Gorman: As the hon. Lady may or may not know, I got quite a lot of stick for signing an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), and saying that I thought even children in the top forms at primary schools should be given some information of this kind. Given that they can switch on the television any day and see such activities—whether or not they register—there is something to be said for more openness.

1113
The hon. Lady brings me to my next point. The report deals at some length with education. It is clearly part of the Government's aim to improve education, and there is no doubt that children are receiving mixed messages; but if we beef up sex education in schools, will youngsters take any notice? Frankly, I doubt it.
Young men—driven by their testosterone hormones, and in a condom culture—seem still to be oblivious of the damage that they may be doing to their partner, whom they obviously sought, or to have any sense of responsibility for the end product—the child—of the partnership. However, as I said, we cannot expect young boys to settle down with their young girlfriends or wives—the mothers of their children—to set up a conventional child-rearing environment.
Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate the hon. Lady on initiating this debate. However, do not the report and its appendices—using studies from across the country—establish and state pretty comprehensively that more effective education on sex and relationships and preparation for parenthood reduce sexual activity among young people, increase their ability to feel less compelled to have sex at an early age, and increase the likelihood, particularly among boys, that they will take their responsibilities and obligations more seriously?
Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman may believe that, but he should not forget that, according to the Prime Minister, our record is shameful and getting worse. I believe—although I have not been a teacher for a very long time—that we have done a great deal to open up the subject in schools. Nevertheless, as I said, I do not think that youngsters are listening. I believe—being very sensible about it—that, at puberty, young people, driven by the rush of their hormones, often become overwhelmed by the situation. I therefore believe that, very possibly, too much stress is being placed on sex education in schools.
A quote from one young girl provided some extremely important information. She said:
"If someone came and gave me a baby to look after for a day, I would never have fell pregnant."
Perhaps that gives us a clue as to what constitutes real sex education: the reality of what happens after the mechanics of sex are finished.
The United States—which has a bigger problem with teenage pregnancies than we do—is trying that type of approach. Reports from the United States suggest that young women who go back to schools with a young baby—to explain to students the consequences for one's life, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, of taking care of a fractious child—are possibly having a bigger impact and doing more good in dissuading other young girls from simply conforming and undertaking the mechanical aspects of sex without thinking about the long-term problems.
In the past, we should have advised young girls who became pregnant to put up their babies for adoption. It is still an option which reasonably should be brought to their attention. Young girls should not be pressurised into keeping their babies. If a young girl is not ready, able or willing to raise her own child, there are many excellent families without children who would love to take in those babies, who would perhaps then be given a better start in life. I am not judgmental on those issues, but acknowledge
1114
that we have consistently made it more difficult for people to adopt. Although we complain that there has been a great increase in the number of babies, there is also a great shortage of babies for adoption. We should examine the causes of that situation.
Mr. Hope: The hon. Lady made a point about parenthood education. She may not be aware that, on the same day as the report on teenage pregnancy was published, the Government published a report on personal, social and health education which specifically described how we might introduce parenthood education into the school curriculum. She may also not be aware that the new national framework on personal, social and health education in schools includes specific learning outcomes on family life and the responsibilities that parenthood brings. Does she not agree that the Government are grasping the issue quite firmly?
Mrs. Gorman: As I said, 95 per cent. of our teenagers do not become pregnant, and less than one per cent. of teenagers in the younger 14 to 16 group become pregnant. Should we therefore spend so much time in schools trying to give them a warning which, presumably, they have already taken on board? Although it is important that the matter should be brought to their attention, I do not think that it has to be done only in school lessons.
As I said, teenagers can be informed through magazines and by their own social activities. Moreover, perhaps witnessing the reality of child rearing would have a greater effect on them, without necessarily filling their heads with lots of stuff about biological matters and the mechanics of the sexual act—which they often regard as rather amusing or completely irrelevant. Knowing about ovaries and testes and what can be got up to with them is not necessarily of much help to a child who is under pressure from the boy sitting next to her to go round to the bicycle sheds for a little bit of rum-ti-tum.
I do not think that the Government's proposals—for more of the same—as stated in the report, will achieve a desirable conclusion.
We must, of course, try to raise young women's level of self-respect. If we tell it to them straight and teach them that their whole future may be decided on that one act, perhaps they will develop a little more resistance and reason to say no. It is true that the incidence of pregnancy among young people is much greater among those who are less well educated and from less-well-off families, neighbourhoods and parts of the country. There is therefore something to be said about the need to raise their level of self-respect. If we could do that, I believe that it would have a great impact on the teenage pregnancy rate.
We do not need yet another task force, as the Government propose, or more talk about relationship education and feelings. For most teenagers, sex is a quick business—a physical and transient experiment that is not about permanent relationships. As I said, I do not think that those young people are ready to settle down into conventional family home life, or that it would even make sense for them to do so.
I should like to deal with the issue of contraception, although some other hon. Members present are much better qualified to do so. Last Sunday, the Minister for Public Health appeared on the "Dimbleby" programme, and I must say—I hope without seeming smarmy—that

1115
she generally acquitted herself very well. Nevertheless, she went out of her way to say that the morning-after pill—which, as I said, is the cheapest way of dealing with the problem—is:
"a prescription medicine only and the report makes no recommendation about changing its status because … changing its status would involve its licence, re-assessing its medical effectiveness"—
as if that could not easily be done if the Government were of a mind to do it. Those are excuses.
The morning-after pill is an effective remedy that has been tried and tested and is widely used in France. It has proved that it can play an important role in helping young women who become pregnant, realise their situation and want to do something about it. We should not place obstacles in their way.
On the morning-after pill, I think that the Minister was bowing a little to those sections of our society who do not approve of any form of abortion, or who even—in extreme cases—do not approve of contraception. Those people would rather see a young woman go through with an unwanted pregnancy, or even with more than one such pregnancy—changing her life and robbing her of her teenage years—than give her the chance to develop into a fully rounded adult. That position seriously needs to be reconsidered. I should like the Government to address the issue in an intelligent and adult way.
Let me say one last word, about the future. Many of the sons and daughters of teenage mothers grow up in a fatherless environment. I personally believe that families need fathers. Mothers need help with raising their children. Boys in particular need role models. They need someone to discipline them and help control them so that they do not grow up into permanent adolescents. In some societies in other parts of the world, single-parent families are almost becoming the norm. America has a particular problem. In such societies, there is a problem of permanent adolescence. Young males never settle down into normal adult life patterns of work, bringing home the salary and helping to support a family. The pattern of mother-run families is perpetuated generation after generation. That pattern is reflected on some of our inner-city estates, where single motherhood is not uncommon. Teenage boys rampage through the streets, vandalising, terrifying other residents, stealing cars and much else and vying with each other in laddish and loutish behaviour. They are a menace. That is an offshoot of our failure to tackle the problem at its roots.
The recent football world cup was a good example. We saw on television grown males behaving like uncontrolled adolescent children. I believe that to be one result of young people growing up without a strong male influence. There is no doubt in my mind that all Governments have a lot to answer for in these matters. Sentiment is not enough. Common sense and counselling may be called for, but tough love is also needed. If we want to reduce the misery and mayhem caused by some of our policies over the years, it is important to consider examples from the past and see whether we cannot do more to re-establish the conventional permanent family relationship and, if need be, direct more financial resources in that direction so that it becomes an attractive alternative to raising children alone.
1116
Taking responsibility is part of living in a civilised society. That does not mean leaving one young woman responsible for bringing up children. It means re-establishing the role of the male in bringing up children, making him feel that it is an important part of his job. We should not simply lecture teenage girls in schools. Sometimes we must lecture ourselves, because we allow sentiment for the child in the predicament to overcome our common sense. It is the policy of the Conservative party to reinstate the role, importance and responsibility of the conventional family unit.
Marriage, even though it does not always work, is by and large a good thing for families. Long-term partnerships are next best, although sadly the statistics say that they do not last anything like as long as marriages. I do not want to see people locked into miserable, unhappy marriages for the rest of their lives, but if the Government seriously put their mind to it, they could do a great deal more to make marriage an attractive option. In the end, is it not the children of teenage mothers whom we should think about? If you ask the children, they say that they would prefer to be in a family in which mum and dad at least come home to see them, talk to them and help them now and again.
11.34 am
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on obtaining this important debate. I agree with a lot of what she said, although not all of it. May I declare an interest, not as a pregnant teenager but as a member of London Brook, an organisation that gives advice to young people on sex, contraception and abortion. I am also a member of Population Concern, an international charity that runs projects in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Peru and South Africa.
I am sure that the whole House will welcome the publication of the report of the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancy. On the whole, it adopts a pragmatic and positive approach to the highly sensitive issues of sex, teenage pregnancies, contraception, sex education in schools and abortion. None of us can be happy with the fact that teenage pregnancy rates in the United Kingdom are twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands. The 90,000 teenage pregnancies a year in England alone create an awful lot of misery and wreck many lives.
None of us can be happy about young people's lack of accurate knowledge about contraception, which is in part responsible for the fact that among under-16s over half the pregnancies are terminated and that a third of conceptions in the under-20s end in abortion. Prevention has to be our top priority. We cannot carry on living in a country in which many teenagers have such low expectations for themselves and are so ignorant and so confused by mixed messages from society which, as the hon. Member for Billericay said, suggest that sex is compulsory but contraception is undesirable.
I welcome the response of Ministers at the Department of Health to the report. Their commitment to the £60 million strategy to galvanise work across government to prevent teenage pregnancies seems absolute. I hope that Ministers at the Department of Health will push harder, as the hon. Lady argued, to press for over-the-counter

1117
sales of emergency contraception, sometimes referred to as the morning-after pill. I hope that they will discuss with their colleagues in Northern Ireland the need to introduce the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 into the Province to ensure that young people there have the same right to
abortion as their sisters in mainland Britain.
The Department of Health must realise, too, that access to services and contraception needs to be expanded. I am sure that they know that the health authorities are currently cutting grants to organisations such as London Brook and others. This is a problem that cannot be neglected, especially in the light of the report.
Judging by the performance of the Department for Education and Employment in this area and the scarcely concealed negative attitude of the Secretary of State, there is even cause to doubt the intention of the Department to implement some of the policies suggested in the social exclusion unit report to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. Indeed, I would go further: having followed the subject for the past 15 years or so, I have little doubt that if there were an Ofsted report on the performance of the Department, it would be deemed to be failing.
We have to ask whether it is right that young women should continue to suffer and lead miserable lives because of the biblical self-righteousness and dark 1950s morality of a few people in the Department for Education and Employment. Let us take the issue of school nurses handing out contraceptives. The Secretary of State is reported to have said that it would be allowed only over his dead body. I hope that it will not come to that; we really do not want blood on the floor, especially my right hon. Friend's blood. I hope that he will carry on doing good work in other fields. It is just that he needs to do some more good work in this area.
It is clear that Parliament will need to monitor closely the activities of the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that there is no backsliding. I feel that we should consider making personal, social and health education, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) referred, compulsory in schools and part of the national curriculum. Bizarrely, at the moment few girls in primary schools are told anything about puberty.
There is also the difficult position of the Catholic Church. The theology of the Vatican on contraception is out of line with the practice of many Catholic worshippers in the United Kingdom. Like everyone else, I wish the Holy See a long life, but when the present Pope dies I hope that the new incumbent will do what is long overdue and moderate the theology, which after all in historical terms is relatively new, to allow young Catholics to use contraception without the guilt of sin, hypocrisy and lies. It is time that the Catholic Church woke up to the fact that for the young, sex can be fun.
I was delighted to see Geri Haliwell, formerly Ginger Spice, promoting the use of contraceptives in the Philippines in her new role as United Nations ambassador. Surely she was right when she said:
"I believe that if you can't control your fertility, you can't control your life, and if you're having sex, you've got to be protected against unwanted pregnancy and infection. It's everybody's fundamental right."
1118
Of course, given the current state of Catholic theology, no one can object to the priesthood in the Philippines criticising Geri Haliwell. However, to refer to her, one of the icons of youth, as "
blasphemous" and to hint at violence by saying,
"In a Muslim country she would be clobbered",
seems uncharitable and unchristian. We must remember that, whereas the Pope is an icon to the past, Geri is an icon to the future. I hope that Catholic theology on this subject will change.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak so I shall conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the social exclusion unit on producing a wonderful report. It is a pity that it has 185 footnotes referring to 185 research documents. I have read the report in full, but I have not yet read the research documents—I hope that I soon will.
In truth, the report could have been published 20 years ago. For two decades, British society and the political establishment—mainly Members of Parliament—have ducked the subject. It is time for action.
11.41 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on obtaining the debate. I looked forward to reading the social exclusion unit report, but I was instantly depressed by the Prime Minister's letter at the beginning. Yes, we do have the worst teenage pregnancy rates in Europe-90,000 each year, 8,000 of whom are under 16—but as the Prime Minister goes on he begins to sound more and more like the Vicar of St. Albion. He may disapprove of young people's sexual activities and I do not believe that it is a good idea for young people to have sex at all, but they do, frequently. We are dealing with reality. They are following the message in every magazine, film, television play, soap opera or advertisement. Renault is now advertising its cars by saying that size matters and I understand that Haagen-Dazs ice cream tastes much better licked off one's partner. I will not go on because I do not want to excite you too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but such things must be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) mentioned the Spice Girls. I am delighted that Geri Haliwell is now promoting contraception worldwide. However, their image of immature sexuality has been pushed at young people, particularly those under 10, for several years. They knew what they wanted, what they really, really wanted, and they pushed it on to young people. However, to do justice to them, they are trying to do something about it now.
In contrast, the hypocrisy of this country is breathtaking. We tut-tut about young people's sexual activity while, in comparison with other countries, we provide very little sex education and contraception advice. I should like to bet that some of those who are tut-tutting are rejoicing as share prices soar because of some commodity having been promoted with a sexual message. They are not worried about taking the profits, but they do not want to do anything about the consequences.
However much we might want to turn back the clocks to an imagined age of innocence where no one had sex until they were married and then only under the blankets with the lights off, we cannot do that. The genie is out of the bottle and we must equip our young people to cope.

1119
In many ways, it is an excellent report and I congratulate the Government on the fact that, backed by wonderful tables and statistics, it spells out clearly the major reasons for teenage pregnancy. It includes low expectations, disadvantaged children, children from broken homes or care homes, and ignorance. Study after study has shown that sex education does not make young people more sexually active. In fact, the reverse is true and the report backs that view.
I have already dealt with the problem of mixed messages and the Government accept that that is a reality. They intend to deal with the ignorance and to spend a great deal of money on a campaign to warn against teenage pregnancy and parenthood and the importance of contraception. That is excellent. Local campaigns and the media are mentioned and we are told that there will be more sex education, starting in primary schools—full marks. It sounds great, but it is a little bit woolly.
Will we have advertisements for condoms? We have advertisements for everything else on television, but do we ever see an advertisement for the antidote to all this sex? Why not have a message before "Neighbours" or "EastEnders". For goodness' sake, let us have condoms on television. We are talking about not just pregnancy but sexually transmitted disease, which is another serious problem.
We have the inevitable mention of joined-up action—I hate that phrase. It talks about local joined-up action and national joined-up action. The problem is that teenagers already know about joined-up action, because that is what they are doing all the time.
The report talks about local and national support co-ordinators with an implementation unit and monitoring. It all sounds a little ominous. Where is the detail? Where are the extra teachers and school nurses? School nurses are a rare breed and their numbers have been cut horribly recently. Where are the family planning doctors—another disappearing species? I was one of them for 30 years and I have disappeared into this House. General practitioners and teachers do not have time to do this work. Parents still have the option of removing children from sex education classes.
According to the report, sex education will not be a statutory requirement. Citizenship will be statutory, so why not sex education? It is a basic activity of every human being if the species is to survive, but it is not statutory in our education system. It must be. The recommendations are not strong enough.
Teenage mothers are dealt with in great detail in the report and I thought that that section was superb. However, that is only a small proportion of the problem. We have heard no mention of the view held by many hon. Members and those outside the House that young women become pregnant to get a council flat. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) recently tabled a parliamentary question asking how many new housing association lettings—we could not get the council figures—out of a total of 30,000 new lettings per annum had gone to young mothers with babies. The answer was 2,000. So we are talking about a small proportion of teenagers. We all know of cases where we think that someone has got pregnant to get a flat, but it is anecdotal evidence and the figures do not support it.
1120
Like other hon. Members I welcome the proposals for hostels. That is much better than a lonely council flat in a tower block. The Minister and I know all about tower blocks. I used to work in Hackney and Islington and I know that they are grim. However, the use of hostels must not be compulsory and I hope that the Minister will emphasise that.
I am concerned about the section on prevention. That is understandable because I spent 25 or 30 years in birth control clinics dealing with sexual health. I spent five years in the Brandon centre, which is a good youth advisory centre in Kentish Town. I was a co-founder and trustee of a similar centre called Off the Record in my borough and I know very well the Magic Roundabout in Kingston, which is mentioned in the report. They all give excellent contraception advice and counselling.
The specialist centres for young people are excellent and we need many more, but many more young people go to ordinary family planning clinics, which are anonymous and efficient, with properly trained doctors and nurses who give a rigorous service; but sadly, they have been a soft option for local authority cuts over the past 20 years and are disappearing fast.
Young people are told by their health authorities that the GP will provide the services but in my experience they do not want to go to the GP because they will see Mum's friend in the waiting room, the receptionist knows Dad or the GP might tell Mum, however much he is discouraged from doing so. Young people are happier to mix with all ages in general clinics.
There has been a meeting this morning in the Jubilee Room, organised by the Pro-choice Alliance and Marie Stopes International, which have conducted a survey on access to abortion for young people; 20 per cent. of our GPs are still anti-abortion and many of those will not refer young people on to doctors who will deal with them sympathetically. We all know that the provision for abortion nationwide is very patchy. That is not dealt with very well in the report.
As an experienced doctor in the field, I warn against too much preaching at young people; they get put off, especially at the first visit. The report says that the advice to doctors is to be strengthened. That frightens me, because doctors are already nervous about advising under-16s. We should give non-judgmental help first and deal with the emergency, and then gain young people's confidence and counsel and direct. We must not preach in the first place. I know that it does not work, because I have the experience.
Mr. Hope: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to page 90 of the report, which says:
"Preaching is rarely effective. Whether the Government likes it or not, young people decide what they are going to do about sex and contraception. Keeping them in the dark or preaching at them makes it less likely they'll make the right decision."?
The Government have already taken on board the message that she is offering.
Dr. Tonge: Yes, but in other parts of the report it is emphasised that GPs will be given more guidance. Colleagues in general practice have told me that they are afraid of dealing with matters in a straightforward way and feel that there is pressure on them to counsel, which neither they nor the young people want.

1121
The young person who meets a barrage of advice and counselling at the first visit is never seen again, in my experience. In my capacity as a senior doctor, I have had to tell off colleagues for putting young women off. The people about whom one is most worried, one does not see again. The same applies to young men. We must expand family planning facilities generally and leave it to the very well-trained doctors and nurses in those clinics.
The Government have already chickened out of making it easier to obtain condoms, emergency contraception and the regular contraceptive pill. Why cannot school nurses and GPs dispense condoms? Where is the progress on the morning-after pill, which I prefer to call emergency contraception? It needs to be available at pharmacies and from nurses, whether in schools or at GPs' surgeries. It is safer than aspirin and paracetamol. Why is it not simply on sale?
In Spain, one can buy the regular contraceptive pill from a chemist's. Why cannot we accept that some drugs are safer than drugs that are already on sale in pharmacies? Why do not we let people have a free choice? That way, many unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with and young people will be guided to clinics where they can get proper advice and counselling.
The Government are good at dealing with the consequences of teenage sexual behaviour but weak, in the report, on preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease. The priorities are wrong. The Government are running scared of the tabloids and all the zealots who fill our mailbags, accusing doctors and nurses of encouraging immorality. They have the opportunity to tackle those people, and I wish that they would do it.
11.55 am
Mr. John Healey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing this debate. Her speech was informative and refreshingly iconoclastic.
In the area that I represent—Wentworth is part of Rotherham—we have a problem with high rates of teenage pregnancy. In parts of my constituency, one in six of all pregnancies are of women between 15 and 19 and one in 20 are of under-16s. The most telling index of the problem is the fact that eight out of the 22 wards in Rotherham have higher rates of pregnancy in those between 15 and 19 than in all the other age groups put together. There is a direct correlation with unemployment rates and other local deprivation indices.
Teenage pregnancy is both a symptom and a cause of social exclusion. In Rotherham, unemployment is the highest in Yorkshire and double the national average. The staying-on rates at school at 16 are 8 per cent. below the national average and the attainment at 16 of five or more GCSEs at grade A to C is 10 per cent. below.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) will testify, the problem is the same in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham, across the former coalfield areas, where the teenage pregnancy rates are the highest in the Trent region, with the exception of the south Humber. The new health action zone in the South Yorkshire coalfield communities is therefore especially important. It will be a major way of co-ordinating efforts to tackle public health priorities. The health action zone has a specific objective to reduce the
1122
number of unintended under-16 conceptions and reduce the number of young people risking their health through smoking, alcohol and sexual behaviour.
I think that the comments of the hon. Member for Billericay constituted a welcome to the social exclusion unit's report; I certainly welcome it. It identified three key factors that contribute to our internationally high rate of teenage pregnancy: low expectations about the future, which are the most important factor; ignorance about contraception and the reality of life as a parent, as the hon. Lady ably illustrated; and mixed messages from adults about sex and relationships.
I want to bring those three issues down to local level and talk about the Rawmarsh baby doll project, which exemplifies the difficulties and challenges that we face. The conception of the project—if I may use that term—dates back to the end of 1996 and stems from a concern among local youth workers and teachers who were finding a change in attitude among young girls—from expressing a rather vague desire to have a baby to declaring that they were actively trying to conceive—accompanied by a local rise in teenage pregnancies.
The project was created and co-ordinated by two youth workers, Ann Brown and Karen Kirby, based at the Rawmarsh youth centre, with funding of only £250. The aim is to improve the understanding of what it means to be a parent and change the attitude of 14 and 15-year-olds towards the prospect of parenthood. It involves a lifelike doll that is heavy to hold, is always hungry, cries to be changed and wakes up several times in the night. It involves planning and preparation lessons covering sexual health and relationships, the problems and embarrassments of having a baby, costs and budgeting, dressing, feeding, changing, bathing and putting down a baby and trying to get it to sleep. The course culminates in the student taking the baby doll home on a Friday evening and returning to school on a Monday morning having looked after it over the weekend.
The evaluation of the course showed some success, but it highlighted some of the difficult dimensions of the problem. It was clear from the start that many of the under 16-year-olds had up-to-date information about contraception and sexual health. However, 20 per cent. believed that having a baby would have no effect on a relationship, and 70 per cent. believed that it would improve a relationship. The lack of information was not to do with sex, but with practical parenting.

The average age of the sexual partners of these girls was 21 to 26, so they were not their class mates. The majority of those men were unemployed, often living independently in rented accommodation. Some were involved in drug misuse.
Seven out of 10 of the young male students that participated in this project thought that responsibility to rear a child was nothing to do with them, whereas all the girls involved in the project stipulated that it was a shared responsibility. The majority of the male pupils did not complete the exercises and tasks, and only one took the baby doll home over the weekend. The parents of his school mates made all sorts of excuses about why their son could not participate in the programme and could not take the baby doll home, ranging from "the family is going to a christening at the weekend" to "we are going on holiday in the near future" or "we have to go shopping

1123
for new clothes." One father was abusive to a youth worker, and insisted that babies had nothing to do with his son.
The outcome of the pilot project was that half the 14 and 15-year-olds who took the baby doll home said that it had significantly increased the age at which they wanted to have children. The families by and large said that it was a useful exercise, and that all school pupils should undertake such a course.
This pilot was the first of its kind in South Yorkshire. It was replicated elsewhere in my constituency in Wath upon Dearne, and with health action zone funding the exercise it will now be extended right across Rotherham.
We need national targets and the political priority that the social exclusion report provides. We need to develop local services, such as those that the health action zone gives us the opportunity to deliver. But in the end, it is work with individual boys and girls while they are still at school that will make the most telling difference.
The social exclusion unit plan is a good start. I particularly welcome a special feature of the report. For the first time, it has an edge to it which is directed at boys and men. For once, young men are singled out as also having responsibility for teenage pregnancies. The blame and shame that too often is directed only at girls, is also turned on boys. When girls get pregnant, they give up education or give up their baby for adoption or to their grandparents to look after, whereas boys go up in the estimation of their mates down the pub.
The proposal for the Child Support Agency to pursue fathers of children born to teenagers is important, because it underlines the fact that they have a responsibility for their children, including a financial responsibility, and that these babies are their children.
I welcome the plans on educational advice, the emphasis on fathers, and the approach of the social exclusion unit working across Departments. However, the test will not be how well the social exclusion unit's own plans are put into practice, or how well Ministers link up under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, but whether funding through mainstream programmes, such as health action zones, sure start, excellence in cities and the ONE service, make a major impact on information, advice and support for young people, and, above all, on the opportunities available to them.
It is important to dispel ignorance surrounding sex and to improve advice, information and support services, but success in education and improved life opportunities will in the long term be crucial in helping us to tackle this problem.
12.5 pm
Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing this debate. I declare a minor interest having produced parenting education materials for use in schools, which have been successfully implemented and have had an impact on young people's lives. The local authority in my constituency is identified in the report as having the 29th highest rate of teenage pregnancies, so it is a local concern as well as a matter in which I have had a personal interest in the past.
1124
As a member of the Government's personal, social and health education working group, I am delighted that this report has come out in conjunction with the report of that group so as to focus attention on the problem of teenage pregnancies in the broader context of mainstream changes to the school curriculum and the work of other organisations to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
Teenage pregnancy is not an easy issue for us to tackle, either as individual Members of Parliament or as a Government. People hold strongly held beliefs on this issue. Some people have deeply held religious beliefs, so we must tackle this subject with care. Young people and their parents have to make intimate decisions. However, the cost of doing nothing is high. The statistics in the report show that teenage mothers have poorer education opportunities, poorer jobs and often bring up their children living in relative poverty. Their babies have poorer health—there is a higher infant mortality rate among those babies—and that imposes wider costs on the community. Doing nothing is not an option. We must find solutions, however difficult they may be.
It is particularly interesting that the risk factors associated with high levels of teenage pregnancy identified in the report include poverty and education problems. The young people involved are not in education, employment or training; they live in areas of deprivation and are excluded from other sources of education or health service support. Those factors must be addressed. It is interesting that young people told the social exclusion team that there were three causes of becoming a teenage parent. The primary cause was that they felt that they had nothing to lose. They had low self-esteem and did not feel valued as individuals. They felt that they had no future and no hope, so they became pregnant as a way of feeling valued. They had something to which they could give unconditional love and which would give them unconditional love back. That is our failure. Why cannot we provide those young people with a sense of optimism, hope and self-esteem for the future, so that they do not make that difficult and probably wrong choice.
Those young people also described the cause of their pregnancy as ignorance. It is not good enough, as we approach the 21st century, for people to become pregnant through ignorance. Hon. Members have spoken about the mixed messages that young people receive. The media bombards them with messages that it is almost compulsory for young people to have sex, but they do not talk about it at home because it is too embarrassing and difficult. The result is not less sex, but less protected sex. The risk is not just of becoming pregnant, but of infection from sexually transmitted diseases.
Action must be taken to tackle the causal and risk factors associated with high levels of teenage pregnancy. The report is right to refer to two strands of activity. The first is prevention: we should try to prevent young people from becoming pregnant, but if they do and they have a baby, we should provide them with the support they need for their own development and for the care of their child.
The difficulty is that many teenagers do not know how easy it is to get pregnant or how hard it is to be a parent. Education in sex, relationships and parenthood is required from schools, youth services and other providers.

1125
The report is right to say that that should start in primary school. I was at a broadcast of a Central Television programme called "Weekend Live" on Friday night that focused on teenage pregnancies. There was a 14-year-old mother with a two-year-old daughter. She had her baby when she was 12 and had become pregnant when she was 11. We have to start sex education at a younger age if we are to prevent very early pregnancies. The report clearly recommends that.
The report demonstrates statistically that effective sex education can reduce sexual activity among young people. I particularly like the idea of peer education. As the hon. Member for Billericay said, older young people talking to younger people about their experiences is an effective way of getting the message across at school or in community projects.
The report places particular emphasis on involving parents in school policy on sex education and trying to change the climate in which they talk to their children about the subject. The message given to boys should be strengthened. Page 97 of the report says:
"Young men are half of the problem and the solution. Sex and relationships education in and out of school should bring them more into the picture. Young men also need to be targeted with information about the consequences of sex and fatherhood, including their financial responsibility to support their children."
However hard that educational process may be, it is up to our schools and our teachers to find ways to make it happen.
Most teenage parents go back to live with mum to be looked after with their baby. That works. I met a number of such families on Friday night and the mums of the teenage parents seem to enjoy having their daughter at home with the baby and being the grandmother who brings them up. That is fine when it works, but three out of 10 of the 15 and 16-year-olds do not have that option. We cannot simply abandon them. Too many teenage parents find themselves in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or in council flats on faraway estates with no family and no support. The Government's strategy of semi-independent supported accommodation with a mentor, advice on parenting skills and health education is the right way to provide the support that those young people need at the time when they are most vulnerable and do not have other people around them. It has been unfortunate to say the least that certain parts of the press have referred to those arrangements as hostels or some form of punitive measure. The aim is to support young parents. The National Council for One Parent Families, Gingerbread and others have been actively involved in pilot projects showing how the policy can be implemented and have supported that aspect of the report.
The target is to reduce teenage conceptions by 50 per cent. by 2010. That is an ambitious target, but it is right to set ambitious targets. The Government have pledged £60 million in the first few years. I congratulate the Government and the Ministers involved on taking the report seriously and putting money behind the work that needs to be done. I urge them to take the matter forward with as much speed as possible.
12.14 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I shall not take more than a few moments to make my points, because these Adjournment debates are principally for
1126
Back Benchers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on calling for the debate. We all knew that she would be straight-talking. I give her full credit for pointing to the family obligations. The new life created for the teenager concerned has around it a raft of adults who have responsibility for it.
Only the hardest of hearts would not have sympathy for the young teenage girl who finds herself in that predicament, but I urge the Minister to look closely at some of the statistical evidence in the report. The clear overall message is that Britain lags way behind other European countries, but the more worrying fact is that we are going against the trend. We have been going backwards during the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s while the situation has improved in other European countries.
There are other key points in the report that are worthy of closer examination. Why is the rate of teenage pregnancy 70 per cent. higher in Shropshire than it is in Cambridgeshire? There must be a reason for the statistical irregularities. I urge the Minister to look more deeply at the analysis.
We welcome the report, which identifies some of the causes of teenage pregnancy, but there are deeper layers of reasoning behind the rising incidence. We should face up to the mismatch between girls and boys. It is acceptable for lads to go out and sow their wild oats and the girls feel that they have to say yes. We must empower girls so that they feel comfortable to say no and we need to ensure that our young men play their part.
Without being overly party political, I must point out to the Minister that the messages that the Government send are important. Doing away with the married couples tax allowance and using the money to increase child benefit is tantamount to saying that it is okay to have babies, but it is not important to get married. The signals that we give to society are important.
Young people are bombarded with information about sex and reasons for having sex. It has been turned into a sport, decoupled from the emotions and responsibility that go with it. The situation is not helped by the way in which the subject is taught. Perhaps the British are particularly handicapped in this respect and find it too difficult to talk about. We have to address that. In many ways, the parents need to be taught about how to teach it. Many of us who are parents had dire experience of being taught about sex in schools, but that is the only experience that we had, and perhaps our parents did not do a very good job either. It is important not just to teach the youngsters, but to teach the parents how to talk about it.
I strongly endorse the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay that young mums should be taken into classrooms. A young mum telling her classmates or those just a little younger than her about the constraints that have come upon her will give a strong message not to do it.
The issue is what we teach in school and how and when we do it. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) talked about teaching at a young age. Several hon. Members have mentioned primary school children. There is a big difference in primary school ages. I have three children aged eight, six and four. They vary in their ability to understand anything about the subject. I counsel strongly against the suggestion that there should be across the board sex education for four-year-olds,

1127
which simply reveals ignorance about the lives of very young children. There is a danger that they will try something out. We all know that young children have an unnerving ability to identify things that parents are awkward about.
Dr. Tonge rose—
Mrs. Spelman: In view of the shortness of time, I ought to continue so that I leave enough time for the Minister.
We have discussed the weaknesses of sex education, but we are still left with large numbers of women who, after the health visitor's final visit, are left alone with the baby, isolated and afraid. Surely they still have parents. Members of the family should be encouraged to take more responsibility for young women in that situation.
In a spirit of constructive opposition I support the idea of hostels, but I urge the Minister to consider the mentoring available. An older, more experienced woman should be on hand to help the younger women. We should find ways of creating a surrogate family setting so that the young women have babysitting opportunities and chances to go out, complete their education and, if possible, get into work. Without that support, they can end up in a cycle that all too often spirals into deprivation.
12.19 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): We have had an extremely good debate and I join those who have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for initiating it. It gives us grounds for a fair degree of optimism and hope in respect of the extent to which the report of the social exclusion unit, with its intensely sensible and practical recommendations, has been broadly welcomed and the fact that the debate represents the progress that has been made from the rather pathetic hand wringing about moral decay that characterised so much of the debate about teenage pregnancy in the past.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Corby (Mr. Hope) set out clearly why we need to be concerned about teenage pregnancy rates in Britain. I would add only two points. First, 30 years ago the rate of teenage pregnancy in Britain was more or less in line with those in other European countries. However, while in other European countries the rates of teenage pregnancy have fallen, that is not the case here. Even parts of the country with the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy have a worse record than other European countries that we should aspire at least to match.
It is also clear that teenage pregnancy is far more prevalent among the poorest. That is why it is central to our range of strategies to tackle social exclusion. A young girl in social class 5 is 10 times more likely to become pregnant when she is little more than a child herself than a girl in social class 1. The other risk factors that reinforce the likelihood of teenage pregnancy include having been in care, having been excluded from school, having mental health problems and having experienced sexual abuse.
Teenagers who become parents, and their children, face additional health risks. The babies have a greater incidence of low birth weight and perinatal death and the mothers have a greatly increased risk of post-natal depression.
1128
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) made clear, there are three broad reasons for our current position. The first is ignorance. All too often, children learn about the mechanics of sex from school, but precious little else. That must change. Throughout the consultation on the report, young people said time and again that they did not want to learn only about the physical aspects of sex; they wanted to talk about feelings and know more about how to handle relationships and the emotional aspects of sex. They also need to know about the cost—the extent to which unprotected sex leads to pregnancy and, increasingly, to sexually transmitted diseases.
We have to listen to young people. Had we done so 10, 15 or 20 years ago, many of the issues that we are addressing today would not include an unacceptable rate of teenage pregnancy and the social exclusion associated with it.
The costs of ignorance are great. One reason for the high rate of teenage pregnancy is that Britain has the lowest contraceptive use of any of our neighbouring European countries. The rates of sexually transmitted infection among teenagers are rising fast.
Three in four teenage pregnancies are unplanned. That is why we shall build on the work with Sexwise and NHS Direct to provide a nationally available advice line for teenagers to give advice and counselling and to signpost them quickly to other services that can provide help. We will also be funding a national publicity campaign that will address directly the issues, questions and concerns that young people have. It will also get the messages across to parents.
We have to make it clear that advice and help is available. One of the clear deterrents to young people in respect of seeking advice about contraception is that some 60 per cent. of them are not aware that confidential advice is available.
The second reason for the problem is low expectation. The great challenge to our programme of action is to provide reasons for young girls not to become pregnant—to convince them that life holds more for them than having a baby at 14, 15 or 16.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the third reason—mixed messages. We live in a society where children are bombarded with images of sex, which is used to sell them everything from ice-cream to videos. The message is clear: being sexually active is the norm—come and join the club. Yet the rest of adult society gives a quite different message about sex. Either we do not discuss it at all or—as the report graphically testifies—we discuss it in an embarrassed and diffident way. We hope that if we do not talk to teenagers about sex it will not happen, but we have to accept that all the evidence is stacked against that view.
No young person got pregnant from knowing about sex. Equipping our young people with information about sex, relationships, access to contraception and the risks of sexually transmitted disease is the best way to put them in charge of the decisions that they are often forced into making. We have to be realistic. As hon. Members have said, we have to see the world as it is, not as we might want it to be.
The plan for action is clear. It begins with a new blueprint for sex and relationships education for young people in and out of school. It addresses the fact that such

1129
education needs to start in primary schools and must be set in context. Sex and relationships education must include negotiating relationships, knowing how to say no, equipping children with information about puberty and how babies are conceived and born, recognising that something like 10 per cent. of girls start their periods while they are still at primary school. It sees parents as the first and principal teachers, who must be better equipped to talk to their children about sex. In secondary school, it ensures that advice about access to contraception is properly available.
The risks of unprotected sex are high. Only about 50 per cent. of teenagers use contraception the first time that they have sex. We are taking forward work on that. The sexual health strategy will play a critical role in reducing teenage pregnancy and improving understanding about teenage sexual health.
Improving access to emergency contraception is important, but young people need not be exposed to the risks that they would face if at the age of 13 or 14 they were able to use emergency contraception as an alternative to proper protection, advice and support.
I end on a word of caution. It is all too easy to stigmatise teenage parents, to point the finger and blame them for the ills of society. I finish with the words of one young woman who contributed to the consultation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Stoke-on-Trent
12.30 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise issues of real importance to my constituency, and particularly to the city of Stoke-on-Trent and to north Staffordshire. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), is here to address what are important issues to the people whom we represent.
I welcome what the Government are doing to tackle economic decline in those parts of our industrial heartlands where manufacturing industry has taken a hammering. I am aware that there are difficulties, but initiatives are taking place. There is a huge commitment across the local community to make a difference. We must make sure that we have joined-up thinking across Government, and that must come from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which must work with other Departments and agencies to get the changes that we need.
In this respect, I congratulate the Government—particularly the Deputy Prime Minister—on the report "Making the Difference—A New Start for England's Coalfield Communities". I represent an area that was once the north Staffordshire coalfield and which has never properly recovered from the job losses in the coal industry. Traditionally, our area has relied on pits, the pottery and ceramic industry and—to a slightly lesser extent—the textile industry.
The report on coalfield regeneration is thorough, and I welcome it. It has resulted in extra funding, which will be vital. I am slightly disappointed that no one from north Staffordshire will be represented on the trust that has been set up to administer some of the funding. However, I want the Minister to be sure that we have claims on the trust. Also, we want to work closely with it so that all the recommendations in the report can be brought to bear to make a real difference to our area. I know that the Minister understands these arguments as he, too, represents an area that once depended on coal.
I could refer at length to figures and statistics which demonstrate that if ever an area needed extra help, it is ours. That is the case whether we are talking about exclusion from schools, teenage pregnancies or the numbers of people who, because of industrial injury, are out of work. However, I do not wish to quote the figures. I want to get across a positive message from Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. We are upbeat about what we can do to meet the needs. All we want is a little extra support, recognition and understanding from the Government, so that we can all work together in one big partnership.
I wish to concentrate initially on round 5—the final bid for single regeneration budget funding, which was made by Advantage West Midlands on 30 April. I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give an answer today on this most important proposal, but I am mindful that, in the next few days and weeks, he and his colleagues will be considering the bid. I want to make sure that he is aware of its merits and of the enormous difference that it could make.
The bid talks about partnership, and it has an impressive list of partners, including the north Staffordshire chamber of trade. At virtually every meeting

1131
that I and local Members have attended with the chamber of trade, the one thing that has been emphasised is that if we are to do something about all the needs of our area, we must start with education. All the partners that have signed up to the proposal—including the health authority, the voluntary sector, industry and the local churches—agree with our Prime Minister: education is the best economic policy that we have. That is why the SRB bid is so committed to education. We are asking for an opportunity to promote regeneration through education—that is the message that I want to convey today.
There can be no more important way of tackling the problems than education and training. If we do not start to put right the previous Government's legacy of underfunding education—not only in Stoke-on-Trent, but in Staffordshire as a whole—we will not realise the potential of the young people in our area.
It is for that reason that I believe that the bid is vital and timely. We want to work with a partnership of universities, colleges, schools, the voluntary sector, local training and enterprise councils, the careers service, health authorities, the private sector, the probation service and unions in the common cause of tackling our educational problems.
Stoke-on-Trent, in common with many older industrial areas, has had a culture in which—perhaps wrongly—education and training were not considered important. Young people have had low educational and vocational aspirations, but much has been done to combat that. We have had the "aiming high" initiative, which has been introduced in close collaboration with many local schools in our area. Through that initiative, we have now understood that the root cause of some of the problems of low business formation and the little capacity that there has been for community-led regeneration goes back to under-investment in education.
It is for that reason that the partnership is committed to increasing staying-on rates in schools, and to bringing the level of 16-year-olds staying on in school to nearer the national level. I congratulate the Government on the educational maintenance awards, which I am determined will make a real difference to our staying-on rate.
The partnership is committed to reducing unemployment by improving access to training and the relevant skill levels for young people, and to improving the participation by young people in the life of the community—for example, by youth parliaments and forums. I was privileged to attend a national award in the House last week involving the Citizenship Foundation, which is keen to work with us in north Staffordshire. The partnership is committed to increasing the numbers of new businesses established by young people.
We have large numbers of young school-leavers who are not settled and are at risk. We want to change attitudes towards education and learning. We want to increase youth participation and decision-making, and we want to deal with underachievers and make sure that the regeneration that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is doing so much to bring about is based on and rooted in education.
I must refer to the excellence in cities scheme. The Minister may wonder why I am concentrating on education in a debate to be answered by an Environment
1132
Minister. However, he will understand that we must put in place new mechanisms across all Departments. In view of the role that the SRB bid is giving to education, perhaps we need to look at how Departments can work together. We may need a longer time frame for some of the regeneration policies, and we should consider whether the greater prominence for education in the SRB is helpful. If it is to bring about changes locally, we need to ensure that we have expertise in that subject within the regional development agencies. My hon. Friend's Department has a key role to play in bringing together all the players at a national level to achieve that.
I wish to draw my hon. Friend the Minister's attention to difficulties that could be paralleled at ministerial level if we do not address the issues. For example, we must ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, who has responsibility for inner-city education schemes, has some input into the work of the RDAs and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We are trying to get many initiatives, such as sure start, started in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. We do not want those schemes watered down, but we do want clear cohesion to obtain the maximum benefit.
It is important that the Minister understand the support across north Staffordshire for the bid for objective 2 eligibility, because we want north Staffordshire to feature in that. I pay tribute to Mike Tappin, former Member of the European Parliament, for doing so much preliminary work. It is a great loss to us that he is no longer an MEP and I wish to put on record my thanks for the work that he has done.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of our support for assisted area status, although I know that other Departments are involved. When the urban task force report is released, and if it contains a challenge for city centre regeneration pilots, I request that adequate time and funding be allowed for all cities to take part.
I am aware of the tremendous work that my hon. Friend the Minister has done in respect of British waterways and canals, which offer enormous opportunities for regeneration. In Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire, we have the Trent and Mersey canal and the Caldon canal, which provide those opportunities. We should like those issues to feature centrally in further funding that we shall request from the Government. We want the Minister to know how much we want to form partnerships with him to work on that issue.
We also have enormous opportunities for regeneration through heritage. I do not know whether the Minister has visited the most monumental site in my constituency—the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery—which was used by English Heritage on 8 June to launch the national buildings at risk register. Chatterley Whitfield is the nation's No. 1 most at risk building. It offers prospects for job creation and sustainable urban regeneration, so that what was once a powerhouse of the past can become a powerhouse of the future to benefit Stoke-on-Trent and the wider north Staffordshire area.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), who is in her place, is fully aware of the opportunities for our constituencies that such regeneration would provide. We need a commitment from the Government, Advantage West Midlands and the regional development agency to

1133
work closely with English Heritage, in view of the priority that it has given to getting Chatterley Whitfield working again—with new jobs—for the benefit of local people whose lives have been blighted by the closure of the colliery.
No debate on regeneration in Stoke-on-Trent would be complete without a reference to the pottery and ceramic industry. As I walk through the House of Commons, I am always mindful of the tiles and tableware we use which were manufactured in my constituency and neighbouring ones. The industry is experiencing problems at the moment, like most manufacturing industry, but we are grateful for the SRB money that has already helped to revitalise some of our industry.
We are also grateful to the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry for combining with a partnership of local companies and civic leaders in a report known as the ECOTEC report. It contains a list of recommendations which, if achieved, would reverse the decline in our industry. We want to use the report to improve management training and skill levels in the ceramics industry, to establish mentoring schemes to spread good practice, and to develop a "Made in Stoke-on-Trent" label to be promoted throughout the world, because we have a worldwide industry.
Promoting diversity of industry in our area comes back to education. We must do something about educational achievement. I hope that we will obtain increased educational funding in the future, but in the meantime we place a great deal of hope in the SRB bid. If we can convince the Government of the merits of our proposal, we can start to work in real partnership for improved economic prosperity and educational achievement across the area that we represent.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale):I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing this debate. She is a worthy warrior for Stoke-on-Trent and the north Staffordshire area. I have known her all the time that I have been in the House, and she never misses an opportunity to raise issues of concern to, or to campaign on behalf of, the area.
On a lighter note, I wish to commiserate with my hon. Friend because Port Vale, a football league club, lost their assistant manager a few days ago. He has now been appointed manager of Mansfield Town, and I hope that he will bring all the skills of the north Staffordshire area to the east midlands area.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising issues relating to regional policies and regeneration in the Stoke area. As she rightly pointed out, Stoke does face a range of difficulties, and no one with any sense would seek to deny that. For instance, as she said, the Stoke-on-Trent economy is highly dependent upon the ceramics industry, which accounts for one in six jobs there. That industry has been declining in employment terms and there has been a corresponding fall in employment in other supporting firms, and also in the mine and steel industries. Growth in service sector employment has not been as rapid as in other parts of the region.
The Government recognise that there are areas of deprivation in the city, which is why it is in receipt of considerable levels of Government regeneration funding.
1134
We also recognise that there are links between such deprivation and social exclusion, and we are developing a range of new policies in this area that are likely to benefit the city now and in the future.
The Government wish to contribute to making Stoke-on-Trent more prosperous and an even better place to live and work. To that end, we are working with local partners and regional agencies to implement a wide range of new initiatives and programmes, some of which I will refer to today.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of the single regeneration budget. Stoke-on-Trent is benefiting from three major SRB schemes, totalling £52 million in direct Government grant. Those schemes are the Corbridge community renewal, the villages initiative and the Stoke approach. By levering in an additional £142 million of other funding from both the public and private sectors, the schemes have attracted a total of £194 million to the rebuilding of the Stoke-on-Trent economy.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, Stoke-on-Trent has also submitted a bid under the current SRB round 5, entitled "Realising the Potential of Young People". Decisions are currently being taken on SRB round 5, and a national announcement of the successful bids will be made in early July. As I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on Stoke's bid at this stage of the proceedings, but I wish the city well in its application.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about the assisted areas review. The Government are considering the proposals that they will make to the European Commission for new assisted areas in this country. Final decisions are expected in the coming weeks. The needs of all areas are being carefully considered under the review, including those of Stoke-on-Trent and other parts of the west Midlands.
The Government's aim is to designate assisted areas where financial assistance to industry will be effective in addressing need. We are seeking to combine areas of need with opportunities for employment creation, investment and regeneration.
My hon. Friend asked about the relationship between the assisted areas review and the structural funds review. The Government are also currently considering the proposals that they will make for European structural funds objective 2 areas. The two maps have different policy objectives. They should not have to be identical, nor should one be expected to be contained within the other. Taken together, however, they should offer a coherent approach to regional development.
Better educational attainment is a key element in Stoke's future success. The city has applied to the Department for Education and Employment to set up the rainbow zone, which aims to address the poor levels of educational achievement in the Stoke-on-Trent area. It will cost £3 million over three years, and the partners in the scheme aim to raise a quarter of the £1 million needed each year. The zone could start in January 2000, subject to approval by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Stoke has also been selected as one of 15 pilot areas under the education maintenance allowance scheme to test incentives for young people to continue in full-time learning after the age of 16. Under the Government's new

1135
sure start scheme, partners in Stoke-on-Trent have submitted a proposal to address family support in north Stoke, which will start later this year.
Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that those considering a sure start application should take into account the fact that more than one area is involved? If the scheme is suited to those different areas, we will be able to trail blaze right across the city.
Mr. Meale: There is no doubt about that. The Government recognised the diversity of the area in the recent coalfield task force, and want to encourage economic regeneration of all the coalfield areas. The coalfield initiative has been implemented by several Departments, but we must remember the local importance of the ceramics industry, to which my hon. Friend referred, and of the steel industry. All local industries deserve the help offered to young people by the sure start educational support scheme.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the excellence in cities programme. As the programme develops—depending, of course, on the availability of resources—we will be looking to involve further areas in the initiative. Some elements of the programme—for example, the expansion of beacon schools and specialist schools—already apply beyond the initial six pilot areas. The Government are therefore pleased that Stoke-on-Trent is taking advantage of so many of our new initiatives to support education. Improving the skill levels of young people is vital to the well-being of the city and the region.
My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about the problems of the ceramics industry in Stoke, which has suffered several major redundancies in the past 12 months. The Government appreciate that this is a difficult time in the industry, and we will continue to help to alleviate the effects on people made redundant from ceramics companies in north Staffordshire. The Department for Education and Employment's rapid response fund is already helping many redundant workers with traditional pottery skills to retrain in order to seek jobs in alternative industries. It will continue to do so throughout 1999.
There remain problems in the industry due to increasing foreign competition and other factors. The industry clearly needs to compete in the marketplace, and the Government will do what they can to help it modernise. We will also help Stoke to diversify its economy through relevant programmes, including European assistance.
Ms Walley: My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of supporting the ceramics industry, and of helping people who have lost the jobs that they had in it. Does he agree
1136
that it is also important to work closely with firms currently in difficulty and that we should help them modernise before they are forced into receivership? Should we not do more to prevent problems arising in the first place, and should not policies on competitiveness pay more attention to that?
Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to help the ceramics industry and other traditional industries to diversify and modernise. As I said earlier, we will do everything to help in that process.
European funding has been very important in Stoke's regeneration as a modern city. Stoke has been awarded some £14 million in grant from the 1994–96 objective 2 programme, and £3 million from the 1997–99 programme. A further £3 million has been offered for the final phase of Trentham lakes, a flagship regeneration project on a key gateway site that involves a joint public-private partnership to produce new job opportunities. In total, European assistance so far has led to 344 jobs being created and has encouraged £175 million of private sector investment in the area.
Stoke has also suffered from colliery closures in recent years. I have some knowledge of that problem, as I come from a strong coal mining community. My hon. Friend referred to her interest in the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery site, which represents a major regeneration opportunity for the city. I appreciate that the site has particular significance for the local former mining communities and the wider population of Stoke-on-Trent. Although I have not yet visited the Chatterley Whitfield site, I promise that I shall arrange a visit as soon as possible to examine regeneration matters and to talk to local people about the regeneration of the canal network in the Stoke-on-Trent area.
The Chatterley Whitfield site is designated as a scheduled ancient monument. It has been identified by English Heritage as a grade A building at risk, with national and international significance in terms of industrial heritage. Following a number of unsuccessful initiatives, English Heritage has been working recently with my hon. Friend and the city council to find a viable use for the site.
On 8 June, English Heritage announced funding support of £1 million to kick-start regeneration proposals over the next three years. The first stage is in hand, and the aim is to produce a clear set of proposals and a business plan by the end of 1999. I know of the problem with land ownership, but I promise my hon. Friend that the Government will do all we can to try to resolve that difficulty so that we can proceed.
In conclusion, I can tell my hon. Friend—my friend of many years—that my Department and others will do everything possible to help regenerate the economy in Stoke-on-Trent and the north Staffordshire area and to find work and education opportunities for local people.

Rural Policing
1 pm
Mr. David Prior: I am delighted to debate rural policing as it is one of the most important issues facing North Norfolk and the constituencies of many other hon. Members.
We cherish many freedoms and take them for granted. None is more important, however, than the freedom to go about one's daily life in safety, without fear or intimidation. That principle lies behind the great cry of the founders of the American constitution for life, liberty and the pursuit of human happiness. The rule of law, and its acceptance by the people even when individuals may disagree with it, is a crucial hallmark of a civilised democratic society.
The line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour will always fluctuate. It is influenced by many factors, not least the prevailing moral consensus and the political complexion of the House of Commons. All politicians who, like me, believe in individual freedom must deal with the paradox that liberty is both constrained and preserved by law and order policies. However, no matter what our political beliefs, and wherever the line is drawn, all Members believe that people should not feel threatened by crime.
I shall not dwell on serious crimes such as dealing in hard drugs, murder or burglary; nor do I wish to trade statistics with the Minister of State, Home Office, about how much his Government have or have not spent on law and order, although I shall refer to their election promise to be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
Instead, I shall focus on a range of anti-social behaviour largely undealt with by the criminal justice system, but which can blight or ruin the lives of ordinary, decent people. That is as true in the countryside and our market towns as it is in our big cities. I shall illustrate my theme with a few real-life examples from my constituency. The Minister will recognise their type, and I do not doubt that he could add to the list.
A young man walks down the high street, spitting on the pavement or, worse, spitting into a young mother's pram, in which a baby is lying. A car driver deliberately throws a bag of takeaway rubbish out of his car window on to the street. A gang of children, in their early teens, defaces and vandalises newly planted trees. A group of 13 to 17-year-olds skateboard in a residential area, shouting obscenities and playing their radios loudly late into the night. Rowdy young adults drink too much, show off outside a pub and jostle and insult passers by, making old people in particular frightened to walk down the high street.
I could offer many more examples, but the House will have the gist. Across the country, many Members will hear the same complaints at their constituency surgeries. That kind of behaviour makes no headlines, and it is entirely absent from the crime statistics or the police league tables. Many young people involved are not real criminals. Most, though not all, will grow out of their anti-social behaviour and will settle down. However, their behaviour causes great distress to many decent people.
Some of those involved will fall into crime, perhaps stealing a car or dealing in drugs. They may become drunk and get into a violent incident. If bad behaviour is
1138
not checked, it can easily progress into serious criminal behaviour. We do not have time to go into all the reasons for anti-social behaviour, which is linked to family breakdown, poor employment opportunities and fewer organised leisure opportunities—a particular concern in my constituency where youth and community centres have closed. Those long-term problems are the causes of crime on which the Government promised to be tough, but on which they are finding it difficult to deliver.
My constituents want to know what the Government will do today and in the short term. I was brought up in rural Suffolk in the 1960s and 1970s. I remember the police house in the village; I remember the local policeman; I even remember "Dixon of Dock Green", though admittedly through a haze of nostalgia. The bobby on the beat was a reality. He may not have caught train robbers and murderers, but his existence prevented crime. He was part of the community. He knew the local villains and the parents of local troublemakers. Above all, he reassured the public. Visibility is important.
My view is not fashionable, and it can be easily parodied. Senior police officers and Home Office officials will no doubt say that police officers on foot or on bikes cannot catch modern criminals. That view misses the point because it is driven by crime statistics and league tables, clear-up rates and speed of response tables. It misses the much more intangible goal of a friendly, crime-free, happy neighbourhood.
If the police become too remote, they will increasingly be seen in a hostile light. To law-abiding citizens, a uniform should inspire familiarity and security, not fear and trepidation. Only if the local police are truly local will officers be able further to develop our important neighbourhood watch schemes and partnership approaches, which involve volunteers, parish councils, local authorities and—I hope—parents.
A local policeman who knows the community must be at the hub of any partnership approach, bringing professionalism, experience, judgment and authority. The police are custodians of a special bond of trust between the people and the law. Weakening or ignoring that bond does not bode well for anyone.
Against that background, I am concerned about staffing in North Norfolk. I am sure that other rural areas face a similar problem. North Norfolk has 1,325 miles of lanes and roads, 52,000 homes and a population that grows from 130,000 to around 1 million during the holiday season. It takes at least an hour to drive from one end of the constituency to another, and there are eight large market towns. Sandringham is at one end of the constituency, and Bacton—the largest gas terminal in the country—is at the other. Each poses particular challenges to the police.
Yesterday, 15 constables, two sergeants and one inspector were on duty. That simply is not enough. There is no hope for genuine community policing unless more officers can be on duty. This year's police settlement holds out no hope for improvement. Norfolk has been given no real spending increase, but policing costs are rising. As Brian Landale, chairman of the police authority, wrote earlier this year to the Home Secretary:
"The funding increase for the Norfolk Police Authority is very disappointing and falls short of the increase required to maintain even a standstill position … Crime in Norfolk may have to be fought on a Shoe String."

1139
The Police Federation said of the more general 1999–2000 settlement:
"One of the Government's main manifesto pledges was to support law and order but Treasury officials have swung the axe on police budgets. This will result in fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in frontline services."
The situation may worsen as police authorities are shoe-horned into what is euphemistically called best value, which is designed to improve efficiency. How can we put a value on local community policing? How can the visiting of schools to talk about drugs be turned into an efficiency measure? How can we effectively measure crimes that never happen? It seems that we are all accountants now, and I am concerned that best value will make it even more difficult to justify more policemen in the community and on the beat.
I hope that the Minister will take some of my points on board. I know that he does not have a magic wand, and that he has to grapple with extremely difficult issues—many of which existed long before he came into government. However, I hope that he accepts that bad and anti-social behaviour is a real problem, that local policing can help to prevent such behaviour, and that we need more and visible policemen on the beat in rural areas. I hope that he will find the resources to fund those policemen, and that he will stress to police authorities the importance of community policing and partnerships.
1.10 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) for giving the House the opportunity to examine the issue of the policing of rural areas. The House would do well to take that matter seriously. My postbag shows that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about crime and disorder in rural areas. The Government are determined to put in place, as we have begun to do—not least with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is an important innovation—measures to give local communities the opportunity to enter into effective partnerships with the police to bear down on crime and disorder. We are determined to ensure that those issues are treated with the seriousness that they deserve.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's determination to avoid the simple trading of statistics in considering the matter, but the Audit Commission's latest figures show that crime in Norfolk is significantly below the national average of 78 crimes for every thousand people, at about 67 crimes per thousand of the population. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman says, the sense of well-being, safety and security of our fellow citizens is not reflected in a simple examination of the bare statistics; it is much more intangible than that. It is affected by behaviour and conduct that does not necessarily show up in those statistics.
The examples that the hon. Gentleman gives will be familiar to people in rural and urban areas. He describes what I call corrosive conduct, because it is corrosive of the fabric of local communities. It is precisely because the Labour Government recognised that, that we introduced the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and tackled, for the first time, the sort of conduct of which he complained.
1140
The courts now have the power to impose anti-social behaviour orders with an ultimate criminal sanction, but initially with a civil burden of proof.
The child curfew orders and the child safety orders are designed to assist in dealing with the unacceptable conduct of children, of young people, or even of older members of the public who should know better, but who act in a way that is fundamentally unacceptable to decent, law-abiding people. As I said, such conduct is corrosive of strong, successful local communities. We have now given the police, local authorities and the courts the power to deal with that sort of behaviour. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to ensure that, in Norfolk, his local authority and the police do use those powers. I hope that he will ask the sort of questions that should be asked, if the conduct that he has described goes unchecked.
The hon. Gentleman also raises—significantly—issues relating to police numbers. I understand his concern to ensure that policing in his constituency and in the county is effective and efficient. I understand that and I welcome it. The hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to point out that we are discussing problems that existed before the Government came into office. However, I have to point out to him that the Conservative Government had 18 years in which to tackle them; they did not do so, and it is the Labour Government who have had to take up the cudgels on behalf of the very people whose concerns the hon. Gentleman represents in today's debate.
I hope that he will realise that, in calling for an effective and efficient police force, he certainly enjoys the support of the Government. We have ensured that, in respect of Norfolk, the budget of the police authority will increase by 5.5 per cent. this year to £86.9 million. That is above the national average of 3.1 per cent. I also point out that the budget for the years between 1992 and 1999 was set by right hon. and hon. Members who now sit—rightly—on the Opposition Benches. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take up issues relating to police funding with his colleagues, who were responsible for that budget, and with his colleagues in Norfolk, who are responsible locally. The ball is very much in their court; we have increased the resources available to the police. During the next three years, we shall add an extra £1.24 billion to the police budget, over and above the moneys that would have been spent if the Conservatives had been returned to power and had implemented their budget projections.
Despite the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses, it is important to realise that Norfolk spends considerably more than its two immediate police force neighbours, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. I make those comments to the hon. Gentleman not in a spirit of party political acrimony, but in order to urge him to reflect on those issues with the chair of the police authority and with the chief constable. As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware, I am only too happy to meet them to discuss their concerns about police funding, but it is most important to understand the basis on which that dialogue can take place.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed concerns about visible policing. I stress that those matters are primarily for the chief constable and I hope that he has raised them with the chief constable. It is not for me as a Minister—or for any Minister of the Crown, or for any right hon. or hon. Member, be they in government or in opposition—to tell chief police officers how to do their job

1141
operationally. For good constitutional reasons, chief officers rightly have operational control over their forces; they determine the deployment of the manpower at their disposal.
In the discussions that I have held with chief constables, their concern is to build and to use the tools that the Labour Government have given them in order to mobilise the whole community in opposition to crime and disorder. We must avoid slipping into the mindset that it is all down to the police, and in which we say, "If only we saw more of our policemen and women." In the main, our policemen and women do a first-class job; they are there when we need them. I know the chief constable of Norfolk and am aware of how seriously he takes those issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he has specific concerns about deployment, he should, in the first instance, discuss them with the chief constable, especially in relation to manpower.
We should bear in mind what the previous Government did in relation to manpower. I remind the hon. Gentleman—I repeat, not in a spirit of party political acrimony—that his right hon. and hon. Friends took from the then Home Secretary the power to determine police force numbers. The Home Office had that power, but it was taken by a Conservative Home Secretary and a Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported—although he did not grace the Benches of this place—and for whom he went about on the stump in Norfolk garnering support. His reward was a majority of some 1,233 votes—I believe that that is the extent of it. The hon. Gentleman must understand the way in which we approach those issues. We hear what he says, but deployment of the not inconsiderable manpower resources at the disposal of the chief constable in Norfolk is, first and foremost, a matter for him.
We need to confront some real issues together. We must recognise that, while rural areas overall enjoy a lower rate of crime than urban areas per head of population, they experience the same concerns about burglary, robbery and anti-social behaviour. People in rural areas need to feel that they can go about their business—as the hon. Gentleman described—without fear. That is the right of people in both rural and urban England. Meeting those needs will require different and distinct strategies. We must ensure—I am absolutely determined to do this—that we deliver the crime and disorder strategies and outcomes that are now in place and are being taken forward. We must evaluate those outcomes, bearing in mind the special needs of rural areas.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office is addressing the issue of sparsity. We are awaiting the outcome of research into that area because sparsity is a real cause of concern operationally for rural chief officers and their management. Other issues involve the role of the rural equivalent of neighbourhood watch. Some very good schemes have been established in the countryside that target the theft of agricultural machinery, for instance. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a real problem in rural areas. He will also be aware of concerns in some rural areas about the modern equivalent of stock rustling. There is a real job of work to be done in mobilising the whole community with regard to appropriate property watch schemes. We must all take responsibility for each other and for each other's property.
1142
We must also ensure that the Government's crime and disorder reduction programmes and our investment in that area benefit rural areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman of our determination in that regard. For example, good practice has been developed in terms of the relationship between police and schools. There are opportunities to fund some piloted work to ensure that schools work closely with local police, and significantly with local businesses, in order to bear down on some forms of crime and anti-social behaviour in which young people are involved. For instance, the problems of alcohol and drug abuse by young people will benefit from the partnership approach that the Government are seeking to engender.
The emphasis is on partnership and on evidence-based practice. We must ensure that the whole country—rural and urban areas alike—benefits from what the Government are seeking to achieve. I know that Norfolk will play its part. It has identified its priorities. The chief constable plans to make efficiency gains of £1.7 million this year and to re-invest those gains in a variety of initiatives designed to improve performance in priority areas. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear—bearing in mind the examples that he gave—that the chief constable is particularly concerned about reducing incidents of disorder by some 7 per cent. It is important to build on the strategies that we have put in place locally as a result of the Crime and Disorder Act. We must set targets and ensure that they are owned by the local communities who set them. That is why I particularly welcome the Norfolk chief constable's target for reducing disorder. We must work together to achieve those targets.
We have put in place the mechanism for delivering that result. We have invested an additional £150 million in more closed-circuit television schemes that will benefit both urban and rural areas. We are in the business of ensuring that our approaches are innovative. I shall give one example. I visited Ipswich a few months ago where I met men and women who have a special constabulary post in the local hospital trust grounds. They are trying to link the work of that post not simply with the CCTV provision within the hospital—which has drastically reduced the number of assaults on staff by patients and their families and other incidents of crime in the hospital—but with the wider community. Some interesting and important examples of good practice are being developed in rural areas, and they should be extended nationally.
The targeted policing initiative in our crime reduction programme will include vehicle crime—which I know concerns the hon. Gentleman. The initiative will cover 1,000 square miles in a rural part of Northumbria, encompassing the towns of Hexham, Haltwhistle, Prudhoe and Corbybridge. The Government are making that sort of initiative possible. A mobile police station will tour the county, tracking, and dealing with crime as it is reported. Those measures offer the prospect of delivering visible policing in new, innovative and efficient ways that I know will gladden the hon. Gentleman's heart.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. It has been a good discussion and his contribution has proved helpful and useful. Through partnership—we want to see partnership in the House mirrored on the ground—we can make a real difference in reducing crime and disorder in rural and urban areas alike.

North Kent
1.29 pm
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to present the case for assisted area status for north Kent—the conurbations of Dartford, Gravesham, Medway towns, Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey, which are the Kent component of the Thames gateway initiative. I am pleased to be joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friends who represent those areas and I know that a couple of them hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite limited time being available.
The attendance of my hon. Friends encapsulates the collaborative spirit and practical commonsense partnerships which are the hallmark of our approach in north Kent and, indeed, one of the many strengths of our case. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for receiving our delegation to discuss the issue. I regret that I was not present to take part, but colleagues in the House and from our representative councils were pleased to present our case. They were pleased to do so because we are confident that north Kent has a powerful case, as a single entity and as individual areas. I shall give a general overview of why north Kent has a good case, but most of my examples will be from my own patch of Medway.
I make it clear from the outset that we will not be presenting a desperate doom and gloom picture. Paradoxically, council areas are at pains to promote themselves and attract inward investment, but my experience is that, when they are looking for Government or European funding, they all too often think that the worse the picture they present of themselves, the better their chance of success. It is almost as if they have employed the grim reaper as their spin doctor.
There is need in north Kent and there is deprivation, but there is opportunity as well and we have a proud record of success. That success, however, is yet to be fully realised and I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to unlock the potential. If he does so, he will have to stand back because there will be an explosion of prosperity and investment, which will have regional, national and international benefits for our country's economy.
Let us look at need. North Kent is characterised by traditional industries—heavy industries that have been in decline. For a long time, particularly during the two recessions under the Tory Government, we suffered greatly, and nowhere more so than in my own patch. In 1984, the closure of the royal dockyard in Chatham wiped out 3,000 jobs in a day. The dockyard had served the Royal Navy for hundreds of years.
It is estimated that about 20,000 jobs were lost overall during those dark days in Medway. Unemployment rose to nearly 20 per cent., which is not the situation that people associate with the garden of England. Those levels of unemployment existed throughout north Kent during the 1980s and early 1990s, and people who took the advice that they should get on their bikes and find employment would not have stopped too long in north Kent.
Prosperity has returned to north Kent, although concentrated pockets of deprivation remain throughout the area and 61 wards, some of which have unemployment rates as high as 9 per cent., form an important focus for our bid. Those wards, whose gross domestic product and
1144
GDP growth are well below average, represent 335,000 people. However, there are opportunities waiting to happen throughout the north Kent area. We have an excellent track record of making assistance and Government grants work.
Swale, for example, has regenerated £40 million of investment from the £4 million that it has been given in grants from its current intermediate assisted area status, which it achieved in 1993. In Medway, the City estate had enterprise status until a few years ago and 4,000 people work on the site, which is nearly full. The same is the case at Gillingham business park, where there are 2,000 jobs. There are 2,000 high-skill, high-tech jobs at Chatham Maritime, the site of the former dockyard. Such firms are relocating to our area.
We have a proud record of assisting small firms, and the local partners for growth initiative in Medway is giving grants and loans and working with banks and business leaders. That has saved or created 1,000 jobs. The Hopewell business centre, which is providing support for new small businesses, has been a huge success since it was opened a few years ago by the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister.
Despite that achievement, nearly 50 per cent. of the population in Medway travel out of the area to work, and the figure is 43 per cent. across north Kent. Providing employment opportunities locally would alleviate some of the congestion, particularly in Kent and on the main transport links to London, and promote the type of sustainable development that we all want.
The economic structure of north Kent, particularly that of Swale, remains fragile. Without question, there is a case for a second Swale crossing, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) has worked so hard. We all salute him for his tireless efforts and await with anticipation the outcome of the public inquiry, which starts in September.
Public-private partnerships are well established. North Kent Success, which is a highly regarded, private-sector-led body, has been instrumental in forging the sort of practical, commonsense partnerships to which I have referred. Such examples should give my hon. Friend the Minister confidence that we will deliver—assisted area status for north Kent would be a sound investment for the Government and the country.
There is massive development potential for 50,000 jobs in Dartford and Gravesham and 10,000 jobs on the Isle of Grain, which is the largest brown-field site in the south-east of England. Within the Isle of Grain there is a deep-water port and a railhead. Adjacent to it is Thames port, the third largest container port in the United Kingdom. However, I emphasise that assisted area status is required so that we can tap into that potential and properly realise it, encourage development and enable such sites, and many others throughout the area, to become far more attractive to investors.
We have to unlock that potential, and we are doing much of the work ourselves, but we need Government assistance if the Thames gateway is to achieve its objective to relieve west London from development and be the engine of growth for the south-east. There is deprivation in north Kent, and many parts of the economy remain fragile, but we have the skills and determination to exploit our assets. Jobs and wealth can be delivered, because our track record is second to none. Choose

1145
north Kent, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, because, without doubt, that will be one of the finest decisions he takes as a Minister.
1.37 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and congratulate him on winning the chance to initiate this brief debate. We should reflect on the necklace of poverty in the north and east Kent area. Although it has been greatly helped by assisted area status, we need a bit more help to tip us into success for ever.
Five years ago, the Shell research centre—that global company's centre of excellence—upped and went, leaving my constituency and the community. An immaculate 200 acre site, complete with Olympic swimming pools, lay empty, but it is now nearly full. Dencora, a wonderful company from Beccles in Suffolk, has taken it over and made it into a thriving science and venture capital area. We can achieve such things.
As a newcomer to north Kent and to the House, I find that there is a lack of confidence in my area about winning things. The people have been bashed for 30 years and they are used to getting nothing, being on the dole and having to fight for a living. Things are turning for the better, and Sittingbourne is going well, but there are problems in the Isle of Sheppey, which is on the edge of the gateway and contains Sheerness, our fifth-largest port. I hope that we get our bridge—the public inquiry starts on 7 September—because the wards of Sheerness, west and Sheerness contain some of the greatest poverty in Britain.
Although it is not well known, a ward in Folkestone is the second poorest in the country and Sheerness contains the fifth and sixth poorest wards. We do not hear such things about Kent and it is rarely pointed out in the House that some of the poverty registers on the national scale. We need help on the island. Our industries are old, even though the port is recovered and booming, and 160 people working in the steel industry are about to be made redundant. We need a little help and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get the cheque out and sign it as soon as he can.
1.40 pm
Mr. Paul Clark: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this important debate.
Other colleagues will no doubt make the case for the bids that have been submitted, all of which are for the Thames gateway area, which is a Government priority for regeneration. The Thames gateway has the ability to deliver the opportunities, priorities and policies that the Government want because it has an abundance of brown-field sites. With sustainable development, we can consider spatial planning concepts and take a lead in the urban renaissance that is so desperately needed. We can also help to resolve the congestion issues, which are compounded by the fact that, as my hon. Friend said, 50 per cent. of people from the Medway travel outside the area to work, principally to London or the county town of Maidstone.
Our request for assisted area status is not only about creating opportunities; it is about deliverability. We have drawn attention to success stories such as Crossways,
1146
Bluewater, Chatham Maritime, and Gillingham business park. While those are all important, we need a strong catalyst to tap the potential in the three areas that seek assisted area status. We have the public and private partnerships that will allow us to deliver. Local authorities, and voluntary and training organisations, have a good record on that, and the catalyst is assisted area status, which will enable us to deliver on Government policies and priorities, and for present and future constituents.
1.41 pm
Mr. Chris Pond: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on winning this important debate and stress that, as he said, we are not talking about doom and gloom in north Kent, although all our constituencies have areas of real deprivation. Last night, I was at one of the most deprived areas in my constituency, Denton, where Conservative-controlled Kent county council proposes to close a school. That would have a significant effect on the regeneration of that area.
I also wish to underline a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) about the role of commuting in north Kent. Hon. Members will be aware that the unemployment figures by constituency were published recently. They show that unemployment in my constituency of Gravesham has fallen by 30 per cent. in just two years and by 15 per cent. in the past year alone. What is puzzling is that the official figures from the Office for National Statistics, which are only just being published for May for the first time, show that, on analysis—I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that analysis—unemployment in my constituency would be a fifth higher were it not for commuting. Some 20,000 people a year commute out of Gravesham to work, but only a third of that number come into Gravesham for that purpose.
Will the Minister consider the need to ensure that those jobs can be provided in north Kent so that people do not need to commute out of the area? I realise that the Government are committed to reducing commuting and road traffic, and that is one way in which it could be effectively achieved.
1.43 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this debate.
My constituency of Dartford has enormous potential and has already shown how it can work with other areas, particularly other parts of the Thames gateway, to produce significant results. However, it has many post-industrial brown-field sites that need regeneration. The Bluewater Park complex, which has already been mentioned, has created up to 9,000 jobs and the Channel tunnel rail link will pass through the constituency. I look forward to the second phase of that link being constructed on time and delivering the much-needed Ebbsfleet station and the associated development and jobs.
The key to development of the area is transport infrastructure. North Kent cannot be opened up to proper industrial and housing development without the right transport links—without it, there will be traffic chaos.

1147
I look forward to hearing how the Government will play their part in ensuring that projects such as Fast Tracks, a public transport scheme that will link the centre of Gravesham with the centre of Dartford, can be developed using Government help so that the public transport infrastructure is opened up and the area develops to its full potential. That will bring the jobs and housing that we so desperately need.
1.45 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I associate myself with the paean to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) for obtaining this important debate?
I simply wish to draw the Minister's attention to two factors that are peculiar to the inner city of Kent, which is represented by the Medway towns: first, its geographical proximity to the immense wealth of London and the south-east; and, secondly, the juxtaposition of our difficulties, which are normally associated with areas outside the south-east.
The Medway towns form the largest conurbation in Europe that does not have its own university. We have fine further education facilities but no dedicated university. That leads to a deficit in education, but also in identity. When the dockyards were closed at Chatham and all the industries that were immediate adjuncts to them disappeared, we lost not only employment, but identity.
The Isle of Grain represents an enormous opportunity. It is the largest inward investment site in the south-east of England—indeed, probably in the whole of England. It consists of 1,000 acres of brown-field land, which is now empty, and it is close to the second-biggest container port in the UK. It is a massive untapped facility, not just for north Kent but for this part of Europe.
It is with great joy that I take part in this debate in order to emphasise again the existence of those opportunities, which are so close to London and simply waiting to be tapped.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): I do not wish to gild the lily, but I should like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this debate. I know how assiduously he works for his constituents, as do his colleagues who have also spoken this afternoon.
This important subject is a matter of concern not only in Kent; I have seen more than 50 colleagues about it in the past few months. Financial assistance is an important factor—although not the only one—in stimulating investment by industry. It can therefore be crucial in safeguarding and creating jobs in areas where they are desperately needed.
My hon. Friend and his colleagues put the case eloquently for north Kent today, and described both the problems and the opportunities of the area. They underlined many of the points that we discussed when I met delegations from Kent and the Thames gateway parliamentary group in March on this subject. Those points were also clearly made in the Kent authorities' response to the public consultation.
1148
I assure all my hon. Friends who have spoken today that careful attention is being paid to the needs of the north Kent area, as it is for all areas of Great Britain, under the review of the assisted areas. I understand how concerned they are about the outcome. I therefore hope that it will be helpful if I set out briefly where we now stand in the process of constructing that map.
As my hon. Friends know, the review follows publication last year of new European Commission guidelines on regional aid, which require all member states to propose new assisted areas to operate from 1 January 2000. The Commission's guidelines are part of an effort to control the overall level of state aids in Europe. The United Kingdom, and the European Union as a whole, faces a reduction in the population coverage of its map. The figure for the UK is about three quarters of our current coverage, which inevitably means that we face some hard choices in designating areas. The Government have been considering carefully the proposals that we shall make for the new assisted areas, and we shall put those to the Commission as soon as possible.
Let me refer briefly to the wider picture. The UK has traditionally been one of the lowest providers of state aids in Europe. Removing distortions to competition by reducing overall levels of state aid should help British firms, both inside and outside the assisted areas. The lower aid limits that the guidelines will introduce are expected to bear down particularly on other European Union states. Although we shall face difficult choices in drawing up the map, there is some good news for British firms, not just those in the assisted areas.
The Commission asked for proposals to be submitted by 31 March. That was always an ambitious deadline, and we were not by any means the only member state not to be able to comply with it. We are working to complete the map as soon as possible, and the Commission is aware of that; but our priority must be to achieve the best possible outcome for Great Britain. We shall make our proposals known as soon as we are ready to do so, and I expect that to be shortly.
We are also reviewing areas for support from the European structural funds. A consultation period closed on 25 May. Along with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other Departments, we are now considering criteria and areas for funding based on local and regional representations in order to help draw up the United Kingdom list of proposed areas. The list will be submitted to the Commission in July.
The structural funds and assisted areas maps have different purposes, and will not be identical. However, we want to ensure that they represent a coherent approach to regional development. We have tried to identify areas of need where there are opportunities for employment creation, investment and regeneration—areas where financial assistance to industry will be an effective method of tackling need. We do not have a completely free hand. Under the Commission's guidelines, some areas will qualify automatically for assisted area status. Under the European system of units for regional statistics, they are NUTS2 areas—areas whose gross domestic product per head is below 75 per cent. of the European Union average according to the latest statistics. NUTS stands for "nomenclature of units of territorial statistics".

1149
We can then propose other areas up to our overall population ceiling; but we must use up to five social or economic indicators and one common unit of geography for the whole country. Areas must also have a population of more than 100,000—or a population that counts as 100,000 against our population total, even if they are smaller.
We are considering the indicators that we shall use for the map, but we expect that, in line with the results of the public consultation, measures of labour-market weakness will be an important factor. Complications are involved in the choice of geographical unit. We have examined a range of options, but, as I am sure that my hon. Friends will recognise, aligning the choice with the various criteria has been a complex operation. We received more than 350 responses to the public consultation, and, as I said, I have met more than 50 Members of Parliament to discuss the review and how it affects the areas that they represent. We have engaged in complex discussions, which I think will soon come to fruition.
In England, the new regional development agencies will play an important role. They are the lead bodies at regional level for co-ordinating inward investment, improving skills and improving the competitiveness of business and regeneration. A primary aim of the South East of England development agency, which started its work in April, is to promote economic development and regeneration in the region. It is currently preparing a strategy, of which both the opportunities offered by north Kent and the needs of the area will no doubt be an important part.
There are other instruments to address the needs mentioned by my hon. Friends. For example, the South East of England development agency administers the single regeneration budget. A number of SRB-funded activities are taking place in Kent. Some £3.6 million is being spent on supporting projects to deal with poverty in the north Kent Thames gateway area, which should enable the area to benefit from opportunities arising from the Thames gateway development. SRB funds have also played a part in the development of Chatham Maritime by establishing a business innovation centre that provides managed work space for high-technology businesses.
As Minister with responsibility for small firms, I am particularly concerned about the role of such firms. They have a crucial part to play in economic growth and prosperity, and in economic regeneration. As the economy becomes increasingly global and new information and
1150
communications technologies have a massive impact, small firms will be particularly important in generating growth and regenerating areas. They are flexible and adaptable enough to respond rapidly to changing markets.
There has been an explosive growth in the internet, and in its transformation of businesses. I understand that a web year is now three months rather than a normal calendar year. Small businesses are able to respond especially quickly in the new economy. Moreover, because they are flexible and often mobile, and are not constrained as traditional businesses are, they are often able to offer particular prospects for regeneration, possibly even in north Kent. They are a crucial part of the vision statement set out in the competitiveness White Paper, which was published in December. We are now looking across the board at new measures to support the growth of smaller businesses in selected areas that have particular needs, and that may well benefit north Kent.
We are already taking a number of steps to support and encourage the development of small businesses. We are setting up a Small Business Service—on which we shall consult shortly—to streamline the support services that we offer small businesses, and to make them more coherent. We are setting up an enterprise fund, worth some £180 million over three years, which will give special help to small and medium-sized enterprises by giving them access to loans and, in particular, small packages of venture capital on a regional basis. We know that there has been an equity gap in the past, and we think that the enterprise fund will help to give small businesses new momentum. Again, I hope that that will benefit the people of north Kent. We are still working with the regional development agencies to develop new measures to push the agenda forward.
The Government are well aware of the needs of north Kent. We recognise the force of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends today and, indeed, at our earlier meeting. As I have said, the Government have not yet finalised their proposals for the new map, and I am afraid that I cannot predict the outcome today; but I assure my hon. Friends that the case for the area is being considered carefully, and that we shall continue to move as quickly as we can towards finalising our proposals.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

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

    GM Foods
    Mr. Christopher Chope: When he next intends to meet the members of the biotechnology presentation group to discuss Government policy on genetically modified foods. [86779]
    Mr. Norman Baker: What plans he has to make public the work of the biotechnology presentation group. [86783]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): In line with the practice adopted by successive Administrations, it is not the normal practice of Government to reveal details of internal discussions, a principle that is reflected in the code of practice on access to Government information.
    Mr. Chope: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he not agree that the mere fact that the presentation group was established shows that the Government are more obsessed with media manipulation—to try to make their policies taste better—than with serving the public?
    Will the Minister confirm that, on 21 May, when he made his statement to the House, he omitted to refer to a quite significant point in the report from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, who both said that they thought it essential that there should be health monitoring of all who are consuming GM foods? Why did he choose to make no reference to that in his statement of 21 May, and why was that statement by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser played down in the so-called fact sheet issued by the Cabinet Office?
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with any of that, because it is all rubbish. The reality is that all Governments have brought together Ministers, advisers and civil servants, the better to present the reality and facts of their policy; and that will continue. As for playing down the report of the Government's chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser, I published the report in full on the day that I made statement to the House, although I was not obliged to do so under the code.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Norman Baker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Order. This is perhaps another occasion on which a letter has simply been put on the board by a Department, but the Member himself has not been informed. Perhaps the Minister will follow through on that. I call Mr. Williams.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: When will the Government realise that the problems with GM foods are not simply a matter of presentation? The public have decided that there is no need for GM foods, and are taking their lead—in showing
    1152
    deep scepticism about such foods—far more from the Consumers Association and English Nature. When will the Government stop shooting the messenger and realise that they are themselves off message?
    Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with any of that either. The Government have never believed that it was only a matter of presentation; we believed that it was also a matter of choice. That is why, unlike our predecessors, we decided to introduce labelling of all genetically modified foods, so that consumers could have a choice. As for being off message, the Government's position is absolutely clear: we want an open informed debate about the issues. However, as the Government's chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser concluded, no inherent danger is presented to the public from genetically modified food.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is a pleasure to be opposite the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and a pleasure that I hope to enjoy on several occasions in the future—HON. MEMBERS: "For years."] Not for years, no, I hasten to tell Labour Members.
    The Minister will know that the biotechnology presentation group, in the minutes of its meeting of 10 May, took the view that it should revise the paper from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser. Subsequently, on 21 May, the Minister made a statement to the House and published such a document. Is the document that the Minister published precisely the document that was originally submitted to Ministers?
    Dr. Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his new and important role on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will do well and I hope that he will enjoy it. As for the paper from the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser, let me be candid with him and with the House. A draft paper was presented to Ministers. It was then revised by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser to include some recommendations. No changes were made to the paper at any time by Ministers.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It is clear that the paper that was published was not the paper that was originally put to Ministers. Will he undertake to the House that he will publish, in addition to the paper that we saw on 21 May on the health implications of genetically modified foods, the paper as it was originally put to Ministers? Or does he have some reason for withholding that original advice as put by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser?
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I will not publish it, because after discussion with Ministers, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser decided to change the way in which the paper was presented, but none of their recommendations or conclusions changed the way in which the paper was presented. When it was presented, it included some recommendations from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser.
    No changes were made to the paper by Ministers at any time. I cannot say that any more clearly or candidly to the House and the hon. Gentleman. The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser have both made it clear

    1153
    not only that Ministers did not seek to change the paper but that any such proposal would rightly have been resisted had it been made. It never was made.

    Older People
    Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the progress of the better government for older people project. [86780]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The annual report of the better government for older people programme was published on Monday. It showed how older people themselves are actively engaged in the design and delivery of the public services that they use and rely on. This is a key part of the modernising public services initiative.
    The programme has also set up an on-line learning network to disseminate good practice and discussion and provide advice and guidance.
    Ms Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that Watford is one of the pilot projects and that there has been much success in setting up new services for older people and consulting them about what services they would like? Will he provide information to the House on how we can ensure that those projects and the benefits from them are available in the longer term to many more older people?
    Mr. Eric Forth: That is a tricky one.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It is certainly not tricky for my side of the House. I will answer directly. I am happy to congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent project in Watford. There are 27 other pilot schemes around the country. I stress that they are pilot schemes. They have been running for one year, and one of the objectives is that they will roll out after two years. We are looking at ways of finding seed funding to ensure that we can extend the good lessons that have been learned from the projects to other areas. We are looking at ways in which lessons on good practice can be disseminated. I am happy to report to the House that, on the basis of the first annual report of the programme, I have every expectation that there will be widespread take-up of the lessons learned.
    Mr. John Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman wants better government for older people, why did he make no representations whatever to the Treasury against the abolition of tax credits on dividends, given the peculiarly damaging effect that it had on thousands upon thousands of relatively low-income elderly investors the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The Government recognise that older people come from different points. That is what underpinned the pensions review. The appointment of a royal commission to examine the funding for long-term care for the elderly is another way in which we are approaching the wider needs of older people.
    The remit of my Department involves looking at how we can improve the public services which impact on the lives of older people. We have set that out in our four
    1154
    principles. We are improving the delivery of services and actively engaging the experience of older people. We are celebrating the fact that older people are an important part of our society, and we are piloting new forms of partnership with the private sector, local authorities and voluntary organisations.

    Drug Misuse
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What his plans are for tackling drug misuse at a local level. [86782]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Drug action teams are the mechanism for delivering the Government's anti-drug strategy locally. Each year, they agree local action plans with the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal has been done locally to care for those with drug addiction including the supervised administration of methadone, the provision of clean needles to users and making drug units accessible and usable by addicts? Does he also agree that the most important target is to reduce the proportion of people taking drugs—in other words, to cure as well as care? Will he join me in welcoming projects on the Wirral which focus on preventing young people from using drugs and getting current users off them?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I applaud that important work because it is consistent with the Government's policy objectives, as set out in the White Paper and the first report from Mr. Keith Hellawell. I am happy to welcome the effective work being done by the Wirral drug action team and my hon. Friend's emphatic support for that work.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that schools provide the most appropriate local level at which to educate young people about the danger of taking drugs? Can he give the House a guarantee that sufficient investment is being provided to schools to ensure that teachers, who may not be experts in detecting drug use or educating youngsters about the dangers of drugs, are given the training necessary to enable them to tell youngsters about the dangers of so-called soft drugs and so-called designer drugs such as ecstasy, as well as heroin, crack cocaine and other substances which could endanger their lives?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to ensure that schoolchildren are given good quality advice and information about the threat posed to them by all kinds of drugs. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that. I announced last autumn an additional £217 million for this and related work, of which the Department for Education and Employment will get a share. There is already a high percentage of effective drug work going on in our schools, but we can improve on that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment shares the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is understandably widespread. We will continue to improve on the present situation.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I invite my right hon. Friend to Blyth Valley where we had a big

    1155
    problem with drugs? Over the past few years the community has got together with the health service, the local authority and the police and, after two or three years of hard graft, clearing the streets of drug dealers and setting up various escape organisations and parents against drugs groups, backed by European money, we have nearly cracked the problem. I invite my right hon. Friend to come along and have a look.
    Dr. Cunningham: I should be happy to try to find time to visit my hon. Friend and his constituents in Blyth. He is right to say that it is essential that, in addition to work on education, information, treatment and rehabilitation, there should be no let-up by the police in disrupting the work of the criminals who supply and traffic in drugs and present such a danger to all of us.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister reaffirm his commitment, given to the House on several occasions, to the notion that parents have an essential role to play in the matter of children and drugs? Why have the Government backed the recommendation in a recent report by the standing conference on drug abuse that confidential treatment can be given to teenagers without the knowledge of their parents? Is it not totally irresponsible for agencies to usurp the responsibilities of parents; and is not there already enough deceit in drug abuse without adding more?
    Dr. Cunningham: I share the hon. Lady's concern. I do not object to her making that point, but the Government have not wholly endorsed the report to which she referred. I regard it as a substantial and important piece of work and we will naturally consider all its proposals and recommendations, but we certainly have not given them a blanket endorsement.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the parents, the police and the education authorities in Nottinghamshire on setting up the ground-breaking DARE—drug awareness resistance education—project in schools, which involves police officers going into schools and working with teachers in order to alert young people to the dangers of drugs? Such is the programme's success that it has been extended, as a project respect programme, to secondary schools.
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I welcome the work of DARE. We continue to get very positive reports about its operations. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary visited the project before the general election. We are well aware of its excellent work and we support it.

    GM Foods
    Madam Speaker: I understand that Mr. Baker received no notification from the Department about the linking of his question. That has happened twice in two weeks, although on the other occasion it was a different Department. I am willing to call the question now.
    Mr. Norman Baker: What plans he has to make public the work of the biotechnology presentation group. [86783]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): First, I offer the hon. Gentleman and the House an apology, because I understood that he had been notified; I am sorry that he had not. I am happy to answer his question.
    In line with the practice adopted by successive Administrations, it is not the normal practice of Government to reveal details of internal discussions, a principle that is reflected in the code of practice on access to Government information.
    Mr. Baker: I understand that answer, but why, when he gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, which was studying the co-ordination of Government policy on GM technology, did the Minister fail to mention in any of his written or oral evidence even the existence of the spin unit, which it subsequently transpired had been operating at the time of the inquiry? Does he agree with the Minister for the Environment, who told me in the House last week that the only way to engender confidence is to be as open as possible? Will he publish minutes of the biotechnology presentation group for us all to see?
    Dr. Cunningham: It is not Government practice to announce or discuss ad hoc or even regular meetings of Ministers who get together to discuss Government policy. The hon. Gentleman already knows the answer to the second part of his question, because he has asked it before. The answer is no.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Robin Corbett: In what ways he monitors the performance of Government Departments in meeting targets for responding to correspondence. [86784]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): All Departments and agencies have a target for responding to correspondence, and monitor and publish performance against it. In addition, my Department prepares an annual report to Parliament summarising performance. The report on the Government's handling of correspondence from hon. Members was published on 11 June.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I do not think it good enough. I know of constituents who have written to the Department and had to wait five or six months or more for a reply. The Treasury has taken three months to reply to a letter from my office, and the Department of Trade and Industry, four months. I urge my hon. Friend to put in place financial penalties for Departments that consistently fail to meet targets for replying to correspondence from Members of Parliament and, more important, members of the public.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Of course it is our aspiration to ensure that all correspondence is answered speedily and accurately. To that end, we set very challenging targets to be met over a period of three years. We have not yet had the three years in which to make an assessment. We are, for the second time, publishing more accurate information on the situation, which is a marked step forward. If we are to change things, we must know how bad the problem is. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to

    1157
    admit that many Departments and Government agencies have considerably improved their performance in the past two years.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The hon. Gentleman is a beacon in this respect, because he always replies extremely quickly and promptly. Does he agree with me that there are too many Departments from which replies are not only late but not signed by the Minister involved? If our constituents write to Members of Parliament about matters that concern them, surely Ministers should have the common good manners and decency to sign the reply and send it on time.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Like the hon. Gentleman, I would expect Ministers to respond quickly and in a manner consonant with the expectations of the House. There is no argument about that. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that there are different situations in different Departments. As he will know from his own experience, some Departments receive a huge amount of correspondence, although that is no excuse for not dealing with it. Earlier this year, we held a seminar on how to improve things, which was attended by the correspondence units of various Departments. We intend to follow that up with another seminar in September. We are looking for marked improvements.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be better if Departments, or his fellow Ministers, were instructed not to answer letters from Members of the Scottish Parliament on issues that involve a reserved power?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We are dealing with that issue in our current review.

    GM Foods
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What plans he has for a public information campaign regarding the safety and benefits of genetically modified foods; and if he will make a statement. [86785]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government welcome an informed public debate on these matters. To assist that, we have published the documents produced by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser on the public health implications of genetically modified food, and transparency guidelines for the biotechnology regulatory committees.
    Mr. Swayne: The leaked minutes of the biotechnology presentation group on 10 May show that it was proposed that endorsement of the Government's policy should be sought from the National Consumer Council. In the event, was such an approach made, and was the endorsement forthcoming?
    Dr. Cunningham: Ministers, collectively and individually, discuss the development of our policies with the National Consumer Council and with other consumer organisations all the time.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are widespread misgivings
    1158
    among the public about some of the implications of GM foods? For decisions to be taken openly and transparently, as he wishes, there is a need to ensure that the long-lasting effects of some GM inputs into the food chain are fully understood—for example, the effect of soya beans may last for four or five years. In planning to deal with the GM question, will he ensure that that aspect is taken fully on board?
    Dr. Cunningham: Of course I accept that we should be open and transparent, and should give the public all the information available to us—and we do. I published in full the chief medical officer's paper on the safety aspects of genetically modified food. We have no evidence that these foods—the previous Administration licensed only three of them—present any health threat to the public. Because of public concern, we decided to introduce the labelling of all genetically modified products, so that people could have a genuine and informed choice. We shall continue to ensure that all the information that is available to Ministers on this important subject is available to the public.

    Public Appointments
    Dr. Tony Wright: What plans he has for further changes to the system of appointment to public bodies. [86786]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee? I look forward to working with him.
    The White Paper on modernising government makes clear our commitment to ensuring that public appointments are open to the widest possible field of candidates. I shall keep the current system of appointments under review to ensure that it continues to support that commitment.
    Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer and his kind words. He will know that one of the features of the public appointments system created by Nolan when he had to clean up the mess from the previous Government was that there should be independent members on selection panels. There is still a problem with the system, because the independent members come via Departments. Would it not be better if they came under the responsibility of the Commissioner for Public Appointments? Would not that give further confidence in the system?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend knows, we have extended the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the fine job that she is doing. We keep all the circumstances under review. It is more important to encourage a greater range of people to come forward, including women and members of the ethnic minorities, and to make greater use of the huge reservoir of potential and good will in the files of the public appointments unit.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister consider setting up a commission, independent of the Government, to investigate the response from

    1159
    Departments to Members' letters? The report that he talked about, on the lateness of correspondence, dealt with 1997, not 1998, and even it was six months late. A letter for me arrived this morning five months late. Surely we should have an independent public body investigating why Ministers do not respond to letters.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier, he would have heard a full response on that point. The role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments is to ensure that the principles of transparency and accountability are met and that we do not get into the mess that the previous Government got into, with a series of particularly partial appointments in the unelected sector.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Do the Government prefer the view of Mr. Michael Portillo to that of the Leader of the Opposition on whether the payment of money to a political party should disqualify someone from public appointments; and on whether participation in politics by many people in public affairs should be welcomed?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It is hard to choose between the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Michael Portillo. I shall leave it to the Conservatives to decide who speaks for them. We maintain the principle that appointments should be made on merit. That is the Government's overriding concern.

    Regulations
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What targets he proposes to set for the better regulation programme for the next two years in removing unnecessary regulations. [86787]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): All Departments have been asked to identify outdated and unnecessarily burdensome regulations. We shall then set about removing them. We also hope to extend the scope of the order-making power in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
    Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in a civilised society regulation is essential and that it is the Government's target to get rid of all unnecessary red tape and regulation and replace it with workable, acceptable regulations that help this country to be competitive?
    Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him and his Committee on their work. I am anxious that we should provide more work for them.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have the highest regard and respect for the right hon. Gentleman. Can he give six examples of unnecessary regulations that his Government have taken off the statute book?
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: I am delighted to have the confidence of the hon. Gentleman and his support is always welcome. As for unnecessary regulation, there will always be a requirement for Governments to regulate. Indeed, in the last two years of the previous Administration there was more regulation than we have introduced in our first two years.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Helen Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Helen Jones: Given the stunning 60 per cent. fall in youth unemployment and the creation of 100,000 jobs under the new deal, will the Prime Minister tell my young constituents how many apologies he has received from the Tories, who were content to leave them on the scrap heap, and the Liberal Democrats, who thought that it was not worth spending money on them? Does he accept that people in heartland Labour seats such as mine and in middle England know full well that Labour promised and delivered on the new deal and youth unemployment, whereas the Tories and the Liberals offered them no deal?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that 100,000 young people have now found jobs through the new deal, and that 85 per cent. of them were not subsidised at all. That is in addition to Bank of England independence, which has produced the lowest interest rate for 30 years; the largest ever rise in child benefit; the minimum wage; 2 million families helped by the working families tax credit; and, this autumn, a f100 bonus for pensioners. All those measures have one thing in common: the Tories would scrap them.
    Mr. William Hague: In this crucial and difficult week for Northern Ireland, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House desperately want to see the Good Friday agreement implemented in full, does the Prime Minister recall the commitment that he made to the people of Northern Ireland on the morning of the referendum last year, when he said:
    "Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland Government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning, but all bombing, killings, beatings, and an end to targeting, recruiting, and all the structures of terrorism."?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that those criteria have been satisfied by the Loyalist or Republican paramilitaries?
    The Prime Minister: I do hold to those commitments. It is important that anyone who goes into the Executive in Northern Ireland is fully committed to peace. In respect of the ceasefires, I know that there are difficult judgments to be made, and obviously they are made on the advice of the Chief Constable. We keep those judgments under review, but we believe still at the present time that the judgments that we have made are the right ones.
    Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree that the beatings, shootings and mutilations continue and are being

    1161
    carried out by organisations that actually signed the agreement? Terrorist structures remain fully operational and fully armed and 277 terrorists are back on the streets, including yesterday the Brighton bomber walking free. Do not those grim facts show that the real obstacle to progress is not the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP, the Government or the Opposition, but the refusal of terrorist groups to decommission their illegal weapons?
    The Prime Minister: Well, they have to decommission their weapons; that is clear. It is an obligation under the agreement. These judgments on ceasefires are very difficult indeed. For example, during the previous ceasefire under the previous Government there were prisoners who benefited from a reduction in sentence under the earlier legislation that was in place. Between April 1995 and January 1996, seven people were murdered by organisations generally regarded as front organisations for the IRA. The then Government took the view that in the round the ceasefire remained in place. I say that not to score points, but merely to show how difficult these judgments are. We have one last chance to push for peace in this process and I hope that the whole House will give us its support in trying to achieve it.
    Mr. Hague: They are difficult decisions. The Conservative party and millions of people across the country support the Good Friday agreement and want it to succeed, but look with dismay on the early release of terrorists and their possible inclusion in Government when not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in. However, I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that they must decommission. As we approach next week's deadline, will he give an undertaking that until there has been a credible and verifiable start to decommissioning, he will not ask the First Minister of Northern Ireland to enter an Executive with Sinn Fein?
    The Prime Minister: I am not going to end up negotiating the terms of the agreement in the next few days. I said last night and last week—and have done so on a number of occasions—that there are two essential foundation blocks for the process to work. One is that everyone accepts that there is an inclusive Executive that involves all parties that are committed to peace. The second is that there has to be decommissioning. My view throughout has been that the sequencing is a matter for negotiation, and that can be judged between the parties. However, there must be no question at all but that decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement.
    I made that very clear at the time of the Hillsborough declaration, when I said that
    "decommissioning is not a pre-condition but is an obligation deriving from the commitment in the Agreement, and that it should take place within the timescale envisaged in the Agreement and through the efforts of the independent International Commission on Decommissioning."
    Last week, I said:
    "Decommissioning is not a prior pre-condition of the Executive. But it is plainly part of the process. All parties are obliged to help bring it about. No-one will believe that a party with a close connection with a paramilitary group could not bring about decommissioning."
    There is a negotiation that we must have, and I hope that all parties will approach that with an open mind. However, the first key thing is to get straight whether
    1162
    people do agree with those two foundation blocks. I do not yet know whether they do. We have not had from any paramilitary group an absolute commitment to decommissioning at all—in any time scale. We need to be sure of those things before we move forward.
    Mr. David Marshall: Further to these exchanges on Northern Ireland, is it not a fact that the progress made so far has been based on the bipartisan support in this House, which we so freely gave while in opposition? As some people do not appear to recognise that fact, will my right hon. Friend emphasise yet again how important it is that every party in this House understands the need for all of us to get behind the Good Friday agreement, as it is the only hope for peace in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: The Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—is the only chance for peace. If this agreement goes down, the result will not be that there will be decommissioning—there will be no decommissioning. The result will not be an end to violence. There is no doubt at all that there will be renewed violence. I want to try to preserve this one chance for peace that Northern Ireland has. Every person in the Government—including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—has done nothing since the election but try to facilitate the process. That is all we can ever do. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland, from whatever community, realise that the vast majority of people in Britain simply want to allow the deal to work so that they can have a peaceful future for their children.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As Northern Ireland now balances precariously between peace and a return to conflict, is it not the case that although some of the compromises necessary to secure the Good Friday agreement may well have been uncomfortable—even distasteful—the fact is that it remains the only vehicle we have for peace; that those who seek to unpick one element of it run the risk of undermining the integrity of it as a whole; and as with the last Government, so with this—those who support peace in Ireland ought to be supporting the agreement rather than playing politics at home?
    The Prime Minister: There is only one way forward—the Good Friday agreement. I endorse entirely what the right hon. Gentleman says—people cannot pick different parts. Of course parts of it are distasteful, particularly when people see prisoner releases. However, I hope that I have indicated by going back over previous ceasefires that distasteful things happened then, but the previous Government were right to continue pushing for peace and we are right to carry on doing the same.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is it not also the case that history and the people of Ireland, north and south, are not likely to forgive those politicians—whether in Ireland or elsewhere—who are not prepared to make the last compromises to secure peace? Does the Prime Minister agree that the letter of the Good Friday agreement does not say that decommissioning should be a precondition, but that it should be a commitment? But the spirit of it is quite clear. It says that those who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of arms in the past must now

    1163
    provide concrete evidence that they see the future for Ireland on the basis of removal of arms from Ireland in the future.
    The Prime Minister: It is right—I think everyone accepts—that it is not a precondition, but it is a requirement of the agreement. There is no doubt about that. What I would like to do with the parties next week is to sit down and work out when and how that process of decommissioning happens and when and how we set up the Executive on an inclusive all-party basis. But people have to accept—before we can do that negotiation—those two foundation blocks. My view is that decommissioning should have happened two years ago. It should have been happening all the time. It should never have been the case that people had weapons in the first place. But we work with the reality we are in and we try to change that reality, which is what the whole process has been about.
    Before people dismiss that and say that nothing has been gained from the past two years, I remind them that we have agreement on the constitutional basis for Northern Ireland, agreement to the principle of consent, agreement to an Assembly, agreement to north-south bodies, agreement to the British-Irish Council—[Hon. MEMBERS: "What about decommissioning?"] Yes, we understand that decommissioning has yet to be resolved, but I am saying that we have made a lot of progress. For heaven's sake, let us have some good will to make the rest of the progress too.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: May I thank my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the successful outcome of the negotiations with BMW to ensure investment in the continuing success of the Rover plant at Longbridge in the city of Birmingham? May I specifically welcome the link between the grant and the investment by BMW in ensuring a full range of models and investment in improving skills and competitiveness?
    The Prime Minister: The BMW group's decision is a massive vote of confidence in the UK car industry and in the future of Rover. It will result in a further £1 billion investment in Longbridge. Not only will that secure the long-term future of Longbridge and more than 8,800 jobs, but it will result in the creation of a new plant capable of competing with the best in the world. That is great news for Longbridge, for the west midlands and for the country as a whole.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: When the Prime Minister meets his obligation in his manifesto, as he said he would, to hold a referendum on Lord Jenkins's proposals on proportional representation, how will he vote—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that I dealt with this question extremely well last week when I said that, on the Jenkins committee report, we have not ruled out the option of a referendum before the election, but we have made it clear that, as the Jenkins recommendations could not be introduced at the next election, there is a case for leaving it until afterwards. I will obviously listen to the debate.
    Dr. Tony Wright: Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had time to
    1164
    notice, among all his other pressing engagements, that it has been a less than glorious summer for British sport? Are we not paying a terrible price for losing 5,000 school playing fields under the previous Government and for losing 75 per cent. of sporting fixtures between schools under the previous Government? Is it not time that we stopped being the gallant losers of world sport and started investing in success, and is that not what the Government's proposals this week are designed to achieve?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, this is an extra £60 million to set up 600 school sportspeople to go round and ensure that we build up sports. We are also introducing legislation to protect school playing fields, because under the Conservatives 40 a month were being sold off. The Conservatives failed sport in this country; and under the new Labour Government we are making a fresh and new start.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The House of Lords yesterday amended the House of Lords Bill to give some statutory backbone to the Government's promise to reduce the Prime Minister's powers of patronage over the future appointment of life peers. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to welcome that amendment, and indicate whether the Government will accept it? If not, why on earth not?
    The Prime Minister: We introduced the Appointments Commission. For the first time, there will be an objective process of appointment. We are making two great changes. The first is to introduce objectivity for the first time, by means of the Appointments Commission. That will happen in time for the new year honours list for the millennium. The second change is that we are getting rid of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, who support the Conservative party alone. Both reforms are well worth having.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that earlier today there was a very serious rail crash on the west coast main line. I am sure too that he will support me in wishing all those who have been injured a full and speedy recovery and in thanking the emergency services for their prompt and brave action. Is he able to give the House an update about the number of casualties, when the line is likely to reopen, and whether there will be a full and independent inquiry into the causes of the accident? Does he agree that it is wrong for people to speculate on those causes until we have more information?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House will join in offering sympathy to the injured and to their families. I know no more than is already publicly available—that more than 30 people were taken to hospital, of whom four have been detained. As for an inquiry, I can tell my hon. Friend that a rail accident inspector is at the scene to investigate the cause of the accident. Any further inquiries should wait until we have his report.
    Mr. William Hague: The whole House does, indeed, join with the Prime Minister in sending sympathy to all involved in that crash.

    1165
    Last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the CBI that the Government
    "are committed in principle to economic and monetary union"
    and
    "have committed our country … to make a decision early in the next parliament."
    Does that remain the Government's policy, or will the Prime Minister listen to the debate on that one as well?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it does remain the Government's policy—absolutely.
    Mr. Hague: So, the Government's policy has not changed—the Prime Minister's spin doctors will be disappointed. Given that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to joining the euro, and that most people clearly disagree with him, what are his campaign plans to persuade them?
    The Prime Minister: I shall carry on arguing for our point of view, which is better than the ridiculous position in which the right hon. Gentleman has put himself. After all, it was Lord Gilmour who said—[Laughter.] Even he is now derided. It was Lord Gilmour who said, in reference to the right hon. Gentleman, that it is
    "the hallmark of weak and unpopular leaders … to be eager to put their small feet down, usually in the wrong place."
    I have made our position clear. We do not agree with joining the euro irrespective of the economic conditions, and we do not agree with ruling it out irrespective of the economic conditions. We believe in testing it and keeping the option open, by reference to the economic conditions that we have laid down. That is a clear position.
    Now can the right hon. Gentleman answer us this? Is it 10 years? [HON. MEMBERS: "You answer the questions."] I know that I answer the questions, but the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to do so now. Is the euro still ruled out for 10 years, or for ever?
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister knows what our policy is. Only the Prime Minister can think that the one thing in the world that he is committed to in principle he is not committed to in practice. The truth is that he is 100 per cent. committed to abolishing the pound, and 0 per cent. willing to justify it. He is 100 per cent.-proof new Labour, 100 per cent. arrogance on this subject, and 0 per cent. courage. Does he not now face a choice with regard to the euro? That choice is between admitting that he was wrong in committing this country to abolishing the pound, and having the guts to argue that case against the clear policy of the Conservative party, which is to keep the pound at the next election. That is the policy that the country supports.
    The Prime Minister: We have heard it now. The right hon. Gentleman is the man who will fight to save the pound at the next election, but at the election after that, he will give it away. What a ridiculous policy. He accuses me of lacking clarity, but he has appointed as Tory spokesman the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) who, when asked whether the Conservative party would change its policy, said:
    "Whether our party changes its policy will depend on what the right policy is."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 June 1999; c. 659.]
    1166
    The right hon. Gentleman has turned the Conservatives into a monomaniac, single issue party. We did some research before Prime Minister's Questions today, and we found that he has asked me more than 50 questions on Europe. How many has he asked on education? None. How many questions has he asked on crime? Two. He has sold his political soul to the extreme right wing of the Conservative party, and at the next election, the Conservatives will be rejected again.
    Maria Eagle: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to glance through Hansard this week? If he has, he will have noticed that, on successive days, spokesmen from the Conservative party have reiterated the Opposition's intention to abolish the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit. What effect would that have on the Labour Government's commitment to abolish child poverty?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to the minimum wage, opposed to the working families tax credit, opposed to the rise in child benefit and opposed to the new deal—all policies that create greater fairness and help for families. One reason why the Conservatives are so obsessed with Europe is that they wish to conceal the fact that, on every other major policy issue, they are moving further and further and further to the right. When there is not even a place in the Conservative party for people such as Ian Gilmour, a decent one-nation Tory whom Conservative Members deride, we can see just how extreme they are.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Prime Minister join me in praising retired workers from the former National Bus Company for their perseverance over the past few years in seeking to regain money looted from their pension fund by the Conservatives at the time of privatisation? For the first time as Prime Minister, will he also praise a trade union—the Transport and General Workers Union—for its campaign to secure the return of the money? In Opposition, Labour said—and the pledge was also given by the Deputy Prime Minister at last year's party conference—that the money would be returned in full. Why, then, did the Government seek to give back only £100 million when the real sum is £360 million.
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to pay tribute to the Transport and General Workers Union—of which I am a member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is as radical as it gets.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the pensioners from the National Bus Company should get a fair deal. We are committed to achieving that, and to ensuring that they receive full payment. That has been our commitment throughout, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman might congratulate the Labour Government on delivering on that commitment.
    Liz Blackman: Is the Prime Minister aware of the high level of cynicism expressed by teachers in my constituency when we heralded the onset of the literacy hour? Is he surprised to learn, nine months down the road, that cynicism has turned into delight at the high quality of training received by teachers, the quality of resources and the tangible progress made by their charges?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of literacy and numeracy, when we came into office, 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of 11-year-olds were not up to the requisite standard, so that when they left primary school, they went to secondary school without a basic grounding in literacy and numeracy. As a result of the changes that we have introduced, we are making huge progress on getting those numbers down, and on improving literacy and numeracy. My hon. Friend may be aware that, in a recent poll, more than 90 per cent. of those engaged in literacy and numeracy studies welcomed those studies. That, in addition to the extra investment in our schools—especially in school buildings, in computer technology and in the reduction of class sizes in our primary schools—gives us a very solid record of which to be proud.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Given that the Prime Minister is the only motorist allowed to use the M4 express bus lane, what advice would he give to those considering the future of that pilot scheme?
    The Prime Minister: Why do we not wait to see what evidence the project actually produces—which I should have thought was the right course? That project was asked for by the Highways Agency; it will be tested over a period of months. Why do we not wait to see what it comes up with, in terms both of reduced congestion and of better services for passengers?
    The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt whatever that the Labour Government have had to clean up the backlog of road repairs that we inherited. Indeed, the transport spokesman of the Tory party accused us of taxing the motorist, but of not putting the money raised from those taxes into roads. We received the figures today; we are putting in £3 billion more than the previous Conservative Government put in.
    Mr. Roger Berry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mencap on its report "Living in Fear", published on Monday? The report identifies the harassment and bullying faced by many people with learning disabilities. Does that not illustrate the importance of the Government's disability awareness campaign? That campaign should be warmly welcomed throughout the country. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the Disability Rights Commission has all the practical support necessary to ensure that all discrimination against disabled people is tackled promptly?
    The Prime Minister: The Disability Rights Commission Bill comes back to the House next week. We congratulate Mencap on its report, which we welcome. The report draws attention to the problem of the bullying and abusing of people with learning difficulties. My hon. Friend will know of the additional resources that we are allocating to the new deal for disabled people—almost £200 million. We believe that the first-ever Disability Rights Commission will make a big difference to the rights of disabled people in this country.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why 500 people in this country are dying unnecessarily every year because of long waits for bypass surgery? Furthermore, will he explain why, according to Ben Bridgewater, a consultant heart surgeon at Wythenshawe hospital, it is worse now than it was a year ago?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, waiting lists are down substantially on what they were a year ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Waiting times?"] Waiting times are down as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are up."] No, that is wrong; waiting times are down and waiting lists are down but, yes, people are still waiting for treatment. The idea that the problems of people waiting in the health service were created by the Labour Government—[Interruption.]. We had 20 years of Conservative Government that undermined the health service. Today, the figures show that 2,000 more doctors have been recruited to the health service, and that there are thousands more nurses. There is the biggest hospital programme that we have ever had and the largest ever investment in the health service. Yes, it will take time, but do not let us ever take lessons from the hypocrisy and opportunism of the Conservatives, who never believed in setting up the health service, never supported it and would undermine it if they ever got the chance again.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Yesterday, Warwick university received the go-ahead from the Government for a new medical school, with an extra 113 places for trainee doctors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed for the NHS in Coventry and Warwickshire, and elsewhere throughout the country, is not the advocacy of more private insurance, but more of such public investment?
    The Prime Minister: Of course. The extra money going into the health service is providing more nurses and doctors, but it takes many years to train a doctor—and it takes three years to train a nurse. However, we are recruiting those extra people and putting the investment in. At the next election, the choice will be very clear—between a Labour Government who are beginning the process of rebuilding a national health service of which this country can be proud, and a Conservative party that is now committed to privatising large parts of the health service and forcing people to take out private health care because the Conservatives will not put investment into the health service. That is another example of the Tory lurch to the right.
    Jackie Ballard rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Jackie Ballard.
    Jackie Ballard: I should like to ask the Prime Minister about leadership. Does he agree with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the people of this country

    1169
    are not yet ready to accept the single European currency? If he does, when will he take a lead on the issue—or is his concept of leadership following the focus groups?
    The Prime Minister: Oh, I am really wounded by that; I really am.
    I believe in setting out a sensible position on the single currency, which is to say that we judge it according to the economic circumstances. As I said recently—and as I have said for a long time—the two absurd positions on the euro are, first, to say either that one rules it out for ever or, even more ridiculously, that one rules it out at the next election but will welcome it at the election after
    1170
    that. Alternatively, there is the position that the hon. Lady has just espoused: joining the single currency now, irrespective of the economic conditions.
    Jackie Ballard: No.
    The Prime Minister: If that is not the hon. Lady's position, I suspect that she is in the same position as us. We judge the matter according to the economic test: is the single currency good for British jobs, British investment and British industry? If the hon. Lady agrees with that—and she is nodding her head—she should support my leadership.

Prevention of Terrorism
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are subject to annual renewal by the affirmative resolution procedure. It has, however, recently come to my attention that, because of technical defects in the drafting of the 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, certain provisions in the 1989 Act have not been in force since 22 March 1998.
I therefore come before the House today to apologise for this regrettable error, for which I take responsibility. I also wish to explain what happened and to advise the House that I intend to revive the provisions, by order, as soon as practicable—subject of course to the approval of the House and the other place.
The provisions concerned are sections 16A, B and C, with schedule 6A and section 16D of the Act. These provisions apply only within Great Britain; there is separate legislation for Northern Ireland. Section 16A makes it an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes. Section 16B makes it unlawful to collect information likely to be useful for terrorist purposes. Together, they form part IVA of the Act.
Section 16C provides the power to impose a police cordon in connection with a terrorist investigation, with schedule 6A setting out the powers that may be exercised within a cordoned area. Section 16D imposes parking restrictions in a specified area. Together, they form part IVB of the prevention of terrorism Act.
The powers in sections 16A and 16B were brought into the PTA in 1994, and sections 16C and 16D were introduced in 1996. They continued in force each year until March 1998. It was then both my intention and my understanding—and, I believe, the understanding of the House—that those provisions had continued in force following the renewal debates in 1998 and 1999. However, that has turned out not to be the case.
Earlier continuance orders had referred collectively to parts I to V of the Act, a formulation which obviously includes parts IVA and IVB. It was, as a matter of policy, proposed by Ministers and agreed by Parliament that, in the 1998 and 1999 orders, part II, relating to exclusion orders, should not operate. The 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, following the omission of part II, therefore separately listed parts I, III, IV and V in a way which inadvertently did not include parts IVA and IVB. That drafting subtlety escaped the notice of the draftsmen, Ministers—including myself—the House and the legal profession at that time. It has come to light only as a result of an eagle-eyed author of an article in issue 19 of Criminal Law Week of 24 May 1999.
As soon as that article was drawn to my attention,
I sought advice and, once the status of the sections was clarified, the police were advised not to rely on them. As I have already said, I very much regret that those provisions have not been in force since March 1998.
My information is that six people have been charged with offences under sections 16A and 16B since they came into force in 1995, but no convictions have so far followed in respect of offences alleged to have taken place
1172
either before or after March 1998. One person was on bail awaiting trial for offences under sections 16A and 16B which were alleged to have been committed after 22 March 1998. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney—General has told me that steps have been taken today to quash that indictment. Three other people are also currently on bail charged with offences under section 16A of the PTA, but those alleged offences occurred before 22 March 1998 and none of them relate to Irish terrorism.
Records on the use of section 16C—the power to raise a police cordon—are not held centrally, but I understand that the section has been used reasonably frequently in recent times. The Metropolitan police, for example, have used the provision 86 times since 22 March 1998. However, there have been no convictions under section 16C for breach of a police cordon during the period in which the provision has not been in force.
The ceasefires in Northern Ireland notwithstanding, we still face the threat of terrorism from many quarters. In those circumstances, I think that it is right that the earliest practicable opportunity is taken to revive these measures, so restoring what we all believed to be the status quo. I have therefore tabled a draft order today to bring sections 16A, B, C and D back into operation. That order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the revival of the provisions before they can be brought back into force. The debates will take place as soon as possible.
There is a separate but related point about sections 16A and 16B of the PTA, which arises in the case of Kebeline and others. That is a judicial review case which is scheduled to be heard by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on 19 July. The case turns on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should continue to give his consent to prosecutions for offences under sections 16A and 16B if they are incompatible with the terms of the European convention on human rights.
The Government believe that these provisions, in their current form, are not incompatible with the ECHR and are an important part of the armoury in the fight against terrorism. In our view, it is entirely consistent with that position to seek their early revival, now that it has come to light that they are not currently in force. In adopting that course of action, the Government are not attempting to pre-empt, or in any way influence, the outcome of the appeal. We await their lordships' judgment with interest. However, in our opinion, that need not and must not stop us taking action to ensure that all measures required to counter terrorism are properly available to the police and to the courts.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, for giving us early notice of it and for allowing us to see its text in good time. I welcome his apology and his assumption of responsibility for what happened.
May I clarify, however, that the effect of his statement is that, for more than a year, the possession of articles for suspected terrorist purposes and the collection of information for the purposes of terrorist activity have not been criminal offences? Could not that have had major implications for terrorist investigations?
The Secretary of State said that the error, which he described as a "drafting subtlety"—plain "error" is the right word—came to notice on 24 May. Why has it taken

1173
a month for the House to be informed? When was the error drawn to his attention and when did he advise the police not to rely on the existing provisions? Other than the one man already charged, have any potential charges been dropped as a result of advice to police not to rely on those provisions?
How serious were the alleged offences in the case of the man who was charged? As bail implies restrictions to liberty, do the Government now face a claim for compensation? Are other offences under investigation? I heard the night hon. Gentleman's statement about charges brought, but would other offences that are actually or potentially under investigation be prejudiced by the error? Am I right to think that the accused man, who has been on bail but will now have his indictment quashed, so no trial will take place, therefore faces no action and no penalty? Was that the thrust of what the Secretary of State said?
We shall, of course, support the order—assuming that it is correctly drafted—when it comes before the House. Similarly, we shall support the Government's view that the provisions are not incompatible with the ECHR.
Finally, we regret that the Government's inability to support our comprehensive prevention of terrorism Act has been at the root of causing this confusion.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for the tenor of her remarks and for her opening comments.
The right hon. Lady asked whether, as a result of the error, it follows that the provision in sections 16A and B, which the House had agreed should be in force for good reasons, was not in force. That is the case. She asked when the error was first brought to my attention: a few days after 24 May—I will seek to give her the exact date—and it was drawn to the attention of the Law Officers. I originally sought proper legal advice about it. She asked why it had taken some time to get that advice: because the matter was complicated. As I said, the error has had serious consequences, but it was, indeed, a drafting error, which was unnoticed by the draftsmen, Ministers, including myself, officials, all our legal advisers and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Moreover, it was not noticed by the legal advisers to the defendant, who, as far as I am aware, had not taken up that point in court. It was a complicated issue, although as is often the case with such matters, it now appears to fall easily in place. I decided that, because of the seriousness of the error, I should make an oral statement as soon as possible.
So far as I know—I shall write to the right hon. Lady and have this information placed on the record of the House if there is any change to what I am saying—there are no potential charges in prospect arising from investigations under the terms of the provision in the sections. I cannot give her precise details of the seriousness of the offences—as she knows, it is not appropriate for a Secretary of State to seek to interfere in the criminal process. Let me simply say that the charges were proceeded with on indictment and they therefore had a degree of seriousness attached to them.
The right hon. Lady asked me about compensation. This man was on bail. I understand that he had spent some months in custody before obtaining bail, and that the bail was subject to conditions. We therefore expect to receive
1174
a claim for compensation. I cannot comment on the outcome. We do not know what the result of a trial would have been, but, as the man has been released, what is certain is that no action and no penalty will follow.
Mr. A. J. Beith: We accept the Home Secretary's apology and the need to reintroduce the provisions, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that mistakes of this kind are inherent in the piecemeal way in which we deal with prevention of terrorism legislation? Has he forgotten that the original 1996 provisions were rushed through the House in one day, with his support? We ought to pay much more careful attention to legislation on which the police depend to guard us against terrorism.
The provisions have been challenged on the basis of the ECHR. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he reintroduced them in a new statute, he would have to furnish the House with a formal certificate stating that those provisions complied with the convention? Is he in a position to sign such a certificate?
Given that the Home Office is beginning to chalk up rather too many mistakes that bring the right hon. Gentleman before the House, would he care to let us into the secret of what kind of message he is delivering as a result of being landed in it again?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
Sections 16A and 16B are the sections affecting the charges that have now had to be dropped. They relate to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, not the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996. That Act introduced changes in respect of sections 16C and 16D in part IVB of the Act, as opposed to part IVA, which relates to cordons and parking restrictions. As the measure is subject to annual review, I do not believe that the fact that the House supported the change in 1996—I supported it myself—has anything to do with it. This is a drafting error. I am sorry that it happened, and I have already apologised to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman did, however, raise an important issue: the need for major reform of PTA legislation. As the House knows, I made proposals in October 1997, which have been published in a consultative document. We have received responses, and we hope to produce legislation as soon as possible.
If primary legislation were involved, the right hon. Gentleman would be right to ask whether, in our judgment, a certificate was compatible with the ECHR; but our view, which we will argue powerfully before the Appellate Committee in the other place, is that sections 16A and 16B are compatible with the convention.
Mr. Tom King: I am sure the House accepts that a genuine mistake was made on this occasion. It is in keeping with the Home Secretary's attitude to the House that he felt it necessary to make a personal statement. That, however, is as far as my kindness will go. I want to pursue the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
Am I right in thinking that it is currently not an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes, or to collect information that is likely to be useful for terrorist

1175
purposes? If that is so, does the Home Secretary agree that it underlines the sense of urgency that is currently necessary if this serious matter is to be dealt with?
The article appeared on 24 May, but when did the eagle-eyed author actually write it? When he prepared it, did he not do what many authors do when stumbling on something like this, and consult the Law Officers or the Home Office to check that he had got it right? When did information on the situation first become available in Government? If—as the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I certainly believe—the legislation is an important part of the armoury, why are we casually discussing it when—sometime, through the usual channels, depending on the business of the House—we might proceed to replace a serious omission in our defences against terrorism?
Mr. Straw: I made it quite clear that I regard the legislation as a serious part of the armoury. As it happens, it is not a part of the armoury that has been used all that often; it has been the basis of a charge on six occasions since it came into force, at the beginning of January 1995. It also happens that, so far, no convictions have followed. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the author of the article in the criminal law journal. The article was unsigned, so I have no idea who the author was. Originally, the article was faxed to the Law Officers. I first learned of it on 26 May, when it was put in my box.
Mr. King: Where has it been since then?
Mr. Straw: As I explained to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), we had to take detailed advice on it.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it was an error that had been missed not only by Ministers, including myself, parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers on both sides of the House, but by lawyers acting for the defendant. It turns out to have been a very important point, but it was also a relatively obscure one.
The urgency with which we proceed is a matter—the right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) knows the procedures—for discussion in the usual channels, but I hope that the matter will be brought before the House as quickly as possible. I am grateful for the support publicly given by the right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for renewing the provisions.
The question whether I should use the urgency provisions within the PTA and bring the provision into force immediately has been raised. My judgment was that, given the nature of the error, it was important for the provision to be renewed by a positive and affirmative act of both Houses, and not under the urgency
provisions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Forgive my puzzlement and being unable to contain my curiosity, but Home Secretaries do not normally come to give statements to the House of Commons as the result of faxed articles, apparently anonymous, to law journals. Someone somewhere must have prompted this. Is it not yet another argument for looking at the piecemeal way in which, year after year, the House has been asked to endorse prevention of terrorism measures spatchcocked
1176
together in a hurry? Is one wrong in suspecting that there really is a case now for going back to the drawing board and producing something properly?
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend has reason to know, the truth is suddenly sometimes an odd beast. I could hardly have made up how we found out about the matter, could I? The United Kingdom's greatest legal minds—and ministerial minds, great or otherwise—missed it, and learned of it from a fax and a criminal law journal. But there we are. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked what I said to people in the Home Office: I said that I have now become a fully paid-up member of the Home Secretary club. I see the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is smiling; he knows what I am saying. What can one say when things like this happen—[Interruption.] I am certainly not going to put them on the record.
On the specific and serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I do not believe that the error was caused by the fact that the prevention of terrorism legislation has been built up over a period. One also cannot argue that the House's approval, after a couple of days, of sections 16C and 16D contributed to the error.
I accept, notwithstanding that point, that there is a strong case for bringing all the temporary legislation together in permanent legislation. We have made our intention to do that clear. Drafting—good drafting—is currently proceeding and we hope to bring legislation before the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman has been very candid with the House, but may we return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)? Is it currently an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes and is it unlawful to collect information likely to be useful for terrorist purposes? The answers to those questions are pertinent. This error, and the urgency that has been lacking, is extraordinarily pertinent, because the right hon. Gentleman will know that last Thursday the IRA attempted to murder a former member and informer, one Martin McGartland. Will this error and the lack of urgency in rectifying it affect the investigation into that attempted murder in any way?
Mr. Straw: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I thought that I had made it clear that, as the provisions are not in force at the moment—
Mr. King: So it is not an offence.
Mr. Straw: No, it is not an offence. It obviously follows that it cannot be an offence because the provisions are not in force. As it turns out, they have not been in force since March 1998. They will be brought back into force as soon as the House and the other place approves the order.
I ought to make it clear that, before early 1995, there were other provisions in the law for dealing with such alleged offences and they are still on the statute book. They are principally offences of conspiracy. One of the reasons why the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe introduced those offences was the

1177
difficulty in gaining convictions for conspiracy. As for the attempted murder of Mr. McGartland or anyone else, it would be wrong for me to comment on the detail of that investigation. Suffice it to say that in such an incident there are many other offences with which the perpetrator can be charged, including murder or attempted murder.
Mr. Peter Viggers: The House should be very reluctant to introduce retrospective legislation. The leading case for doing so was the necessity to legitimise the fire service during the second world war; otherwise, it would have been illegally run. If the Government were to come to the House and ask it to deny compensation to an individual who had been in custody when the House thought that an offence had been committed with which the individual was charged, they would find some sympathy in some parts of the House.
Mr. Straw: Retrospective legislation is rarely enacted and, as far as I know, never enacted in respect of criminal offences. It would be oppressive even in circumstances such as this.
As for compensation, I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but we always have to ensure that the balance is in favour of the individual and the rights of that individual when we are dealing with matters of criminal justice. As I said, because this man was in custody for some period and then on bail, subject to conditions, for quite a long following period, he may apply for compensation and we anticipate an application. That application will be considered in the normal way.
Mr. Humfrey Manus: The Home Secretary has confirmed that today, 23 June, it is not an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes. That is a very serious issue indeed. Given what we have said in the House this afternoon, what he has told us and what the rest of the world therefore knows, is it not of the greatest importance that the matter is remedied immediately, by which I mean not next week or the week after but within a matter of hours or, at worst, tomorrow? I am sure that
1178
there will be the most complete co-operation around the House if the Home Secretary introduces measures to remedy the position.
Mr. Straw: As I have said, this is a serious matter. Many other offences are still in force in the armoury of the law enforcement agencies for dealing with terrorist offences. I have made it clear that the provisions under sections 16A and 16B have never been used in connection with Irish terrorism, although the cordon powers, which supplement common law powers, have been used in the prevention of Irish terrorism. I hope to see the offences and the cordon provisions under sections 16C and 16D brought back into force as quickly as possible. As I said, we welcome the offer of co-operation from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and we look forward to co-operation with the usual channels as soon as possible.
Mr. Michael Howard: The House will understand that I have considerable sympathy for the Home Secretary given the predicament in which he finds himself, but I must return to the questions that have been asked by my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is not a controversial question. The need for such an offence is acknowledged on both sides of the House. The Home Secretary has acknowledged the seriousness of the current situation, in the absence of such an offence on the statute book. Will he reconsider the attitude that he has taken thus far about the need for urgency and the use of the urgency procedures to remedy the situation?
Mr. Straw: I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his sympathy. Although one hopes that some people might not hear this, we may have ended up in the same club. I accept the case for urgency and I have already explained that, given the seriousness of the error and the need for me to report it to the House, it was my judgment that it would have been inappropriate to use the urgency provisions in the Act to bring it straight back into force without the House having had an opportunity for debate. However, given what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I will ask my hon. Friends, the business managers, to have urgent discussions about the matter.

Equal Access (Public and Private Buildings)
4.2 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish that where men and women are granted access to public or private buildings they are granted equal access; and for connected purposes.
If I suggested to you, Madam Speaker, that there were Rooms in the Palace of Westminster—apart from public conveniences—not open equally to all its Members, whatever their sex, you would be angry. I am angry because many of our sports clubs up and down the country are still closed to women.
For example, Mrs. Joyce Rayner, honorary secretary of the ladies' section of Faversham recreation bowling club in my next-door constituency, wrote to me saying:
"I am secretary of the ladies' section … our ladies are treated like second class citizens. We pay exactly the same subscriptions as the men, but we are not allowed any involvement in the administration of the Club, no voting rights and are not even allowed to attend their AGM."
Mrs. Sue Birch, commenting about her golf club, the Robin Hood golf club in Solihull, said:
"You may be interested to hear of my recent attempts to overcome the problems I face within my golf club as a woman who cannot vote in club affairs. There are in excess of 250 men and women in my club, who cannot vote and who cannot be selected for or serve on the committee. In addition, because of being a woman, I am not allowed to play until after 4pm on Saturdays and until after lunch on Sundays and I cannot enter the snooker room."
Let us consider this extraordinary tale from Little Aston golf course in the west midlands where a club rule bans women from the "confines of the club" on Saturdays and Sundays. Reacting to the news that her husband had suffered a stroke or heart attack on the course, his wife rushed to his side. She climbed into the ambulance and was taken to hospital. She left her car in the club car park. Some weeks later she received a letter from Little Aston golf club committee saying that she had broken the weekend rule, and was asked to desist from such action in the future.
My next example is perhaps even worse. An American visitor paused as he was about to enter the clubhouse at Royal St. George's golf course. He was filled with doubts about whether his wife would be admitted. To spare her any embarrassment he approached an elderly member in the car park to clarify the situation. The elderly member said, "I am not sure about women—I would have to ask—but we do allow dogs in." Sadly, that sort of thing is a common occurrence across many of the golf courses and sports clubs in this country.
Mrs. Susan Cummings from Tamworth wrote to me about Drayton park golf club, saying that ladies can play on Saturdays at any time except, however, in summer when men's competitions take place and the course is closed to women until after 4 pm. On Sundays, women cannot tee off until after 1 o'clock.
Mrs. Codd from Mayfield in East Sussex writes:
"As a working lady golfer I have direct experience of the sorts of blatant discrimination that you are seeking to abolish …In the last year a few of us have been pressing for voluntary change, but have met stalwart resistance at various levels. For instance one lady was told she was militant. Another was forced to resign from one of our
1180
committees for daring to express her views on the subject of equality in the media—even though she did not name the club—which were she was told at variance with that of the board of management. Needless to say our board is all male and no women have ever sat on it. The men's captain does of course.
Traditionally ladies have (unpaid voluntary) responsibility for running their sections, thus saving clubs thousands of pounds each year",
but they have no vote.
The problem is not with golf alone: I could tell tales of unequal access and opportunity in other sports. In soccer, for instance, we have a registered FIFA female agent who is unofficially banned from the men-only boardrooms at football clubs on Saturdays, yet she is in charge of a considerable number of talented men footballers. She is banned from the professional footballers' annual national dinner, which I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport also declined to attend because she was not admitted.
I commend to the House the Equal Opportunities Commission report "Equality in the 21st Century: a New Sex Equality Law for Britain". Page 8 states:
"The EOC continues to receive many complaints about the rules and practices of private members' clubs. These clubs are not controlled by the Sex Discrimination Act because they are not concerned with the public. However, we believe the omission of private clubs results in various discriminatory rules and arrangements which support stereotypical images of men and women and limit women's participation in club activities."
I could not agree more.
The nub of the Bill is that it cannot be right that, in public or private buildings or clubs to which men and women have access, access should be determined by sex only. In sport, that has been the case for more than a century. As we attempt to modernise our society, we must at the very least permit women equal access and opportunity.
The Bill would improve on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Ms Claire Ward, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Jonathan Shaw and Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews.

EQUAL ACCESS (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUILDINGS)
Mr. Derek Wyatt accordingly presented a Bill to establish that where men and women are granted access to public or private buildings they are granted equal access; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 127].
Miss Julie Kirkbride: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will be aware, part of my constituency includes the Rover Longbridge plant. Today there was a very welcome announcement that the Government would be spending £150 million to help BMW to reinvest in the plant and to secure many jobs. Is not it appropriate that a statement of that importance, with further implications involving the outsourcing of car components which will have a major impact on employment in the west midlands, should be made in the House so that we could cross-examine the Minister,

1181
rather than at the press conference held this morning, where hon. Members with constituency and other interests could not find out all the relevant facts?
Madam Speaker: As far as I am aware, no Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was here, but a question was put to the Prime Minister on the matter at Question Time today.

Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
[FIRST PART]

Opposition Day

  Proportional Representation
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the main business. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I have had to limit the speeches of Back-Bench Members to 10 minutes.
  4.9 pm
  Sir George Young: I beg to move,
  That this House, in the light of experience of recent elections held on the basis of proportional representation, believes that this is not an appropriate basis for election to the House of Commons; and urges the Government to resolve the uncertainty it has caused on this matter either by abandoning its commitment to hold a referendum, or by holding the referendum forthwith.
  Two weeks ago, before the European election results were known, I asked the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on proportional representation in the light of the experience of the three elections held under the new arrangements. My request was refused so, not for the first time, the Opposition have allocated some of their own time to debate a matter of fundamental importance to the House.
  An hour ago, when asked about this issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the Prime Minister said that he would listen to the debate. I note with some surprise that the Prime Minister is not sitting on the Government Front Bench to listen to what I am sure will be an interesting debate.
  My view is that it is right to debate this matter while our recollection of the campaigns and their immediate aftermath is relatively fresh. Also, by having a vote at the end of the debate, we can end the uncertainty that has been caused by the Government's commitment to hold a referendum on PR for Westminster and their refusal to set a firm date. Our motion allows either of two solutions. The one that we prefer is the abandonment of the commitment to hold a referendum, and a declaration that we will stay with the British first-past-the-post voting system for Westminster. That would be the quickest and simplest way to implement what I believe to be the majority view of the House.
  However, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, which it gave before the last election. Labour felt that it might need the support of the Liberal Democrats after the election, but I suspect that it may regret having made that commitment. Respecting those sensitivities, and understanding that a referendum may be the only way to resolve the split in the Cabinet, we offer an alternative, which is to hold a referendum forthwith.
  Jenkins recommended a two-vote, mixed electoral system with 80 to 85 per cent. of the House being elected by individual constituencies using the alternative vote system and the remainder being elected by city or countywide areas on a top-up basis from party lists.

  1183
  The impact of the report was softened by the note of reservation of Lord Alexander, who considered that the use of AV was not
  "sound in principle, easy to understand and above all capable of commanding the enduring respect of the electorate."
  The debate on that report took place on 5 November. It was an excellent debate, and I say that because I did not take part in it. Rereading Hansard, I was struck by a number of points. First, the balance of the contributions and the argument was against the Jenkins alternative by a ratio of more than two to one: it was 24:11. The Home Secretary made his position clear. He said:
  "I therefore remain unpersuaded of the case for change",
  although he went on to say, worryingly, that he was
  "always open to higher argument"—
  not a better argument, but a higher argument.
  Secondly, I was struck by a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who said:
  "Electoral systems are not just about elections; they are about the subsequent nature of representation."
  Disaffection with the system, as expressed by a low turnout, is not just a problem on polling day: it is a problem for a Parliament. If people do not feel connected to an institution on polling day, they are unlikely to feel connected to it after polling day. The electoral system is a type of political glue between the voter and the institution he or she is voting for. We have a strong glue at the moment, and we should be cautious about using a weaker one.
  Thirdly, the Government confirmed that the alternative to first past the post to be put in a referendum is the Jenkins proposals. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who wound up the debate on 5 November, said:
  "If we are to have change … we now have an alternative, whether we like it or not, alongside which the status quo of the first-past-the-post system can be judged and debated."
  So we now know what the choice will be between.
  Fourthly, a number of hon. Members who spoke in that debate made the point, confirmed by Jenkins, that there is no public clamour for change. Only nine people attended the public meeting held in Northern Ireland, and only 30 were at the one in Cardiff. I am sure that Labour Members will confirm that focus groups are not focusing on this subject.
  Finally, the Government were vague on the timing of the referendum. The Home Secretary said:
  "As to timing, we have always envisaged that the referendum would be before the next election, and that remains an option."—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 1033–1111.]
  That is a weakening of an earlier commitment given in the debate on 2 June 1998, when the Home Secretary said:
  "The plan is that the referendum should take place well before the next election."—[Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 190.]
  More worryingly, the Home Secretary sought in the debate on 5 November to delay reform to the House of Commons electoral system until after the House of Lords reforms were in place. He said:
  1184
  "It would not be wise to embark on reform to the House of Commons electoral system until we are more certain of the changes that will take place in the other place."
  That is not on. We cannot let the shadow of proportional representation hang over this place until the Government have sorted out phase 2 of the House of Lords reform, which could take for ever.
  There was no opportunity to vote on 5 November, because the debate took place in Government time on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. We are offering the House that opportunity. Unlike the debate in November, today's debate takes place after three elections held under forms of PR, so we are better able to come to a judgment on how the systems work in practice.
  Dr. Tony Wright: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that in the recent Scottish Parliament elections his party won not a single constituency seat, yet it managed to end up with 18 representatives in the new Parliament. Does he think that that is shockingly unfair?
  Sir George Young: We do not approach the subject on the basis of what is right for the Tory party. We are interested in what is right for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Jim Murphy rose—
  Sir George Young: I should like to make progress. We have already lost some of the time for the debate and there is a 10-minute limit on speeches.
  We have the experience of the three recent elections. Previously, many people, including the Prime Minister, have said that they want to suspend judgment until they see how the systems work in practice. The Home Secretary said in our debate in November:
  "We shall want to see how the various changes bed down and how well the new electoral systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament work."—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 1038.]
  Quite so.
  We have had the elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament. The systems used have common features with the Jenkins proposals of lists, multi-member constituencies, proportionality and two classes of members, which can inform us. Apart from the Greater London elections next year, we have all the evidence that we shall ever have about the voting systems in operation.
  Let me start with the European elections and the low turnout. There is no single reason why the turnout for the European elections was low. The institutions of Europe are not popular, the campaigns of two parties were lacklustre and there was an element of voter fatigue. I believe that another reason was the system of voting. People want to vote for a face, not a list. When I knocked on the doors in North-West Hampshire or spoke to people on the phone, I had no candidate to sell. I could call on the record of the sitting Member of the European Parliament. It was an impersonal and rather anonymous process. Voters want to know whom they are voting for or against. Our supporters like to have a product that they can sell on the doorstep. Voters do not like being part of a large region, particularly in the south-east region, which has no regional identity. The voters want to have their

  1185
  own man or woman representing the patch in which they live and they want to be able to vote them out if they do not like them.
  Mr. Richard Burden: We can discuss the European elections if the right hon. Gentleman wants. He seems to be saying that the electoral system was one reason for the drop in turnout. How does he explain the fact that at the 1999 local elections there was approximately a 13 per cent. drop in turnout compared with 1994, and that at the 1999 European elections there was approximately a 13 per cent. drop in turnout compared with 1994? One set of elections was held under a first-past-the-post and the other on a proportional system. Those figures do not add up to an argument that the electoral system caused a drop in turnout.
  Sir George Young: There was not such a drop in turnout at the local elections in my constituency. I do not know what figures the hon. Gentleman is quoting, but there was a good turnout for the local elections in Hampshire, which has a hung council. The hon. Gentleman should look at the difference in turnout between the 1994 European elections, when people could vote for one candidate, and this year, when there was a list. That shows a very large drop. I attribute part of but not all the reduction in turnout to a change in the system of voting.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir George Young: For the last time, in order to preserve some
  proportionality.
  Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his balanced view on interventions. The sitting MEP for Herefordshire, Shropshire and the Wyre forest was a Mr. David Hallam, who achieved a certain popularity in the area. He was arbitrarily dropped down the list to number five by the officials of the Labour party. I was at the count at Wem and many spoilt ballot papers were marked, "We want Hallam".
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend reinforces my point that people want to vote for a face, not a list.
  The Government's response is to make it easier to vote. Of course it makes sense to consider, on an all-party basis, how we can make it easier to vote, but that is different from making people want to vote. My guess is that any benefit that may be gained by making it easier to access a voting booth will be more than lost if we introduce a voting system in which the public have less confidence.
  We tried to personalise the system by removing the closed list—all credit is due to the other place and indeed to many Labour Members for trying to support the open list. Sadly, the Government insisted on using the Parliament Act 1911 and overruled common sense.
  However, even with all their deficiencies, the European elections had one beneficial effect that Jenkins has not. All our MEPs were elected on the same basis. They all went to Europe through the same door. Jenkins preserves all the disbenefits of the list with the added disbenefit of a mixed system of elections and two classes of MP,
  1186
  with those directly elected through AV producing an even less proportionate result in 1997 than those elected under first past the post.
  Others have their own analysis of the results of the European elections, as we have heard. Apparently, the Liberal Democrats did badly not because they fought a lacklustre campaign, but because the Labour party did. One can only sympathise with the Liberal Democrats: if their opponents fight a winning campaign, they lose; if their opponents fight a losing campaign, they still lose. That is an important dilemma for their new leader to address after a campaign that will set the Thames alight.
  The Government said that it was all because of contentment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) observed on the night of the count, that has the perverse implication that if people become increasingly content with the Government, turnout should continue to fall until it reaches the ideal of zero.
  At the elections in Wales, for example, we were confronted by the absurd spectacle of the Secretary of State for Wales hoping that his party would do well enough to win an overall majority, but not so well that he would not get a top-up seat. In the Welsh Assembly, the Presiding Officer has stopped Assemblymen referring to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) as the Member for Cardiff, West. The Presiding Officer, a former hon. Member, said that there is not one but five Members for Cardiff, West—the directly elected Member and the four regional Members. So we see the beginning of the end of the direct representational link that is the basis of our membership of the House.
  Despite the theory that all Members are equal, the facade is beginning to crack. One Liberal Democrat Assembly Member, representing Brecon and Radnor, insists on calling herself the directly elected Member, with the unspoken inference that it is a better way of being elected than any other.
  After an election in New Zealand, the first question one new Member asks another is, "Are you a real MP or are you a top-up?" I am not interested in second-class Members. The strength of this place is that we all got here through the same democratic process. We are all equal.
  Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No; I must make progress.
  With additional Members, we would in effect have two political currencies in circulation, one of which would be quickly devalued, threatening the very basis on which the House works. There are also the wholly predictable difficulties in Wales for regional Members who want to hold surgeries. Without surgeries it is more difficult to maintain democratic legitimacy—the direct contact with the voter—which is also the basis of our membership here.
  We must also consider the example of Scotland where the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), promised at the beginning of election week that if people voted for his party on Thursday, tuition fees would be dead on Friday. By the end of the week, this was

  1187
  dismissed as mere "election rhetoric". There can be no clearer example of how promises are broken, manifesto commitments Tippexed out and voters betrayed under PR.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: So long as the hon. Gentleman is going to help me.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman referred earlier to second-class Members being not directly elected. Does that mean that all those Scottish Members who are not directly elected are second-class Members—nearly all of them Tories?
  Sir George Young: That is exactly what a member of the Liberal Democrat party said on election night. He said, "You Tories have only got top-up Members." The fear that I expressed of having two classes of Member is already gaining currency.
  The fears expressed in this House last November have come true. We have introduced a system that promotes coalition government at the expense of single-party government. We have seen the need to form those coalitions predicate intensive bargaining between the political parties. Party mandates have become less relevant. Politicians, not voters, choose Governments. The Jenkins system looks not outwards to the voters, but inwards to the party machines. It is interesting to note that the commission found a near-unanimous view of
  "distrust of any electoral system which increased the power of the party machine."
  By contrast, the present system meets the criteria set out by Jenkins better than his own suggestion. It ensures accountability, and voters know who to blame when things go wrong. It encourages open debate and decision making, and facilitates a change of Government and a change of direction.
  The Government are now acquiring a reputation for tinkering and dithering: tinkering with things that work perfectly well, and then finding that they do not really know what they are doing; and then dithering as they seek to postpone or avoid awkward decisions. It is an affliction, as we saw this afternoon, to which the Prime Minister is vulnerable.
  We have an opportunity today to stop the tinkering and the dithering with our voting system. In our hearts, we know that PR for Westminster is dead. What this motion does is to facilitate a decent burial. I urge all Members to support it.
  4.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises that different electoral systems may be appropriate for elections to different institutions; commends the Government's commitment to let the final decision on the voting system for the House of Commons be made by the people in a referendum; and welcomes the Government's approach which allows for a full debate in the country on the merits of the Jenkins system before a referendum is held.".
  1188
  I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on his debut in this position, and on a witty and entertaining speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "A good speech."] It was a good speech—I am perfectly happy to congratulate him on a good speech. I always have been willing to share my compliments.
  I congratulate the Opposition on—and thank them for—choosing this subject to debate. In the past seven weeks, we have had the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. Those were the first occasions on which proportional representation was used in national elections in Britain, and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to reflect on what has happened.
  Let me begin with the Scottish and Welsh elections. As my ministerial colleagues said during the passage of the relevant legislation, our intention in introducing proportional voting systems for those bodies was to ensure a representative outcome, with all the major strands of opinion having a voice in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), said that the Conservative party had an interest in the appropriate system, and not the one that would do the greatest favour for the Conservative party. Had we gone for first past the post in Scotland and Wales, it could have been—I am not saying that it would have been—that one party, which happens to be our party, could have ended up in a relatively impregnable position for a long time. I do not believe that that would have been sensible for democracy, given the demography of those two countries.
  I believe that the objective that we set for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly has been achieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said—notwithstanding the answer given by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire—it is worth recording that, without the proportional voting system, the Conservative party would have not a single Member of the Welsh Assembly—[Interruption]I am sorry; it would have just a single Member of the Welsh Assembly—and no representation in the Scottish Parliament. Instead, it has nine Assembly Members and 18 Members of the Scottish Parliament. I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I fancy that, if there were proposals to go back to first past the post in Scotland and Wales for those elections—I shall come on to the elections for the Commons—those Assembly Members and Members of the Scottish Parliament, and their parties, might have something to say.
  It is also worth reflecting on some of the objections that were raised to that form of PR for elections to those institutions from the Opposition when the relevant Bills were going through. We were told that it would put people off from voting and that the system was too complicated. The Opposition spokesman in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, warned us that we were adding complication to a "simple democratic system". The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said:
  "It is a mixed system, to which I object because it will lead to confusion."—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 433.]
  Turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections was 58 per cent. and, for the Welsh Assembly, 46 per cent. Those figures could have been higher—I shall say more

  1189
  about turnouts later—but, to put them into context, on the same day, only 29 per cent. of people in England voted in local council elections using the first-past-the-post system. When twice the percentage of Scots chose to vote using a proportional system, the argument that PR is a disincentive to voting is not easy to sustain. There is also no evidence that the people of Scotland and Wales found the new voting systems difficult to use.
  Let me now deal with the European Parliamentary elections on 10 June. As I said during Home Office questions last Monday, I advise the Conservatives to enjoy their moment of triumph, but to beware of false dawns. In 18 years of opposition, the Labour party became only too well aware that such success can be ephemeral.
  I shall not dwell on the results, although I should of course be happy to do so. I do not pretend that a turnout of 23 per cent. is anything but very disappointing.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Home Secretary believe that the low turnout had anything to do with the fact that, in the Scottish and Welsh elections, people had two votes for the two different kinds of representatives and in the local elections people had a vote for each representative, but in the European elections people had only one vote and no choice, even though people in the east midlands were electing six Members of the European Parliament?
  Mr. Straw: I shall come on to the research work that we intend to do because it is important that we find out the answer systematically and scientifically. We need more evidence before we decide. I am aware of the arguments about the voting system and I shall come on to my old friend Victor d'Hondt in a moment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I cannot wait.
  Mr. Straw: I know that my hon. Friend will enjoy my remarks on the subject.
  I have not seen any evidence, although that does not mean that there is none available, to suggest that the decline in turnout was caused principally or exclusively by the use of the new system. I am disappointed because the decline in turnout marks a reversal in a gradual, if small, upward trend in turnout for European parliamentary elections, which had increased from 31 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in 1994. However, it is worth pointing out that, in 10 out of the other 14 member states—all of which have systems of proportional representation that, as far as I am aware, did not change between previous elections and this one—there was a decline in turnout. The decline in the percentage of electors who voted was more severe in Austria, Finland and Germany than in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I remind the Home Secretary that the essential justification put forward by the Government for proportional representation was that it might improve the voting figures. Clearly, that has not happened. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be offended if I call him a professional politician, but why do professional politicians never admit that they are
  1190
  wrong, even when they are proved to be so? Why cannot they come clean, say they made a mistake, and scrap the new system? Why do they have to say that what happened was because more needed to be done, or because the system needed to be refined? The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect opportunity this afternoon to say, "We got it wrong, we made a mistake, our judgment was faulty, we'll scrap the idea."
  Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present at 3.30, but one dose of confession of error is enough for one day.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It gets easier each time.
  Mr. Straw: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a good member of the Anglican Church, but he says that confession is easier each time. I shall leave that to those of an alternative denomination.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
  Mr. Straw: I want to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and make some progress. The hon. Gentlemen can intervene then.
  I have the text of the lengthy and fascinating debates on the merits of the new regional list system. I cannot recall on any occasion being rash enough to say that that system would increase turnout. What I said was that we were involved in creating horses for courses, and that a move to a regional list system would lead to a more representative outcome—and one in which the Labour party almost certainly would get fewer seats than under any other system.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Of course, as I fancy that the hon. Gentleman is going to educate me about what I said.
  Mr. Burns: I remind the Home Secretary that, on 25 November 1997, he told the House:
  "It is difficult to argue that the current electoral system has gripped the electorate. It has not. My guess…is that turnout will improve under the proposed system."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 816–817.]
  Mr. Straw: I was wrong. However, I was right in the first part of what I said.
  As the House knows, we will conduct a full review of the European Parliamentary elections, and I shall write to the opposition parties shortly about that. As part of that review, we shall include questions in this month's Office of National Statistics omnibus survey—and commission NOP to do research—to discover how the electorate reacted to the new system. That research will produce interesting results, which will be made available to the House.
  However, we should avoid hasty judgments about the new system, and about the turnout, as many other things were going on at the time, including the Kosovo war.

  1191
  Moreover, European institutions had become a lot less popular in the five years since the 1994 elections, which I remember well as I was drafted in as campaign manager for them. That unpopularity was due not least to the resignation of members of the Commission, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned. That has to be accepted as true, regardless of which side of the argument one may be with regard to the euro and other matters.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Can the Home Secretary say how much the survey will cost, and how many of the 23 per cent. who voted will be surveyed?
  Mr. Straw: No, but we shall obviously consult the Opposition about both those questions.
  The House needs no reminding of our many long debates to secure the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. I said several times that the European Parliament was a representative body rather than one from which a Government are drawn. That being so, we considered it important that the composition of the UK delegation should be as representative as possible. The number of MEPs representing each of the major parties reflects how well the system worked.
  I have immense respect for the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, whom I have known ever since I came to this House. It is always possible to change one's mind; I have certainly done so. It was therefore a tad surprising that the right hon. Gentleman omitted to mention that he was once a greatsupporter of proportional representation. In 1977, PR was discussed for the European Parliament elections, and, following an extremely interesting debate, the then Government provided a free vote—a tradition that we have sometimes followed—on whether to have a regional list system, albeit an open-list system, or to use the first-past-the-post system.
  I have looked up the voting lists for that debate. Among the Ayes—those who voted for first past the post—were many luminaries of the Conservative party, including the then Leader of the Opposition, now Baroness Thatcher. However, given the current thinking of the Conservative party, the list of Conservative Members who voted for proportional representation reads like a rogue's gallery of Euro-fanatics. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) voted for it. So did the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), and the former Conservative Member, now my hon. Friend, whose constituency I have temporarily forgotten—[HON. MEMBERS: "Leominster."] Thank you. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) voted for PR. The point is that the then hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, now adorning the Front Bench as the right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire, also voted for PR.
  The right hon. Gentleman strongly supported PR at that time, and the system under debate was identical to the one that we have used, except that the list was open, not closed. He could have offered us some explanation of why he has or has not changed his mind since then.
  Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary has been both consistent and right in supporting the Westminster
  1192
  electoral system, and I hope that he will not sell out at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. Can he confirm that the Jenkins dog's breakfast fails even on its own criterion of proportionality? Has the Home Secretary studied "Making Votes Count", a document published by the democratic audit at the university of Essex, a fine institution from which I myself graduated? It confirms that, at the 1997 election, Labour would have received 68 per cent. of seats on 44 per cent. of the vote, while the Conservatives would have won 17 per cent. of seats on 31.5 per cent. of the vote. Even on proportionality—a ground beloved of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)—the Jenkins proposal manifestly fails. Will the Home Secretary say so?
  Mr. Straw: Funnily enough, I had flagged the section of the Jenkins report that deals with that point, on page 46 in paragraphs 155 to 157. Lord Jenkins and his colleagues must argue the point, but I think it difficult to argue that the alternative vote top-up system produces a more proportionate result. We can leave aside 1992, when the Conservatives won the election. It is fairer to consider the last election, when they were roundly beaten. What would have happened in that case is that the number of Labour seats would have gone down from 419 to 368, which would have made the result more proportionate. The number of Liberal Democrat seats would have risen from 46 to 89, but the number of Conservative seats would barely have moved. That number is disproportionate to the Conservative share of the vote, as it also is at present, so I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  I am aware that time is short, so I should like to make some progress. When we discussed the European election system, one issue that was raised was that it would lead to a large proportion of spoilt ballot papers. In response to the point made earlier on that matter, I point out that that was not the case. In total, there were about 25,800 spoilt ballot papers on 10 June. That compares to about 32,000 at the previous European parliamentary elections on a slightly larger turnout and to about 90,000 at the 1997 general election, both of which were conducted under the first-past-the-post system.
  I will provide a little more information about our favourite, and now famous, Belgian, Mr. Victor d'Hondt, because I realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are waiting on my words on that subject. Hon. Members may recall that he lived in the second half of the last century and was professor of law at the university of Ghent and a Christian Democrat. He was one of the leading lights in the Belgian equivalent of the Electoral Reform Society, and wrote a seminal paper in 1882, in which he set out his now famous divisor. He was instrumental in persuading Belgium to introduce a proportional voting system, which it did in 1899—making it the first nation in Europe to do so. That fact is to be added to the quiz on 10 things one knows about Belgium.
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Straw: Hang on. I shall give the House some more facts.
  I had hoped to be able to provide the House with additional insights about that great man, Mr. d'Hondt, but, despite his achievements, remarkably little more is known

  1193
  of him. Hon. Members can imagine my distress when I discovered that the Home Office Library does not possess a copy of the "Belgian Dictionary of National Biography".
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That is all most entertaining, but we have heard it before. There is one thing that we want to know about the Government: what is their intention with regard to the oft-promised referendum? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are debating—or trying to debate—what should be the system for this House, not what should exist elsewhere.
  Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, we are debating the motion and the amendment; I am speaking to my amendment. I shall turn to those matters later. [Interruption.] I have already given way several times.
  Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Straw: No, I shall give way to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) later.
  The position on the electoral system for this House has not changed in any way, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear a week ago, and again today. In the statement that I issued to accompany the publication of the report of the Jenkins commission, I said that the Government's position was that the final decision on whether to adopt the scheme recommended by the commission would be made by the people in a referendum. I believed that to be the right approach and that remains the case.
  During our Guy Fawkes debate last year—this picks up the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the difference between the position in June and that in November—I explained that our original intention to hold the referendum before the next election could no longer apply because the particular system that the Jenkins commission had chosen was not one that, in practice, could be in place in time for the next election, as the commission itself realised. That was not something that we could have anticipated when we originally planned for the referendum, not least because the system recommended by Jenkins—whatever its merits—is unique and, as far as I know, is not used anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary has proved conclusively that Mr. Victor d'Hondt is a bit of a joke. Many Conservative Members, as well as many Labour Members, would say that the system introduced by Mr. d'Hondt is also a bit of a joke. The Home Secretary makes it very clear that he does not support proportional representation for this House. Most hon. Members do not support it, so can we not make that decision? Can we not get on with it and move on?
  Mr. Straw: That is a difference between the Conservative and Labour parties. I do not happen to share the hon. Gentleman's view. I believe that the issue should be put to the public in a referendum.
  Mr. Heald: No, you do not.
  Mr. Straw: As a matter of fact, I do. I recommended that course to the Labour party conference in 1995,
  1194
  when I could have recommended something else. I happen to believe that the issue ought to be settled and that it can be settled only by a referendum—the issue is when.
  The impossibility of having the new system in place at the next general election means that there is less urgency about holding a referendum, and no decision has been taken about timing. The Prime Minister said the same thing on 4 November last year, and he reiterated that fact recently. Instead, we would like there to be a full debate on the merits of the Jenkins proposals, and I am grateful to the Opposition for providing the House with a further opportunity to contribute to that process. My views on the subject are well known; there is little dubiety about that. However, as I said when I answered questions on 18 January this year:
  "There is a case for seeing how the new systems of proportional representation for elections to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and, indeed, the European Parliament, fall into place before proceeding with the referendum." —[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 559.]
  The right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire said two quite contradictory things in picking me up on that point. He quoted my comments—or used words to that effect—and said that, as we have had the elections, we have also gathered all possible evidence about the operation of the electoral system. However, earlier in his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman made the much more important point that electoral systems are about not just what happens on polling day but what happens subsequently to affect the nature of the institutions. This is not a casuistical point.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether first-class or second-class Members are emerging in Scotland and Wales. The nature of the electoral system plainly has an impact on the institution, so we must wait and see whether we will end up with a two-tier system or whether there will be another, more benign, effect. [Interruption.] I will not give way again, as I am using up the speaking time of Back Benchers.
  I must say something about turnout. Turnouts in all categories of elections have been falling for several years. This is not a party political matter but something that should—and I know does—concern us all. The legitimacy of those who are elected is clearly called into question if only a fraction of the electorate have bothered to vote.
  As the House will know, following the last general election, we established the working party on electoral procedures—under the leadership of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth)—to consider ways to modernise our electoral procedures. The working party includes representatives from Opposition parties. In its interim report, the working party has recommended the introduction of a system of rolling electoral registration, which, among other things, I know will be particularly welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has been pushing this idea for a long time. The working party, whose final report is due shortly, is also recommending the introduction of pilot projects to try out innovations such as electronic and weekend voting and all postal ballots.
  I do not want to give the impression that changes such as these are a panacea or that they will stem the decline in turnout overnight. No matter what the electoral arrangements are, people will take the trouble to vote only

  1195
  if they believe that it is worth their while to do so. Political parties have an important role in galvanising the electorate. Nevertheless, changes that improve our electoral procedures and mean that they reflect more closely the life styles that people enjoy today can, and should, have only a beneficial effect.
  When the Government were elected, we made a firm commitment to modernising our constitution and we have taken great strides to achieve that aim in our first two years in office. An important aspect of that has been the acceptance that, when it comes to electoral systems, it is a case of horses for courses. One type does not fit all—and that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman when he actively and avidly supported proportional representation for the European Parliament 20 years ago.
  Sir George Young: I was going to let that comment pass, but the Home Secretary raised the issue again. I have never supported proportional representation for Westminster. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that fact?
  Mr. Straw: I did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman said that. However, he poured scorn on proportional representation for the European Parliament. He is entitled to change his views—although he has been given an opportunity to do so and has failed to seize it. I am entitled to point out that, so far as the European Parliament is concerned, we have had no explanation of any change of view, and the right hon. Gentleman knowingly passed through the Lobby in support of proportional representation when the principle first arose in the House in the 1970s.
  We must consider the functions of the body being elected and then determine which electoral system best meets the particular needs of the bodies concerned. It is for that reason that we have introduced proportional voting systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament. There can be little argument with the proposition that our objective of producing more representative outcomes for those institutions has been achieved.
  Debates about electoral systems have, quite rightly, been taking place in this House for more than a century—and I dare say they will continue for many years to come. I am grateful to the Opposition for this opportunity to put our position on the record and I look forward to the debate.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: There is one thing on which all of us can agree in this debate: no system is perfect, so we are arguing about a system whose advantages outweigh its disadvantages and rejecting systems whose disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
  I can be brief, because my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made an admirable and cogent speech and covered many of the issues that I would wish to have covered. It is clear to me, particularly in the light of our experience of the European Parliament election, that, compared with all others, first past the post is a far better system for elections to the Westminster Parliament.
  1196
  The arguments are no longer theoretical, as they were during the debate on 5 November 1998. We have seen proportional representation, in various forms, operating in practice, and we can see that our worst fears and strongest criticisms, which we made in that debate and elsewhere, are being confirmed in practice. I note that the Home Secretary talked about horses for courses. We are talking about the system of election to the Westminster Parliament but, in doing so, it is legitimate to draw on experience learned from the systems for elections to the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.
  I want to quote once, and only once, from the Jenkins report. Referring to first past the post, it suggested that the turnout at elections does not represent
  "a ringing endorsement of the present system".
  It is clear from the European elections that, far from the turnout being a ringing endorsement of the chosen system, it is a ringing rejection of proportional representation.
  Mr. Martin Linton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I ought not to give way because of the time factor and the 10-minute limit. Many Members on both sides of the House want to speak.
  I want to discuss the great virtues of the first-past-the-post system because they were not touched on at all—inevitably, because of the way in which the terms of reference were drawn up—by the Jenkins commission, and they probably have not featured strongly enough in the debate so far. First, I emphasise the importance of the direct constituency link, which is one of the great virtues of the British system. The experience of all of us who have been Members of the House for some time is that the longer we are Members, the more we understand the virtues of that direct constituency link. It brings to Members of Parliament awareness of a range of issues, and awareness of what people in the country feel, so we are much better informed than others.
  During the many years in which I was negotiating on behalf of this country at various European Councils of Ministers—particularly in the Agriculture Council, where we waited, frequently late at night, as the presidency went round all the individual Ministers to reach some consensus—there were many hours in which Ministers had nothing to do. I dictated constituency correspondence into my tape machine. I was often away for a week at a time, and I knew that I would not catch up when I got back, so I dealt with correspondence then.
  The interesting point was that many colleagues came to ask me what I was doing. I explained that I was dealing with a range of issues that affected my constituents. They said, "We don't have to worry about any of that because we have the proportional representation system." I asked how often they went to their constituencies and how many meetings they addressed. Their approach is vastly different from ours. I have always thought that the constituency link is one of the greatest virtues of the British system, but we will lose that entirely if we use for Westminster elections the system that we use for the European Parliament.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: I fear I cannot, because of the time constraint.

  1197
  That point was tellingly made recently in a leader in The Daily Telegraph, which said that meaningful representation in a democracy can be established only by the direct link between the Member and his constituents. I believe that that is right, and we would lose that link at our peril.
  Secondly, electoral systems other than first past the post involve the danger of increasing the power of the party at the centre. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has quoted the Jenkins report and, as it went round the country, the commission discovered near-unanimous distrust of any electoral system that increases the power of the party machines.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: On the Jenkins report?
  Mr. Ross: No, on the increase of the power of the party at the centre.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We cannot have conversations going on in that way. If the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) wants to speak, he should make a proper intervention.
  Mr. MacGregor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have allowed an intervention in that way.
  The systems that we have seen—for example, in the European Parliament elections—increase the power of the party at the centre. The system that the Labour party has chosen has greatly increased its power over who stands as candidates in elections. We have therefore moved to a position in which MEPs at the top of the list can remain at the top of the list provided that they keep their noses clean with the party bosses at the centre. That means that many of them will pay much less attention to what their constituents say. Given the size of their constituencies, it is almost impossible for them to pay attention to their constituents. The East Anglia constituency, for example, covers 56 parliamentary constituencies.
  The other great virtue of first past the post is that it usually gives a clear outcome in the form of a Government committed to their manifesto. Having been in this House for 25 years, and the more I study other systems and meet representatives from other Parliaments, I feel passionately that the constituency link that first past the post provides is one of our great assets and we should not reject it.
  There are numerous other criticisms of proportional representation, but my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned them, so I need not elaborate. For example, a party that comes fourth in the table of electoral success has a key stake in the Government. Proportional representation also produces two classes of Members of Parliament, about which we shall hear more and more in the Scottish Parliament. We do not want that in Westminster.
  The Jenkins report shows that a step needs to be taken to make our system fairer. It demonstrates that the effect of the current boundaries is such that equality of votes between the two main parties, Conservative and Labour, at the last election would still have produced a Labour
  1198
  majority of 76. The Conservatives would have had to have a lead of 6.5 per cent. to get an equal number of seats. That cannot be a fair way of handling first past the post.
  There is clearly a big bias in the current system. The boundary commission should be asked urgently to look at the boundaries again, with a view to eliminating that bias. I do not expect the present Government to do that. We all remember how Mr. Callaghan, when he was Home Secretary, gerrymandered the Greater London council elections. Nevertheless, the Conservative party should do it, because it is the only unfairness in the operation of our first-past-the-post system.
  Mr. Linton: The reason for that bias is entirely to do with tactical voting. It has nothing to do with how the boundaries are drawn.
  Mr. MacGregor: The Jenkins commission accepted that analysis, and made it clear that it thought that there was a bias in the system. Therefore I believe that the boundary commission should look at the matter.
  As we said in last year's debate, the Jenkins report produced the worst of all worlds. It not only produced a system that has never been tried anywhere else but advocated focusing mainly on the alternative voting system, despite the fact that, in a chapter on that system, it outlined all the defects. In order to overcome those, it also produced a topping-up system, which presents a number of other dangers and difficulties. It is clear from the criticisms that have been made that that is not an attractive alternative; yet the Jenkins commission rejected all the other alternatives and produced cogent arguments for doing so.
  First past the post operates in 62 countries and covers half the world's electorates. It has been tried and tested in the United Kingdom. We should not give up the huge virtues of the constituency link in the British system. The Prime Minister said today that he would listen to the debate. It is clear from the debate so far that there is no contest. We should keep first past the post for Westminster and make that clear now. We should not engage in a referendum, which, given the complexities of the Jenkins proposals, would simply confuse and probably lead to a low turnout.
  I strongly advocate that the Government should make their position clear now. The Conservative party should commit itself to a change in the voting system for the European Parliament, because it is clear from the low turnout that the current voting system contributed a lot to that outcome. In doing so, we should retain as many as possible of the elements that we had before in the European elections. I hope that we shall be able to do that, but, above all, I want to say this to the Government. I think that the argument is now clear, and that the Home Secretary agrees with much of it. I hope that he will follow that agreement with action.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Hilary Benn: I rise with some trepidation, as I am sure is customary among Members making maiden speeches. There is, however, nothing customary in what I wish to say about my predecessor, Derek Fatchett. His tragic death just six weeks ago left us all the poorer. His family lost a much-loved husband and father; the House lost a fine parliamentarian;

  1199
  the Government lost a first-class Foreign Office Minister; the trade union movement lost a committed advocate of the rights of working people; and, above all, the people of Leeds, Central lost a friend as well as a Member of Parliament.
  Derek served his constituents with passion and with distinction. People liked him as well as respected him. That is why his passing is still deeply felt by many, and why he is and will be greatly missed by all who knew him. As the new Member, I am proud to serve the constituency that he served.
  Over the years, the strength of the city of Leeds and the source of its prosperity have been both its diversity and its capacity to change with the times. That diversity is reflected in the constituency. Starting from the north, it covers two universities and two hospitals, "Jimmy's" and the Leeds general infirmary. It takes in the West Yorkshire playhouse. It then runs down across a thriving city centre, and on to a large area of manufacturing—to Holbeck, Hunslet and Beeston, which welcomed the first Kosovar refugees to this country. From Cottingley in the west to Richmond Hill in the east along the York road, each part is a unique community with its own characteristics and traditions. Let me add that the warmth of its people is matched only by their plain speaking.
  The constituency contains two other great institutions: the Hunslet Hawks rugby league club, in its splendid stadium in south Leeds, and, of course, Leeds United football club at Elland Road. I shall always have a special affection for Elland Road, because that is where my selection conference took place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) can readily testify, as he was present, it was a colourful scene that night as the votes were counted. The ballot box was pitch black. The voting slips piled on the table were a very pale shade of pink—no political significance whatever should be read into that! The faces of the candidates were, to put it mildly, a little grey. But, resplendent in their traditional white, gazing down at us from their picture frames on the wall, were those two great heroes of Leeds United teams gone by, Gordon Strachan and Johnny Giles. I knew at that moment that there was something special about the constituency, and so it has proved.
  There is, however, something else about Leeds, Central, which is why I wanted to contribute briefly to this debate. It contains some of the poorest parts of Leeds, and some of the most deprived communities. It has the highest unemployment in the city. For many of the people who live there, social exclusion is not a theory, but their life experience. These are people whose faith in the capacity of the democratic system to produce real and lasting improvement is tested daily by crime, poor housing and social decay.
  Perhaps not surprisingly in view of that, Leeds, Central had one of the lowest turnouts in the country at the last general election: only 55 per cent. Just a fortnight ago, only 20 per cent. of the electorate voted in the by-election, under the first-past-the-post system, and in the European elections, under proportional representation. Such a low turnout must be a matter of concern to all of us; but perhaps there is a deeper message than one just about electoral systems. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not comment today on the relative merits of those systems, let alone the complexities of the d'Hondt system.
  1200
  I do not even understand the Lewis-Duckworth rule when it comes to rain delay in one-day cricket. However, I believe that the link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency is very important.
  While there are steps that can and should be taken to make voting easier, I believe that the deeper message is this. The true test of our democratic system—and of the House, in the eyes of those who put us here—is whether we can demonstrate in practice to people in a constituency such as Leeds, Central that they can use this place to make a difference to their own lives.
  As the community police officer for Lincoln Green said to me last Friday, when I was talking to him about the area which he knows very well and cares about so passionately:
  "People are looking for a sign that things will get better."
  That statement summarises why the ballot box has to be an instrument of hope as well as of democracy, a means of economic and political progress, and a way out of poverty and despair.
  It was that instrument of hope that, at the end of the second world war, created the national health service, and, under the current Government, created the minimum wage and the new deal, of which we are justly proud. I believe that it is that instrument of hope that remains our best chance of meeting the challenges of the new century that will shortly dawn.
  Leeds, Central is special, if not unique, in one other respect: the potential of the people who live there to find a voice for themselves. As I travelled round the constituency during the by-election, time and again, I was impressed by the people I met who were not waiting for us to do something, but were trying to do something for themselves.
  At the Holbeck community forum, for example, which I visited, 40 people turned out on a Wednesday evening simply to talk about how they could improve the community in which they live. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I visited a supported housing scheme on a tenant-managed housing estate that was providing supported living—and advice, help and a shoulder to cry on—to young people who could not, for whatever reason, continue to live with their own families. The elderly care project based in the Woodhouse Road community centre, which has raised 80 per cent. of its own funds, is now providing a hot breakfast every day for those in the community who might not otherwise get a square meal.
  All those people have very high expectations of us, and rightly so: there is much more that we need to do. But those examples—and there are many others—give me hope, because they are a living demonstration that, where a community finds a voice for itself, it is in a much stronger position to tackle the problems about which it knows most. I also believe that, when that happens, our job as Members of Parliament is made that much easier, because we can then add our voice to theirs. If, by doing that, we can together make a difference, we shall be able to demonstrate not only that the House is the servant of those who elect us but that it is something worth voting for.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a very real privilege and pleasure to have the opportunity to follow the new hon. Member

  1201
  for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) and to congratulate him, very sincerely, on a most distinguished beginning in the House. He spoke with feeling, which was shared by all hon. Members, of his predecessor and of the tragic circumstances that led to his by-election. His sentiments on that were widely shared.
  The hon. Gentleman's sympathetic description of the nature of his constituency and its deprivation, and his equally engaging understanding of the sense of democratic frustration of those who live hopelessly in deprivation, bids fair for the resolution of their problem and was most apposite to today's debate. Although he did not choose to engage in the arcane issues of voting systems, none the less, he recognised in his speech how important is our democratic renewal. He also, helpfully and feelingly, introduced to the debate an element of passion that I think had been lacking.
  In opening the debate, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made an occasional speech that will leave very little in the mind afterwards, and certainly no sense of the issue being one of great importance to the United Kingdom. It was an occasional speech that followed the events of the elections of the past month. For that reason, I very much welcomed it, and think that the official Opposition were entirely right to choose proportional representation as the subject of today's debate.
  The sinuosity of the right hon. Gentleman's position on European electoral systems has been noted, and will certainly colour our view of how he approaches those issues in the future. His failure to respond to the challenge of the Home Secretary was evident and rather surprising for one who has a reputation for being straightforward. But it is clear that this debate is important, and that we should be considering the issue of electoral systems now.
  I welcome the opportunity of looking rather differently upon the experiences of past elections. Once again, however, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) has intervened, to speak of his view based on 25 years' experience of this place. So we paid some attention to that. He hymned the merits of the first-past-the-post system, on the ground that it produces certain results. He has been in the House long enough to know that that is not true.
  It may be beyond the memory of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk that the result of 1964 general election was far from decisive. It is certainly beyond his personal recollection that the 1951 result was far from decisive, and that a party with a minority of votes—his own, the Conservative party—formed the Government. It is certainly not beyond his recollection that the result of the general election held in the spring of 1974 was inconclusive. It seems to me that certainty of outturn is not a characteristic of the first-past-the-post system. It is also not true that it fairly reflects the opinion of the people.
  Time and again, we have had general election results in which minority votes have produced a substantial majority in this place for the governing party. That is true of the current Government, as it has been true of Conservative Governments led by Mrs. Thatcher. Such an inequitable outturn is not advantageous to the good government of the country—a point that has been forcefully made, on a number of occasions, certainly to his cost, by Lord Pym, when he also represented an East Anglian constituency.
  1202
  Large majorities do not necessarily lead to wise government. All too often, however, they are a haphazard consequence of the first-past-the-post system.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: This is an extremely short debate, and, although I am not caught by the 10-minutes rule, I do not propose giving way frequently. However, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Leigh: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In the light of his discussions in recent years with the Home Secretary, could the right hon. Gentleman explain something that the Home Secretary said in his speech? He said that we could not have a referendum on the substance of the Jenkins report in this Parliament, as the matter is too complicated and a change could not be introduced by the next general election. However, surely the same arguments would hold true in the next Parliament. If the Government were serious about Jenkins, surely the referendum should be held in this Parliament, should it not? I did not understand the Home Secretary's comment.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have every reason to follow the Home Secretary's comments on the matter with the very closest attention, and do not recognise in what the hon. Gentleman said the words of the Home Secretary. My understanding of what the Home Secretary was saying was that—since the Jenkins report had produced a scheme for election to the House that could not be given effect, as it required boundary commission changes that could not be introduced within the time available—there was an argument for postponing the referendum to a date closer to when any change consequent on the referendum might be anticipated. It is an argument that I should like to deal with. It is an argument that certainly must have been recognised as a possibility by those of us who discussed holding a referendum. The Prime Minister said in November in the House and on other occasions that it has always been envisaged that the referendum would be held in this Parliament. That remains the position. It is a clear option and to my mind a desirable option. I hope that it is an option with which the Government will decide to proceed.
  Mr. Llew Smith: The right hon. Gentleman explains how undemocratic it is that a Government can be formed with a minority of the votes. Would he care to comment on the situation in Scotland after the elections to the Scottish Parliament? The Liberal party, which received a derisory vote, is now a part of government. Can he explain the democracy and fairness in all that?
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall turn to Scotland, but if I were the hon. Gentleman I would not deride 14 per cent. of the electorate. It is not derisory to be supported by so many people as have supported the Liberal Democrats both in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom. It was

  1203
  not derisory when the Liberal Democrats took control of Sheffield from the Labour party. Those who deride may have to stand back and cheer.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I said that I would not give way to any more interventions, but since it is the hon. Gentleman, this will be positively the last time.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: One man's derision is another man's boast, but does the right hon. Gentleman really think that 14 per cent. justifies a place at the Cabinet table? Is that what he is on about?
  Mr. Maclennan: I said that I would come to Scotland. First, I wish to deal with the European Parliament elections and say how auspicious I believe the choice of date for the debate is. It is auspicious because we have had the first post-election opinion poll about the merits of a proportional system of election for this House. It was published today by ITN for a programme called "Powerhouse". It shows that 70 per cent. of the British electorate favour a proportional system for election to this House. It also shows—this is important—that 68 per cent. of the British public support a proportional system of election for local government. I hope that that indicates that extrapolation of the results of the European elections as a commentary on the system of election is wholly unjustified.
  Whatever the European election was about, it was most certainly not about a system of election. To be fair to him, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire did not suggest that it was, although he suggested that it was perhaps a factor.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. John Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: No, I have said that I will not give way again. I think that that now might be taken as read.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire properly considered that there might be a number of explanations and suggested what some of them might be. I welcome the Home Secretary's intention to conduct an analysis in depth of what people's thinking was, and I look forward to participating in the discussions that he has offered to Opposition parties about appropriate questions to put to the public on these matters. We ought to be properly informed about these things. We ought not to join in the hullabaloo of The Daily Mail and other comparable tabloid newspapers, which have treated the Conservatives' result as a major victory. It is hard to interpret the ability to turn out approximately 10 per cent. of the electors in support of a proposition as a major victory. If the Conservative party bases any long-standing hope on that electoral result, it is likely to be greatly disappointed.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: No, I have said that I will not give way again.
  1204
  The European election was an indictment of politicians of all political parties. It was no triumph for anyone. It is true that the Conservative party managed more successfully than others to motivate a tiny minority of the electors to go out in support of it. It has to be said that the other parties failed to motivate the massive majority to turn out at all. That is not something from which even the Conservative party should take any great comfort.
  The conduct of the European Parliament election was very far from a rising call to support any European cause. Many of us will learn lessons from that to be applied in the future.
  The result of the Scottish election was different in terms of turnout.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman is simply trying to harass me, I would ask him to refrain, because I am not about to be intimidated by him. The Scottish election had a relatively good turnout—some 61 per cent. The effect of holding two elections on the same day was interesting, for it resulted in a much higher turnout for the local government elections in Scotland than we have seen in the past. I commend to the Home Secretary the possibility of holding elections on a super Saturday, as is done in other countries, to ensure that those whom we would wish to vote have the opportunity and incentive to do so and have a real sense of democratic occasion.
  I shall now deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) about the consequences of the election in Scotland. I believe that the Labour party scored some 39 per cent. of the vote. Under the old system, it would undoubtedly have enjoyed a substantial majority of the seats in the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that, with that substantial majority, the Executive would have enjoyed anything like the legitimacy of the Government now in place in Scotland, who enjoy the support of about 50 per cent. of the electorate.
  There has been a pooling of policies as a consequence of the agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. A number of items of policy, including 500 extra teachers and an extra £8,000 per school for books and improvements have been adopted by the Executive—
  Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Maclennan:—even though those policies were not part of the Labour party's undertaking when it sought election. A programme for Scotland will be implemented based on the best thinking of the two participants in government. It will result in a continuing dialogue about the unfinished agenda, for what has been agreed is not final. It will be subject to review, addition and, we hope, improvement.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Maclennan: No, I shall not, and I resent the hon. Lady twice trying to intervene when she has been told clearly that she is wasting other Members' time.

  1205
  We are seeing the beginning of a national campaign which will be informed by the experience of the elections that have taken place around the country. It is encouraging that the first positive national opinion poll shows the first reaction of the public to be supportive of proportional representation. It is also encouraging that the McIntosh committee set up in Scotland to look at local government has come out strongly in favour of PR for local government elections. There is no doubt, as it is part of the agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Executive, that PR will be introduced in Scotland for local government. We shall see that ripple throughout the United Kingdom, as a fairer and more sensible way to elect our Government.
  By this time next year, many people in this country—the Scots, the Welsh and those living in London—will have had an opportunity to vote twice under proportional systems. They will have acquired a degree of familiarity with its benefits and disbenefits, which will have a considerable impact on any campaign that we might anticipate.
  The Conservatives talk about the national interest being served by the present system. I do not think that the national interest is served by the Conservative party being totally excluded from contributing to our debates on Scottish matters in the House. I do not think that it serves the national interest for the Scottish Parliament to be lacking Scottish Conservative Members and voices. I do not think it contributes to the national interest that, in Wales, there would have been only the one Conservative voice from Monmouth. The Conservative party should look beyond Offa's dyke and Hadrian's wall and discuss whether its intransigent little England stance against proportional representation makes any sense in the modern United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  I believe that the Conservative party's perspective is too narrow and its focus too withdrawn into the south-east of England. The time has come for it to use its period of opposition wisely and to rethink its position on some of the constitutional matters on which, so far, regrettably, it has made little serious contribution.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) about my new hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). It was a fine maiden speech and he paid tribute to our late honourable Friend, Derek Fatchett—I want to emphasise the word "friend" as he was a friend to so many of us. He spoke movingly about his constituency and made some points which were relevant to the debate.
  We must push Conservative Members a little further on this. Perhaps they will address my comments in their reply to the debate because, sadly, I will not be able to take interventions. They have made it clear that they do not support, as a preference, giving the British people a say on the voting system used to elect Members to this place. It is important to record that because it says something about their views on democratic issues.
  I am rather hazy about other points that they are making. They have adopted a scattergun approach to different sorts of electoral system. They have said that
  1206
  they are against regional lists and against the systems used in Scotland and Wales. They appear to be saying that any proportional system is, by definition, wrong. If that is what they are saying—I see some of them nodding their heads—they are saying that first past the post is the only system worth considering. It is an honourable position, but I wonder why they do not use that system to elect their own leader. They may believe that their system has produced the wrong result for them.
  Any serious discussion of this issue leads us to the conclusion that we cannot be absolutist about electoral systems. No electoral system is perfect for all situations and all have their plus and minus points. As parliamentarians, we should all be concerned about what is happening to turnouts and the fact that many people seem to feel disconnected from politicians, politics and the political process. I am a supporter of electoral reform, but I would not claim that electoral reform alone will change that. In the European elections, we were able to achieve a result which was fairer and which more accurately reflected people's votes, but it did not stop the haemorrhaging of votes that had already started to occur under the first-past-the-post system in some elections.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burden: I have already said that I will not give way.
  Unless people feel that political institutions are relevant to them, they will not vote. That is why the working party is so important in making it easier and more attractive for people to vote. It is also why we need to bring political institutions closer to the people. It is why devolution and decentralisation are as relevant to England as to Scotland and Wales.
  We need to recognise that voting in elections is only one way, albeit an important one, in which people engage with the political process. That is where the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central were so right. Involvement in one's community or a community organisation is a political activity. It may not be party political, but it is political. As well as encouraging people to engage in the political process in which we are involved, as politicians, we need to spend more time examining our way of operating and engage more in the involvement of people in our communities. We need a political culture to help foster that and that is where the voting system is relevant.
  I believe that the Jenkins system is a significant step forward. Interestingly, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spent more time attacking the European system, which is not under debate, than the Jenkins system. The Jenkins system is not proportional representation in any pure form. It would address the concern—it is right to address it—about the need for a link between MP and constituency. Every voter in every seat in this country would be able to vote for their constituency Member of Parliament. The difference would be that, if somebody came here claiming to represent the voters in their constituency, they should have an obligation to have achieved at least 50 per cent. of the vote in that constituency. Also, it would allow for effective government, which has been mentioned today and is important.
  It is estimated that in 1997 and 1983, when clear preferences were expressed by the electorate—although not technical majorities—the Jenkins system would have

  1207
  produced majority government. It would, however, remove the electoral fig leaf provided by the first-past-the-post system which allows political parties to claim virtual monopoly power on the basis of no significantly greater support than other parties. That would mean that in 1979 and 1992 we would probably not have had majority government in this country.
  I believe that a greater reflection of voters' preferences would be good for democracy. In conjunction with our reforms on devolution, the constitutional agenda and the second Chamber, it would help effective government and allow this place to act as a legislature far more than it has been able to do recently.
  The Jenkins system would be a boon to democracy in that, for the first time, every vote in every seat would count.
  Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Burden: I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes.
  At present, in some parts of the country, some votes have no influence on the overall election result. Under the Jenkins proposal—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) must contain himself. I will not have a continuous sedentary commentary from the Back Benches.
  Mr. Burden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings may be able to catch your eye later.
  The dynamics of our current electoral system force political parties to target their efforts on about 100 or so marginal seats. I am pleased that in the previous election the Labour party won more seats than that, but it does not alter the fact that the dynamics of our system force attention on those seats that make the difference between winning and losing. We need an end to the electoral deserts that we have seen all too often in elections in this country and must ensure that every vote in every seat counts. I believe that the Jenkins system will do that.
  It is clear that Conservative Members do not support a referendum on electoral reform. I ask them to think about that. It is absolutely right for us in the House to debate these issues, but we are not the people who should make the final decision on how we are elected or the political system of the country. The people of this country should have the right to decide. Sure, we can advise and campaign, but it should be their choice.
  I hope that Conservative Members will participate in the debate not only in the House but in the country. When we have ensured that the people engage in a debate about not only electoral systems but the kind of democracy that they want, I hope that we will hold a referendum. I hope that it will support the Jenkins system, but, whichever way it goes, the fact that we will have had the debate will be good for democracy, and that will be good for hon. Members of all parties.
  5.41 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on a first-class maiden speech. It was nice to see his father's face shining with pride. Following in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not be easy, as he is regarded throughout the House as a first-class parliamentarian. We look forward to his son making an equal contribution in the fullness of time. It was interesting to note that both father and son agree on first past the post. I hope, for the future of the latter's ministerial career, that their accord does not continue.
  It is Conservative Members' aim to persuade the Government to drop their commitment to holding a referendum on proportional representation. We believe that we already have the right system for election to the House and that to change it in any way would be damaging. I take issue with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), because the experience in other countries is that people vote in referendums—and by-elections—not necessarily on the basis of the issue at hand but on the basis of their approval or disapproval of the Government. That is another reason why Conservative Members are wary of holding a referendum on this vital issue.
  To change the system of election to the House would be to change fundamentally the way in which the British people are governed.
  Ms Oona King: Does the hon. Lady agree that an electoral system that has twice given the party that won the lesser number of votes victory in a general election needs to be changed?
  Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady's point refers to a blip in history. We have an effective, tried and tested system of democracy that has delivered the most important thing for the British people: peace in our country, effective government and a tolerant and civilised society. First past the post has been an important ingredient in that process, from which we can all take great heart.
  We fear that the Government's agenda has been to tinker with our constitutional arrangements in a way that has caused a great deal of upset. The devolution debate is over for Scotland and Wales but certainly not for England. When I suggested a few weeks ago that there was great anxiety in my constituency about the West Lothian question and the way in which the Government are ignoring it, my comments were much derided, but the questions are still to be answered. The Government have tinkered with the system without fully thinking through the final outcome for our constitution.
  Proportional representation is not a relevant way forward. There is anxiety among Scottish Members of Parliament who are getting into turf wars with Members of the Scottish Parliament about how properly to serve their constituents. That cannot be good for democracy. The west midlands now has eight Members of the European Parliament and nobody really feels that they represent one specific place. The west midlands is an enormous area.
  I spoke to the managing director of a Stoke pottery who said that the great pity of the new arrangements for MEPs is that he no longer feels that there is someone

  1209
  representing his area to whom he can take his concerns about European regulations that affect his industry owing to the fact that Europe has competence in the United Kingdom over trade and industrial matters. That highlights the problem of having no clear link between the people and their parliamentary representative.
  I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and I enjoy taking my constituents around the House. We are privileged to work in a fabulous and historic building. When we get to Central Lobby, I like to explain the heart of our democratic system: the fact that all 659 of us represent a piece of turf in the United Kingdom in a very direct way, so that anyone from Bromsgrove or anywhere else in the country can come to the House, hand in their green card—I explain that it is as well to remind us that they are coming—and speak to someone who makes laws on their behalf and is obliged to listen to their point of view. That is fundamental to the confidence that the people have in the way in which they are governed, and we throw that aside at our peril.
  We can see from the experience of other countries how dangerous it is to throw that principle aside. I had the pleasure of visiting New Zealand last year and heard at first hand what a disaster the PR system had been there. New Zealand faced many of the same problems as the United Kingdom in the past 20 years, but it used to have a first-past-the-post system that could deliver a Government who were capable of dealing with those problems. It now has a PR system under which no agreement can be reached on anything. I fear for the economic future of New Zealand if tough decisions cannot be taken because of the horse-trading that has to ensue before any lowest common denominator decision can be taken. That is a fundamental point.
  I shall end my remarks with an appeal to the Minister to make a decision on this important matter. The Opposition would prefer it if the Government dropped the idea of a referendum. It is vital that we have a democratic system under which the people decide the outcome of a general election. We had mini PR systems in Scotland and Wales. After the parliamentary elections in Scotland, it was not clear who would govern in the Scottish Parliament. There was horse-trading with the Liberal Democrats, who disgracefully reneged on the pledge they made before the election to axe the student loans scheme, so the Scottish people did not get the outcome that they wanted.
  It is clear why it would be bad news to go down this PR route. It is important that the British people know that it is they who are in charge of the outcome of a general election, not politicians in smoke-filled rooms after it has taken place.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I join colleagues on both sides of the House in welcoming my new hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), whose confidence and eloquence are a taste of things to come. I am sure that he will contribute to many of our debates.
  I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. Prior to the 1997 general election, many people said that the Labour party's commitment to constitutional and democratic reform would be dropped were Labour to form a majority Government. In the past two years, we have
  1210
  remained absolutely true to the commitments that we made to renew our democracy. The commitment in our manifesto to hold a referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons was first made by the late leader of the Labour party, John Smith, and reaffirmed by the Prime Minister. It was the policy of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats at the general election.
  It is right that the decision on an issue as fundamental as how we elect the main Chamber of our Parliament should rest with the people. I hope that this debate will be held not just in this Chamber but in the country so that the people can participate. I welcome the Government's amendment, which reaffirms that policy.
  We are holding the debate in the light of the recent experience in Scotland and Wales and in the European elections. The low turnout in the European elections was a grave disappointment. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) quoted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary predicting that the turnout would rise. I was quaking slightly in my shoes, because I thought that he might quote me as I also predicted that. I still believe that there would be greater participation if we reformed our voting system, but I accept that that did not happen in the elections two weeks ago. However, I do not accept the argument that the voting system was the main or even a significant factor in the low turnout. We have something much more fundamental to deal with than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central made that clear.
  There is a disconnection between people and politics in this country, which was reflected in the poor turnout not only in the European elections but in the by-election in Leeds, Central and the local government elections, which were held under the first-past-the-post system.
  Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman have any sympathy for the voter in my constituency who wrote right across the top of his ballot paper for the European elections last week, "Give me back my vote"? He bothered to go to the polling station, but his vote did not count because he spoiled the ballot paper. He believes that power was taken away from voters and given to politicians.
  Mr. Twigg: I have sympathy for that voter's position, but the Home Secretary made it clear that fewer people spoiled their ballot papers in the European elections under the new proportional voting system than under the system of five years ago. I shall return to that point.
  During the passage of the legislation introducing the new system for European elections, which my right hon. Friend reaffirmed, the Government gave a commitment to review the closed list voting system. I was one of a number of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who made it clear that, although we supported the introduction of proportional representation and regarded such reform as a welcome advance, we would have preferred a different voting system that enabled the hon. Lady's constituent to vote for an individual.
  I hope that when the Government conduct their review they will consider the option of an open list voting system, as is used in some other European Union countries. That would retain the positive feature of our new PR system—that votes and seats broadly match—but would also enable people to choose between individuals as well as between parties. I hope that that point of view will win support in all parties.

  1211
  The debate on reform of the House is only just beginning. The Labour party is conducting a major internal consultation on the issue, and I hope that we will have a high level of participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) made the point that the Jenkins system is not a pure proportional representation system. Lord Jenkins and his colleagues have come up with a system that combines what is best about the British system, but changes what is bad. If a party has a clear lead—as Labour had in 1997 and the Conservatives had in 1983—it will still be able to form a majority Government, albeit with a smaller majority that more accurately reflects how votes were cast. That sensible reform will make for more effective government. It will also give more power and more choice to the voter, not more power to the parties.
  The closed list experience does not have much to teach us about the Jenkins proposals. Lord Jenkins proposes constituencies for the vast bulk of Members, combined with small open lists for the top-up, so that we get around the problems that hon. Members have identified with the closed list system.
  Mr. Jim Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as both of us survived the vagaries of a PR system in a previous career. Has he reflected on the fact that, in Scotland, the Labour party came first in the regional vote, but won no seats in seven out of the eight regional constituencies. In those regional constituencies, a Labour voter wasted his vote by voting for the Labour party. We must get beyond a system that allows people to waste their votes.
  Mr. Twigg: The number of wasted votes in the Scottish, Welsh and European elections was massively smaller than under the first-past-the-post system. The purpose of the second vote in the Scottish system is to compensate for the disproportionate outcome in the first vote. The Labour party did not win seats in the regions in Scotland under the top-up because it had already done well in the constituencies. Had we had first past the post in the Scottish elections, the Labour party would have won almost 80 per cent. of the seats with 39 per cent. of the vote. That cannot be justified in democratic terms.
  The Scottish Constitutional Convention, which brought together people from different parties and from the wider civic society in Scotland, concluded that it wanted a Scottish Parliament that reflected the diversity of opinion in Scotland. The anomaly to which my hon. Friend referred is a small price to pay for an Assembly or Parliament that more fully reflects the balance of opinion in Scotland.
  Ms King: Does not that show that we support PR on a point of principle? We want Parliament to reflect the population, but perhaps hon. Members should consider the small number of women in the Chamber. PR is the only way that we will have a representative democracy.
  Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend is right. One of the most positive features of the elections in Scotland and Wales was the high representation of women achieved with PR systems. I believe that 40 per cent. of the Members
  1212
  of the Scottish Parliament and 37 per cent. of the Members of the Welsh Assembly are women. There are lessons for all of us in that.
  Labour can take pride in the fact that we are pursuing the debate from a position of strength after an election in 1997 in which we secured two thirds of the seats in this House on the basis of 44 per cent. of the vote. Rather than turning our backs on the issue, we are proceeding with the debate and giving the people the opportunity to decide for themselves in a referendum. Lord Jenkins points out in his report that political parties' interest in electoral reform has tended to be inversely related to their ability to do anything about it. The Government have decided to let the people decide even though they are the main beneficiaries of the current system.
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mr. Twigg: I have given way several times and I think that I have about a minute left, so I should like to draw my remarks to a close.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) pointed out that this is an issue of principle. Proportional representation is often portrayed as involving horse-trading and deals behind closed doors. It is not about that. We want to confront the fact that people in this country are cynical about politics, democracy and politicians. We are all challenged to take that issue seriously. I do not pretend that voting reform for this place is a magic wand or a panacea that will solve all our problems, but we should recognise that our current method of doing things is not delivering the representative Parliament and Government that we all want. It is important to enable people to take part in the debate. We should not close the door on the debate by dropping our commitment to a referendum. We should proceed with the debate and have the referendum to enable the people to decide.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on his excellent and fluent maiden speech. I envy the way in which he carried out what many of us considered to be a parliamentary nightmare with such seeming ease and fluency.
  Whatever anyone's views on the current electoral system for this House, it has undeniably given us stable government over the past century. How would proportional representation alter the workings of our constitution, and what would be the consequences for the Cabinet system and for this House? The answers depend on the specific qualities of the electoral system and on the traditions and political culture of this country. A system of proportional representation rather than first past the post would cause complex and far-reaching upheavals to our constitution and to this House.
  Under a system that reflected the relative strengths of the parties, no single party would receive an overall majority. One of the major parties—almost certainly the largest party—would look for a partner to provide a majority in the Commons. However, that would lead to a pig-in-a-poke situation. Unlike Germany and Ireland, where parties usually say before a general election who they will support after the election, we have a tradition of

  1213
  the Liberals, the SDP alliance and the Liberal Democrats not telling the country in advance what they might do in the event of a hung Parliament. As a consequence, there would be great uncertainty immediately after a general election.
  We are all used to a swift transition of Government after a general election. In some ways, the transition is brutally swift. The alternative under PR would be delay, wrangling, haggling and deals in dark corners. We should not follow the example of other countries. In 1996 in New Zealand, it took more than two months to form a Government; in 1993–94 in Ireland, it took 77 days; it took 86 days in Austria in 1996; 126 days in Italy in 1979; 148 days in Belgium in 1988; and 218 days in Holland in 1977. I understand that, in Italy, on average four weeks of every year since the war have been spent haggling over who would form the Government.
  Haggling would inevitably draw the monarch into the system. There would be a serious danger of the monarch being drawn into party politics. As Vernon Bogdanor has rightly said:
  "When the incumbent Prime Minister resigned the monarch would have to decide whom to summon to the palace…This could involve the monarch unwittingly in party politics, for the candidate first called…would enjoy a considerable advantage over all rivals, since he or she would have both the political initiative and the authority to offer posts in a Government and would also acquire the aura of power which could well permit the formation of a Government even if he or she did not at first appear a likely choice as Prime Minister."
  If the political situation was tense, the monarch could easily be accused of favouring one side over another.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has suggested in the past that the way around the problem would be to devolve those powers from the monarch to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He wittily claimed that, in a three-party system, that would avoid replacing first past the post with first past the palace. I do not believe that the system would work, as it does in Sweden, because it would undermine the vital role of the Speaker in this House, who is independent and above party politics, by dragging the Speaker into party negotiations and bargains.
  Others have suggested that the best way to protect the monarch would be to develop conventions that would avoid placing them in a position in which they had to make politically controversial decisions. However well intentioned the idea, it would not work because it would not be easy for politicians to develop such conventions, for the simple reason that they would be required to accept the existence of constitutional rules that took precedence over party conflict.
  Similarly, PR has serious implications for the role of the Cabinet in the Commons. Coalition Government means a coalition Cabinet with members of different parties. That leads to the strength of the Prime Minister being undermined. There are conflicts over who can be sacked in a reshuffle and how, and over the drawing up of the Government's programme. The temptation for rows, internal wrangling and a do-nothing situation is overwhelming and condemns the idea.
  There is an argument that a weakened Government would lead to a strengthened House of Commons because the Government would have to listen to the House more and would not treat Back Benchers simply as Lobby fodder. However attractive that might be in theory to
  1214
  Back Benchers, I suspect that, in the real world, it would be unobtainable pie in the sky because, whatever the composition of the Government, the power of patronage and ministerial office, not to mention ministerial cars, remains. Where there is hope for Back Benchers, however thin, the power of the Executive will be dominant.
  I remain deeply opposed to the idea of proportional representation. It would be a disaster, and I share wholeheartedly the views expressed by the Prime Minister in The Economist in September 1996. He said:
  "I personally remain unpersuaded that proportional representation would be beneficial for the Commons… It is not a simple question of moving from an 'unfair' to a 'fair' voting system. An electoral system must meet two democratic tests: it needs to reflect opinion, but it must also aggregate opinion without giving disproportionate influence to splinter groups. Aggregation is particularly important for a Parliament whose job is to create and sustain a single, mainstream Government."
  Those words were right in 1996 when the Prime Minister wrote them and they are right now. After the most recent European elections, I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, the Prime Minister holds to that credo even more than when he wrote it three years ago. He probably rues the day that he ever embarked on the debacle of introducing proportional representation for those elections because of the Pandora's box that it has opened.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Alan Keen: I add my welcome and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on his excellent maiden speech and look forward to debating with him in future. I speak as secretary of the first-past-the-post group. I had no idea that my hon. Friend would speak today, but I, too, had Derek Fatchett's name in mind as he was chairman of the first-past-the-post group.
  We will not forget Derek for many reasons and that is one of them. I played cricket with him many times and went on two tours abroad with him. I knew Derek and his wife Anita very well. He was well-respected as a Minister in west London, where the hon. Member for Leeds, Central gave so much to politics. The Asian community there trusted him to deal with the politics of their native countries. It is sad that we no longer have Derek to pursue solutions to some of the tremendously difficult problems to which he applied his considerable skills.
  I oppose the motion and support the Government amendment because the Government are committed to a referendum on the issue. I am proud to be on the Government Benches. It is sometimes difficult to convince people that the Government have carried out so many of their promises, and that that was the case at the European elections. That is such a rarity.
  Over the years, there have been many debates on proportional representation, but, until recently, they have been theoretical. We have now experienced the practicalities and we have seen the results in Scotland and Wales. I shall leave the details to others, but it is worth repeating some of the points that have been raised.
  The slogan used by those in favour of proportional representation is "Fair Votes". Of course, in Scotland, fair votes helped them into government and that is hardly fair. Nobody can dispute that.
  Let me raise another concern. I have been to several party conferences held by those who advocate proportional representation. Anyone who has not done so

  1215
  should go along. It is interesting even for those of us who disagree. I always had the impression that most of the people who attended were either politicians or politicians to be. However, democracy is not really for politicians but for the people. We are here to carry out the wishes of the people and it is the people who really matter.
  The greatest example of public involvement in politics is what people do at general elections. However high an opinion we may have of ourselves, the public do not vote Governments in; they vote them out. If we introduce proportional representation, we shall take away for ever the electorate's strongest weapon. Under proportional representation, if, at the end of the term, the Scottish electorate decides that it has had enough of the Labour Government, I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats will disappear. If I were Foreign Secretary, I would come up with a wonderful argument as to why it would be good for the British public if I stayed on and worked with the other party. I would argue that the wonderful experience that I had had would be useful to a different Prime Minister. Even I could come up with that argument. I fear that, if we introduce proportional representation, we shall take away the public's final weapon.
  Mrs. Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a coincidence that Lord Jenkins should invent a system, the only beneficiary of which is the Liberal Democrat party?
  Mr. Keen: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: The point has been made that the commission was chaired by a Liberal Democrat peer. However, two of the other members of the commission are Labour peers, the fourth is a Conservative peer and the fifth is a civil servant. Does my hon. Friend think that they all set out to do something to benefit the Liberal Democrats?
  Mr. Keen: The coalition that put together the proposal shows what a coalition Government would produce. I attended the meeting in the Grand Committee Room when Lord Jenkins put his proposals. I recall a comment by an hon. Member who is also a Member of the Welsh Assembly. When Lord Jenkins introduced the proposals, he said that he had fought so many elections—I have forgotten how many—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, "I have fought a similar number of elections, but all for the same party."
  Some of the muddle associated with having representatives without constituencies occurred in my own borough the day after the European elections when the only Liberal Democrat MEP for London suddenly appeared in the headlines promising to save Chiswick pool. If she can do that, all credit to her, but it has absolutely nothing to do with her. That is what happens when Members do not have their own constituencies. They will be wandering about making publicity statements without any means of carrying out their promises. We must remember when we debate electoral systems that we are talking about what happens not just at the first election under proportional representation,
  1216
  but at the next election and the one after. It will not be possible for the public to judge who has done what and whether they should be re-elected.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman talks about the detachment of the elected person from responsibility. Does he agree that there is also a detachment from accountability, because people will not be able to judge how well or badly their representative has done? It has been said that, at the European elections, people felt that they could not pin responsibility on to an individual candidate. That robs ordinary men and women of their sense of what democracy is all about.
  Mr. Keen: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for his intervention.
  Although I understand that there are flaws in the system in respect of total votes, I support the first-past-the-post system. I serve my constituents in the best way that I can, although I do not always enjoy it. Only last Friday, I spent six or seven hours in my advice surgeries. It is pretty tough having to face people knowing that they are attacking the Government whom I support. Of course, they also attack the previous Government, but, after two years, it is difficult always to blame them. It is pretty tough facing people who do not have adequate homes—or have no homes at all—or people whose families have been left in Somalia or Kosovo and cannot be traced. I am the only person to whom they can turn for help. I make an effort to tackle Ministers as hard as I can to try to get a result. It matters to me because those people are my constituents. The main reason why I support first past the post is accountability.
  Finally, we should not restrict our research into voting systems to electoral reform versus first past the post. By that, I am not talking about allowing people to vote electronically.
  Most people do not like politicians. We think more of ourselves most of the time than they think of us—nobody here would disagree with that. The biggest complaint of electors is that they do not always get what they vote for. We should investigate the use of electronic media to allow voters to give their opinions, although I am not talking about referendums on every issue that comes along.
  We should look also at term limits, to limit the time that a Member of Parliament can serve. I would exclude from that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is worth 20 ordinary Members of Parliament. However, it is a principle that I should like us to look at. The President of the United States has a term limit of eight years, and there is a good reason for that. President Reagan—probably the last person whom I would have expected to become involved in arms reduction talks—made progress with Gorbachev because he wanted to achieve something before he had to relinquish office. When people argue whether that is a good thing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  6.21 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The point about any democratic electoral system is that it should give power to the people. The big problem with the

  1217
  proportional systems that we are discussing is that they take power away from the people and give it to politicians.
  Many points have been made comparing the AV-plus system to first past the post, and I shall not repeat them. However, any alternative vote system where candidates are listed in order of preference is most unfair and unproportional—exactly the opposite of the argument that Labour Members have made. If they are listed in order of preference, and nobody gets more than 50 per cent. of the vote, the votes of the least-popular candidate are redistributed. Once again, if no one gets more than 50 per cent., the votes of the second-least-popular candidate are redistributed yet again. In fact, the more eccentric the candidate for whom one votes, the more one's votes count, because the votes are redistributed two or three times. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has coined a phrase for this: "Vote wacky, vote often." That is what AV plus would do.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: If the system is so wacky, why does the Conservative party use it to elect its leader? When the hon. Lady talks about wacky candidates, is she referring to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), whose second preferences determined the outcome of the Conservative party's leadership election?
  Mrs. Laing: No, I am not. That was a quite different election in totally different circumstances. We are talking today about elections to this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is passionate about this subject and he makes his points eloquently. Sadly, he is wrong.
  Proportional systems lead inevitably to weak coalition Governments. One of the great strengths of our system is that, for most of this century—except in wartime—we have had strong and decisive Governments. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that the 1974 election was indecisive. He was right, but the right thing for the Prime Minister to do was to go back to the country and get a decisive result. That was what he did. It was not good for my party, but we are not arguing for the good of my party. We are arguing for the good of the country and, for that, we need strong, and not weak, Governments.
  The situation in Scotland is totally inequitable as, because of a coalition between the party that got the most votes and the party that got the least votes, the manifesto that is now being implemented in Scotland is one for which nobody voted. There is nothing fair about that. It is a mish-mash of one party' policies with those of another. The only fair voting system—the only one that is right for this House as a strong House of Parliament—is the one in which the person who gets the most votes, wins. It is as simple as that.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Alan Johnson: I was very impressed by the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). I tell people that I used to be a civil servant working for his father. Actually, his father was the Postmaster General when I became a postman—but it sounds better. It is a pleasure to have my hon. Friend in the House.
  We are talking about the Jenkins report, and our intention to give the British public a choice of whether they wish to change the voting system as
  1218
  it recommends. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time today whether he would vote yes or no. However, if we have a referendum, it will be not a yes or no vote, but a choice between first past the post—which is guaranteed to be on the ballot paper—and a new proportional system, as recommended by Jenkins.
  Some of the arguments of Conservative Members deserve to receive a platform in a wider debate about our electoral system. Today is the first time that I have heard the argument that we need first past the post to defend the monarchy. That is a new one, but let us debate the issue.
  The trouble is that we are debating a number of points upon which Jenkins has written elegantly, but which have not been read—for instance, the point about coalition Governments. We have heard over and over again that the principal benefit of our current system is that we do not have coalition governments. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that we have had, apart from wartime, no coalition Government this century.
  Jenkins points out that in only 64 out of the past 150 years in this Parliament has a Government ruled without coalition, dependence on a minority party or some form of co-operation. The principal benefit put forward by the supporters of first past the post is tackled successfully by the report.
  We have been asked to say that our experience of recent elections should cause us to think again. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made a witty speech, but it did not address the issues. His speech was rather spoiled by the revelation by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the right hon. Gentleman had voted for practically the same European system that we have just experienced.
  We are being asked to accept that it would have been better for the people of Scotland and Wales to have a different voting system—that our experience of a proportional system was so horrific that we needed to think again about having that system for Westminster. I have heard many views about the Welsh and Scottish system. However, I have heard no great complaints from the Welsh and Scottish people about the system. In suggesting that they might have been happier with first-past-the-post system, we are suggesting also that we could have had one-party elected dictatorships on the basis of 39 per cent. of the vote in Scotland and 37 per cent. in Wales. That is the real argument that can be made from the Welsh and Scottish experiences.
  Ms Claire Ward: My hon. Friend makes the point about percentages needed to gain a majority. In the Scottish Parliament elections, Labour gained 53 seats out of 72 seats with only 39 per cent. of the vote. That is hardly a recommendation for a change in the system for Westminster.
  Mr. Johnson: That is why the top-up is there. I remind my hon. Friend that it was the people of Scotland who voted in a referendum for a Scottish Parliament elected under a proportional system.
  The other great argument put forward against a proportional system concerns the constituency link. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) made the point eloquently, and it is a powerful argument for people who support the

  1219
  current system. The Jenkins system is not the Scottish system, or the Welsh system, or the European Union system: it is a system adapted to the Westminster model. The Jenkins proposals would strengthen the constituency link. For example, no one could be elected to represent a constituency on 25 per cent. of the vote—as happened in one constituency in 1992—because all Members would be elected on 50 per cent. plus.
  The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned the alternative vote system. It is used in many elections, including the elections to the Church Synod, for the leadership of the Conservative party—
  Dr. Julian Lewis: It has been scrapped.
  Mr. Johnson: That is another reason why the Conservatives are going backwards, not forwards. To come to this place with the support of more than 50 per cent. of the electorate strengthens the constituency link. The supporters of first past the post have another persuasive argument. They argue that people in constituencies need to vote for a name. A local Member of Parliament may manage to convince people that they should vote for him or her against their party allegiance. The Jenkins proposals would strengthen the constituency link by empowering the voter to decide whether their local Member of Parliament had persuaded them to vote for him or her, and still allow a say in who forms the Government because their top-up vote can be cast in another direction.
  Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Johnson: I am sorry, but I have not got time. The issue has been debated in the House all this century. A Speaker's Conference has considered the issue and decided we should change to a proportional system. A Hansard Society Conference came to the same conclusion. At every step, from 1910 to 1976, every analysis of the issue has suggested that we should change to a more proportional system, and the House of Commons has twice voted for a proportional system and been overruled by the second Chamber. Therefore, I believe that we should now take this issue outside this Chamber and go to the British people. Taking up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, let me say that, if we are to bring integrity back to politics, we should carry out our manifesto commitment and allow the widest possible debate. I am confident that, when the British public listen to the arguments, they will decide to change the system.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. William Ross: We are all aware that the motion calls on the Government to make up their mind where they stand on PR. The Unionist party's amendment sets out our position—namely, that the unsuitability of PR is well proven and that the House should say so and be done with it, in all its different forms in all of the United Kingdom. We have rather more experience of PR than anyone else, because we have used it for a long time.
  1220
  Our amendment would remove from the motion any reference to referendums, because they are not our favourite way of proceeding. They shift the decision from this House to the people, and that is a cop-out for Members of Parliament who are elected to exercise their judgment on behalf of their constituents after carefully examining the issues. That opportunity is denied to the vast majority of those who vote for us.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ross: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  This debate is timely, coming, as it does, when the electoral consequences of using the party list system for the first time in Great Britain is fresh in our minds. The recent election, although the turnout was very low, does hint at the power of PR systems to create new voting patterns among the electorate. Events in Great Britain are starting down the same route as has been followed in Northern Ireland, where the single transferable vote system has been used for many years for local government, European and Assembly elections.
  I well recall the despair of the opponents of the Unionist party when the province enjoyed the benefits of the simple majority system of voting. I recall equally well the squawks about the Unionist monolith and how it had to be broken down into the various components of that political movement. Those who sought to achieve that of course averred that, if only it were done, any reasonably sized block of the electorate could elect a representative of their own political view to whom they could appeal.
  The proponents of the change clearly believed that, if Unionism were splintered, all in the garden would be rosy and that we would all live happily ever after. I wish that that were so, but it has not happened. The opponents of first past the post clearly understood that PR systems do not draw political activists together into large broad-church parties: instead, they create divisions. The resulting smaller groups are then in endless competition with each other, within the watershed of their different major political philosophies—in Northern Ireland, essentially within the two dominant political elements: Unionism and Irish nationalism. The fissiparous nature and effect of PR systems meant that it became almost impossible to create a consensus on political action within the major blocs—never mind between them. That is still a factor in Northern Ireland.
  The first-past-the-post system presents the manipulators of party patronage with a great difficulty, in that they cannot control the selection of a particular candidate. We should all welcome that. Selection rests, by and large, with the local party and the electors, who happily and regularly select and elect people of whom the leadership does not approve. I wonder whether the esteemed father of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), who made his maiden speech today, would have been selected and elected if the party leadership had had the choice. Such dissident voices within the party structure are often vital new ingredients in precipitating internal debate and the evolution of party policies.
  The Home Secretary made an astonishing statement today when he said that the European Parliament was a representative body and not one from which a Government are drawn. It must follow that the

  1221
  Government favour a system which gives a clear-cut decision, and none does that better than the first-past-the-post system. I also am very much in favour of the capacity of the simple majority system to inflict occasional mass extinctions of particular groups of politicians. That is a painful experience, but it drives the critical re-examination of attitude and policy that is needed on occasion.
  PR systems create and perpetuate a situation in which a change of Government is hard to bring about, and even when it does happen, some of the minor groups remain almost permanently in Government, pushing, and pushing successfully, their own narrow agenda in order to improve their own position. Such systems also increase the power of the party elite and diminish the power of the electorate. In addition, some systems such as the single transferable vote enhance the electoral prospects of the most extreme elements. They are unrestrained by the discipline required in a large party and can be a corrosive influence on any society. I part company on that point with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), because it is not necessarily a party of the centre that forms the fulcrum of a hung Parliament or provides the numbers necessary to create a majority for the Government. It can be, and has in the past been, small extreme groups that have performed that role, and we should all deplore that.
  I have opposed proportional representation since it was first mooted in Northern Ireland. I see no reason to change my mind, either for Northern Ireland or for Westminster.
  6.40 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for curtailing his remarks. The Minister and I have agreed to accept the same inhibitions, so I hope to be forgiven for not giving way.
  The House has united on one matter in this debate—the quality of the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). It was splendid. He spoke with admirable eloquence, lucidity, wit and brevity. I know that he represents the fifth generation of his family to be here, but if he can keep up that performance, he will be a worthy follower of his father. Seeing father and son together during that maiden speech was one of the pleasantest sights of my many years in the House. I wish the hon. Gentleman an illustrious parliamentary career. If he can even begin to emulate his father as a parliamentarian, he will be an adornment to the House well into the next century.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central maintained another tradition by being non-controversial in his maiden speech and not giving us much of an inkling of his views. It was apposite that his tribute to his predecessor, Derek Fatchett—in which all hon. Members would wish to share—was echoed by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), who, in a very robust speech, reminded us that Derek Fatchett was chairman of the first-past-the-post committee.
  The House is at its best when there is no strict party division. In an excellent debate, and some good, robust speeches, both sides of the argument have been put. Sadly, I cannot include the Home Secretary's speech among them. The right hon. Gentleman gave us almost half an hour of genial waffle—indeed, he has been at his engaging best all day, as earlier he offered his mea culpa
  1222
  with great wit and panache. We understand that the Home Secretary could not admit that he was wrong for a second time, but he suggested that the Government would not hold a referendum in this Parliament. If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I shall of course give way to him, but his suggestion shows that the Government's election promise is already broken. If so, they may as well ditch it, and thereby please hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The status quo was defended in some splendid speeches—by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). However, I hope that they will forgive me for saying that the speech by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston really hit the nail on the head. He said that the great virtue of the present system was that it enabled the electorate to send a Government packing and indicate their dissatisfaction in a way that was impossible under an election system that resembles a football pools permutation.
  That speech should be read, marked and inwardly digested by every hon. Member in the House, and I commend the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston on it. It reminded me of this morning's broadcast by that doughty octogenarian Baroness Castle, who said that this country wanted hands-on politics. She said that the present system gave us that, and that other systems would not.
  There were defenders of change. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he could see a ripple spreading through the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is good on ripples, but he is not one to make waves. I suppose that we shall have to wait and see what happens, but the right hon. Gentleman's case was not convincing. Eloquent speeches were made by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), but none of them answered the questions about the Jenkins system.
  This debate was about the system for elections to this House. Specifically, it was about the Jenkins system, which has been offered as an alternative. That system would create second-class Members of Parliament who would not represent constituencies. They would not be as well regarded as those who do represent constituencies.
  The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk made the point that our system's greatest single virtue is that we represent all the electors in our constituencies. No system can be better than that.
  There was talk about 50 per cent. and Jenkins. A respectable way to achieve 50 per cent. and electoral reform is to have a two-round election, but no one suggested that. The extraordinary, pseudo-sophisticated document cooked up by Lord Jenkins and his cohorts is of no consequence and should be thrown away.
  In common with many hon. Members—and certainly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I love the House and most things about it. I even love the Liberal Democrats, when they get here on their own merits. However, I shrink at the prospect of an assembly of Yeovil clones or political Ovaltinies. That is what we

  1223
  would get if we moved towards proportional representation, and that is why the Liberal Democrats want it.
  I am old enough to remember the radio doctor. In one wonderful broadcast he castigated J.B. Priestley, that intellectual giant of the left. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will remember the occasion: at the end of the broadcast, the doctor said, "Chuck it, Priestley." When it comes to proportional representation, I say, "Chuck it, Straw. Chuck it, Blair. Get rid of it. It's no damn good to anybody." Proportional representation is a way of getting what no one really wants. It is the last refuge of the hopeless, and elevates to absurdity the doctrine of the underdog by enshrining the constitutional principle that those who never get chosen must always get a prize. Lewis Carroll would have been proud.
  No powerful or plausible argument has been made for the Jenkins system. As I said, the debate has been about how this House should be elected. The Prime Minister has nailed his colours to the fence on which he has sat for so long that the wobble has entered his soul, but he has said that Jenkins is the alternative.
  Jenkins will not be an improvement, so we should reject it. There is no point in putting the country to the absurd and time-wasting expense of a referendum on it. Perhaps a better system can be found for the country to consider, but I remain to be persuaded. We should vote tonight to show that the House of Commons is united in preferring a system that produces stable and proper Government.
  Those hon. Members who read English at university may remember the following verse.

  "I dreamt last night that Shakespeare's ghost

  Sat for a civil service post.

  The English paper for the year

  Contained a question on King Lear

  Which Shakespeare answered badly

  Because he hadn't studied Bradley."

  I was thinking of that the other day, and my version would be:

  "I dreamt last night that Gladstone's ghost

  Stood for a town on the south-west coast

  The electoral system then in force

  Meant he came first, but the seat was lost."

  That is what would happen if we supported Jenkins. We should see it off tonight and get rid of it. The Government have broken their pledge for this Parliament and should ditch it once and for all. Let us retain this Parliament as it always has been—properly elected according to a system that everyone understands. Most people regard that system as fair and sensible, and consider that it produces stable government.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): This has been a good debate, despite the partisan remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I congratulate the Opposition on giving us the opportunity to debate an important issue which exercises us all.
  1224
  I join all those who have sincerely congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on his maiden speech. A few of us—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) included—have been by-election candidates. It is always daunting to make a maiden speech, but to do so as the sole new intake is even more so. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently and with passion. His remarks about Derek Fatchett were well judged and a fine summary of a man who was a friend to many of us. We all look forward to further speeches from my hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was of course characteristically coy about his own views on proportional representation.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: What are the Minister's?
  Mr. Howarth: I shall come to that.
  One person has been missing from the debate, but frequently referred to—Lord Jenkins. It is a little unfair to those who sat on his commission that it is constantly referred to as though he alone did the work. Some worthy people worked long and hard to come up with the proposals.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: May I place it on the record that the one Conservative member of the Jenkins commission dissented, disapproved and distanced himself from its recommendations?
  Mr. Howarth: I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to get that off his chest.
  The terms of reference of the commission were as follows:
  "The Commission shall be free to consider and recommend any appropriate system or combination of systems in recommending an alternative to the present system for parliamentary elections to be put before the people in the Government's referendum.
  The Commission shall observe the requirement for broad proportionality, the need for stable Government, an extension of voter choice and the maintenance of the link between MPs and geographical constituencies."
  The proposals produced by the commission met those terms of reference as well as could be expected. I do not necessarily endorse the proposals, but the commission examined its terms of reference, and produced something as close to them as possible.
  Several hon. Members—in particular the right hon. Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen)—asked the great unanswered question about the Jenkins proposals. That question is whether the proposals would lead to different classes of Member in the House of Commons.
  No matter how we examine that point, there would inevitably be conflict if two people represented different parts of an area who were elected by different systems. Members would bid to see which of them should take on cases. For constituency work that ought to be clearly allocated, constituents would be able to shop around to find the Member most prepared to take on the case. It is inevitable that that would raise problems of identity. Who would represent the constituency? Would there be two

  1225
  classes of Member of Parliament? I suspect that there would, and Scotland and Wales will give us an opportunity to judge how that system will work.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was characteristically thoughtful. He mentioned the effect that the turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections had on the local government elections held the same day. He will recall that that was not the first time that wide-scale elections have coincided with local ones. In 1979, I stood for election not to this House but to Knowsley borough council, and the high turnout gave me a majority in my council ward far larger than those of many Members of Parliament.
  The right hon. Gentleman also talked about weekend voting, specifically on Sundays. As he knows, in some parts of the country—particularly in Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland—Sunday voting would create problems for people of certain religious denominations. Weekend voting would, however, resolve some turnout problems.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Leeds, Central said that we should consider electoral systems and procedures, but also how we conduct our politics. We must address the needs of communities and constituents to be at one with the communities that we serve. That principle is as important as the procedures and electoral systems that we adopt. Time prevents me from covering the other excellent speeches made.
  The Government and the official Opposition are divided on one simple point. No matter what point of view any Labour Member may have about which electoral system is most appropriate, we are prepared to leave it to the people to decide what the system should be.
  Miss Kirkbride: When?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: When?
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I cannot give way as there are only two minutes left. The answer to when the referendum will be has been so often given today that I need not repeat it. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary has handed me a note saying "one minute", but I do not think that he means that it will be held then.
  We need a wider debate that goes beyond the House. The House alone cannot decide how we elect Members of Parliament. If we involve the wider electorate, we shall achieve an electoral system in the country's best interests. In the long term, such a system would also be in the best interests of the House.
  We trust the people to make that decision. The Opposition must stop running away from the people. They must trust to the fact that some decisions are best taken by the people, not by the Members of the House of Commons.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister confirm that he means that the referendum will be in the next Parliament, not this one?
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 365.

  Division No. 218]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Amess, David

  Johnson Smith,

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Key, Robert

  Beggs, Roy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bercow, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lidington, David

  Brady, Graham

  Loughton, Tim

  Brazier, Julian

  Luff, Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brue, lan (S Dorset)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Burns, Simon

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Madel, Sir David

  Chope, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Norman, Archie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Paterson, Owen

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan

  Prior, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Randall, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Flight, Howard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ruffley, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gale, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gibb, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hawkins, Nick

  Thompson, William

  Hayes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wardle, Charles

  Hunter, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  1227

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Woodward, Shaun

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allan, Richard

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Coleman, lain

  Ashton, Joe

  Connarty, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Baker, Norman

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cotter, Brian

  Banks, Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Cranston, Ross

  Barron, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Begg, Miss Anne

  (Copeland)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Best, Harold

  Davidson, Ian

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Denham, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Borrow, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dowd, Jim

  Brake, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Breed, Colin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Huw

  Browne, Desmond

  Effort, Clive

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burgon, Colin

  Fied, Rt Hon Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  (NE Fife)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Foulkes, George

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Casale, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Caton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cawsey, Ian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Chaytor, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  1228

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Linton, Martin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gorrie, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lock, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grocott, Bruce

  McCabe, Steve

  Grogan, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gunnell, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonnell, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McFall, John

  Hanson, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Meale, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hurst, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  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, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pendry, Tom

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pike, Peter L

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Radice, Giles

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  1229

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rendel, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roy, Frank

  Todd, Mark

  Ruane, Chris

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ruddock, Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tyler, Paul

  Sawford, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watts, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Webb, Steve

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Singh, Marsha

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winnick, David

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

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wise, Audrey

  Spellar, John

  Wood, Mike

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Woolas, Phil

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wray, James

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stott, Roger

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that different electoral systems may be appropriate for elections to different institutions; commends the Government's commitment to let the final decision on the voting system for the House of Commons be made by the people in a referendum; and welcomes the Government's approach which allows for a full debate in the country on the merits of the Jenkins system before a referendum is held.

Business Statement
7.13 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a short business statement. Following the statement earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the business for tomorrow will now include, at the end of the Opposition day, a motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Revival of Parts IVA and IVB Order) 1999.
Sir George Young: In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said earlier today, the Opposition support the change of business outlined by the Leader of the House to put right the deficiency described by the Home Secretary.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I know is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Tom King: When the order is debated tomorrow, could there be a statement about how, for nearly a month, people could not be arrested on suspicion of planning a terrorist offence? That was known to the Home Office and to the Home Secretary for more than a month, yet nothing was done. That is a serious dereliction of duty. If a terrorist offence had been committed during that time, hon. Members can imagine what the consequences might have been: people could not have been arrested because such activities were not unlawful. The matter clearly needed to be dealt with urgently, and I understand that the order that has been produced—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is not the time to debate that issue. This is a business statement.
Mrs. Beckett: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to debate the order tomorrow, no doubt he will be able to do so. He has made the same point that he made earlier. Once the matter was drawn to his attention, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a duty to seek legal advice—and that process is usually not short in duration. Secondly, as I understand it, it was pointed out in earlier exchanges today that there are other measures on the statute book to deal with the issues in question. These are specific provisions that are considered necessary, but we are not without protection if we do not deal with them. However, it is considered important—and the Government believe it is important—to bring the measures into effect as speedily as possible.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The serious point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) notwithstanding, the House recognises that the Government have responded speedily to the situation, have made a business statement as quickly as possible and are dealing with the matter at an early opportunity. We welcome that fact and look forward to the debate tomorrow.
Mrs. Beckett:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising—as I hope do all hon. Members—that the

1231
Government could not anticipate that the House would be ready to deal with this matter so speedily. We are grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for being prepared to make an early change in the business.
Mr. Michael Howard: Given the Government's response to the invitation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I extended to the Home Secretary earlier this afternoon, it would be churlish of us not to welcome this change of heart. However, will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it is a change of heart, that this was not the Government's original intention and that the Government should have shown far greater urgency in restoring to the statute book measures that are needed to deal with these matters and which—contrary to what the right hon. Lady said a moment ago—are not covered precisely by the other existing offences? If they had been covered precisely by the other offences, there would have been no need to create these offences in the first place.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I accept that the matters are not covered precisely. However, he will understand—I suspect better than many—the point that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier today. We are not utterly without cover when it comes to such matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a change of heart and the need for greater urgency. I remind him—I say this with respect; it is not a criticism—that he does not, perfectly understandably, spend a great deal of time considering the business of the House and other matters of such rather arcane detail.
It has been, and is, the consistent view of Opposition Members—I do not attack them for it; it is perfectly reasonable for them to hold such a view—that the Government should give proper notice of changes in business and that they should be respectful of the wishes and the will of the House. The Government have responded with as much alacrity as was conceivable to the signals from those on the Conservative Benches that they were prepared to make an early change in the business and to debate the matter with the utmost urgency. I do not think we can be blamed for that.
Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady will reconsider her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). She said that we did not need to worry about
1232
the months that were lost because we "were covered"—those were her words—by other legislation. If we were covered by other legislation, why has the right hon. Lady come to the House now to urge us to deal with the matter urgently? Does she not understand that it does not take a month to obtain legal advice about such an issue? The Government have got it wrong and the right hon. Lady is the unfortunate person who must answer to the House because of it.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to put into my mouth words that I have not uttered. I reject those words. I did not say that there was no need to worry. I simply said that we were not utterly without statutory protection—which is the same point that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier. The right hon. Gentleman knows that better than anyone.
It is perhaps not entirely within the best traditions of the House to take the attitude and approach that is being taken at the moment by those on the Conservative Benches, as if my right hon. Friend has been in some way grossly derelict in his duty. He is an extremely conscientious Minister and he is assiduous in his duty to the House and the honour that he pays to its traditions.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend should be criticised for not taking it for granted that the House would be prepared to do anything that the Government wished to restore the provisions to the statute book, at about 10 seconds' notice. Rather, he is to be congratulated on his readiness to recognise that the House might want further notice and on his ability to move speedily when it became clear that the House was prepared to accept the urgency of the matter.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: Can the right hon. Lady explain why the Home Secretary seemed to imply this afternoon that the matter needed to be remedied, but could be remedied in due course? There appeared to be no hurry whatever. How can it be that he has suddenly changed his mind? Will she accept that only pressure from my right hon. Friends and myself this afternoon has brought the urgency of the matter to the Government's mind?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not accept any of that, and my right hon. Friend did not give any indication that he thought that this was a matter of leisure and of lack of urgency. He paid proper respect to traditions, to the request for notice and to the understandings in the House that Members should have notice of what is being debated and that the consent of the House should not be taken for granted. In my view he should be given credit for that, not blamed for it.

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
7.21 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may not be the only Member who might be tempted to raise issues related to Christ Church, Oxford, to St. George's, Windsor, or to Westminster abbey, but we gather from the report from the Ecclesiastical Committee that the Measure does not apply to either St. George's or to Westminster abbey and only in small part to Christ Church. Could we have guidance on how far we able to refer to events at those three places of worship in the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The answer is simply that it will be in order to refer to those institutions in general terms, as far as they relate to the matter we are debating, but it will not be in order to go into any detail about events that have happened in those establishments, which may be what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
7.22 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Measure to the House, not only because it represents a significant step in the process of affirming and strengthening the role of the cathedrals of the Church of England, which are a vital part of the life of the Church, the life of the nation as a whole and our national heritage, but because that process has been initiated and supported by the cathedrals themselves and because the Measure reflects much of the best practice which cathedrals have already adopted.
Much of the Measure deals with the governance of the cathedrals. The existing legislation was laid down more than 35 years ago. Under it, different cathedrals have adopted a variety of structures, and not all of them are equally suitable for the 21st century. A number of cathedrals have attempted to update those structures, but, under present legislation, that means going through a fairly lengthy and complex procedure. Partly as a result of that, and also because of a desire to review the working of the cathedrals as a whole, the cathedrals asked the two archbishops to set up a commission to examine those issues.
The commission, under the chairmanship of Lady Howe of Aberavon, had broad terms of reference and its report, "Heritage and Renewal", which was published in 1994, covered many aspects of the life of the cathedrals. The commission's recommendations were widely welcomed and are being taken up in various ways. The Measure stems from the main recommendations, which can be implemented only by legislation.
The Measure will set up a single framework for the efficient, effective and transparent governance of all cathedrals, providing the governing bodies with proper support, ensuring accountability and encouraging effective links with the bishops and the diocese as a whole. The governing body will be a new chapter,
1234
which will be a different body from the existing chapters in some cathedrals. It will include the senior cathedral clergy, the dean and the residentiary canons, but it will also include others, including a proportion of lay people. A number of cathedrals already have people other than the cathedral clergy on their governing bodies and I am sure that they would vouch for the advantages that that brings.
The chapter will be supported on financial matters and investment management by a finance committee, which will include people with financial expertise. There will also be an administrator, who may be a voting member of the chapter. Again, that reflects what is already happening in a number of cathedrals.
A new feature is the creation of a council—a larger body to which the chapter will be accountable—with a chairman chosen by the bishop. That body will also consider the budget prepared by the chapter and decide on any future changes to the cathedral's constitution within the terms of the Measure. In addition, there will be a college of canons, including almost all the cathedral clergy and, in particular, the honorary canons or the prebendaries, who are often parish priests in the diocese. In some cathedrals, lay canons will also be included. The college will receive an annual report from the chapter.
There must be a roll of the worshippers at the cathedral and members of its parish, should it have one, or of members of the wider "cathedral community" should there be no parish. The cathedral community will also be represented on the council. All that provides a framework, setting out a basic and common structure of organisation and accountability. However, each cathedral is justly proud of its traditions and the cathedrals operate in varying local contexts and circumstances. Thus, the Measure deliberately allows a good deal of flexibility to cathedrals within the basic framework so that they can take all those factors into account.
The Measure sets out to make the constitutions of the cathedrals responsive to future needs by making the process of change much simpler while ensuring that clergy and laity have a right to make representations about what is proposed. Above all, the Measure provides that everyone who has functions under it must have regard to the basic purpose of the cathedral—namely, that it is the so-called "seat" of the bishop of the diocese and a centre of worship and mission.
The Measure received overwhelming support from the General Synod, and I know that many cathedrals are enthusiastically preparing to implement it should it be passed by the House and by the other place shortly. It will help the cathedrals to continue to play their important role in the life of the Church and of the nation effectively in the years to come. I therefore invite the House to approve the Measure.
7.29 pm
Mr. Robert Key: We are very grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), the Second Church Estates Commissioner, for introducing the Measure and thank him for all the work he has put in over the past year and more. We are also grateful to the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Out in the real world, people do not know what the Ecclesiastical Committee is, and I think they assume that it is an ad hoc Committee of fully paid-up members of the

1235
Church of England—that, of course, it is not. It is a Committee of both Houses and of all parties and none, notably cross-Benchers in the House of Lords, and of all denominations and none. It was set up to ensure that Church of England legislation impacts reasonably on the citizens of this country—of whatever denomination, or none, they may be.
The Committee consists of a number of distinguished hon. Members who have given a great deal of service, and none greater than my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who has served some 28 years on the Committee. We congratulate him on that. Two members of the Committee represent cathedral cities—Exeter and Southwark. I had anticipated that they would be here tonight and had hoped to refer to them, but neither took part in the relevant proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee, either the examination of witnesses or the decision to agree that the Cathedrals Measure was expedient on 18 June 1998. However, it gives me great pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) here as he represents St. Paul's cathedral.
May I declare an interest at this point? I am a member of the guild of stewards of Salisbury cathedral. That is not some grand office; it simply means that I take the collection and welcome visitors. To those who work in our cathedrals, particularly volunteers, the kerfuffles in the abbey and the events at Lincoln have an air of virtual reality—or, indeed, complete unreality in some cases. At Salisbury, the dean and the precentor, above all, keep an eye on the stewards. We all know that there are stewards and stewards. Those of us who visit other cathedrals around the country know that some stewards are pompous, some are vain, some are control freaks, some are quick-witted and some are otherwise, and some are over-enthusiastic with visitors.
When one is a steward, one never quite knows what will happen. One never knows where the processions will go; one is not sure whether there should be incense or not, and what difference that will make; one never knows how many people will turn up for Sunday school; and one does not know whether to use two bags or three for the collection, and whether they will be dropped. Those are the realities of life in a cathedral, as opposed to the legalistic discussion that the Ecclesiastical Committee has enjoyed over the past year or so.
Volunteers in cathedrals must now be aware of health and safety rules. They must know how to evacuate a cathedral, how to give medical assistance—I vividly recall running out of aspirin for somebody a couple of weeks ago in Salisbury cathedral—and how to cope with revellers at midnight services and interrogations from earnest American visitors seeking tombs. A couple of weeks ago, I was challenged by an American claiming that his ancestor was St. Margaret of Scotland and asking where her chapel was. Fortunately, I knew the answer. Unfortunately, we also have to cope with the grief of the stricken, the downhearted and the bereaved.
The cathedral communities are rich and rounded, and it is a privilege to serve in them. I have known Salisbury since I was two years old. I recall lighting the Christmas tree in Salisbury cathedral 50 years ago.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The tree or the candles?
Mr. Key: I lit the candles, not the tree. Now, candles are too dangerous and we have to have twinkling little electric lights, which are a bit twee. Never mind, they are still wonderful.
My late father was the Bishop of Sherborne, which is a suffragan of Salisbury, and later of Truro. My son was a chorister in Salisbury and my daughters attended the Sunday school.
I have discussed the Cathedrals Measure with my bishop and my dean, and I have read the Measure and the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Incidentally, I have met the Dean of Westminster to discuss the administration of the abbey and the issue of Royal Peculiars.
I support the Measure, although I do so with some regrets. First, I regret very much the deeply damaging fiasco at Westminster abbey concerning its most distinguished former organist. That should simply never have occurred. Due process of law has now been followed, at substantial cost. To most people, the outcome remains unhappy and unsatisfactory.
Inevitably, all of that drew in the Royal Peculiars. I appreciate and agree that they are quite different from cathedrals, and in due course proposals may be put to the Ecclesiastical Committee by the legislative committee of the Synod. The bad press surrounding all of that was deeply wounding to all those involved, not just in Westminster abbey, but throughout the Church, however humble their function—passing the collection bags—or much more exalted occupations. I shall draw a line under that subject, because I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to refer to it.
My other regret and reservation is that the ancient statutes of our cathedrals have worked most of the time and in most cathedrals. However, synodical government has not worked particularly well since its introduction. It has undermined the authority of the archbishops, bishops, deans, chapters and parish priests in the name of wider participation and greater accountability. Ultimately, however, it has done little to increase either.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: A number of us would not necessarily agree with what my hon. Friend said about Westminster abbey, although this is not the place to have that discussion. Lack of defence should not therefore be taken as all-round agreement.
On synodical government, does my hon. Friend accept that many archbishops have said that synodical government is pretty grim, but that it might be slightly less grim than taking all stages of Church legislation through this House, which would have been the alternative?
Mr. Key: The archbishops may agree with that, and I am sure that they do not want to have a grim life and will do anything to make it a bit easier. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said: I regret the diminution in the authority of bishops in the Church of England and, indeed, other bishops.
The bishops are under great pressure. Indeed, they have never been under greater pressure and I deplore the unwarranted attacks that are made on them from time to time. I leap to the defence of my bishop, who was accused

1237
by a Sunday tabloid of leading an extravagant life style, with champagne breakfasts and all the other nonsense that goes with that. It is important to get this matter in perspective and to realise that a senior diocesan bishop earns about half the pay of a Member of Parliament and about the same as the head of a village primary school in my constituency. Just as business men do not count their offices, their secretaries or their expenses as income, nor do bishops—quite properly. The same applies to journalists, council staff or anybody else. It is hypocrisy of a high order to attack bishops, deans or any other members of the clergy, who are, by any standards, modestly paid, on those grounds.
Cathedrals, however, have become big business. They now call for a new quality of leadership and management, which was not needed 50 or even 10 years ago. The lay functions involved in running our cathedrals have grown enormously, as have the responsibilities for the fabric, the worship, the music and the volunteers. Even responsibility for the sandwiches and cups of tea has grown out of all proportion. It has sometimes been wounding to volunteers when they have had to be told that things have become so professional that they simply cannot keep up with the requirements.
Above all, the Measure entrenches and spreads best practice, much of which already exists. For example, since I first had the privilege of worshipping in Salisbury cathedral, the numbers involved in the life of the cathedral have risen dramatically. There are two choirs instead of one, and we established the first girls' choir in the country. The cathedral school has grown, and the responsibilities of the chapter office have increased. The cathedral's budget has risen, as have the charges for entering the cathedral, which is visited by tourists from all over the world. However, it must be said that the heating and the sound systems work, thanks often to the friends of the cathedrals, who meet much of the cost.
The cathedral close no longer looks tatty as it did when I was a child. Indeed, it may have gone a little far in the other direction and have become something of a millionaires' row, with all respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who occupies a house in the close. He is very welcome.
Management problems for our cathedrals have also increased. Above all, the number of worshippers has risen dramatically. I remember how empty Salisbury cathedral was when I was a child, and I attended most Sundays. By comparison, today congregations are measured in hundreds on an ordinary Sunday and by thousands at the great festivals. We should acknowledge that.
Congregations are up, and the electoral roll is up. Salisbury has an electoral roll of 504 this year. The offertory fund is up: we are paying our way as a congregation. The fund stood at £127,000 last year. Last year, the guild of stewards, of which I am a junior member, undertook 1,480 individual duties at 315 services. And we should not forget the 56 "holy dusters" who keep the stalls, the lights and so on clean and shining bright.
Let us put this in perspective. The Measure is intended to spread best practice. Those of us who serve in cathedrals are proud to do so, and the Measure gives an added dimension to the quality of our lives while, hopefully, giving something back to our communities.
I have not dwelt on the legalistic issues. I simply wanted to say, on behalf of those who work as volunteers in our cathedrals, that I for one support the Measure.
7.41 pm
Mr. Frank Field: It is always a pleasure to speak in debates on Church matters, because of the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) introduces them. Anyone who was unsure of what the Measure was about will, after hearing his speech, understand what we are discussing.
Debates such as this sometimes reveal the most unexpected circumstances. This evening, we have seen someone who is normally one of our more liberal and free-spirited Members making what I would describe as a rather ugly rush at the Chair, taking on the role of censor and trying to prevent others from making, in their simple and humble way, the contributions that they think best. I applaud the way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gently pushed the rush aside.
I know of the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley)—I shall call him my hon. Friend—has had both in London and in his constituency. He is astute enough as a politician to be aware of that, in the crucial run-up to a general election two years hence, he must widen his appeal. He must not appeal just to more liberal spirits in his constituency; there is also the authoritarian side, and their votes. He is clearly after those votes, and he is happy to use a Church Measure to show that there is an even nicer side to the face that we already know.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I accept my right hon. Friend's chiding.
I suspect that I am not the only person to have read many books by the Dean of Westminster. I think them well worth reading, and I commend them to those who concern themselves with these matters.
For some reason or other, for 20 years I failed to be appointed to the Ecclesiastical Committee, having been a trustee of Christian Aid and chairman of the Church of England Children's Society. I watched with frustration as the committee engaged in all sorts of discussions. If I suspected that this Measure would lead to a rerun of what was in the publicity—I am sure that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention—I would find that equally frustrating.
Mr. Field: We now see a third side to my hon. Friend's character. We see not only the free spirit and the authoritarian, but the angst that he feels as a result of his exclusion from the Ecclesiastical Committee. When there is the possibility of an open debate, he tries to undertake your task, Mr. Deputy Speaker—an attempt that you gently rebuffed—in deciding what we can and cannot discuss.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I do not think that we should ever, in any way, abuse our position or privilege in the House. During the debates that will follow from the Measure, I shall be happy to repeat outside the House what I say inside. I am sorry if that adds yet more to the administrative costs of our abbey across the road.
I discussed how we should approach the debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She, too, is worried about what has gone on in the abbey. When I talked to her about it yesterday, I said that I had two particular questions in mind. First, if this reform had been in place at the time,

1239
could the scandal at Lincoln have been prevented? Secondly, if it had been in place, could the scandal at Westminster abbey have been prevented?
We know that there is to be a special inquiry into the Royal Peculiars, and I shall return to that shortly. However, while discussing the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I reflected that, because there is much to be said about the abbey, we ought to ask for a special debate on the subject. That would enable us to discuss not just that long-standing and sad saga, but much of the information that has come to light more recently.
For example, at the weekend, we read in The Sunday Times that some members of the chapter are being given loans, as though the abbey were some sort of merchant bank. We know from the accounts that have just been published that administrative costs have risen by nearly two thirds. I would guess that that increase—an increase of more than half a million pounds—is largely to do with the legal fees incurred. We also note that the abbey gives only 1 per cent. of its income to charitable causes, although Synod—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough—has said that we should give 5 per cent. of our income to such causes. But it would be wrong to try to bring issues concerning the abbey into the debate—indeed, you would not allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and I will therefore seek time for a proper debate about what we think has been going on there.
Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would no doubt have protected the privileges of Back Benchers if they had wished to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West that one of the reasons why the Measure will have such a smooth run is that the Church has announced an inquiry into the Royal Peculiars. Tonight's debate might have been slightly different if that inquiry had not been announced.
Let me end by issuing a plea to the inquiry. I beg it not to get things out of proportion, and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is clearly an issue regarding what happens in an institution that is a Royal Peculiar when some person behaves badly, and may have to be sacked; and it is clearly immensely difficult if the head of the organisation involved is our monarch. I hope, therefore, that the inquiry will be limited in what it seeks to do. I hope that it will help to answer the question that I have raised, and will not rein back on the special privileges enjoyed by the abbey, St. George's chapel, Windsor and the other Royal Peculiars. I think that it adds immensely to the quality of life in this country that people can do things differently in different places. It would be sad if, because of the serious problems that the abbey has experienced, we encouraged the inquiry to make the Royal Peculiars uniform with other cathedrals.
I shall, in the normal way—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, and, no doubt, other hon. Members in other parties—seek time for a debate enabling us to look properly at what has happened at the abbey. I end, however, by saying again that I am more than happy to repeat outside what I say under privilege here.
7.49 pm
Mr. John Gummer: We are discussing, in a very pleasant atmosphere, a Measure presented by the Church of England that is intended to regulate the way in which cathedrals are run. I believe it to be the most far-reaching Measure on this subject that has been presented to the House since 1833, when an ecclesiastical titles Measure removed a large number of members of the cathedral bodies of the time as well as a number of bishoprics in Ireland, where there were few worshippers but many bishops. Two Bills were presented at about the same time, both as a result of the great Reform Bill. So it has been a long time since any serious thought was given to the matter of cathedrals.
The House should recognise that part of the reason why such thought has not been necessary is that cathedrals' structure has been sufficiently flexible that, in different ways and at different times, they have been able to move in meeting the needs not only of the nation but of the diocese that each serves. I therefore share the concern of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the various establishments' flexibility—which is so important—and the differences between institutions should not be lost in seeking to find a solution to fundamental difficulties that have arisen.
I hope that it will not be misunderstood if I say that one of the problems with cathedrals goes right back to the point in the Reformation when rather different bodies became cathedrals. Until then, those bodies had not been of a cathedral type. A very few of the bodies became Royal Peculiars, and others became the seat of the diocese's bishop. The latter bodies long met a perceived need, but were also burdened with having to carry the weight of the establishment.
There is no doubt that there was some heaviness in the type of structure that those bodies inherited. That was the basis of the 1833 reforms, in which those whom we now call honorary canons became honorary, rather than receiving significant emollients. The reforms were also the background to the novels of Trollope, who was writing about an earlier time in which people such as Vesey Stanhope spent most of the year in Italy, while paying a small sum to someone else to sing the services for which he was responsible. Vesey Stanhope returned only when the appalling Bishop Proudie discovered what had been happening.
Although that type of cathedral has long since gone, there are still those who have operated within the new structure in a way that is difficult to understand, causing great scandal. It would be wrong to deny that the Measure is the result of that fact. On this occasion—unlike that of the churchwardens Measure—the Church of England has not found a solution and then sought a problem. It had a problem and had to find a solution, and this Measure is that solution.
The Ecclesiastical Committee had to consider why the Measure should not affect all institutions of a similar type. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that it would perhaps be better if we referred to none of those institutions. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the truth is that the Measure has taken so long to be considered by the House because, had it come to the House before the Church of England—finally, after all the pressure—decided that it would investigate and produce a report on

1241
the Royal Peculiars, the Measure probably would not have been passed. Hon. Members would have had to say: "Until there is proper provision for all similar institutions, it is not possible to pass this limited Measure." That was the very strong feeling of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and it would be odd not to refer to those situations and conditions, even if only in passing.
I am sad about several aspects of the Measure. The first is that it is necessary, essentially because a small number of individuals failed to resign when they should have done. A mid-western American Catholic bishop was asked what he thought about the conduct of the current President of the United States. He said, "It is very simple: it is very odd that he didn't realise that he needed to resign." He made no other comment on the matter. However, that comment was very interesting, as it seemed very clearly to apply also to at least two people who have been at the heart of our debates on the matter. Had they resigned, I doubt whether this legislation would have been needed at all.
The legislation is convenient and will sort out some issues, and the Church of England—which has moved from hierarchy to bureaucracy without any intervening stage of democracy—is very pleased about it, because it is neat. I believe that neatness is the enemy of civilisation. I am therefore sad that we shall now have a neater Church of England, simply because some people failed to recognise that they should resign.
We shall—compounding the sadness—now have to have more committees. I have been both an Anglican and a non-Anglican, and have therefore seen the Church from both inside and outside. Although it forced me out, I still love it. It has so much of importance. But I still despair of the constant desire to solve all its problems by establishing yet more committees.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), in his charming way, in all fairness, could not describe the Measure without mentioning how the committee structure would be changed—for that is at the heart of the proposals. The new Church of England's answer to all problems is: "Another committee, with wider reference and greater connection with more people." I really wonder whether that will forward the Kingdom of God—which, oddly enough, is what cathedrals are supposed to do.
I found that part of the debate particularly bleak, for it proposes a bureaucrat's solution. I am not at all sure that the House should not be considering a rather different Measure—one to get rid of committees, to reduce bureaucracy, to close down Church House entirely, and instead to allow the Church of England to reform itself from bottom up. I am sure that such a Measure would not have done more for all Britain's cathedrals than almost anything else. Nevertheless, that is not what we are doing. We are considering a Measure that is designed so to trammel and confine the cathedrals of our land that those for whom eccentricity became positively dangerous might be stopped.
I am sad also that members of the Ecclesiastical Committee have had to press for the same trammelling to apply to three other institutions that, unaccountably, are omitted from the Measure.
The House does not consider this type of Measure in debates on Second Reading, in Committee, and in other stages. I am therefore thinking that this debate is a mixture of all those stages, and hope that it will be in order to
1242
refer to matters that are not dealt with in the Measure. One such matter is the application of the Measure's provisions to Christ Church, Oxford, to St. George's chapel, Windsor, and, of course, to Westminster abbey.
We have just seen a remarkable example of how St. George's, Windsor is able to contribute to national life, and we already knew the fascinating mixture that is Christ Church, which is both a college and the cathedral of the Oxford diocese. They demonstrate the curious differences between the types of institution that this type of legislation has to cover.
Unfortunately, Westminster abbey has not been a good example of such flexibility. I endorse the request made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for a full-scale debate on the situation at the abbey, not least because of the revelations in relation to its accounts. I should also like to address the general issue of cathedral accounts—which I am not at all sure is addressed in the Measure. Cathedrals are now in receipt of large sums of money and happily, at long last, the state has begun to recognise that the whole community, not just those who go to church, has a responsibility to keep the roof on. We are one of the meanest countries in the world in terms of our support of the churches. It is a sad thing, but it is true. The cathedrals now have rather more than they did, but often it is not enough. They also receive money from tourists. No cathedral or similar institution receives as much as Westminster abbey.
It is proper for parliamentarians to ask how that largesse is used on behalf of all of us. In an odd way, the cathedrals are an example of stewardship. The general run of them were not built by the Church of England. They were seen as different institutions historically and they are under guardianship on behalf of many others in the Church of England. I hesitate to say this, but it is interesting to see how much larger a proportion of a much smaller income is used for charitable purposes by Westminster cathedral at one end of Victoria street compared with Westminster abbey. It is proper to ask why, and who makes such decisions.
It is also proper for us to know more about the uses to which the money raised from tourists and others is put, but my last point is about the individuals involved. I was brought up in a cathedral city. I went to a cathedral school and my father was a member of a cathedral chapter, so I declare an interest over a considerable length of time. Cathedrals are able to operate because of the devoted work of large numbers of people, many of them lay people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said. We need to make sure that those people can play a full part in the mission of the cathedral.
Cathedrals are not there to be historic monuments. They are there to provide a witness of the enduring power of the faith of Jesus Christ. We ought not to have a debate such as this without talking in those terms. If we fail to do that, we miss out the central issue. Perhaps, in that context, I can say what grieves me most about the need for this legislation and the legislation that we are likely to see very soon. There is something about the structure of cathedrals today that enables people to feel that they are theirs and that they have certain comfortable positions which it is almost improper to suggest ought to be very carefully thought through.
I am not sure that every member of a cathedral chapter has a job description or proper targets for what they ought to be doing. That sounds very oddly modern, but if we

1243
are to have a bureaucratic Church let us have some of the advantages of modern bureaucratic practice. If the Dean of Westminster carefully considered what his job description ought to be, which I think him not to have, he might, indeed I think he would, agree with me that there comes a moment when it is best for the sake of everyone to go. Were that to have happened, I doubt whether this House would have had to ask for another Measure to follow this one. If it had happened in two other cathedrals, I doubt whether we would have had to have this Measure.
The reason why I care about the matter so passionately is that we live in a society in which variety is increasingly difficult. Everyone needs to be within a defined box lest something goes wrong. The people who make that variety so difficult to uphold are the individuals who, when they have used the power that they have been given beyond reasonable limits, do not recognise that their independence demands the responsibility to know when to go.
The Measure is before us because two people did not know when to go. The one that is coming will be before us because one other also failed in the responsibility to the independence and variety which has up to now been the glory of our cathedrals and has explained why for 160 years we have not had to have a debate.
8.6 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall make only a brief speech. My speech was to some extent contingent on the way in which the debate went. I declare an interest, at least at this moment, as a lay adviser to St. Paul's cathedral since 1980. The lay body owes its origins to the great late Launcelot Fleming, who, as Bishop of Norwich, was responsible for the creation of lay advisers to that cathedral taken from across the diocese. The chance that Alan Webster came to St. Paul's after having been the Dean of Norwich meant that the idea was then developed at St. Paul's. Launcelot Fleming went on to become the Dean of St. George's, Windsor and thus has a walk-on part in our debate.
The lay body of St. Paul's has had the considerable benefit of the advice of Lady Howe of Aberavon, to whom the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred. It was valuable advice. I understand that the dean and chapter of St. Paul's welcome the Measure. The lay body to which I have belonged for 19 years will cease before the millennium and the new body that will be created under the Measure will take over.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has now left the Chamber. In the context of his references to the Ecclesiastical Committee, I shall simply remark that I have never sought to be a member of the committee and I have suffered no distress to my psyche from the fact that I have not so served.
I could not be unaware, however, of the involvement of certain right hon. and hon. Members in the matter of Westminster abbey. I mention wholly neutrally and without any angst the fact that there were no particular contacts with me at the level of constituency courtesy about those involvements. I feel no angst because I have been long accustomed in my 22 years in the House to the fact that the majority of my colleagues regard my constituency as the equivalent of the district of Columbia—without any democratic representation at all.
1244
Those who would be deeply hurt and offended if I were to appear in their constituency without having sent them a postcard have no hesitation in traversing my constituency in hobnail boots. That is not a reference to the manner in which people have behaved in this matter, but I hope that a brief reference to events at Westminster abbey is in order—events to which allusion has been made by one or two other participants in the debate.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for not pressing the matter in the context of the debate, other than in the references that they have made, but it is fair to say that they have made certain animadversions. The dean and chapter have accepted Lord Jauncey's judgment. The only observation that I would make—I am touching on things that have been said before—is that the dean and chapter in the matter to which oblique reference has been made sought to work within the employment law of this country, not under any special jurisdiction or position that the Royal Peculiar afforded them.
I have only once appeared—I think that this is relevant—in an industrial relations tribunal case. It was, in the light of subsequent developments, a fairly remarkable case to have participated in, as my counsel was the present Lord Chancellor and the pupil whom he brought to the case was the present Prime Minister. It is to the credit of both those right hon. Gentlemen that we won the case.
However, I learned from that experience that one of the most disagreeable features—my brother is a lawyer although I am not—of being involved in any such case is the very firm advice that one receives from lawyers that one must not behave in as open and generous a manner in the ordinary conduct of business as one would naturally wish to do with someone with whom one has worked closely in the past. It is a very disagreeable condition to be in; I have been in it myself.
Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would accept the following: many of us feel that when Christians deal with other Christians, every effort must be made not to go to law. I believe that that is actually a gospel demand. The issue—it was the issue long before the employment rules were reached—is what was referred to in Lord Jauncey's judgment about the rules of natural justice. I want to go further and suggest to my right hon. Friend that perhaps the true concern is that people did not behave as brothers at the beginning, but allowed the situation to develop until lawyers got involved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: once the lawyers get involved, it is very difficult to be charitable.
Mr. Brooke: I am reasonably sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to follow my right hon. Friend down that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite correct. I think that we are now in danger of having the debate that we must not have.
Mr. Brooke: I anticipated your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so my right hon. Friend's words will be in the Official Report and no words that I might say in response will be—but then he is a much more shrewd and cunning parliamentarian than I am.

1245
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead for not seeking to hold up the Measure this evening. In areas outside the Peculiars, it is obviously welcomed by deans and chapters up and down the land, so it is a thoroughly good thing that it should proceed.
As to the commission that has been appointed in connection with the Royal Peculiars, I understand that the dean and chapter of Westminster welcome that; as their local Member of Parliament, I certainly do, too.
If the authorities of the House were to pay due attention to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, that there should be a debate, it would be better if the debate occurred in the aftermath of the commission's report rather than in advance of it, but I would certainly wish to participate in it, were it to occur. I support the Measure before us.
8.13 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said that he had never sought to be a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. If he had served on it, he would have enriched it. His wisdom and his contributions would have enlivened our discussions. I hope that, even at this late stage in his most distinguished parliamentary career, he might consider expressing a desire to serve on that committee.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you and the House will forgive me if I say something that might technically be slightly out of order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned Westminster cathedral. Until now, there has been no opportunity in the House to pay tribute to the very great Christian who died last week and who will be buried tomorrow—Cardinal Basil Hume. I should like to do so now. If all those in positions of authority within all the Churches showed his degree of Christian charity and humility, not only would we not be having this debate tonight but we would not need to have many on Church affairs. He has made an outstanding contribution to the spiritual and social life of the country. It is right that that should be on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned my long membership of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Twenty-eight years is indeed quite a long time, and I believe that I hold the record for serving on it longer than anyone else. It is a most unsatisfactory committee because it has no power to do more than exercise a certain amount of influence. We can never amend any Measure that comes before us. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows too well, we are faced with the stark choice of deeming a Measure expedient and letting it proceed and come to the House, or sending it back to Synod because we do not deem it expedient. To be realistic, it is unlikely that the committee's terms of reference will be rewritten, but it is useful to place on record the fact that, from time to time, it is a very frustrating committee of which to be a member.
I must declare an interest in that I am an elected member of the General Synod. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who spoke with his customary lucidity, is on the General Synod too, ex officio. I am now the only Member of either House of Parliament to have been elected to the General Synod by the most peculiar
1246
system of proportional representation that we were castigating an hour or so ago in the Chamber. That body could be vastly improved, especially if every member of every electoral roll in the country had a vote for Synod representatives, but that is not in order this evening.
When I was on the General Synod, I did not support the Cathedrals Measure because I have always felt that hard cases made bad law. Although I am not suggesting that the Measure is bad law, and I will commend it to the House, it seemed to me that the rich diversity of our ecclesiastical life, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal spoke eloquently, was being to a degree dragooned and made uniform by the Measure, and all because there had been a couple of incidents which, understandably, had given cause for disquiet—especially the events at Lincoln.
I cast no criticism at the work of Lady Howe—a good friend of many hon. Members present—and her cathedrals commission, which went into the matter with great diligence and thoroughness and, I believe, visited every cathedral in the country. I visited almost every cathedral in the country when I wrote a book on cathedrals in 1984, and I was struck by the excellent way in which most of them were managed, their treasures presented and the worship—the most important thing—carried out. They are beacons and centres of excellence in every sense.
I would not want anyone to think that the Cathedrals Measure was in any way a vote of no confidence in the way in which our cathedrals have been organised and managed by their deans and chapters and provosts during the past 50 years. We are very fortunate in the way our cathedrals are managed. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, who has enormous experience of its beautiful cathedral and who spoke eloquently about all the work that the volunteers do, emphasised that.
I hope that the new Measure, which I support, will not put the dead hand of uniformity on the way cathedrals are organised. I support the Measure—I am not suggesting that the House should do anything other than support it—but I hope that our speeches will send a message that, within the House, we do appreciate the rich diversity. We do understand that the way Lincoln is run, when it is run properly, is not necessarily precisely the same way as Exeter or Ripon should be run. I hope that all those who have charge of our great cathedrals, especially those who will be members of the new Bishops Council, will not feel that they have always to consort to ensure that what is done in one cathedral is precisely replicated in another.
It would be wrong not to refer briefly to what has been said about the abbey. I, too, welcome the fact that there is to be an inquiry into the Royal Peculiars although I deeply regret the necessity for it. I do not want to be accused of passing any judgment. Regardless of who has been right or wrong, what has happened over the past year has done enormous damage to the Church of England.
If cathedrals are the beacons of our national Church, the abbey is the supreme lighthouse. It is perceived by many as the embodiment of the national Church. It is tragic—I use the word deliberately—that events should have happened there that have shaken people's confidence in the national Church. I hope that the inquiry will be thorough but not protracted and that when it is complete its findings will be able to be debated both in Synod and in the House.

1247
I hope that everyone who has been involved in the affairs of the abbey over the past year will recognise that there is a great deal of repair work to be done and many bridges to be built if confidence is to be restored. I am not seeking to apportion blame, but the abbey is not a very happy place at the moment for many people who have given a lifetime's service to it. I want that to be remedied at the earliest possible date.
The Measure is important and will transform the way in which our cathedrals are managed and presented in a way that no other Measure has ever done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that it was the biggest change since 1833. That is true, but it is a different sort of change. It is a managerial change and it is extremely important that those who occupy new positions of authority in the Bishops Council and elsewhere never lose sight of the fact that a cathedral church—the seat of the bishop of the diocese—is the building most people look up to. In its services and the dignity of its worship, it should be the embodiment of all that is best in the Anglican Church. If the Measure can assist in making that the norm, that is good.
It would be very sad if the House were to divide on the Measure, and I am glad that it is not going to do so. I know that there are those present who, had there not been the promise of the inquiry into the Royal Peculiars, would have felt that they had to make that statement. I know that my right hon. Friend—I am pleased to call him that—the Member for Birkenhead is one of those. We can all now go forward in a positive spirit. I wish the Measure every success.
8.24 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am glad that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) used this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Cardinal Hume. I met him when he was given the freedom of the city of Newcastle way back in 1981, and we stayed friends from that time forth. The last time he was in the House I reminded him of that event and he said that it was one of the happiest moments of his life. In his simplicity lay his greatness: he who was given such honour in his lifetime felt that the greatest honour of all was to be given the freedom of the city where he was born. I associate myself with the thoughts expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
The late cardinal was a great supporter of Newcastle United. Listening to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who wanted to be on the Ecclesiastical Committee, to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who never had such an ambition, and then to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is on it, I thought that it might be time for some free transfers.
As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I appreciate the contribution that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal makes to our debates and proceedings, as I appreciate those of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is still here even though he has outside engagements.
These debates may be sparsely attended, but we have some of the finest debaters in the Chamber here tonight and they have made scintillating contributions. The hon.
1248
Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) told us that he was brought up almost in the precincts of the cathedral—I know that his father was a bishop—and one gets a wonderful sense of richness and depth from these debates, in which it is a great pleasure for me to participate.
Reference has been made to Westminster abbey and to St. George's chapel, Windsor. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal mentioned the memorable royal wedding there. I was told that it was the last royal wedding of the century, which is not surprising, but those wonderful television commentators have to tell us something. As the House knows, neither of those is a cathedral: they are Royal Peculiars, as are the chapels royal. The Howe commission's remit did not extend to them and the Measure does not apply to them.
The House is aware of an announcement made on 18 May that, at the request of the Dean of Westminster, the Dean of Windsor and the Bishop of London, as dean of the chapels royal, Her Majesty the Queen has agreed to appoint a new commission to review the organisation, management and accountability of those institutions. It will report to Her Majesty through the Lord Chancellor. The review will not affect the institutions' status as Royal Peculiars, but the three deans' request arose out of their concern that the relevance to the Peculiars of the principles on which the Howe commission based its findings should be properly considered.
The new commission will be chaired by Professor Averil Cameron, warden of Keble college, Oxford. The other members will be the Dean of York, the very Rev. Raymond Furnell, who, until recently, was chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals, and was a member of the steering committee for the Measure; and Sir Brian Jenkins, chairman of Woolwich plc and a former Lord Mayor of London. It will combine the various types of expertise needed to tackle this important subject successfully, and the three deans have publicly committed themselves to doing all that they can to assist it. It will be for the new commission to consider how the spirit of the Howe recommendations can best be applied to those unique institutions.
Quite apart from the fact that the Measure does not cover Westminster abbey, which is the subject of a separate review along with the other major Royal Peculiars, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the case of particular loans to particular individuals, but the general subject of the finances of cathedrals received close scrutiny from the Howe commission and is dealt with by the Measure.
I have already referred to the finance committee of the chapter, which will advise the chapter on financial and investment management, and will include members who have expertise and experience in these fields.
The chapter must prepare an annual budget for the cathedral, which must be considered by the council. The chapter must produce an annual report and accounts in accordance with the best professional standards and practice, as specified by the Church Commissioners. The Church Commissioners have prescribed detailed guidelines for the accounts, and they have the power to inquire into any shortcomings. The accounts must be audited, and they and the annual report will be considered by the council and the College of Canons. That will help

1249
to ensure that every cathedral's financial affairs are dealt with properly, effectively and openly on the basis of professional advice, and are regularly subject to proper scrutiny.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal referred to Christ Church, Oxford, which is a cathedral of the diocese of Oxford and thus fell within the Howe commission's remit. The Howe commission visited it and examined its affairs in detail. However, it is also part of an Oxford college, and is governed by the statutes of that college. It has always been recognised as a unique case which cannot be governed by the same legislation as the other cathedrals. Equally, it was recognised that the principles underlying the Howe commission's recommendations could not be applied in the same way as to other cathedrals.
The dean and canons of Christ Church have been anxious to ensure that the cathedral complies with these principles. I have placed in the Library a note explaining that the cathedral is within the spirit of the Measure in matters such as accountability and communication, lay participation, proper financial management, careful scrutiny of budgets and accounts, and strong links with the diocese.
My final and parting words are to say how much I have welcomed the co-operation of those on the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the kind thoughts and sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire—I shall run out of names shortly. They have all contributed sensibly to an important Measure, which has taken five years to get to the House. I am happy to commend the Measure to the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before I put the Question, may I say on a personal note that I welcome the comments made about Cardinal Hume. I mourn his passing: he was a good friend to many of us in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cathedrals Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.
8.33 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Care of Places of Worship Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
In section 1(2) of the Measure it should say
"Subject to subsection (5) below"
and not subsection (4), as incorrectly printed. That saves me from coming back to the House, as the Home Secretary did earlier today.
The House may be pleased to note that this is a fairly brief Measure, and does not compel anyone to take action under it unless they wish to do so. However, it forms a significant part of the Church of England's legislative process for safeguarding the Church's places of worship, which are an important aspect of this nation's heritage. The Church has been carrying out that process in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage, and this Measure will help to fill a gap in the arrangements for ensuring that all those buildings are well cared for.
I should stress, as the Ecclesiastical Committee did, that this Measure relates only to places of worship linked to the Church of England. Thus, it does not apply to places of worship that belong exclusively to other Christian Churches or to the buildings of non-Christian faiths. Its origins lie in the so-called ecclesiastical exemption from listed building and conservation area controls for ecclesiastical buildings, which are for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes and in the Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, which cut down the scope of the exemption.
In the case of the Church of England, the main provisions of the 1994 order restricted the exemption to buildings that are within the Church's legal controls: that is, those relating to cathedrals or the Church's faculty system, which covers parish churches and some other places of worship. They are stringent legal systems of control, although they take account of the need to use the building concerned effectively for the Church's worship and mission.
However, the 1994 order also contained other exemptions for a number of buildings that were not within any effective form of control under either secular legislation or the Church's own systems. They included the Ecclesiastical Peculiars, so called because they lie outside the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese—some chapels of religious communities of monks and nuns; chapels of schools, colleges and various other institutions; and some shared church buildings that are used jointly by the Church of England and other Christian Churches.
The Church and the Government agreed that this situation was not satisfactory. It was always known that the special exemption in the 1994 order would be withdrawn sooner rather than later. The Church of

1251
England agreed with the Government that it would bring legislation to the General Synod to allow the places of worship in the categories that I have mentioned to opt into the Church's system of control under the faculty jurisdiction if they wished. If they did not, and if the buildings in question were listed buildings or in conservation areas, they would normally come within the secular listed building and conservation area controls once the special exemption in the 1994 order was revoked. The main object of the Measure is to fulfil that agreement. Briefly, it provides that the proper authority or authorities for a place of worship that falls within the categories in section 1(2) can have it entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which is the central Church advisory body on, among other matters, the use, care and conservation of places of worship. They can also apply to have the buildings removed from the list if they wish.
While a place of worship is on the list, it will be within the faculty jurisdiction and, in most cases, within the provision for five-yearly inspection by a qualified architect or surveyor in the Inspection of Church Buildings Measure 1955. The list will be open for public inspection and copies will be made available to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; English Heritage; the national amenity bodies; and the local planning authorities concerned.
The position of places of worship that fall within section 1(2) will be clear. They will be within the faculty jurisdiction or they will be subject to the normal listed building or conservation area controls or an alternative agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As a result, the so-called gap in control, which has existed for many years in the legal arrangements for safeguarding such places of worship, will be filled.
Faculty jurisdiction will not be a soft option. The faculty system exercises careful control over changes to the buildings that it covers and it has been strengthened in recent years in close consultation with the Department and English Heritage. Aspects of it are being looked at again in the light of the recent report on ecclesiastical exemption produced for the Department.
We have consulted widely at each stage of the legislation with individual institutions and representative bodies as well as with the Department and English Heritage. A great deal of account has been taken of their comments and suggestions.
This modest Measure is urgently needed so that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can make progress on revoking the temporary exemptions under the 1994 Order. It had the overwhelming support of the General Synod, it has the support of English Heritage and it has been declared expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. I ask the House to approve the Measure and take a further step to protect some of the finest parts of the nation's built heritage.
8.41 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief. I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the way in which he has presented the Measure. As he says, it is modest, but important. There is scarcely a town or village in England where the church is
1252
not one of the most prominent buildings, and in many cases it is the most prominent and the building of greatest historical and architectural interest. One can trace the social history of our country through its parish churches. It is vital that they should be properly conserved and that there should be proper controls on internal and external alterations and additions. They must be subject to regular architectural inspection. I speak as a churchwarden who has some responsibility for a lovely old church. The Measure will help. I commend it to the House and thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has introduced it. I hope that we shall give it a swift passage on to the statute books.
8.42 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I do not intend to vote against the Measure, although I was tempted to vote against the previous one when I came in for the end of that debate. It is absurd that, in the last six months of the 20th century, the House of Commons still devotes three hours to debating one Church. It never debates any other religion. Most other religions would rightly bitterly resent any interference by this House in the running of their affairs, yet the Church of England is still given time to debate its reforms, which have to be brought here for approval. That is totally wrong. It is the Church of England and this, as we are so often reminded by Conservative Members, is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, not just England.
Mr. Robert Key: It is always a pleasure to see a Scottish Member intervening in the affairs of England, even though he has his own Parliament now. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Measure and attend the debate, he would understand that the purpose of the Ecclesiastical Committee is not to be the voice of the Church of England, but to ensure that Church of England legislation does not bear down oppressively on all the citizens of the United Kingdom, including his constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I should like to say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—
Mr. Maxton: You are not going to let me go far down that road.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a question of going far down it. The hon. Gentleman cannot go down that road at all, because it is outwith the terms of the Measure. He can speak only about the Measure.
Mr. Maxton: To finish my point, the House should not be debating the issue. The Church of England should be disestablished.
The Measure adds more churches and religious buildings, including school chapels and others, to the list of those to be protected. Last week, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport took evidence from English Heritage. It transpires that English Heritage spent £40 million on preserving churches, and that is only a small fraction of the state money that it receives. Although the Measure has no direct financial implications, does the

1253
fact that extra buildings are being added to the list mean that, eventually, the Church of England will come back to the Department looking for more money?
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Measure or, if he has read it, he has not understood it. Buildings are not being added to the list; it is merely a question of whether they maintain the ecclesiastical exemption to which very high standards are applied, or whether they opt for the secular system, to put it very simply and crudely. It is not a matter of adding vast numbers of buildings to the list.
I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally exceptionally civilised and enjoys the cultured and sensible things of life, should be making such an iconoclastic speech.
Mr. Maxton: I am making an iconoclastic speech because I do not believe that taxpayers' money—whether it is lottery money or from anywhere else—should be spent in over-large amounts on one particular religion.
As I have said in the House, I am an atheist and anti-clerical and I do not believe that religion should play the large part that it does in the House or elsewhere. In my opinion, we spend far too much time and money on preserving something that I personally do not believe in. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) say whether the Measure has any direct or indirect financial implications?
8.46 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It would be wrong to say that I was provoked to speak by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton); nor would it be appropriate to say that the working of the Holy Spirit has brought my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and myself to the Chamber on this occasion, but he will remember, as I do, that, when the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was set up, he and I inherited the issue of the ecclesiastical exemption.
I remember the order being delayed by my raising questions about exactly the bodies that are referred to in clause (1)(2) and I am indebted to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for having introduced the Measure when I was here for other purposes so that I am brought wholly up to date with the narrative. Although it was
1254
extremely interesting to hear the views of the hon. Member for Cathcart, they were not strictly germane to the Measure that we are discussing.
8.48 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I always appreciate the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) which remind me of my last conversation with an atheist, who told me, "I am an atheist, thank God." I appreciate our various conversations on these important subjects and I am happy that he has intervened in the debate and put the record straight. Of course, the Measure places no financial obligations on the state.
Mr. Key: Although it is hardly germane to our debate, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has intervened, let me say for the record that the Earl of Cathcart was buried today at Middle Woodford church in my constituency.
Mr. Bell: These debates have the potential of developing very widely, and, as you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are allowed to enjoy a short diversion.
I can say sincerely that the Measure places no financial obligation on the state. As I said at the beginning of the debate, it does not compel anyone to take action unless they so wish. It is a matter entirely for the additional bodies. If they wish to participate, they can, and if they do not wish to participate, they are under no obligation to do so.
The entire process has been carried forward in partnership with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage. It allows those who so wish to have their place of worship placed within the categories that I described earlier and entered on a list kept by the Council for the Care of Churches, which is the central Church advisory body. That will assist those places of worship, if they so wish, to have proper use, care and conservation of their buildings. This is a positive but small Measure which will try to maintain the heritage that we all enjoy, in our own different ways, of our chapels, churches and places of worship.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Care of Places of Worship Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

The Speaker's Absence
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Thursday 1st July to attend the opening of the Scottish Parliament.— [Mrs. Beckett.]
8.50 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I rise briefly to make this point. Of course, I have no intention of objecting to the Speaker attending the opening of the Scottish Parliament next Thursday. It is entirely appropriate that she should do so on what will be an historic occasion. However, I find it slightly odd that, again, at the end of the 20th century, the House should have to pass a motion to allow our Speaker to have one day's leave of absence to attend such an occasion.
The last time this happened was when Madam Speaker received an honorary degree from my old university, Oxford, and the House had to pass a motion to allow her to do so. I am asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, whether she should take this minor custom of the House to the Committee and see whether we should abolish it, and allow the Deputy Speaker automatically to take the Chair whenever Madam Speaker has to leave to attend certain occasions.
8.51 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: For the second time this evening, I find myself in total disagreement with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I warmly endorse the motion. It is right and proper that Madam Speaker should accept this invitation, but it is right also that we should keep this convention within the House. There is a similar convention in the other place—the Lord Chancellor
1256
always has to seek leave of absence if he does something. It is right and proper that that should be the case, and I hope that the Speaker has a wonderful day.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reveal to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that we are not yet in the last six months of this century?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes. It is surprising that one so numerically literate is 18 months out, and I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing that out. The new century does not begin until 1 January 2001, and it is about time that people realised that.
Mr. Maxton: Do we take it, therefore, that we have another 18 months to ensure that the millennium dome works?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not be tempted down that road—even if I could walk there on water, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless could. I hope that the Speaker has a splendid day next Thursday, and I am delighted to support the motion.
8.53 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am sure that we all hope that the Speaker has a splendid day. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made his point with courtesy, and he was wise not to object to the Speaker being away. Hon. Members are wise to remember the courtesies open to the Speaker. I take my hon. Friend's point—as I do that of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)—about the historic nature of this measure, and I accept my hon. Friend's reminder as to whether we should take the matter under advisement. On this occasion, the House would be well advised to pass the measure speedily.
Question put and agreed to.

Air Guns (Safety)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
8.54 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am conscious of the fact that tonight's Adjournment debate is starting early, so I shall be happy to take interventions from either side of the House—although it looks as if we shall not hear from many Opposition Members.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the important issue of the safety of air guns. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government need to take seriously incidents involving air guns. After all, we now have probably the tightest hand gun legislation in the world—and rightly so—since the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The Government's actions in tightening up hand gun legislation were widely welcomed after the tragic events in Hungerford and Dunblane. The Government's actions have been more than vindicated by recent horrendous incidents on high school campuses in the United States.
I applied for this Adjournment debate because in recent months there have been two serious incidents involving the misuse of air guns in my constituency. The first, and by far the more serious, occurred in January in Grimethorpe. Adam Yoxall, a 10-year-old boy, was tragically hit in the eye by an air gun pellet while playing in a local wood. As a direct consequence, he has now lost the sight in his left eye, and surgeons have been unable to remove the pellet, for fear that, if they do, he risks losing the sight in his other eye. The problem is that the pellet is not lodged in Adam's eye but is floating around in the aqueous humour.
Adam has to attend Rotherham hospital every six weeks so that doctors can monitor whether any infection is present that might spread to his good eye. I can only imagine how distressed Adam's parents must feel about the situation. Since the incident, Adam has suffered from trauma attacks and receives professional counselling. I saw Adam's parents over the weekend, and they informed me that the incident has affected Adam's behavioural patterns and his educational progress. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish Adam and his family all the best for the future.
The second incident in my constituency happened in April, in Thurnscoe. A boy of 12 was left in agony after being shot in the back by a sniper. He was sitting on a bench when he was hit in the back by a pellet which penetrated his clothing and left him with a bright red and painful area on his back. He was taken to Mexborough Montagu hospital and allowed home after treatment. Police efforts to trace the sniper unfortunately failed to identify the culprit.
I am sorry to say that those occurrences are not isolated incidents. In 1996, the last year for which figures are available, 1,203 offences in which air weapons were used were recorded by the police.
Mr. Michael Clapham: As I understand it, air rifles come in two calibres—the .177 and the .22. The .22 is the more powerful, and I am told that a .22 air rifle can penetrate a metal sheet. Does my hon. Friend agree that the
1258
manufacturers of air rifles could technically reduce the power of those weapons that are not used on ranges? Does he think that that measure would provide some safety for the public?
Mr. Ennis: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I appreciate his knowledge on the subject. I am not an expert on air rifles, but I understand that, on certain weapons, the power of the mechanism can be adjusted. If people are stopped by the police when they are in possession of such weapons, they turn the power of the weapon down so that it conforms to the air gun legislation. As I said, I am not an expert, but I have heard of weapons with that feature and am obviously worried about them, too.
I noted earlier that the general trend is that the number of air gun incidents is falling, and I said that there were 1,203 such incidents in 1996. In contrast, there were 1,718 recorded offences in 1992, but even one recorded air gun incident a year is one too many, and we should not be complacent.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an animal welfare element to this problem? The Cats Protection League has estimated that 10,000 cats a year are shot with air guns, and that is a source of considerable anguish to pet owners.
Mr. Ennis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to embarrass him, but I intend to quote from the ten-minute Bill that he introduced last year on that very point. With my hon. Friend's permission, I shall respond to that issue later in my speech.
Air gun weapons are by no means a new scourge on society. About 20 years ago, I was a victim of an air gun incident. At the time, I was a teacher in the Hillsborough area of Sheffield. One beautiful summer's evening, I was driving up a steep hill towards the village in which I lived. The car slowed as it crested the hill, which was about a mile from my house. I had the window down, and suddenly felt a sharp pain in my chest. I wondered whether I was having a heart attack or an angina attack. I immediately stopped the car, and noticed a pellet in my lap. When I turned around, I saw a couple of youths running away across the fields with an air rifle.
Clearly, that could have been a very serious incident. If the pellet had hit me in the face I could have lost control of the car and skidded off the road, perhaps hitting a pedestrian or colliding with another vehicle. In many respects, I was fortunate. I raise my experience of being the victim of such an attack because I did not report it to the police at the time; I am sure that the figures that I cited represent only a fraction of the real number of offences committed each year.
What can the Government do to reduce the number of air gun incidents and the consequent distress caused to victims and their families? I looked at the current legislation, and, on paper, the controls appear quite tight, especially given that 4 million air guns are estimated to be in use in this country.
In January 1998, a ten-minute Bill, the Acquisition and Possession of Air Weapons (Restriction) Bill, was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who I am glad to see in his place this evening. That Bill attempted to raise the minimum age for

1259
possessing an air weapon from 14 to 17, and to address the enormous problem that domestic animals and wild birds are often the target of air gun offenders. It also recognised that a huge amount of human suffering is caused by those offenders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe pointed out that, every year, large numbers of cats, dogs, horses and wild birds—including swans—are the victims of air gun attacks. He said that, every year, 10,000 cats are either maimed or killed by air guns. That is equivalent to about 30 cats per day.
I am not convinced that such a measure would reduce the problem significantly, however. Many of the incidents that occur involve children even younger than 14. I believe that there is a genuine need for better enforcement and better education. Better enforcement of current legislation by the police would certainly have an impact on the level of abuse and misuse of air weapons.
The practical problem of better enforcement is that many incidents involve very young children. In some cases, they are as young as eight or nine and the incidents in which they are involved are, in many cases, their first offences. Initial punishment tends to be only a caution or a warning. Yet the incident may be serious, and many people feel that the punishment does not fit the crime.
Better education is essential if parents and children are to realise that air guns are not toys, but potentially lethal weapons which should be treated as such.
Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend welcome the initiative taken by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has persuaded some British manufacturers to include leaflets in air gun packaging? The problem is with imported air guns.
Mr. Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for that valid point. The initiative is a step in the right direction and it is good that British manufacturers are leading the way.
I was speaking of education. In the short term at least, the Home Office should consider funding a video for junior and secondary schools to highlight safety and the proper use of air guns as well as the legal consequences of flouting the law. The Home Office should also consider producing a leaflet outlining the facts that children could take home to their parents. Many air gun incidents are a direct consequence of lack of parental responsibility.
In February, the Earl of Mar and Kellie asked in the other place whether the Government had any plans to legislate for inclusion of air guns in the firearms licensing scheme. In response, Lord Williams of Mostyn stated:
"The Government have no plans at present to introduce legislation to require the certification of low-powered air guns. There are already laws in place to control the use and possession of these guns and we shall keep under close scrutiny the way in which they are used. In particular, we have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee to consider existing controls as part of their 1999 work programme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 142.]
Has the FCC carried out that review, or will it be programmed for consideration later in the year? Even with the review, it would be right to discuss this extremely important public safety issue in greater detail in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which could draw positive conclusions on an emotive subject.
1260
As long as tragic incidents such as the one that befell Adam Yoxall are taking place, the Government cannot afford to be complacent about the safety of air guns. We need to educate youngsters and their parents about the dangers. We must repeat that air guns are not toys, but potentially lethal weapons. With the co-operation of local police forces, we must ensure effective enforcement of control of air weapons.
9.9 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) a debt of gratitude for enabling us to consider the safety of air guns. All hon. Members would join me in expressing our deepest sympathy for young Adam and his family following the serious injury that he has sustained. Sometimes, those outside the House do not realise the importance that we, as Members, attach to Adjournment debates as a means of raising constituency issues that have a real resonance in our own local areas, but which, in turn, also strike a chord much more widely than in the areas that we represent as individuals.
The seriousness with which the House treats such concerns is shown by the fact that my hon. Friend is accompanied this evening by no fewer than four other Labour Members. That is an indication of the way in which this particular case has struck a chord with other hon. Members, who have knowledge of, and a constituency interest in, the matter that he raises. He told us of Adam Yoxall, a 10-year-old, who, while playing with a group of friends, was seriously injured by an air gun that one of the children had taken from home without permission. The gun was handled by another child; it went off and the pellet hit young Adam in the eye at fairly close range. That caused severe damage, as my hon. Friend described. As a result of one moment's loss of control, a life will be severely affected for its duration.
The South Yorkshire police described that incident as a terrible accident. It was truly terrible. We need to reflect on the circumstances in which it occurred, and, this evening, we have been given the opportunity to do so. That incident points to the importance of ensuring that air guns are kept securely, and are never kept in a place in which they might be accessible to young children. Adults need to learn that lesson, and we need to ensure that it is learned so that children do not have access to air guns. As my hon. Friend says, air guns should not be seen as being an extension of the pop gun, or as some sort of toy; they are extremely dangerous implements.
My hon. Friend mentioned a second incident, which appears to have been a deliberate act to inflict harm on a young boy. That introduces an altogether different element into the equation—one that the whole House will want to deplore, because, again, it has resonance for us all. I must point out to my hon. Friend that, glad as I am to respond to the debate, he has caused me some agitation. In order to fulfil my duties and responsibilities to the House, I had to leave a packed church in my constituency, where at least 300 people had gathered to meet local police, and council and community leaders, to express their concern about a spate of shootings in my constituency. Those shootings led to loss of life and have obviously been a cause of considerable concern, so 1 very much feel for him in the concerns that he expresses to the House this evening.

1261
When such events occur in one's constituency, one's first and most important instinct is to ensure that the House knows about them. That is very important and should not be underestimated. Secondly, one wants to ensure that something is done as a response. I hope that I do not trespass on your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by pointing out that that is why we place such value on our links with our constituents. That is why it is always important that they know that they have someone who, on occasions such as this, can raise a particular constituency interest.
Our main concern must be to reduce the sort of dreadful incident about which we have heard tonight. One such incident must be regarded as one too many. That is why the main thrust of the legislation governing air guns—and indeed the legislation governing all firearms—is aimed at protecting public safety. For the purpose of firearms legislation, an air gun is a weapon with a barrel through which a missile is discharged by the use of compressed air or carbon dioxide.
However, it must be borne in mind that not all air guns can be classed as firearms. Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 defines a firearm as
"a lethal barrelled weapon capable of the discharge of any shot, bullet or other missile."
Thus, in order to be classified as a firearm, an object must be a weapon; it must have a barrel through which some kind of missile is fired; and the effect of the missile at the target must be lethal. Lethality is defined in law as:
"capable of inflicting a more than trivial injury".
A trivial injury is one that involves only superficial damage, such as bruising. Put plainly, if the pellet from a particular gun is capable of penetrating the skin, that gun is classed as a firearm.
Firearms experts at the Forensic Science Service advise that the lowest power level at which a penetrating injury can occur is at a muzzle energy of about 1 joule, which equates to roughly 0.75 ft lb. Some air guns—those of the type generally referred to as airsoft guns; as my hon. Friend said, that title is something of a misnomer—have muzzle energies of about 0.5 ft lb, which is well below that level. As a result, they do not fit the definition of a firearm and do not come under the control of the Firearms Act. The Forensic Science Service believes that, at those very low power levels, such guns are incapable of penetrating even vulnerable parts of the body, such as the eye—although a direct hit from very close range would cause bruising.
A step up from airsoft guns are low-powered air guns. They are pistols with a muzzle energy below 6 ft lb but greater than 0.75 ft lb and rifles with muzzle energies between 0.75 ft lb and 12 ft lb. Hon. Members can see that there is considerable variation in those specifications. Such guns do not have to be kept on a police-issued firearms certificate, but, because they are capable of inflicting a penetrating wound, are none the less classed as firearms.
High-powered air guns of the type often used for hunting small game or in the control of vermin must be kept on a firearms certificate in the same way as any other firearms that come under the control of section 1 of the Firearms Act. That brings high-powered air guns into the same category as high-powered deer-stalking rifles, for example.
1262
Even though there is no need to apply for a firearms certificate in order to buy and keep one, low-powered air guns are clearly firearms and, as such, fall within the scope of the Firearms Act. A wide range of offences relates to firearms, but the ones with most relevance to air guns concern age limits, the carrying and discharging of guns and the carrying of air guns in relation to other crimes. For example, it is an offence—this has an important bearing on the points made by my hon. Friend—to give an air gun to anyone under the age of 14 or to sell an air gun to anyone under 17. Having a loaded air gun in a public place is an offence, as is firing one within 50 ft of a public road. Trespassing with an air gun, be it in a building or on open land, is also an offence.
I must say something about the offence of selling to anyone under the age of 17 an air gun of the type that I have described. It may seem incredible to those who attend, listen to or read about our proceedings that it is necessary to point out that that is an offence. However, I am afraid that some utterly unscrupulous merchants take every opportunity to sell such air guns—and their associated paraphernalia—to suggestible and susceptible young people.
A number of Members of the House will have had run-ins with such dealers, not least in relation to proper concerns that have been raised, particularly by Labour Members, about certain sorts of knife which are all too readily available. They are sold to members of the public and to susceptible and impressionable young people in particular. It is right to point out the nature of the offence of selling such air guns to anyone under 17.
At the top end of the scale, possessing an air gun with the intent to commit a crime is a serious offence, as is possessing an air gun with the intent of endangering life or property. There are a range of penalties for those various offences, from heavy fines for the lesser ones, such as those relating to age limits, to life imprisonment for going armed to commit a crime or carrying an air gun with the intent to use it to murder. The punishment imposed in any individual case will naturally depend on the gravity of the offence committed.
It is also an offence to possess a high-powered air weapon without a firearms certificate issued by the police. Before issuing a certificate, the police need to be satisfied on a number of points. They need to be sure that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with a firearm, that the gun will be kept securely when not in use and that the applicant has a good reason for possessing a gun in the first place.
Target shooting, which is a recognised discipline, is usually taken as a good reason, but I understand that the most usual reason for people to buy a high-powered air gun is to hunt small game or vermin. That ought not to include cats. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough referred, has expressed concern about the misuse of air guns of varying power for that purpose.
Using air guns in such a way inflicts an extremely unpleasant form of cruelty on animals.
Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that air guns are used to kill wild birds. Does he believe that

1263
increasing the fine for anyone caught killing wild birds would be a deterrent? Has he considered introducing such an increase?
Mr. Boateng: The use of air guns against wild birds, particularly protected species, is a serious act. It may also be an offence. It is to be hoped that those in the courts who are responsible for sentencing are aware of the gravity of such environmental offences, in respect of both the use of the air gun and the protection of the environment, which protected status is designed to ensure. We must keep the issue of sentencing and the environment under close review.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Can my hon. Friend say when the weapons used in the offences referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) will be confiscated? There must be some mechanism for confiscating them from those individuals? Does anything in the law say that that can happen?
While I am on my feet, may I say that we appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has had to leave his constituency, where many people want his presence, to respond to this debate?
Mr. Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues for the expression of that sentiment. It is much appreciated.
Yes, the courts have general powers of forfeiture in relation to the commissioning of firearms offences. It is important that forfeiture, or more accurately, confiscation, is available to the courts. That power is often used on the recommendation of the police, which is the most usual way of bringing about confiscation, but the courts will want to consider what, if any, powers they have to act on their own volition. It is a deterrent and a form of protection that has much to commend it.
May I say a few words—my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough was good enough in his speech to refer to it—about the statistical trends that are revealed in relation to air guns and their misuse? It must be made clear from the outset that every incident involving air gun misuse is unacceptable, particularly those that cause injury to children. Obviously, it is important to see the issue in perspective, and my hon. Friend has done that in the fair way in which he presented his arguments.
Over the years, there has been a slight increase in the overall number of air gun-related incidents. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, the figures show that control is having an effect on the number of incidents in which people are injured. From 1987 to 1997, the most recent period for which figures are available, the incidence of injury caused by air gun misuse has shown a steady year-on-year decline. In 1997, there was a significant reduction in the number of injuries from air gun misuse in comparison with those recorded in 1987—from 1,782 to 1,194. In addition, only 125 of the incidents in 1997—less than 11 per cent. in total—consisted of an injury more serious than superficial bruising. It must be said, however, that that is more by chance than by design, because how does one know when one has discharged an air gun? The consequences may be much more serious. Nevertheless, that is what the statistics reveal.
1264
As for fatalities, mercifully there was only one between 1993 and 1997. Prior to that, there was an average of one fatality a year, with a maximum of three in any one year. However, even one a year is too many. That represents one family without a loved one, and the idea that there should be three in a single year is absolutely horrific.
There is no room for complacency. Our aim must always be to reduce the number of injuries by air guns to none. The figures are encouraging in so far as they go, compared with the dreadful toll taken on our roads every year by the irresponsible misuse of that most widely owned possession, the motor car.
As for the legitimate use of air guns, the vast majority of air gun users are simply target shooters who pursue their chosen sport in a thoroughly responsible and disciplined manner. They would be horrified at the thought of doing anything with an air gun that might put themselves or their fellow citizens at risk. The sport of target shooting is a recognised Olympic event. Indeed, traditionally our British competitors excelled at it and achieved great success for this country. Many shooting clubs have air gun ranges at which young people, as well as more mature and novice shooters, are taught to use air guns safely and responsibly under proper tuition and supervision.
Air guns are also frequently used by clubs to introduce new members to firearms and to demonstrate their safe handling before such probationers are allowed to handle the more powerful conventional firearms in a club's main range. That means that new shooters have experience of handling safer weapons before being allowed to come into contact with much more powerful cartridge-firing guns.
Despite that responsible use of air guns, however, and despite the requirements of the law, a minority of young people still have or gain access to air guns, and choose to use them irresponsibly and sometimes dangerously. The Government view the misuse of air guns and the flouting of the law by youngsters as a cause for serious concern. That is why—this is entirely separate from the firearms legislation—we have introduced measures to deal more effectively with young people who break the law in any way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, and other hon. Friends who are present, have expressed their strong support for the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced a range of measures to reform the youth justice system. There is the final warning triggering intervention by local agencies to nip offending in the bud, the halving of the time currently taken to process young offenders from arrest to sentence, and the child protection order, which can be used when it proves necessary to ensure that young children are kept of the streets and out of trouble late at night. Much of the trouble that can be caused by the misuse of air guns occurs when children are out and about unsupervised, sometimes late at night.
One of the most important aspects of the Crime and Disorder Act is the ability that it gives to courts to refer first-time offenders elsewhere. We are taking that further in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is currently in Committee. First-time offenders who own up

1265
to their offences will be given the opportunity to be dealt with outside the criminal justice system, and to face up to their responsibilities and their offending through the good offices of a youth offender panel.
That is an important move. It brings together social services departments, health departments, education departments, the police and probation services, which will examine the nature of the offence involved and consider how education and instruction might help to prevent reoffending. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough put his finger on it when he referred to that. Under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, a person who had misused an air gun in the way described by my hon. Friend, and had caused injuries such as those described by him, could be required to engage in a series of activities—for between three and 12 months—designed to demonstrate the consequences of such action in a local accident and emergency department. Such a person could be required to take lessons from an appropriately authorised person in order to learn how air guns should be handled, and to be made aware of the consequences of the mishandling of air guns.
The Crime and Disorder Act already gives courts the power to make a reparation order requiring such young people to make specific reparation, either to the victim of the crime or to the community that has been harmed. Indeed, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales—which was established to develop work programmes and conduct research into how best to prevent offending by young people—is considering ways of ensuring, through the £85 million development fund, that services are stimulated locally to make proposals aimed at preventing offending by young people. I shall draw this debate to the attention of the board, so that it might consider its implications for its work on offending involving air guns and firearms generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough made a good point on the use of videos. We have to be innovative and prepared to use newer technologies in ways that attract and retain young people's interest and involvement, and video is just such a medium.
Mr. Ennis: I thank the Minister for his reply so far—he has said many encouraging things. However, I asked specifically about the question asked in another place by the Earl of Mar and Kellie, and answered by Lord Williams of Mostyn, about whether the Firearms
1266
Consultative Committee could examine the air guns issue as part of its 1999 workload. Will the Minister briefly say something on that point?
Mr. Boateng: Call me old-fashioned, but, in debates, it is always my practice—as the silent one, the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) will testify—to leave the best for last. That is what I have done today.
The measures that I have outlined today, with current firearms legislation, will be aimed at reducing still further the incidence of injury caused by misuse of air guns. However, as I said, there is no room for complacency. It is important that the firearms legislation that I have mentioned should be kept under close scrutiny, to determine whether anything further must be done to protect public safety.
I have therefore determined to ask the Firearms Consultative Committee, the independent statutory body which advises the Government on firearms matters, to consider again controls on air guns in its programme of work for this year. I look forward to receiving the committee's report later in the year, and to consider any recommendations that it may make to improve air gun safety. I shall be particularly interested in any recommendations that it makes on education and enforcement, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough said, are key elements.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this debate, and to my other hon. Friends who have taken the trouble to attend it. I should very much welcome an opportunity to meet them when I have the Firearms Consultative Committee's report in order that we can discuss the recommendations and findings that it makes.
On that note, I thank my hon. Friend again for initiating this debate. To go back to the very beginning of this evening's proceedings, let us remember young Adam and his family. That incident is what kicked the debate off. A constituency Member's determination to raise in an Adjournment debate a case of significance with widespread ramifications led us to be gathered here tonight and it is right that, as we close the debate, we should think of Adam Yoxall and his family and wish him a speedy and full recovery.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Ten o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what was the(a) volume and (b) value of tourism from (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the Republic of Ireland to the north-west region for each of the last five years for which information is available; [87624]

  (2) what was the (a) volume and (b) value of tourism to Britain from (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the Republic of Ireland for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [87625]

  Janet Anderson
  Information on tourism by residents of Northern Ireland is provided by the annual United Kingdom Tourism Survey, which is designed to monitor domestic tourism within the UK involving one or more nights away from home. The following table shows estimates for the underlying trend in the volume and value of tourism from Northern Ireland to (a) North West Tourist Board area of England and (b) Great Britain as a whole for the 5 most recent years for which data are available.

  Tourism (1+ nights) by residents of Northern Ireland

  To north-west England

  To Great Britain as a whole

  Year

  Number of visitors

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Number of visitors

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1994

  83,420

  18.9

  658,800

  215.9

  1995

  104,640

  22.2

  762,300

  181.4

  1996

  110,240

  27.8

  635,000

  202.9

  1997

  83,440

  25.2

  587,840

  205.1

  1998

  79,540

  25.9

  561,120

  215.9

  Note:

  Figures are 3-year moving averages: eg the 1998 figure shown is the average of the survey results for 1996 to 1998

  Source:

  UKTS (National Tourist Boards)

  Information on tourism trips from the Republic of Ireland to the UK as a whole is published annually in Travel Trends. Totals for 1993 to 1997 are as follows:

  Tourism by residents of the Republic of Ireland to the UK

  Year

  Number of visits (thousand)

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1993

  2,225

  460

  1994

  2,491

  545

  1995

  2,809

  620

  1996

  3,169

  705

  1997

  3,613

  764

  Source:

  Travel Trends (Office for National Statistics)

  Currently, no information is available from this source on the volume and value of tourism to specific areas within the UK from the Republic of Ireland. However, from April this year the International Passenger Survey
  366
  has started to collect information on routes to and from the Republic of Ireland which will lead to more detailed information on the areas of the UK visited becoming available in the year 2000.

  BBC
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the applications since 1 May 1997 made by the BBC for his prior approval under(a) Article 3(b), (b) Article 3(c) and (c) Article 3(u), giving in each case the date of the applications; and if the application was approved or rejected. [87592]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 18 June 1999]The following applications have been made under these articles:Article 3(b)
  Carriage of the Parliamentary Channel on analogue cable. Application dated 14 April 1998; approval given by 18 May 1998.
  Launch of the BBC Online service (phase one). Application dated 9 October 1997; approval given 10 November 1997.
  BBC Online (on a permanent footing). Application dated 9 October 1998. Approval given 28 October 1998.

  Article 3(c)
  BBC Worldwide joint venture with Discovery Corporation (approval also granted under article 3(u)). Application dated 3 September 1997; approval given 6 March 1998.
  Launch of BBC News 24 on analogue cable. Application dated 16 September 1997; approval given 9 October 1997.

  Article 3(u)
  BBC Worldwide joint venture with Tele Alliance Ltd. Application dated 22 October 1997; approval given 10 November 1997.
  Establishment of BBC Resources Ltd. Application dated 30 January 1998; approval given 16 June 1998.
  Incorporation of a new subsidiary company (Centre House Productions Ltd.) for the purposes of entering into sale and leaseback transactions. Application dated 11 September 1998; approval given 28 October 1998.
  Establishment of the Pro-MPEG Forum. Application dated 16 September 1998, approval given 30 September 1998.
  Setting up of a subsidiary company to enable BBC Knowledge to be launched on Digital Terrestrial Television Multiplex A. Application dated 7 April 1999; approval given 6 May 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in the London Borough of Wandsworth were on income support on 1 June. [87451]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 22 June 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of people living in the London Borough of Wandsworth on Income Support (IS) on 1st June.
  This information is not available in the format requested, the Benefits Agency does not hold collate information by local authority boundary. However, a figure can be obtained by identifying the postcode of customers living in the area.

  367
  The number of IS claims from within the London Borough of Wandsworth is approximately 18,000. This represents the number of IS claims, not the total number of beneficiaries of those claims. It is rounded to the nearest thousand cases, and is subject to a degree of sampling error. The sample size was 5% of the IS live load, taken from the IS Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, November 1998.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claimed invalid care allowance in each of the last three years. [87612]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. I have therefore asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Goggins, dated 22 June 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many people claimed Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) in each of the last three years.
  The total numbers of claims for ICA received during each of the financial years 1996/97, 97/98 and 98/99 are as follows:

  1996/97: 165,092

  1997/98: 162,130

  1998/99: 152,283.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for council tax benefit have been subject to the cap on properties above Band E since the new rules were introduced. [87813]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]Provisional data are expected to be available from late January 2000 on the number of cases affected by this restriction, based on information from the annual 1 per cent. sample of cases which were receiving Council Tax Benefit on 14 May 1999.

  We are committed to monitoring the effects of these changes, in partnership with local authorities. Research is now under way, the findings of which will be published in due course.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners receive(a) a full basic pension and (b) a partial basic pension. [87982]

  Mr. Timms
  Information is not available in the form requested as there is no data source that includes information on both the amount of basic pension received and total income which would enable the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners to be identified. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The table provides a similar analysis based on total amount of State Retirement Pension received including additions such as additional pension (SERPS), graduated retirement benefit and increments.
  368

  State Retirement Pension receipt among the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners in Great Britain in 1996–97

  Gross weekly income from State Retirement Pension

  Percentage

  Poorest 20 per cent. of single pensioners

  None

  4

  Less than £61.15

  23

  £61.15 or over

  74

  All

  100

  Poorest 20 per cent. of pensioner couples

  None

  1

  Less than £97.75

  16

  £97.75 or over

  83

  All

  100

  Notes:

  1. The State Retirement Pension consists of basic pension, graduated retirement benefit and additional pension (SERPS).

  2. In 1996–97, £61.15 was equal to the level of the full basic pension for a single person; £97.75 was equal to the level of the full basic pension for one person plus adult dependant.

  3. Gross weekly income from State Retirement Pension is measured in current (1996–97) prices.

  4. Estimates should be treated with caution since results are based on survey respondents' identification of different elements of benefit income and therefore may be subject to misreporting.

  5. The distribution of pensioners' incomes, used to identify the poorest 20 per cent. is calculated using unequivalised net income before housing costs. The distribution is calculated separately for single pensioners and pensioner couples.

  6. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent. although they are not necessarily accurate to that level. Columns may not sum to 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those aged 80 years and over are in each quintile of the income distribution for the population as a whole. [87981]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage of people aged eighty years and over by quintile of the income distribution of the population as a whole

  Percentage of people aged 80+

  Quintile (total population)

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  1 (Bottom)

  29

  21

  2

  33

  39

  3

  20

  18

  4

  11

  14

  5 (Top)

  6

  8

  All 80+ (percentage)

  100

  100

  All 80+ (millions)

  1.8

  1.8

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland. 1996–97 is the latest year for which information is available.

  2. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say 'actual' income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  3. Results may be sensitive to the choice of equivalence scale.

  4. It is standard HBAI practice to give results for income both before and after housing costs, in order to allow for the effect of variations in housing costs between households.

  5. Component percentages may not sum to one hundred due to rounding.
  369
  6. It should be noted that the FRS only covers those individuals living in private households. Therefore the figures quoted above do not include those individuals living in institutions (in this case, for example, hospitals and retirement/nursing homes).

  7. It should also be noted that analyses of quality of the survey suggest that response rates are likely to be lower for those aged over 80 and therefore any survey data based on this age group may be more prone to bias than that for the population as a whole.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of pensioners who will be receiving(a) a full basic pension, (b) a partial basic pension and (c) no basic pension in (i) 2010, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2030 and (iv) 2040. [87980]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Table 1: Estimated percentage of GB population over state pension age with and without some basic Retirement Pension in payment

  Percentage

  With basic RP

  Without basic RP

  Year

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Men

  Women

  Total

  2010

  98.7

  96.6

  97.4

  1.3

  3.4

  2.6

  2020

  98.7

  98.5

  98.6

  1.3

  1.5

  1.4

  2030

  98.7

  99.1

  98.9

  1.3

  0.9

  1.1

  2040

  98.8

  99.2

  99.0

  1.2

  0.8

  1.0

  Table 2: Estimate average percentage rate of standard Category A Retirement Pension (RP) for those with RP

  Percentage

  Year

  Men

  Women

  Total

  2010

  97.4

  81.8

  87.6

  2020

  96.8

  85.5

  90.6

  2030

  96.6

  89.4

  92.7

  2040

  96.5

  91.3

  93.7

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  2. Estimates have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Figures relate to GB only—overseas cases are excluded.

  4. In table 1, the percentage without RP includes those deferring retirement, who have entitlement to RP but who are not actually in receipt; and married women with no entitlement of their own but who will become entitled when their husband reaches State pension age.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners claiming a category A retirement pension are living with another pensioner claiming a category A retirement pension. [87978]

  Mr. Timms
  The pensions administrative computer system only collects information on individuals, it does not hold information on other household members. None of the household surveys available collect full information of the category of pension.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of raising (i) the level of income support paid to pensioners and (ii) the basic state pension and related benefits by(a) £5 per week, (b) £10 per week and (c) £20 per week. [87983]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the tables.
  370

  The estimated cost in 1999–2000 of raising the level of Income Support (IS) paid to pensioners by £5, £10 and £20 per week

  £ million

  Option

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Total cost

  £5 per week

  390

  110

  50

  550

  £10 per week

  820

  210

  100

  1,120

  £20 per week

  1,800

  370

  170

  2,350

  Notes

  1. Costs are derived from the June 1999 PSM model based on the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey uprated to 1999–2000 prices with IS administrative adjustments and ASD4's pensioner forecasts.

  2. All costs exclude RCNH cases.

  3. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million and therefore may not sum.

  The estimated cost, net of means-tested benefits, of increasing Basic State Pensions (category A rate) and related benefits by £5, £10 and £20 per week from April 1999 onwards

  £ million

  Amount of increase in category A rate

  Net cost 1999–2000

  £5 per week

  2,110

  £10 per week

  4,240

  £20 per week

  8,570

  Notes

  1. Estimates of costs are rounded to nearest £10 million and in 1999–2000 benefit rates. Costs include related benefits with a statutory link to Retirement Pension (for example, Incapacity Benefit and Widows Pension).

  2. Contributory benefit effects have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey and the May 1997 Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  Appeals
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to improve clearance times for appeals. [88212]

  Angela Eagle
  The new Executive Agency of the DSS responsible for the administration of appeals will be set up from April 2000, for which demanding targets will be set. In preparation for this change, responsibility for the administration of appeals passed to the Secretary of State from the President of the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) on 1 June. The phased implementation of the new appeals procedures introduced in the Social Security Act 1998 will continue during the rest of the year and preparations will be made for Agency launch.

  Appeals have been taking, on average, around 7 months to be heard and this is wholly unacceptable. During the past year, ITS has taken action to improve the situation and in 1998–99 began to make significant in-roads into its backlog of cases, ITS figures showing a record case clearance of 370,008 cases. However, there remains much to do before ITS/The Appeals Service reaches an acceptable level of performance.

  A dual strategy to achieve the necessary improvements during 1999–2000 has been agreed with the new Chief Executive of ITS/The Appeals Service. First, ITS/The Appeals Service is mounting a systematic assault on its backlog of older and oldest appeals (defined for this exercise as any case lodged with ITS before 1 October 1998). Secondly, and in parallel to tackling this finite backlog of cases, ITS/The Appeals Service is seeking to

  371
  reduce both the numbers of all other cases outstanding and the length of time individual appellants have to wait for their appeals to be dealt with.

  In assessing performance during the coming year we have therefore agreed to monitor two new performance indicators. First, we will be monitoring the number of cases in the backlog and the length of time for which these cases have been outstanding. It is the intention that the vast majority of these cases should be cleared by the end of 1999–2000. Secondly, for cases not in the backlog, we will be monitoring the age profile of outstanding cases, by month; and the age profile of cases which have been cleared, by month. This will give a clear picture of how long appellants still in the ITS/The Appeals Service queue have been waiting, and how long those cases have just been cleared actually had to wait. While efforts are being concentrated on the backlog in the early part of the year, progress here will not be as quick as we would like, but the intention is that both waiting times and clearance times will have been reduced by the end of 1999–2000.

  The use of average clearance times as the key indicator of performance has not provided appellants, commentators, or ITS itself with a true picture of the levels of performance being achieved. First, average clearance times mask a wide range of performance and, in past years, did not expose the full extent of the backlog of cases which was building up. Secondly, average clearance times actually provide a perverse incentive not to clear backlog cases—the more effective ITS/The Appeals Service is in tackling its backlog of older cases, the less successful it appears in terms of average clearance

  Cost of changing the tariff income rule

  £ million

  Option

  Income support

  Jobseeker's allowance (income based)

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  Total cost

  £1 per week of every £300

  10

  Less than £2.5m

  20

  10

  40

  £1 per week of every £400

  15

  Less than £2.5m

  45

  25

  85

  £1 per week of every £500

  20

  Less than £2.5m

  65

  30

  115

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran (Organ Transplants)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iran concerning the role of the Iranian state in procuring for cash body parts from living donors for use in transplants. [87648]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have not, so far, made any such representations to the Iranian Government.

  Mozambique (Elections)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is offering Mozambique in connection with the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary elections. [87858]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Presidential and parliamentary elections are due to take place in Mozambique before mid-December. The EU has committed 21 million euros (£13 million) to the election process, of which around 372
  times as cases which have been outstanding for too long are brought to account. Thirdly, the new performance indicators will provide a better picture of exactly how the caseload is being affected by the changes, which are being phased in over the coming months. And, additionally, the new appeals processes presently being introduced would in any event mean that future clearance times statistics were not directly comparable with those for past years.

  This dual strategy has already paid dividends in terms of performance in the last few months. At the end of February, ITS/The Appeals Service figures showed that the backlog contained 70,348 cases and represented almost 50 per cent. of the caseload. By the end of May, the backlog had been reduced to 34,194 cases. During April and May, a total of 64,647 cases were cleared. Due to the changes which came on stream in April, the intake of appeals in April and May has been much lower than usual—ITS/The Appeals Service has taken full advantage of this opportunity and the cumulative effect of the record clearances and lower intake has been that, by the end of May, the outstanding caseload has fallen below 100,000, to 99,410, for the first time since November 1995.

  Means Tests
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net public expenditure cost of changing the rate of deemed income from capital for means-tested benefits to £1 per week for(a) each £300 of capital, (b) each £400 of capital and (c) each £500 of capital. [87979]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  15 per cent., or 3.2 million euros (£2 million), will come from the United Kingdom's contribution to the EU budget. Our High Commission in Maputo is actively involved in the international donor group which is working closely with the Mozambican authorities, including the National Elections Commission, to co-ordinate international support for the elections.

  The United Kingdom is ready to consider sending election observers, if invited to do so by the Government of Mozambique.

  The Gambia
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights record of the present Gambian Government. [87947]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We regularly review the Gambian human rights record, on a bilateral basis, and as a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group which has a standing remit to monitor the situation in The Gambia. We have consistently made it clear that developments in the bilateral relationship, not least in the
  373
  UK's development assistance programme, depend on Gambian observance of human rights and commitment to good governance.

  There have been some improvements in recent months: harassment of the independent media has declined and the UDP opposition party has managed to hold regular rallies without interference. Nonetheless, we continue to press for Decrees which proscribe certain politicians and which place heavy burdens on the independent media to be repealed.

  We have also raised the recent abduction of Mr. Nyassi of the opposition UDP party and are pressing for an independent inquiry into the incident.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Gambia with regard to the arrest and disappearance of Mr. Shyngle Nyassi of the United Democratic Party. [87945]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our High Commissioner in Banjul pursued the matter with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 27 and 28 May. He called on the Foreign Minister on 31 May and tried repeatedly to obtain a response from the Gambian Government.

  He carried out a UK-inspired demarche on behalf of the EU on 9 June, urging the Government to take urgent action to secure Mr. Nyassi's release and punish those responsible for his detention. He pursued the matter again with the Foreign Minister on 11 June and, with other Diplomatic colleagues in Banjul, met President Jammeh on 18 June.

  I am pleased to report that Mr. Nyassi was subsequently released on 21 June.

WALES

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to encourage recruitment of physiotherapy staff to the NHS in Wales. [87799]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The recruitment of physiotherapists is essentially a matter for the service but we commission training numbers to meet service need. There are two modes of training currently—full-time and mixed mode—to ensure as wide an entry gate as possible is available.

  The links between career development opportunities and positive recruitment of staff were identified in the J. M. Consulting Ltd. report entitled "PAMs Career Development Project". NHS Trusts and Health Authorities have been encouraged to take forward its recommendations. Also my officials are currently working with the NHS Staff College to develop a Clinical Leadership Programme, which should provide further opportunities for physiotherapists and other Professions Allied to Medicine (PAMs) staff groups.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passport Agency (Compensation)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much compensation the Passport Agency has paid to applicants who made complaints in(a) each of the last 12 months and (b) each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [87435]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Passport Agency's compensation policy is to reimburse the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by customers as a direct consequence of clear operational errors, or failure to provide an acceptable level of service by means of an ex-gratia payment. Each case is considered carefully on its merits. It is not the Agency's normal policy to make compensation payments for distress and inconvenience arising from such errors and failures.

  The information requested on compensation payments made by the Agency is shown in the table.

  Year

  Total number of complaints where compensation paid

  Total compensation paid (£)

  1996–97

  1,517

  42,357

  1997–98

  1,622

  43,876

  1998–99

  2,313

  76,311

  Within the last 12 months the position is as follows:

  Date

  Number of complaints where compensation paid

  Total compensation paid (£)

  June 1998

  160

  5,256

  July 1998

  266

  7,460

  August 1998

  244

  6,079

  September 1998

  188

  7,234

  October 1998

  194

  7,453

  November 1998

  180

  8,127

  December 1998

  179

  7,166

  January 1999

  181

  5,785

  February 1999

  196

  7,955

  March 1999

  245

  5,453

  April 1999

  256

  7,748

  May 1999

  219

  7,551

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87331]

  Mr. Straw
  Between 15 April 1999 and 18 June 1999, a total of 173 "Named Day" parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by my Department. Of these, 96 per cent. (166) received a substantive reply on that date.

  Correspondence
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the location of an Ethiopian asylum seeker whose identity has
  375
  been provided to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for asylum in a letter dated 15 June. [87423]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have written to my hon. Friend.

  London River Police
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1999,Official Report, columns 332–33, on the London River Police, what operational assessment the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police has made of the workload increase for the river police over the millennium public holiday; and if he will make a statement. [87403]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that his operational planning assumes there will be a high level of activity on the river over the millennium public holiday. However, organisers of many proposed events have not yet confirmed the extent of these events. There will be a need for maximum operational deployment of river police both to police the areas involved and to support other agencies, such as the Port of London Authority.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1999,Official Report, columns 332–33, on the London River Police, if the river police are currently deployed on a 24 hour shift pattern; and what changes to the current pattern are proposed for the millennium public holiday. [87404]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the river police are currently deployed on a 24-hour shift pattern; and that 24-hour cover will be provided throughout the millennium period, with the number of officers on duty at any time reflecting the operational demand.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been put in place to ensure public safety on London rivers over the millennium public holiday. [87406]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that there are ongoing discussions on the joint measures that may be necessary between the Port of London Authority, who are responsible for river safety, and the Metropolitan Police Service. It would be premature to make final decisions on the total resources to be deployed, or on operational plans.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the multi-agency strategy to deal with the monitoring and observation of paedophile activity. [87498]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 601–13, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the Government's intention to consider the case for legislation in relation to dangerous people with severe personality disorder. A consultation paper on this will be published shortly. He also said that we would look to the national steering group on dangerous offenders to help the various agencies working with sex offenders to plan together for the safe resettlement of offenders into the community. The
  376
  Steering Group has met twice and I can report the following progress: an early warning system has been put in place to allow proper time to prepare for a dangerous person's re-entry into the community; and a support group made up of staff from the operational services will begin work in July to support the Steering Group in its work.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 1999,Official Report, column 30, on young offenders, for what reasons he will not seek funding from local education authorities for the education of young offenders who are in custody. [87640]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It would be extremely complex, costly and time consuming to seek funding from local education authorities for the education of young offenders who are in custody.

  Young people are often in prison for a very short time and school budgets are set for the whole year, dependent generally on the number on roll in January.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 1999,Official Report, column 32, on education at Feltham Young Offenders' Unit, for what reasons the number of teaching hours purchased for 1999 is less than in 1998. [87643]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Although there has been a small reduction of 105 in the number of teaching hours purchased for 1999, the number of education hours has not decreased. The new education contract which came into effect on 1 January 1999, allows the governor to also purchase testing and assessment of prisoners from the education contractor to ensure that education programmes are focused on their needs. 192 such hours will be purchased in 1999. Previously this assessment was included in the teaching hours.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young juvenile and young offenders convicted of sexual offences are enrolled under a sex offender treatment programme; and what was the percentage in each of the last three years. [87621]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the expected number of offenders under 21 convicted of sex offences who will complete an accredited sex offender treatment programme (SOTP) in 1999–2000 is 36.

  The number of such offenders under 21 received into the prison system and the number of completions of a sex offender treatment programme by such offenders, are given in the table.
  377

  Receptions of offenders under 21 convicted of sex offences

  Completions of SOTP by offenders under 21 in young offender institutions

  1996–97

  145

  37

  1997–98

  191

  48

  1998–99

  1196

  48

  1 Provisional

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young offenders and juveniles were held on remand in(a) Feltham young offenders' unit and (b) other young offenders' units for eight weeks or more in each of the last three years and in the period from November 1998 to May 1999. [87619]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information is given in the table.

  Percentage of young offenders in Her Majesty's Offender Institution Remand Centre (HMYOI/RC) Feltham and other young offender institutions by length of time since first reception, 1996–99

  Percentage

  Juveniles1

  Young offenders2

  Length of time since first remand into prison

  HMYOI/RC Feltham

  Others

  HMYOI/RC Feltham

  Others

  30 June 1996

  Up to 8 weeks

  54

  62

  49

  51

  8 weeks or more

  46

  38

  51

  49

  30 June 1997

  Up to 8 weeks

  59

  61

  46

  53

  8 weeks or more

  41

  39

  54

  47

  30 June 1998

  Up to 8 weeks

  53

  60

  53

  53

  8 weeks or more

  47

  40

  47

  47

  30 November 1998

  Up to 8 weeks

  57

  60

  52

  52

  8 weeks or more

  43

  40

  48

  48

  30 April 19993

  Up to 8 weeks

  61

  62

  54

  54

  8 weeks or more

  39

  38

  46

  46

  1 Persons aged 15–17 years

  2 Persons aged 18–20 years

  3 Latest available provisional figures

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 1999,Official Report, column 30, on young offenders, when the revision of the selection criteria for staff working with offenders aged under 18 years will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the revised criteria. [87639]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The particular skills required by new entrant prison officers who will work with young offenders aged under 18 include, tolerance, commitment and the ability to deal with and positively influence the behaviour of young people. These requirements have been reflected in additions to the competence questionnaire which forms part of the application form and in additional exercises at the job simulation assessment centres used in the recruitment of prison officers.
  378
  The recruitment process for new prison officers to work in the under 18 estate in preparation for the introduction of the Detention and Training Order in April 2000 began earlier this month, and incorporates these additional selection criteria.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what part education plays in rehabilitation programmes for young offenders and juveniles in young offenders' units. [87618]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The main thrust of the Prison Service education policy is the improvement of basic and key skills through the prison education core curriculum which includes basic skills, information technology, social and life skills and English for speakers of other languages. The curriculum's emphasis on improving the employability of young offenders and juveniles increases their rehabilitation prospects.

  The Prison Service is a co-signatory to the National Framework Document to assist in the development of local agreements to improve the employment prospects of offenders.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the studies he has commissioned into rehabilitation programmes for juveniles and young offenders and the consequent recommendations he has made about such programmes. [87620]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office has a long established policy of developing, implementing and evaluating rehabilitative programmes for young offenders, either directly or by commissioning them from outside bodies and academics.

  A wide range of such programmes have been examined over a long period of time—including programmes addressing offender behaviour (for example sex and violence offenders), particular offender problems (for example drugs and alcohol abuse problems), educational and numerical deficits, social skills deficits, parenting and other offending issues.

  As a result, the Home Office has concluded that the most effective rehabilitative interventions are those carefully matched to the particular needs of offenders, those which employ a cognitive-behavioural approach to their work, and those which are closely managed and delivered by well trained staff. Programme accreditation—ensuring that programmes have to meet (and continue to meet) an established body of criteria in order to be recognised as effective programmes (and which can be supported by the prison or probation services)—is also an established way of helping to ensure effectiveness.

  Wherever possible, these principles inform the development of regimes and programmes for young offenders.

  Drug Smuggling (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) arrested and (b) charged for attempting to smuggle drugs into prisons in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [87653]
  379
  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of visitors arrested for possible drug-related offences is given in the table. Figures for the number subsequently charged are not kept centrally.

  Visitors to prison establishments arrested for possible

  Year

  Number

  1996

  1,317

  1997

  1,183

  1998

  1,109

  1999 (to May 31)1

  366

  1 Provisional figure

  Driving (Illegal Drug Use)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been in England and Wales for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of illegal drugs in each of the last three years. [87656]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not separately identifiable from convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in the statistics collected centrally.

  However, figures obtained from the Forensic Science Service show that 1,266 blood samples were submitted to them for analysis by police forces in England and Wales in 1996–97 and 1,863 in 1997–98, and approximately 90 per cent. of the samples submitted were found to contain one or more drugs.

  The high proportion of positive findings is likely to be as a result of the absence of specific training or other aids to identifying drug impaired drivers, so that police officers arrest only motorists who are obviously and grossly impaired. Moreover, before a sample can be taken a police surgeon has to agree that drugs are an explanation for the motorist's condition.

  Unlawful Proxy Voting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted since 1969 for unlawfully casting a proxy vote. [87647]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is unavailable centrally as such offences are not identified separately by the Home Office Court Proceedings Database.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants have been caught while seeking to enter the United Kingdom by hiding in vehicles since 1 January. [87655]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information is not recorded centrally on the precise circumstances in which illegal entrants are detected. It is not, therefore, possible to say how many clandestine entrants are detected while concealed in vehicles and how many come to light at some later point. Regrettably, I am therefore, unable to provide the information requested.
  380
  Provisional data on persons issued with notice of illegal entry, including clandestine entrants, between 1 January and 31 May 1999 is given in the table.

  Persons issued with notice of illegal entry January to May 19991

  Number of persons1

  Month

  All persons issued with notice of illegal entry

  Of whom: clandestines

  January

  1,160

  n/a

  February

  1,000

  n/a

  March

  1,060

  n/a

  April

  1,130

  n/a

  May

  1,700

  n/a

  1 Figures are provisional and rounded to 10

  n/a = not available

  Unlicensed Guns
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he has collated regarding the use of unlicensed guns in the committing of crimes during the last three years; and if he will publish them. [87850]

  Mr. Boateng
  An exercise to obtain information on homicides involving firearms was carried out in 1996 covering the years 1992 to 1994. Out of a total of 196 homicides involving the use of a firearm, it was known whether the firearm was legally or illegally held in 151 cases, and of these it was illegally held in 128 cases.

  From 1997, the question as to whether firearms used in crime are legally or illegally held has been routinely asked but has been provided by the police in only 6 per cent. of cases. It was decided therefore, that the information was not complete enough to be published.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to implement European Directive 86/609/EEC. [87853]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 already implements, and in several ways, exceeds European Directive 86/609/EEC.

  The most important ways in which the Act exceeds the Directive are:
  the Directive requires, at Article 12, that either the experiments themselves or the details of the person conducting such experiments be notified in advance. The 1986 Act requires both that the programme of work be authorised by a project licence and that the individuals carrying out the procedures hold personal licences;
  Article 12 of the Directive also requires that for experiments that might cause severe and prolonged pain, the authority must be satisfied that the experiment is of sufficient importance for meeting the essential needs of man or animal. Section 5(4) of the 1986 Act requires that, for all applications for project licences, the likely adverse effects on the animal concerned be weighed against the benefits likely to occur; and
  the 1986 Act regulates the production and breeding of genetically modified animals, and harmful mutants as well as their use in scientific procedures. The Directive only covers their use in scientific procedures.

  LD50 Test
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish the LD50 test. [87897]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 19, and to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 8 December 1998, Official Report, column 110.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate ways of facilitating the use of smart cards designed for electronic Government transactions as national identity cards. [86801]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The White Paper on Modernising Government proposes the development of a framework for the use of smart cards in support of the delivery of Government services. No decision has so far been taken on the merits of a national identity card, but the potential for using smart card technology for this purpose is something we will keep in mind.

  Open Government
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make advice given to Ministers public. [86781]

  Mr. Straw
  Under the proposals set out in clause 14 of the draft Freedom of Information Bill, published on 20 May, Departments will be required to consider whether to exercise their discretion to disclose advice given to Ministers taking into account all the circumstances of the case including:

  (a) the public interest in allowing public access to the information; and

  (b) whether the disclosure to the applicant of the information in question would be in the public interest.

  The proposed Information Commissioner would be able to regulate the exercise of the discretion by virtue of his powers under clause 43 of the draft Bill. As disclosure of this kind of information is discretionary he will not be able to require the Department to disclose any particular information, but he will be able to:

  (a) require the Department to make a decision in accordance with that section; and

  (b) specify matters to which the Department must have regard in making that decision.

  Advice to Ministers is exempt from the statutory requirement to disclose information under clause 8 of the draft Bill by virtue of the exemption set out in clause 28.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish courts dedicated to dealing with cases of domestic violence in the north-east of England. [87680]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.
  382
  The listing of cases is the responsibility of each of the courts in the area. The magistrates court in Leeds has recently started an experimental project using one courtroom on one afternoon each week exclusively to hear cases of domestic violence. This will ensure that those with the necessary expertise will be available to deal with these cases. HALT, the local voluntary agency supported by National Lottery funding, and the Probation Service will have a representative in court.

HEALTH

  Medicines (Bovine Material)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 280, concerning precautionary measures in respect of medicines in whose manufacture bovine material was used, whether the precautionary measures enacted also required manufacturers to prevent the further use of existing supplies of medicinal products which in their early stage of manufacture had used bovine material (i) prohibited for use in human food at that point and (ii) subsequently prohibited for use in human food. [86773]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]The precautionary measures introduced in 1989 and subsequent amendments to them did not require manufacturers to prevent the use of existing supplies of medicinal products which had used bovine material in their early stage of manufacture. Neither did the later guidelines issued by the European Commission in 1992.

  Managerial Suspensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many chief executives and their deputies of (i) health authorities and (ii) NHS trusts are currently suspended on full pay; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of persons in these categories, respectively. [86878]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]One National Health Service trust chief executive is currently suspended on full pay. There are 402 NHS trusts and 100 health authorities. Deputy chief executives are not formally recognised in NHS trusts or health authorities, although arrangements will normally be made for a director post to deputise.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the procedures to be adopted by the Medicines Control Agency under the provisions of the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 267) accord with principles of natural justice and transparency. [86939]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]The Regulations clarify and strengthen existing procedures in the control of medicines advertising. We have clear legal advice that the proposals are compatible with both Community law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
  383
  There are specific circumstances under which notices may be issued to advertisers under the procedures in the amending Regulations. These are:
  Under paragraph 1—to request a copy of an advertisement;
  Under paragraph 3—to advise an advertiser that Health Ministers are "minded to" make a decision that an advertisement is in breach of the Advertising Regulations;
  Under paragraph 4—to advise an advertiser that an advertisement would not be in breach; and
  Under paragraph 5—to advise an advertiser that, after consideration of the advice of the Independent Review Panel Health Ministers have decided an advertisement is in breach.

  Notices under paragraphs 1 or 3 may require an advertiser to cease advertising on an interim basis. At any stage, the recipient of a notice can seek judicial review of the decision to issue that notice.

  The issue of notices under the Schedule will not be automatic—the Medicines Control Agency will continue, as now, to discuss problems with advertising with the company concerned so as to secure acceptable changes. The formal procedures will come into play only when informal negotiation fails to reach an appropriate outcome.

  As regards transparency, reports of the Review Panel meetings will be publicly available. The MCA has also established a working group, the Medicines Advertising Liaison Group, to provide a forum for all regulatory and self-regulatory bodies concerned with the advertising of medicines to exchange information and opinions on issues.

  Ministerial Meetings (Ireland)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions ministers in his Department have held meetings with ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998, indicating the dates and locations, the ministers involved and the names of the Irish ministers and officials in each case. [87382]

  Ms Jowell
  Once, I met Dr. Tom Moffatt, the Irish Deputy Minister for Health, at the Council of Europe Ministers meeting in Athens on 22 April 1999. I was accompanied by my Private Secretary.

  Human Embryos (Research)
  Mr. Dayell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Minister of State's letter (DOH/3/5437/71), on cloning tissue, what action he is taking to permit research into mitochondrial diseases and treatment for diseased or damaged tissues or organs; and what research he has commissioned into the use of cells or tissue, derived from human embryos, for the treatment of diseased or damaged tissues. [87181]

  Ms Jowell
  The joint Human Genetics Advisory Commission and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority report "Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine" recommends, among other things, that regulations should be made under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to extend the purposes for which human embryos may be used in research. This would enable research to be conducted into a number of serious disorders including the so-called mitochondrial diseases and for the treatment of diseased 384
  or damaged tissues. The Government are considering the recommendations in the Report very carefully indeed. A response is expected shortly.

  The Government provide funding for many research projects both directly and indirectly. The Medical Research Council receives most of its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry, with smaller amounts from various other sources including the Department. I understand that the Council currently funds one major research programme, at the University of Edinburgh, which is looking at the development potential of embryonic cells. This is being undertaken under the terms of a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  Eye Damage (Solar Eclipse)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made from previous solar eclipses of eye damage caused by exposure to the sun's rays; and if such evidence was used as the basis for Government guidelines. [87446]

  Mr. Denham
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that, in 1927, 13 people lost their sight due to retinal burns caused by viewing the sun directly during the last total eclipse visible from the United Kingdom. More recently, the Manchester Royal Eye Hospital carried out a study of patients presenting for treatment following the partial eclipse that occurred on 30 May 1984. They identified 11 patients of whom 7 suffered some enduring deterioration in visual acuity.

  This evidence prompted us to collaborate with the optical professions in preparation of a guidance leaflet which is about to be published. It warns that looking directly at the sun is very dangerous. The radiation could permanently damage the eye. The safest way to view the eclipse is indirectly with, for example, a pinhole projection viewer. If people ignore this advice and decide to use a solar filter or a pair of eclipse spectacles, they do so at their own risk. They would be well advised to buy the device from a reputable outlet and ensure that it had a CE mark to show it had been approved under the Personal Protective Equipment Directive and also ensure that it came with full instructions for use, that it fitted closely to the face and that the lenses were not scratched or damaged.

  Mixed-sexed Wards (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals covering the greater London area have mixed-sex wards. [87399]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the Government are committed to eliminating mixed-sex accommodation. The National Health Service Executive has set three specific targets for the NHS, and is monitoring progress. It will issue a monitoring report, which will contain results of health authorities' progress towards achievements of the objectives, shortly.

  Salt
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to encourage people to reduce their levels of salt consumption; [87411]

  (2) what action he is taking to inform the public of risks associated with a diet with a high salt intake. [87645]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government have issued healthy eating advice which mentions the risks associated with high salt intakes. It includes the recommendation to reduce levels of salt consumption by cutting down on salty foods and using less salt in cooking and at the table. To enable consumers to make an informed choice, the Government are encouraging manufacturers to include the level of both sodium and the salt equivalent on the labels of all pre-packed foods and pressing for this to become a requirement throughout the European Union.

  The Government are also discussing with the food industry the scope for reducing the levels of salt in processed foods. Following initial discussions between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food/Department of Health Joint Food Safety and Standards Group and the Food and Drink Federation ((FDF) acting for the food and drink manufacturing industry as a whole) the FDF has announced that it will be conducting a systematic review of the purpose and usage of sodium in manufactured foods. We welcome this review.

  Physiotherapy (Recruitment)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to encourage recruitment of physiotherapy staff to the NHS. [87800]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are ensuring that effective recruitment and retention policies are in place to make the best use of trained staff and that training levels are sufficient to get a better match between supply and demand.

  The Government are taking a number of steps which will help to address the issue of recruitment and retention of physiotherapists. These include the publication of the framework for the management of human resources for the whole of the National Health Service, "Working Together: securing a quality workforce for the NHS", which sets targets for local employers to improve recruitment and retention year on year. We have issued guidance to the service on improving working lives and we will shortly be issuing guidance on Lifelong Learning and Continuing Professional Development. In addition, physiotherapy staff are to get their biggest real terms pay increase in the last 10 years, and, for the first time in 5 years, the award is being paid nationally, in full and with no staging.

  GP Lists (Removals)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the responsibilities of health authorities regarding the removal of patients from GPs' lists. [87972]

  Mr. Denham
  The responsibilities health authorities have regarding the removal of patients from a general practitioner's list are contained in the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evaluation he has made of the effect on the (i) capital and (ii) running costs of(a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes of the introduction of rules and regulations affecting the running of these homes in the last three years; [87893]

  (2) what Fiche d'Impact was undertaken by the EC on each of the legislative initiatives affecting (a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes introduced in the last three years; [87895]

  (3) if he will list the European Union (i) legislation and (ii) other rules introduced in the last three years which relate to the running of (a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes. [87894]

  Mr. Hutton
  The responsibility for the organisation and delivery of health care and social care in the European Union, including residential homes, lies with member states. As such, there is no European Community legislation or other rules for which the Department is responsible which relate to the running of residential homes and nursing homes and no fiches d'impact have been undertaken.

  In the last three years, there have only been two regulations introduced by the Department which relate specifically to residential and nursing homes.

  The National Health Service (Health Authorities) (Open Reporting of Nursing Home and Mental Nursing Home Inspections) Directions, made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under Section 17 of the NHS Act 1977, required health authorities, from 1 April 1998, to make their inspection reports on nursing homes available to the public. This matched the existing requirement for local authorities to publish their residential care home inspection reports. This change involved no increase in costs to nursing homes.

  With effect from 1 May 1998, Health Service Circular 1998/057 and Local Authority Circular (98)12 increased the registration and annual fees which residential care homes and nursing homes are required to pay to the local or health authority with which they are required to register. The purpose of the fees is to cover the cost to local and health authorities of registering and inspecting homes. Prior to last year, there had been no increase in fees since October 1992.

  For a residential care home with 20 beds, the increase in fees would cost an extra £100 a year. For a nursing home, the increase would cost an extra £480 a year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by her Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [86997]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government are committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experience of all those affected
  387
  by them. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 makes statutory provision for two proposals in the White Paper, "Partnership for Equality"—an obligation on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity and a unified Equality Commission. This will replace the existing Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment (PAFT) guidelines.

  Consultation has taken place with the following women's organisations during this Parliamentary session:

  Ardoyne Women's Group

  Ballybeen Women's Centre

  Belfast Women's Training Services

  Falls Women's Centre

  Footprints Women's Centre

  Lisburn Women's Centre

  NI Women's Coalition

  Soroptomist International for Northern Ireland

  Training for Women Network

  Upper Andersonstown Women's Network

  Windsor Women's Centre

  Women in Politics

  Women's Information Group

  Women's News

  Women's Resource and Development Agency

  Women's Support Network.

  None of the responses has been published.

  Imports
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the(a) volume and (b) value of imports to Northern Ireland for each of the last five years for which information is available. [87650]

  Mr. Ingram
  Official statistics on imports relate to the United Kingdom as a whole. It is therefore not possible to provide information on the volume and value of imports by Northern Ireland or any other UK region.

  Planning Appeals Commission
  Mr. Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the Northern Ireland Planning Appeals Commission. [87689]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following the transfer of responsibility for planning from local to central government in 1973, The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) was established under the Planning (NI) Order 1972, to provide an independent appeals mechanism for decisions made by the then Ministry of Development (later to become the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland).

  The Commission also has a hearing/reporting role where it holds hearings and inquiries as requested by the Department in respect of specific matters. In this role, the Commission hears evidence and reports its findings and recommendations to the Department. The final decision on these matters is taken by the Department following consideration of the Commission's report.

  The PAC conducts its business using the principles of impartiality, openness and fairness.

  Internet
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when and for what reasons, officials responsible for the internet public service website for press releases were authorised to include information provided by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland in an equivalent position to that of the Police Authority and the RUC. [87483]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 21 June 1999]The inclusion of information provided by the Police Authority and RUC was a mistake. This was done by a technical grade at 11.30am on 8 June 1999 in response to an urgent request from the Police Federation and was done in good faith. The situation was rectified at 2.00pm on 16 June 1999.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those non-Governmental organisations which are itemised with links on the public service Internet web site. [87487]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 21 June 1999]The Northern Ireland Public Service website was developed with the intention of providing the public with a mechanism for quickly accessing information relating to the Northern Ireland Office, Departments, Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies, other public bodies and Commissions. In encouraging the public to access the site, the website also provides links to a wide range of non-governmental organisations, as follows:

  Educational establishments

  Queen's University Belfast

  NUS/USI Northern Ireland Student Centre

  University of Ulster

  Stran Web—Stranmillis College www

  St. Mary's College

  Upper Bann Institute of Further and Higher Education

  Education and Library Boards

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  Media

  Newspapers

  Irish News—daily editions

  Belfast Telegraph—daily editions

  Andersonstown News and North Belfast News

  Television

  BBC 1 and 2—BBC Northern Ireland BBC

  UTV—Ulster Television

  Channel 4—UK-wide broadcasting

  Radio

  BBC Radio

  COOL FM—covers the greater Belfast area

  Downtown Radio—covers the greater Belfast area

  Q102 FM, based in Derry, covers the Deny area

  Political Parties

  Alliance Party

  Conservative Party

  Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)

  Labour

  Natural Law Party

  Progressive Unionist Party (PUP)

  Sinn Fein (SF)

  Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)

  389

  Ulster Democratic Party

  UK Unionist Party

  Ulster Unionist Party

  Women's Coalition

  Workers Party of Ireland(WP)

  Northern Ireland Green Party

  Tourism

  Ireland's National Tourism Service

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Hotels

  Transport

  Rail

  NIR

  Airports

  Belfast International Airport

  Ports

  Port of Larne

  Ferries

  SeaCat

  P&O

  Stena Line

  Norse Irish Ferries

  Utilities

  Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE)

  British Telecom

  CabelTel

  Mercury Communications

  Community Groups

  CINNI—Community Information Network Northern Ireland

  Economic Development

  Northern Ireland Grown Challenge (NIGC)

  Northern Ireland Economic Council (NIEC)

  Enterprise Ulster

  Other Government Sites

  Northern Ireland Local Councils

  Antrim Borough Council

  Ards Borough Council

  Castlereagh Borough Council

  Derry City Council

  Larne Borough Council

  Moyle District Council

  North Down Borough Council

  Strabane District Council

  Miscellaneous Government Related Topics

  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  HPSS—Health and Personal Social Services

  The Drive for Energy Efficiency

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation

  Committee

  Other Internet Service Providers

  GPL www Server

  Unite Solutions www Server

  NIWEB www

  Northern Ireland Global Gateway

  390

  BIC Systems

  TRIP

  BTNET

  Ireland On-line

  CompuServe

  Unipalm pipex

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd.

  Nova Internet

  CMI Ltd.

  Rexco's Irish Trade Page

  Aaranet

  The American Ireland Fund

  Direct Net @ccess

  Creative Online Media Ltd.

  Infosite

  The Internet Business

  PM workshop

  The Trinity Group Ltd.

  The Solutions Group

  Belfast ISP—WydeWorld.Com

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has responsibility to(a) define the political parameters of, (b) set goals and targets for and (c) maintain and update the Government internet website. [87486]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 21 June 1999]Material appearing on the Northern Ireland public service website is the sole responsibility of the originating organisation (Northern Ireland Office, departments, agencies, non-departmental public bodies, other public bodies and commissions) as is the responsibility for setting parameters, goals and targets. The Business Development Service (BDS) provide a technical maintenance service including the design and update of information provided by the originating organisations. BDS is currently reviewing the management and editorial responsibilities associated with the Northern Ireland Public Service website.

  Voting Applications
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many absent vote applications were made for each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland for the election held on 10 June; how many applications were made on each ground for which such an application can be made, in each constituency; for each constituency how many applications were made for proxy votes; and how many in each category were(a) granted and (b) refused; [87598]

  (2) what evidence she has obtained of attempts
  fraudulently to acquire absent votes in parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland for the election to the European Parliament on 10 June; and in which parliamentary constituencies investigations are being undertaken. [87599]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]The only readily available statistics for absent vote applications in respect of the European Parliamentary elections on 10 June 1999 relate to the overall number of absent vote applications, granted and refused, for each parliamentary constituency in the Northern Ireland region. This information is detailed in the table.
  391
  As far as evidence of fraudulently acquired absent votes, the Secretary of State is aware that the Chief Electoral Officer is currently investigating attempts made to abuse the absent voting system but his investigations are as yet incomplete.

  European Parliamentary election—10 June 1999 Northern Ireland electoral region

  Registered electors applying to vote by post

  Registered electors applying to vote by proxy

  Constituency

  Granted

  Refused

  Granted

  Refused

  Belfast East

  214

  8

  39

  1

  Belfast North

  115

  3

  201

  35

  Belfast South

  215

  10

  99

  9

  Belfast West

  115

  35

  222

  35

  East Antrim

  206

  5

  58

  1

  East Londonderry

  488

  5

  140

  11

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  1,659

  39

  815

  53

  Foyle

  579

  16

  701

  34

  Lagan Valley

  358

  5

  56

  6

  Mid Ulster

  823

  24

  1,063

  101

  North Antrim

  345

  7

  102

  3

  North Down

  322

  5

  62

  1

  Newry and Armagh

  630

  30

  534

  33

  South Antrim

  192

  23

  63

  0

  South Down

  302

  8

  225

  13

  Strangford

  354

  5

  51

  2

  Upper Bann

  367

  6

  87

  0

  West Tyrone

  931

  28

  1,079

  86

  Totals

  8,215

  262

  5,597

  424

  Land Registers
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Land Registers of Northern Ireland in 1999–2000. [88209]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1999–2000, the following performance targets have been set for LRNI:

  1. To achieve a customer satisfaction rate, measured against complaints of 98.5 per cent.

  2. To achieve a registration accuracy rate of at least 98.5 per cent.

  3. To process regular Land Registry dealings in an average of 20 days.

  4. To process regular Registry of Deeds dealings in an average of 4 days.

  5. To process regular Statutory Charges Registry dealings in an average of 15 days.

  6. To process pre-completion Land Information Applications in an average of 5 days.

  7. To achieve a weighted unit cost target of £24.80 (exclusive of PFI costs).

  8. To process 115 application units per member of staff per month.

  9. To increase overall productivity by at least 1.5 per cent.

  10. To cover Agency costs out of Free Income.

  EU Support Programme
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the level of take-up by the two main communities in Northern Ireland has been of funds under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation for each of its sub-programmes and for the main types of funding body. [88206]
  392
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The figures requested are listed in Tables 1 and 2: Technical details of the research on which these figures are based are given in "European Union Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation—Analysis of Community Uptake Report", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Table 1: Approved funding by sub programme and religious community

  Percentage

  Estimated take-up

  Catholic

  Protestant

  Employment

  59

  41

  Urban and Rural Regeneration

  63

  37

  Cross-border Development

  46

  54

  Social inclusion

  58

  42

  Productive investment

  42

  58

  Partnerships

  52

  48

  Programme overall

  54

  46

  Table 2: Approved funding by funding body and religious community

  Percentage

  Estimated take-up

  Catholic

  Protestant

  District Partnerships

  52

  48

  Government Departments

  48

  52

  Intermediate Funding Bodies/Sector

  Partners

  57

  43

  Programme overall

  54

  46

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on 14,748 project applications out of a total of some 15,460 applications for funding within Northern Ireland notified by September 1998.

  2. The religion of beneficiaries of funding is based on the religious composition of the geographical area of origin of the application.

  Agency Targets
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Environment and Heritage Service in 1999–2000. [88207]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1999–2000 the following performance targets have been set for the Environment and Heritage Service.Volume of Output
  Bring about a 10 per cent, reduction in the number of 'high' and 'medium' severity water pollution incidents by the year 2000 on 1996 figures.
  Establish regulatory systems for the COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazard) Regulations in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland by 31 December 1999.
  Issue large combustion plant authorisation under the Industrial Pollution Control Order by 31 October 1999.
  Progress the Areas of Special Scientific Interest designation programme by:
  declaring 15 Areas of Special Scientific Interest bringing the total to 174, and preparing statements of conservation objectives for 50 sites.
  Complete public consultation on the draft Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy and publish the agreed strategy and implementation plan.

  393
  Consult on and publish a policy statement on Protected Landscapes.
  Schedule 70 historic monuments to bring the total to 1,435.
  Complete an assessment of the condition of state care monuments.
  Complete the second survey of historic buildings in 24 wards to bring the total resurveyed to 78.
  Publish an EHS strategy for environmental education.

  Quality of Customer Service
  Respond to 90 per cent. of written inquiries or requests for information within 15 working days.
  Determine 85 per cent. of applications of Water Act consents, wildlife licences, ASSI and scheduled monument consents within the timescales quoted in our Customer Service Guides.
  Provide a round the clock response for water pollution incidents. We will assess and prioritise all reported incidents within 30 minutes of receipt by EHS, and aim to begin investigation of such incidents as soon as practicable—in all cases within 24 hours.

  Efficiency
  Achieve the following unit and activity cost and efficiency targets:
  Water Act Consents—trade consent reduce by I per cent. on 1998–99 costs—domestic consent reduce by I per cent. on 1998–99 costs.
  Food and Environment Protection Act—construction licence reduce by 1 per cent. on 1998–99 costs—disposal licence reduce by 1 per cent. on 1998–99 costs.
  Radioactive Substances Act certificates (section 7/10) reduce by 1 per cent. on 1998–99 costs (section 13/14) reduce by 1 per cent. on 1998–99 costs.
  Not to exceed 1998–99 running cost expenditure levels for ongoing existing activities for operation Country Parks. Reduce total Corporate Affairs activity costs by 1 per cent. on 1998–99 costs.
  Not to exceed 1998–99 running cost expenditure levels for ongoing existing activities for presenting and marketing Historic Monuments.
  Achieve 3.75 per cent. efficiency gains on running costs expenditure.
  Complete implementation of EHS's Y2K action plan by 31 December 1999.

  These targets are subject to endorsement or amendment by local Ministers in the event of the Northern Ireland Assembly being established.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Valuation and Lands Agency in 1999–2000. [88208]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The 1999–2000 the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:

  1. To complete 85 per cent. of new rating revision casework within three months of receipt, up to a maximum volume of 23,000 casework units.

  2. To reduce the backlog of rating revision casework so that by 31 March 2000 the average age of outstanding casework will be two months or less.

  3. To achieve a turnaround of 16 weeks on average for all rating appeals.

  4. To complete 97 per cent. of all client casework subject to Service Level Agreements within agreed time limits.

  5. To review all client Service Level Agreements, agree service requirements and establish meaningful customer service measurement criteria for the next business year, by 31 December 1999.

  6. To achieve a unit cost of casework no greater than the 1998–99 unit cost in real terms.

  394

  7. To achieve a standard in all rating valuations such that 90 per cent. of those determined on appeal are within plus or minus 10 per cent. of the initial assessment.

  8. To issue 93 per cent. of certificates for Continuous Revision cases subject to retrospective backdating within 12 months of the event giving rise to the revision of the Valuation List.

  9. To demonstrate the ability to achieve full cost recovery in respect of client services.

  10. To have in place by 31 January 2000 an agreed specification by which external providers could bid for new systems design and installation.

  11. To achieve Investors in People accreditation by 31 March 2000.

  Full details are set out in the Agency's Forward Plan, copies of which have placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Booster Classes
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children have attended year 6 booster classes in 1998–99. [87676]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We do not yet have this information. LEAs are required to provide a report on the number of Year 6 pupils who attended the booster classes. The information is to be provided at the end of the 1999 Summer term.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans there are to continue year 6 booster classes in 1999–2000. [87677]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We will make an announcement shortly about the 1999–2000 Year 6 booster programme.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which(a) local education authorities and (b) districts year 6 booster classes have been introduced. [87675]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  All LEAs were allocated funding for additional literacy and numeracy classes for Year 6 pupils.

  We do not hold nationally data on the distribution of Standards Fund grant at district level.

  Drug Education Forum
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what grants he has made to the Drug Education Forum; who are its members; what arrangements he has made to monitor its use of funds; and if he will make a statement. [87892]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]We have agreed to a grant of up to £50,000 for the Drug Education Forum for each of the three years from 1998–99 to 2000–01. This supports a full-time co-ordinator post, and also covers administrative and information support, including the production of a drug education newsletter for teachers in schools. Grants of £13,000 and £26,000 were provided in 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively.

  The Forum's membership is made up of representatives of each of the six main teacher unions; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Drug Education Practitioners

  395
  Forum; the Evangelical Coalition on Drugs; the Health Education Authority; Hope UK; Life Education Centres; the Local Government Drugs Forum; the National Association of Youth and Community Education Officers; the National Children's Bureau; the National Health Education Group; the National Standing Committee of Advisors, Inspectors and Consultants of Personal and Social Education; Release; the Roehampton Institute London; the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, and the Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Education.

  A condition of grant to the Forum is that the books and records relating to the claiming and use of the grant are open to inspection by the National Audit Office and representatives of the Secretary of State as and when they may require. The Forum's work is also monitored by officials from my Department, along with those of Department of Health, Home Office and the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, who attend the Forum's regular meetings as observers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Adult Protective Legislation
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to reform(a) adult protective legislation and (b) enduring power of attorney. [87632]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government published the consultation paper "Who Decides?" in December 1997 about the recommendations of the Law Commission on decision-making for mentally incapacitated adults, which included proposals for reform of enduring powers of attorney. We wish to give very careful consideration to all the issues involved before deciding the way forward. No decisions have yet been taken on whether there should be legislation and, if so, when it should be introduced.

SCOTLAND

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to license test projects for the farming of genetically modified fish in Scotland. [87259]

  Mr. Macdonald
  None. No applications for consent to release GM fish into the environment have been made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (as amended).

  Policy on this issue will be devolved from 1 July 1999.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests were carried out on members of the 21 EOD Squadron who conducted clean-up operations in Kuwait in 1991 in relation to damage from ingesting depleted uranium dust. [86947]
  396
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]None, However, as I set out in the detailed paper, "Testing for the Presence of Depleted Uranium in UK Veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position", published on 19 March 1999, all Gulf veterans who are concerned that their health has been adversely affected by service during the Gulf conflict (that is, August 1990 to July 1991), including by possible exposure to depleted uranium (DU), are entitled to seek a referral to the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) for a full medical assessment. Copies of the DU Testing paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the timetable for disarming the KLA. [87306]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In the undertaking signed with KFOR on 21 June, the KLA have agreed that, within thirty days, all prohibited weapons with the exception of automatic small arms will be handed in to secure weapons storage sites. Automatic small arms will be handed in in phases over ninety days.

  I am placing a copy of the undertaking in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what day to day contact British officers have with their Russian counterparts in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [87569]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Day-to-day communication between British forces and the Russian contingent in Kosovo has been through a Russian-speaking UK liaison officer. There have also been meetings between KFOR commander Lt Gen Jackson and the commander of the Russian forces in Kosovo, Gen Zavarzin. Gp Capt Morley, the UK officer responsible for the establishment of an air port of disembarkation (APOD) for NATO forces at Pristina airport, has also held discussions with Russian officers. Following the recent agreement on the integration of Russian forces into the peacekeeping effort in Kosovo, more formal lines of communication are now being established.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure NATO remains solely in charge of Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [87568]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Operation Joint Guardian remains a NATO led operation. As far as Russian participation in KFOR is concerned, the arrangement recently negotiated between the US and Russian Defence Ministers, and agreed by the North Atlantic Council, ensures that there will be unity of command under the NATO Commander of Operation Joint Guardian, Lieutenant General Sir Mike Jackson. Political direction will continue to be given by the North Atlantic Council, with consultations on Russian participation through the Permanent Joint Council.

  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of British forces committed to Kosovo operations. [88210]
  397
  Mr. George Robertson
  As of 21 June, some 13,000 UK service personnel were deployed on Kosovo related operations, as follows:Royal Navy: 880
  Army: 10,320 (7,300 in Kosovo, 2,900 in Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia and 120 in Albania)
  RAF: 1,800.

  The RAF element of the UK contribution to Kosovo operations will be reduced to around 900 as a result of the decision announced yesterday to re-deploy all 12 RAF Tornados from Solenzara in Corsica to RAF Bruggen, five VC10 tankers from Ancona in Italy to RAF Brize Norton and 10 Harrier GR7s from Gioia del Colle in Italy to RAF Wittering. Six GR7s will remain in at Gioia del Colle, two Tristars at Ancona and up to three E-3Ds at Aviano in Italy. Nimrod R reconnaissance sorties will continue to be flown, albeit at reduced frequency. The aircraft withdrawn to their home bases remain available for Kosovo operations if required.

  Agency Targets
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Bases and Supply Agency for 1999–2000. [88277]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following targets have been set for the Naval Bases and Supply Agency for 1999–2000.Key Target 1:
  To provide 31,871 Standard Berthing Unit days.
  Key Target 2:
  To complete the Fleet Time Maintenance Loading programme to within three per cent. of budget.
  Key Target 3:
  To supply 80 per cent. of available Material within demand timescales while achieving agreed targets for high priority operational defects.
  Key Target 4:
  To supply 95 per cent. of available, maintained Munitions within demand timescales.
  Key Target 5:
  To ensure 99 per cent. availability of the Food product range in meeting customer's requirements.
  Key Target 6:
  To provide 30 per cent. of entitled personnel with Accommodation to JSP 315 Grade 2 standard or better and the remainder with Grades 3 and 4.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Ships Support Agency for 1999–2000. [88278]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following key targets have been set for the Ships Support Agency for 1999–2000.Key Target 1:
  To deliver upkeep periods with less than eight per cent. overrun.
  Key Target 2:
  To contain the cost of upkeep periods within three per cent. of the budget.
  Key Target 3:
  To limit to less than six per cent. the fleet time during which vessels are unable, for Material reasons, to perform their programmed tasks.
  398
  Key Target 4:
  To limit to less than four the average number of Operational Defects outstanding per vessel in fleet time.
  Key Target 5:
  To provide 70 per cent. materially available vessel days.
  Key Target 6:
  To provide materially available vessel days for less than £39.4K each.
  Key Target 7:
  To achieve a stock turnover ratio of less than 2.9:1.

  Military Provost Guard
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Military Provost Guard Service. [88076]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following a two year pilot scheme of the use of the Military Provost Guard Service to carry out armed guarding duties at a number of Army establishments, I have decided, subject to consultation, to extend the scheme. Over five years, the Military Provost Guard Service will initially expand from its existing strength of 118 local engagement regulars to a strength of over 600, providing armed guarding services to a total of 27 Army establishments nation-wide. They will in most cases replace Ministry of Defence Police who currently carry out armed guarding duties but who will in future concentrate on their primary role of carrying out constabulary duties. Where the MPGS replace MDP they will provide a cost-effective method of guarding, achieving savings rising to over £7 million per annum by comparison with existing arrangements once the scheme is fully up and running. This will be done without any changes to security standards. There will be consultation with the Defence Police Federation on these proposals which will involve a reduction in the overall numbers of MOD Police.

  I am writing to hon. Members whose constituencies are to be affected by these changes, and a report by the Commander in Chief Land Command on the pilot scheme will be placed in the Library.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were engaged for(a) one year, (b) two years and (c) three years, in (i) 1985, (ii) 1986 and (iii) 1987. [87849]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 10 June 1999,Official Report, column 808, concerning the disclosure of soldiers' names, if he has decided to provide protection to those potentially at risk. [87828]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]We have assessed the implications of the disclosure of six names. The former soldiers concerned are being offered appropriate assistance. For obvious reasons I cannot give further details.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Nations Reform
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to promote reform of the United Nations. [86823]

  The Prime Minister
  We have given strong support to the UN Secretary General's plans for reform of the UN and its institutions. We recognise the need for new ways to be found to ensure that the UN and the Security Council work more efficiently and effectively. The Government will be pursuing this with other member states in the coming months. At the same time we will continue to press for enlargement of the Security Council to make it more representative of the world today. We will be working towards securing proper funding for the UN together with effective and transparent accountability arrangements. We will also discuss how the UN might improve co-ordination of its activities.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 June. [87660]

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

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the number and percentage of private sector landlords whose rent is derived from housing benefit in each local authority area in England. [87349]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available in the format requested as the Department does not collect data on the total number of private sector landlords. The table gives information on the number of tenants in receipt of rent allowance in each local authority.

  Rent allowance recipients in the private sector in England (excluding housing association) August 1998

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Adur

  810

  Allerdale

  1,420

  Alnwick

  440

  Amber Valley

  1,410

  Arun

  3,120

  Ashfield

  1,360

  Ashford

  890

  Aylesbury Vale

  900

  Babergh

  910

  Barking

  2,240

  Barnet

  6,920

  Barnsley

  3,200

  Barrow in Furness

  2,300

  Basildon

  1,450

  400

  Rent allowance recipients in the private sector in England (excluding housing association) August 1998

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Basingstoke and Deane

  590

  Bassetlaw

  1,510

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,330

  Bedford

  1,960

  Berwick upon Tweed

  480

  Bexley

  2,700

  Birmingham

  17,240

  Blaby

  470

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2,630

  Blackpool

  8,690

  Blyth Valley

  830

  Bolsover

  1,470

  Bolton

  3,990

  Boston

  540

  Bournemouth

  7,380

  Bracknell Forest

  600

  Bradford

  10,900

  Braintree

  1,200

  Breckland

  1,230

  Brent

  10,060

  Brentwood

  420

  Bridgnorth

  520

  Brighton and Hove

  13,290

  Bristol

  7,590

  Broadland

  1,060

  Bromley

  3,110

  Bromsgrove

  510

  Broxbourne

  710

  Broxtowe

  1,350

  Burnley

  2,390

  Bury

  2,070

  Calderdale

  3,470

  Cambridge

  1,010

  Camden

  5,650

  Cannock Chase

  740

  Canterbury

  2,720

  Caradon

  2,050

  Carlisle

  1,320

  Carrick

  2,290

  Castle Morpeth

  440

  Castle Point

  1,230

  Charnwood

  2,010

  Chelmsford

  1,010

  Cheltenham

  1,760

  Cherwell

  1,330

  Chester

  1,790

  Chester le Street

  490

  Chesterfield

  1,710

  Chichester

  1,190

  Chiltern

  1,220

  Chorley

  910

  Christchurch

  500

  City of London

  120

  Colchester

  2,050

  Congleton

  570

  Copeland

  1,010

  Corby

  430

  Cotswold

  850

  Coventry

  6,740

  Craven

  810

  Crawley

  410

  Crewe and Nantwich

  1,300

  Croydon

  7,600

  Dacorum

  890

  Darlington

  1,760

  Dartford

  1,020

  Daventry

  370

  Derby

  4,020

  Derbyshire Dales

  610

  Derwentside

  1,260

  Doncaster

  5,070

  Dover

  3,070

  401

  Rent allowance recipients in the private sector in England (excluding housing association) August 1998

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Dudley

  2,050

  Durham

  610

  Ealing

  7,370

  Easington

  1,420

  East Cambridgeshire

  570

  East Devon

  2,070

  East Dorset

  740

  East Hampshire

  860

  East Hertfordshire

  750

  East Lindsey

  3,320

  East Northamptonshire

  720

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  5,870

  East Staffordshire

  1,370

  Eastbourne

  3,050

  Eastleigh

  910

  Eden

  600

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  620

  Elmbridge

  1,100

  Enfield

  5,620

  Epping Forest

  1,150

  Epsom and Ewell

  580

  Erewash

  2,140

  Exeter

  2,510

  Fareham

  600

  Fenland

  1,450

  Forest Heath

  500

  Forest of Dean

  820

  Fylde

  1,580

  Gateshead

  3,860

  Gedling

  1,350

  Gloucester

  2,500

  Gosport

  890

  Gravesham

  1,530

  Great Yarmouth

  3,080

  Greenwich

  4,410

  Guildford

  1,180

  Hackney

  8,710

  Halton

  1,520

  Hambleton

  880

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4,080

  Harborough

  370

  Haringey

  11,870

  Harlow

  540

  Harrogate

  2,110

  Harrow

  4,060

  Hart

  360

  Hartlepool

  2,190

  Hastings

  5,330

  Havant

  1,080

  Havering

  2,500

  Herefordshire

  2,670

  Hertsmere

  650

  High Peak

  1,300

  Hillingdon

  3,140

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  730

  Horsham

  790

  Hounslow

  3,620

  Huntingdonshire

  1,080

  Hyndburn

  2,120

  Ipswich

  2,210

  Isle of Wight

  4,140

  Isles of Scilly

  20

  Islington

  4,700

  Kennet

  750

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,470

  Kerrier

  2,700

  Kettering

  900

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  1,850

  Kingston upon Hull

  7,810

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,460

  Kirklees

  6,440

  Knowsley

  2,950

  402

  Rent allowance recipients in the private sector in England (excluding housing association) August 1998

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Lambeth

  7,170

  Lancaster

  4,590

  Leeds

  10,640

  Leicester

  3,960

  Lewes

  1,660

  Lewisham

  7,000

  Lichfield

  510

  Lincoln

  2,040

  Liverpool

  20,680

  Luton

  3,870

  Macclesfield

  1,360

  Maidstone

  1,480

  Maldon

  670

  Malvern Hills

  680

  Manchester

  14,160

  Mansfield

  1,610

  Medway

  4,750

  Melton

  430

  Mendip

  1,850

  Merton

  3,000

  Mid Bedfordshire

  620

  Mid Devon

  1,160

  Mid Suffolk

  660

  Mid Sussex

  1,000

  Middlesbrough

  2,980

  Milton Keynes

  1,660

  Mole Valley

  600

  New Forest

  1,840

  Newark and Sherwood

  1,280

  Newcastle under Lyme

  940

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,290

  Newham

  12,960

  North Cornwall

  2,680

  North Devon

  2,690

  North Dorset

  410

  North East Derby

  690

  North East Lincoln

  4,820

  North Hertfordshire

  900

  North Kesteven

  730

  North Lincolnshire

  2,280

  North Norfolk

  1,920

  North Shropshire

  710

  North Somerset

  4,050

  North Tyneside

  3,470

  North Warwickshire

  750

  North West Leicester

  610

  North Wiltshire

  820

  Northampton

  2,100

  Norwich

  2,490

  Nottingham

  5,980

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  1,460

  Oadby and Wigston

  480

  Oldham

  2,670

  Oswestry

  520

  Oxford

  2,480

  Pendle

  1,900

  Penwith

  2,470

  Peterborough

  3,120

  Plymouth

  7,730

  Poole

  2,280

  Portsmouth

  4,980

  Preston

  1,790

  Purbeck

  730

  Reading

  2,750

  Redbridge

  6,650

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,100

  Redditch

  460

  Reigate and Banstead

  790

  Restormel

  3,070

  Ribble Valley

  500

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,190

  Richmondshire

  450

  403

  Rent allowance recipients in the private sector in England (excluding housing association) August 1998

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Rochdale

  3,420

  Rochford

  830

  Rossendale

  1,060

  Rother

  2,460

  Rotherham

  3,010

  Rugby

  670

  Runnymede

  670

  Rushcliffe

  950

  Rushmoor

  750

  Rutland

  260

  Ryedale

  690

  Salford

  4,540

  Salisbury

  1,630

  Sandwell

  2,940

  Scarborough

  3,490

  Sedgefield

  850

  Sedgemoor

  1,750

  Sefton

  6,470

  Selby

  510

  Sevenoaks

  860

  Sheffield

  5,660

  Shepway

  3,710

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  1,140

  Slough

  1,520

  Solihull

  1,180

  South Bedfordshire

  820

  South Buckinghamshire

  350

  South Cambridgeshire

  610

  South Derbyshire

  1,020

  South Gloucestershire

  1,630

  South Hams

  1,610

  South Holland

  570

  South Kesteven

  1,320

  South Lakeland

  1,490

  South Norfolk

  1,000

  South Northants

  410

  South Oxfordshire

  910

  South Ribble

  620

  South Shropshire

  650

  South Somerset

  1,940

  South Staffordshire

  590

  South Tyneside

  2,060

  Southampton

  5,460

  Southend on Sea

  7,040

  Southwark

  3,950

  Spelthorne

  720

  St. Albans

  790

  St. Edmunsbury

  820

  St. Helens

  2,100

  Stafford

  880

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  740

  Stevenage

  1,170

  Stockport

  3,620

  Stockton on Tees

  2,620

  Stoke on Trent

  3,810

  Stratford on Avon

  1,060

  Stroud

  1,180

  Suffolk Coastal

  1,810

  Sunderland

  4,670

  Surrey Heath

  330

  Sutton

  1,550

  Swale

  2,310

  Swindon

  1,670

  Tameside

  3,330

  Tamworth

  500

  Tandridge

  460

  Taunton Deane

  1,950

  Teesdale

  390

  Teignbridge

  2,850

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,310

  Tendring

  3,930

  Test Valley

  640

  404

  Rent allowance recipients in the private sector in England (excluding housing association) August 1998

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Tewkesbury

  680

  Thanet

  6,490

  Three Rivers

  480

  Thurrock

  1,830

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  830

  Torbay

  6,560

  Torridge

  1,920

  Tower Hamlets

  2,610

  Trafford

  2,480

  Tunbridge Wells

  1,160

  Tynedale

  600

  Uttlesford

  500

  Vale of White Horse

  690

  Vale Royal

  820

  Wakefield

  3,450

  Walsall

  2,120

  Waltham Forest

  8,830

  Wandsworth

  5,630

  Wansbeck

  1,230

  Warrington

  1,650

  Warwick

  1,230

  Watford

  1,020

  Waveney

  4,100

  Waverley

  830

  Wealden

  1,670

  Wear Valley

  950

  Wellingborough

  660

  Welwyn Hatfield

  470

  West Berkshire

  980

  West Devon

  1,060

  West Dorset

  1,170

  West Lancashire

  1,330

  West Lindsey

  1,210

  West Oxfordshire

  820

  West Somerset

  990

  West Wiltshire

  1,620

  Westminster

  5,660

  Weymouth and Portland

  1,750

  Wigan

  3,270

  Winchester

  750

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1,080

  Wirral

  11,730

  Woking

  560

  Wokingham

  550

  Wolverhampton

  2,810

  Worcester

  1,350

  Worthing

  2,520

  Wychavon

  710

  Wycombe

  850

  Wyre

  2,060

  Wyre Forest

  1,050

  York

  2,380

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  George Green Tunnel (Wanstead)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date the Highways Agency staged the mock accident in the George Green Tunnel, Wanstead; what the results were; and if he will make a statement. [87278]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A limited staged incident was held on 28 May 1999 in the George Green Tunnel. It was arranged to give the London Fire Brigade the opportunity to react to and deal with a mock accident within the tunnel, before it is opened to traffic. In addition a smoke generator was employed to confirm that smoke from an incident would dissipate from the tunnel. Both
  405
  exercises were carried out successfully and the Highways Agency is expecting to receive a copy of the fire brigade's report on the exercise in due course.

  A full staged incident, involving all the emergency services, will be undertaken after the whole of the A12 Hackney to M11 Link Road works are completed in the autumn. Staged incidents are carried out as a normal part of the Highways Agency's safety procedures and in this tunnel, are likely to be repeated every few years.

  World Environment Day
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what events were organised by his Department to mark World Environment Day on 5 June. [87495]

  Mr. Meale
  We ran special adverts, referring to World Environment Day, on TV and Radio as part of the 'Are You Doing Your Bit?' campaign which was launched on 17 June. The theme of the campaign—the impact individuals can make to improve the environment—is closely linked with the World Environment Day theme, 'Our Earth—Our Future—Just Save it!'.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals(a) originating from and (b) relevant to United Kingdom environmental policy are due for discussion at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 25 June. [87503]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Council will take place in Luxembourg over two days on 24–25 June. The following proposals will be discussed and will be relevant to United Kingdom environmental policy;Proposal for a Council Directive on incineration of Hazardous waste
  Common Position
  Amended Proposal for a Council Regulation on a revised Community eco-label award scheme
  Common Position
  Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms
  Common Position
  Proposal for a Council Regulation allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a community eco-management and audit system
  Common Position
  Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)
  Common Position
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the noise emission by equipment used outdoors
  Common Position
  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on action to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors and amending Council Directive 74/150/EEC
  Common Position
  406
  Proposal for a Council Directive on end-of-life vehicles
  Common Position
  Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment
  Policy Debate
  Situation in the negotiations with automobile manufacturers which are not members of the EAMA (JAMA/KAMA)
  Council Conclusions
  Preparation for the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
  Council Conclusions
  Development of the European Community's policy on chemical products
  Council Conclusions.

  Transport and Works Act 1992
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average period of time taken by his Department to process applications for orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 following submission of an Inspector's report. [87581]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  For those Transport and Works Act applications that have been decided following a public inquiry, the average time taken from receipt of the Inspector's report to decision has been 11 months.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions applications for orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 have been opened up to further consultation with objectors following an interim decision letter from him. [87580]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Three Transport and Works Act applications have been subject to further consultation following an interim letter from the Secretary of State. These cases related to the East London Line extension; the proposed international station at Sratford on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; and the Welsh Highland Railway.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the working of the Transport and Works Act 1992. [87579]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The operation of the Transport and Works Act 1992 is constantly kept under review. Although we have no immediate plans to amend the Act itself, we do intend shortly to revise the Rules governing the procedures for dealing with applications for orders under Part I of the Act. The new Rules will implement the revised EC Directive on environmental impact assessments and will make a number of improvements based on experience of operating the existing Rules.

  Landfill Directive
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how oil and grease will be classified under the new landfill directive. [87623]
  407
  Mr. Meale
  The Special Waste Regulations 1996, implementing the Hazardous Waste Directive, classify certain difficult to handle wastes as special. In general all mineral oils, for example hydraulic oils and lubricating oils, are likely to be special wastes. The Landfill Directive is not expected to have any impact on waste classification.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the climate change levy is being imposed on timber-based industries. [87682]

  Mr. Meale
  All sectors will need to play their part in achieving our climate change targets, including the legally binding Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the period 2008 to 2012 compared with 1990. By changing relative prices, the climate change levy will help stimulate the implementation of further measures to improve energy efficiency in all sectors of business. These measures are expected to lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 1.5 million tonnes carbon per annum by 2010. The revenue from the levy will be recycled in full to business, principally through a 0.5 per cent. cut in employers' NICs.

  Taxicard
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to transfer responsibility for Taxicard to Transport for London; [87657]

  (2) what powers he has to transfer responsibility for Taxicard from London boroughs to the Greater London Authority. [87658]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 June 1999]We will honour the commitment made in the White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897) to transfer Taxicard to Transport for London (TfL). However, we have also indicated that the precise timing of the transfer will be for the Mayor to decide, in the context of his or her overall transport strategy. That is the most sensible way forward, given the current complexity of the scheme, which is operated, on a discretionary basis, by only 29 boroughs with differing levels of funding and services.

  Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, the Mayor will have the necessary powers to effect the transfer of the Taxicard scheme, or to operate a similar scheme. I made clear on 25 February 1999, Official Report, Standing Committee A, column 865, that the GLA Bill provisions concerning London boroughs' Local Implementation Plans will be able to deal with Taxicard. The Mayor will be required to include in his or her transport strategy proposals for the provision of transport which is accessible to persons with mobility problems. Those proposals will doubtless include measures on how Taxicard and services like it should be operated. The Mayor will be able to require the boroughs to reflect those proposals in their Local Implementation Plans. Each borough will be required to submit these plans to the Mayor for his or her approval.

  Rail Companies (Void Days Rule)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the benefits of abolishing the void days rule that allows rail companies to exclude certain performance data from their published figures. [87862]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No days are excluded from the Opraf financial incentive/penalty schemes on the grounds of failure to provide an effective service. Neither are days taken out of the Opraf contractual threshold for cancellations on these grounds.

  Opraf are aware that the omission of void days from the Passenger's Charter performance statistics does not give a comprehensive picture of the overall performance of the Train Operating Companies and is consulting widely within the rail industry with a view to devising a better method of presenting performance data.

  National Railway Track
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of national railway track was classified as(a) poor, (b) good and (c) very good for each year from 1990 to date. [87603]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]The following figures are available from the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report commissioned by the Office of the Regulator:

  Track quality 1994/95–1997/98

  Condition percentage of network

  Date

  Very good

  Satisfactory

  Poor

  Very poor

  1 January 1994

  63.7

  26.2

  7.1

  2.8

  1 January 1995

  62.6

  26.6

  7.5

  3.2

  1 February 1996

  58.8

  28.3

  8.8

  3.9

  19 February 1997

  59.4

  28.4

  8.5

  3.6

  31 January 1998

  62

  26.8

  7.8

  3.2

  These figures represent passenger comfort issues associated with the quality of ride experienced. It does not follow that track classified as 'poor' or 'very poor' on this measure is therefore unsafe.

  Figures between 1990 and 1993 are not available on the same basis.

  British Railways Board (Land Sales)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the land sales by the British Railways Board since the moratorium on such sales was introduced, giving in each case(a) the date of sale, (b) the location and (c) the price agreed. [87605]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]Land sales by the British Railways Board since 20 July 1998 are as follows. Individual sale prices cannot be given as they are commercially confidential.
  409

  Sales completions since 20 July 1998

  Date sold

  Ayr Harbour

  Land off Saltpans Rod

  19 November 1998

  Boston

  Former Park Sidings

  3 August 1998

  Boston

  Land at Broadfield Street

  14 April 1999

  Brandon

  Downside Yard

  19 February 1999

  Bristol Temple Meads

  Former garage

  4 November 1998

  Cheddar

  Bridge over River Yeo

  31 March 1999

  Chislehurst

  Former yard

  30 March 1999

  Crainlarich

  5 houses

  11 November 1998

  Darlington

  Land off Haughton Road 1

  12 October 1998

  Glasgow Barnhill

  Land at Petershill Road

  7 April 1999

  Glasgow

  St. Rollox

  7 April 1999

  Glenboig

  Section of closed branch line

  18 March 1999

  Guide Bridge

  Former station offices and land

  14 December 1998

  Hull

  Priory Park2

  4 May 1999

  Inverness

  Eastgate

  4 May 1999

  Leeds Stourton

  Former Rothwell Haigh sidings

  15 April 1999

  Liverpool

  Part Speke sidings

  29 April 1999

  +Liverpool

  Part Speke sidings

  4 May 1999

  Melksham

  Former upside yard

  31 March 1999

  Meltham

  Footbridges 20 and 21

  22 December 1998

  Montrose

  Land at Provost Reid's Road

  3 November 1998

  Northampton

  Southbridge Yard (Far Cotton)

  23 December 1998

  Oswestry

  Former cattle pens

  30 July 1998

  Plymouth

  Head of cattle water branch

  17 November 1998

  Skegness

  Land off Richmond Drive

  12 August 1998

  Southport

  Derby Road yard

  6 May 1999

  Strathcarron

  Station House

  12 February 1999

  Swindon

  Shell Oil Depot

  24 September 1998

  Tadworth

  Land near Kingswood Road

  23 April 1999

  Trowbridge

  Innox Footpath

  4 December 1998

  Uckfield

  Sewer3

  5 March 1999

  Wigston

  Former carriage and wagon depot

  14 May 1999

  Woodville

  Land over tunnel

  7 August 1998

  Worcester (Midland)

  Land off Midland Road

  13 January 1999

  York

  Land at Toft Green

  28 September 1998

  York

  Holgate Dock

  16 February 1999

  1Transaction is a lease

  2A phased disposal part sold and part still to be sold

  3Transaction was the grant of a permanent easement

  Bicycle Parking (Stations)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department gives to Railtrack and other station operators on the provision of parking for bicycles. [87703]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]We encourage all operators to adopt the voluntary Code of Practice, "Providing for Cyclists" which sets out a checklist of things that operators can do to improve facilities for cyclists. The objectives, Instructions and Guidance which we issued to the Franchising Director also require him to encourage franchise operators to provide suitable facilities for cyclists at stations. My Department is also contributing to the consultancy Bikerail, which is able to offer guidance to Railtrack and train operators on integrating bicycle use with rail journeys.

  Red route

  Implementation

  A3

  Most fully operational. Remainder to have red line controls before the end of 1999. Implementation of remaining measures1 to be complete by the end of 2001.

  A24

  All red line controls fully operational. Implementation of remaining measures1 to be complete by end of 1999.

  A205

  All red line controls fully operational. Implementation for remaining measures1 to be complete by the end of 1999.

  A214

  Detailed design recently commenced.

  A217

  Detailed design underway. Red line controls to be operational by end of 1999.

  A306

  Fully operational.

  A3205

  All red line controls fully operational. Implementation of remaining measures1 to be complete by the end of 1999.

  A3220

  Detailed design recently commenced.

  1 As well as ret line controls, red routes consist of a package of measures such as bus and cycle lanes, facilities for pedestrians and traffic calming, which will vary depending on local needs. These are aimed at improving the movement of people and goods and providing particular help for buses, Cyclists, pedestrians and people with disabilities.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of red routes cover the Greater London area; what is the proposed red route mileage outstanding in the London Borough of Wandsworth area; and if he will make a statement. [87974]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total length of the red route network is 315 miles. The roads in Wandsworth designated as red routes are the A3, A24, A205, A214, A217, A306, A3205, and A3220. Together these total some 21 miles. The current implementation timetable in Wandsworth is given in the table. The aim is to have the whole of the network operational in 2000.

  Tenant Participation Compacts
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the consultation exercise earlier this year on tenant participation compacts. [88073]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 25 January 1999 we published the consultation paper, "Tenant Participation Compacts". This put forward the Government's proposals for increasing tenant involvement through negotiation of local agreements (tenant participation compacts) between local authority landlords and tenants on how tenants are involved in local decisions relating to their homes.

  The consultation paper flowed from the work of the Best Value in Housing Steering Group, whose work also informed the consultation paper Best Value in Housing Framework on which I made a separate announcement on 25 May 1999.

  Consultation on the framework for tenant participation compacts ended on 31 March 1999. We received 386 responses from across a wide range of local authorities, tenant and resident associations, housing associations, housing groups and individual tenants.

  These responses have been considered and have informed the "National Framework for Tenant Participation Compacts" which is being launched today.

  The consultation showed overwhelming agreement with the principle of developing tenant participation through compacts, building on existing good practice. Respondents also identified the links between best value in housing and tenant participation as fundamental to giving tenants a real say in local decision making. However, tenants, officers and elected members would need to work together to make compacts successful.

  In supporting the principles behind compacts, a number of respondents raised resource, staffing and budgetary concerns relating to the implementation of compacts. We accept that there are likely to be some initial set up costs in implementing compacts properly, and I am making available £12 million to local authorities over the next two years, specifically to help them and their tenants to implement compacts.

  The national framework for tenant participation compacts is a toolkit to help local authorities and tenants develop, implement and review their local compacts, including the standards considered necessary to ensure meaningful and sustainable tenant participation.

  It will allow compacts to be tailored to meet the needs of the local area and to reach specific groups of tenants such as the elderly, young people, or ethnic minority tenants. (Compacts can also be developed to involve the wider community or to extend beyond housing services where tenants and local authorities wish). The framework also takes account of respondents' concerns that new tenants' groups should be encouraged and that demands on existing organisations should be reasonable. However, tenants' organisations with a role in decision-making will be expected to be accountable, democratic and open to all tenants.
  412
  The framework does not impose particular structures. It will allow compacts to de developed at a pace at which tenants are comfortable and which they can sustain; and tenants can choose how they will be involved and what they will be involved in.

  We recognise that not all tenants and councils will be able to implement compacts that meet the full needs of tenants by 1 April 2000. Nonetheless, by that date, we will expect all tenants and local authorities to have agreed the final outcomes expected from compacts and have in place a clear, measurable action plan, matched by resources, to bring these about. Tenants and local authorities should be working towards this.

  The published framework is being sent to all local housing authorities, and to tenant and other interested organisations, and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I am placing a list of the respondents, excluding any who requested confidentiality, in the House Library together with a report providing an analysis of the responses. The list and specific responses are available in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Library, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE, telephone 0171 890 3039.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of trials for the growing of genetically modified crops. [86788]

  Mr. Meacher
  The farm-scale evaluations are investigating whether there are any differences in the diversity and abundance of wildlife associated with the management of genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant oil seed rape and maize compared with the management of equivalent conventional crops.

  The research contractors, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, the Institute of Arable Crop Research and the Scottish Crop Research Institute have begun to assess the biodiversity in each field. This year there are now two paired comparisons of winter oil seed rape and four of maize.

  The ecological studies are being reviewed by an independent scientific steering committee. The committee comprises scientists drawn from English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Game Conservancy Trust and academia. The first meeting was on June 14 and the progress of the research was reviewed. The committee considered the work to be making satisfactory progress and that the approach being taken to investigate the effects on wildlife was scientifically sound. Details of progress and steering committee meetings will be made publicly available. A web-site is being set up to provide this information in due course.

  Later this year farm-scale evaluations of winter oil seed rape fields will commence. Next year the ecological studies in the farm-scale evaluations will be extended to approximately 20 paired comparisons of each crop.

  Regional Chamber (North-East)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will designate the regional chamber for the North East Regional Development Agency. [88211]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased to announce that we have today issued a direction to One North East designating the North East Regional Chamber as its regional chamber under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

  Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 provides that if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that there is a body which is representative of those in the RDA's area with an interest in its work, and that body is suitable to be given the role of regional chamber for the RDA, he may designate it.

  RDAs must take full account of regional interests. Regional chambers will provide a mechanism through which RDAs can take account of regional views and account for their activities. Ministers expect that each RDA will have regard to the chamber's view in preparing its strategy, consult the chamber on its corporate plan and give an account of its performance to the chamber.

  We are currently considering applications for designation from bodies in other regions.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Fraud (Chernobyl)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimates he has made of the extent of fraud in the EU budget relating to decontamination payments following the Chernobyl accident. [87379]

  Clare Short
  My Department is unaware of any fraud in the EU budget relating to decontamination payments following Chernobyl. There has been no reference to this in reports by the Court of Auditors.

  If my hon. Friend has any such information, I would be grateful for details.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BSI BS8600
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage the use of the new BSI BS8600 for customer complaints. [85339]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government support the work of the British Standards Institution in creating better and fairer systems for the benefits of consumers and suppliers. This Department is keen to promote the rights and responsibilities of customers in all sectors and notes the new BSI standard for customer complaints as a contribution to this.

  Knowledgeable and well informed consumers play an important role in enhancing the competitiveness of UK businesses. The new standard BS8600 offers useful
  414
  guidance and is one of a number of options that can help businesses in setting up effective systems for responding to customer complaints.

  Dog and Cat Pelts
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the extent of the trade in dog and cat pelts through British ports; and if he will make a statement. [87417]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are no official figures relating to the trade in dog and cat pelts. Imports of dog and cat pelts are not separately classified in the HM Customs and Excise Integrated Tariff.

  Animal Welfare
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take action to provide safeguards for the welfare of animals in the European Union autumn trade round. [87416]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are committed to promoting high standards of animal welfare.

  Following initiatives taken by the UK during our Presidency last year, the agreement on the Directive concerning the protection of farm animals included a commitment that the Commission should consider the scope for seeking changes to WTO rules in the next round to accommodate animal welfare concerns. We will consider this further in the run-up to the third WTO Ministerial at the end of this year.

  Exports (Northern Ireland)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the(a) volume and (b) value of exports from Britain to Northern Ireland for each of the last five years for which information is available. [87642]

  Mr. Wilson
  Official statistics on exports relate to the United Kingdom, as a whole. It is, therefore, not possible to provide information on the value or volume of exports from Britain to Northern Ireland.

  European Commission Information Exchange
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the extent of interchange of information with Unit A-I of Directorate-General IV; and if he will deposit papers published by the Unit in the Library. [87692]

  Dr. Howells
  DTI officials are from time to time in contact with Unit A-1 of Directorate General IV on a variety of issues relating to competition policy. The Unit does not publish papers in its own right; material published on behalf of the Commission by Directorate General IV can be found on the Commission's internet site.

  Business Links
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures his Department has established to monitor the quality of services by Business Links. [87714]
  415
  Mr. Wills
  The Department has a range of procedures to monitor the quality of services provided by Business Links.

  The main procedure is a system of Accreditation under which each Business Link is required to meet rigorous quality standards in order to be able to use the Business Link brand. These standards are set by an independent Accreditation Advisory Board and include meeting ISO9001 and Investors in People requirements as well as other specific requirements, for example, on customer service. The Accreditation Advisory Board is responsible for advising Ministers on whether or not each Business Link is meeting the standards.

  Business Links are also required to submit information on a quarterly basis on the number of businesses and individuals who have accessed different services and the fee income they have generated. Government Offices use this data, along with local intelligence, to monitor the performance of individual Business Links. Copies of these reports are held in the Library of the House. From April 1998, we have also required Business Links to track the impact of their services on client businesses.

  At national level the performance of the Business Link Network as a whole is assessed through regular customer satisfaction and evaluation studies. The most recent evaluation report on Business Links was published in October 1998. A copy of this is also available in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1999,Official Report, columns 400–01, on small businesses, what assessment was made of the level of awareness of business support services by small business owners in the research conducted since May 1997. [87772]

  Mr. Wills
  The September 1997 MORI survey showed that spontaneous (able to name Business Link) awareness of Business Link was 19 per cent. and prompted awareness was 66 per cent. among directors of businesses with 10–200 employees. For businesses with between 5 and 9 employees, spontaneous awareness of Business Link was 16 per cent. and prompted awareness was 59 per cent.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  GM Material (Irradiation)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the studies which he has evaluated examining the effects of irradiation processes on GM material; what safety requirements apply to such practices; and if he will make a statement [87512]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 June 19991]I am not aware of any studies specifically to examine the effects of irradiation on GM material but a considerable amount of work has been carried out on the effect of this treatment on a wide range of genetic material consumed as food. There is therefore already an extensive body of 416
  information available to show that irradiation of nonliving material, whatever its make-up, does not render it inherently harmful.

  GM Food Additives and Flavourings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in securing labelling of genetically modified additives and flavourings in food. [87607]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]Progress on this in Brussels has been delayed as a result of the resignation of the Commission. However, we are continuing to press for proposals to be brought forward as quickly as possible.

  Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments he has made of the implications for animal welfare of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin on cows. [87610]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]A Working Group of the independent Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has considered human and animal safety aspects of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin in dairy cows. The Group has reported to the VPC and the VPC will advise Ministers when it has considered the report. Also, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which also provides independent advice to Ministers, reported on the Welfare of Dairy Cattle in 1997. The report covers the subject of rBST and copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relationship between levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 in milk from cows which have been injected with recombinant bovine somatotropin and the incidence of breast and prostate cancers in humans; and if he will make a statement. [87609]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 June 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 14 June 1999,Official Report, column 25.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the research obtained by his Department from the Irish Republic on the subject of bovine TB. [87295]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 21 June 1999]My offices liaise with their counterparts in many other countries, including the Republic of Ireland, regarding research into TB in cattle and badgers. It is for other countries, not MAFF, to publish research for which they are responsible. The project to remove badgers in East Offaly in Ireland was recently reviewed in the Irish Veterinary Journal (Volume 52(4) 1 April 99).

  Contaminated Animal Feeds (Belgium)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government first received reports of the possibility of dioxin-contaminated animal feeds in Belgium. [87156]
  417
  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 8 June 1999,Official Report, columns 480–81.

  Eggs (Battery Cages)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on ending egg production in battery cages. [87638]

  Mr. Morley
  I am delighted to say that the Council of Agriculture Ministers has decided that this practice must end across the EU by 1 January 2012.

  Farms (Taxation)
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will discuss with the Inland Revenue the case for reviewing the rules that a farm must make a profit once in seven years if its losses are to be tax-allowable against profits from other sources. [87263]

  Mr. Rooker
  Prior to the last Budget the agriculture industry submitted to the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer various detailed tax proposals including the recommendation that the rules restricting the set-off of farming losses against other income should be modified. These were considered.

  At present losses cannot be set off against profits from other sources if a farming business has made losses for five years. The "five year tax rule" was introduced to protect the Exchequer from subsidising the cost of continued loss-making farming activities where farming is taken up by people who are not dependent upon it for a livelihood. However tax relief is not lost as losses can be carried forward against future profits from the same source. Thus farming losses can be offset against future fanning profits.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions his Department has had with the Treasury regarding the proposed tax on pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [87292]

  Mr. Rooker
  My officials have taken part in discussions with Treasury and other departments on various issues relating to the current consultation exercise on possible pesticides tax. As with all taxation matters, a final decision on such a tax lies with my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [87275]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experiences of all those affected by them.
  418
  Although the nature of the Ministry's responsibilities means that much of its legislative programme does not have a gender specific impact potentially interested women's groups are included in the consultations over proposed legislation. Groups which have been consulted this Session are listed on the following schedule.

  Responses to such consultation exercises are generally available upon request unless those who respond indicate that they wish their response to be confidential.
  Women's groups which have been consulted this Session by MAFF

  Al-Hasaniya Moroccan Women's Centre

  An-Nina Society

  British Housewives' League

  Co-operative Women's Guild

  Good Housekeeping Institute

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations

  National Association of Women's Clubs

  National Association of Women of Great Britain

  National Council of Women

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  National Federation of Women's Institutes, Welsh Office

  National Housewives' Association

  Royal College of Midwives

  Soroptomist International

  Townswomen's Guild

  UK Federation of Business and Professional Women

  Wiltshire Federation of Women's

  Institute Women's Environmental Network

  Women's Farm and Garden Association

  Women's Food and Farming Union

  Women's National Commission

  Women's Royal Voluntary Service.

  Transgenic Plants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding his Department provides to scientists at(a) Rothamsted and (b) elsewhere investigating the nectar and pollen production of transgenic plants and the foraging behaviour of bees on transgenic plants. [87180]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry has placed a programme of research at the Institute of Arable Crops Research at Rothamsted, to investigate the interactions between insects and plants. Funding of £950,000 is planned for 1999–2000. This work underpins EU and DETR funded research which looks specifically at interactions between GM crops and beneficial insects. MAFF is also funding a project at the Scottish Crops Research Institute, costing £57,000 in 1999–2000, which includes studies of the role of bees in cross-pollination of genetically modified oilseed rape. Relevant research on the role of bees was reviewed in the recent MAFF report on organic farming and gene transfer from GM crops. This review cost £25,000.

  The Ministry currently funds no work on nectar and pollen production in transgenic plants.

CABINET OFFICE

  Emotional Intelligence (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to enhance awareness of, and competence in, emotional intelligence issues among civil servants. [86789]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Civil Service College has run courses for over a decade which deal with leadership, management and interpersonal skills and two new courses, specifically on these subjects, for both junior and senior managers, will start in the Autumn.

  GM Organisms
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the co-ordination of policy on genetically modified organisms across Government Departments. [86790]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Policy on genetically modified organisms is co-ordinated through the Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification (MISC 6) which I chair.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification has received on the importation of genetically modified seeds and food products from the USA. [86799]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  None.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made with electronic red boxes. [86791]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  A variety of secure technologies are available to link Ministers with their private offices.

  Long-term Planning
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to ensure that Government policy takes account of the need for long-term planning. [86792]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Modernising Government White Paper highlighted the need for policies to be better focused on the Government's long-term goals. The Performance and Innovation Unit is working with Departments to identify the key challenges that the Government will face in the medium to long term.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to appraise the effectiveness of the provisions for quinquennial review of the continued status of each next steps agency as a public sector body. [86793]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Modernising Government White Paper set out our commitment to change the approach to quinquennial reviews. In the future, reviews will be directed more closely through our drive for high quality public services. We will publish guidance on the new approach in the Autumn.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received about the procedures for making public appointments. [86794]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have received a small number of recent representations from hon. Members and others about the public appointments scheme.

  Electronic Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress he has made in co-ordinating the development of a system to enable Departments to deal with hon. Members' correspondence by e-mail. [86795]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Through the Government Secure Intranet we are building up an infrastructure to enable services such as these to be developed. Twenty-six departments and agencies are now connected to the GSI.

  Better Government Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the better government initiative. [86796]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Modernising Government White Paper clearly sets out our programme for the reform and renewal of public services. This is a long term programme with a significant package of initiatives designed to provide services to better meet the way people live their lives. We will publish the milestones for meeting the commitments in the White Paper, and the criteria against which to judge their success, this summer.

  Duchy of Lancaster
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how he intends to celebrate the 600th anniversary of the Duchy of Lancaster. [86798]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I will welcome Her Majesty The Queen, Duke of Lancaster and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to Lancaster next month on the 600th anniversary of the Duchy's link with the crown.

  Regional Government Offices
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he expects to publish the findings of the study by the performance and innovation unit on the role of Government offices in the regions. [86800]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Performance and Innovation Unit is studying the "Role of Central Government at the Regional and Local Level". The study is due to be completed in the Autumn. I expect decisions flowing from the study to be announced in due course.

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has for the use of Archway tower, Junction road, London, N19; and if he will make a statement. [86802]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Refurbishment of Archway Tower is almost complete. Marketing is currently underway to let the building within Government or the private sector.

  Drugs Tsar
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations he has received following publication of the first annual report and national plan by the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. [86803]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have received many favourable representations, some from hon. Members, following the publication of the UK Anti-drugs Co-ordination Report.

  Policy Presentation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to encourage cross-departmental co-ordination on the presentation of Government policy. [86804]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I hold regular meetings with Ministers and officials to improve the co-ordination and the presentation of Government policy.

  2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he expects to make a decision on the future of the former Government buildings in Marsham street. [86797]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The decision to demolish 2 Marsham street has already been made. However, immediate demolition has been deferred because re-use is one of the 422
  options being considered by the Home Office under its PFI project. A final decision on the timing of demolition cannot be made until the Home Office has completed another round of bidding, the result of which is expected later this year.

  Security Facilities Executive
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on progress on the transfer of services previously provided by the Security Facilities Executive. [87774]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Security Facilities Executive closed as an Agency on 30 June 1998 and became a Division of the Cabinet Office—Security Facilities Division (SFD).

  The security guarding services are gradually being transferred to their home departments and are either being taken in-house or market tested (TUPE will apply). 339 Custody Guards have already transferred and the remaining 251 will transfer from SFD by the end of this calendar year.

  Assessment and development of security equipment and explosive protection advice is planned to transfer to the Home Office (Police Scientific Development Branch) later this year. The remaining services which mainly comprise the manufacture, installation and maintenance of the AC12 alarm system and associated security devices and the consultancy advice to customers are being considered for a public private partnership.

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

Kosovo: Sexual Violence Report
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take following the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) Report on sexual violence in Kosovo.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the report of the United Nations Population Fund recommends a programme of comprehensive support for victims of sexual violence in Kosovo, both in the medium and the long term. The Government recognise the importance of this issue. To that end, the Department for International Development is funding programmes of activities in Macedonian and Albania for Kosovo refugees, implemented in co-ordination with a range of organisations, including the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Children's Fund, the World Food Programme and NGOs. The programmes aim to provide a comprehensive range of reproductive healthcare services and psychosocial support for Kosovar refugee women. The Government will consider the case for funding further programmes within Kosovo, based on an assessment of need.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Does she agree with me that young women and girls are vulnerable in the very best of circumstances, but that, in the aftermath of a bitter and vicious conflict, they are particularly at risk? Therefore, can she assure me that high priority will be given to safeguarding these young women and girls from further atrocities? Can my noble friend also assure me that adequate medical and counselling services will be available? When I say "medical services", I include such services as emergency contraception and facilities for termination where pregnancy results.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that young girls and women are particularly vulnerable in a post-conflict situation. It is for that reason that the Department for International Development has given a very high priority to ensuring that health services are restored in Kosovo. In the long term, we are looking to ensure that adequate services are provided in all areas of Kosovo, both in the cities and in the rural areas. However, in the short term, I am sure that my noble friend will understand that although we are trying to make sure that structures are put in place, it may not be possible to provide medical and counsel ling services in the range and of the quality that
916
we should like to see. But that is certainly part of our long-term aim. As I said in my original Answer, we have provided specific services in Macedonia and Albania.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the inquiry carried out by Dame Anne Warburton in Bosnia in, I believe, 1993 to 1994 is being drawn upon in this matter? Those conducting the inquiry gained a great deal of experience of the very particular problems of young Moslem women who have been raped and who can never face that fact.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are considering how the experience of Bosnia and some of the reports that emerged from that situation can be applied in the case of Kosovo. Some of the reports that I have read in relation to these issues are extremely distressing, but certainly some of the early comparisons show that, although women in Kosovo were held captive, they were held for shorter periods than was the case for women in Bosnia. However, that does mean that the trauma suffered by those women was in any way less.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether it is correct that the provision of emergency reproductive health supplies currently being supplied by IPPF and UNFPA will dry up in about five months' time? If that is true, can she give the House any details about how funding will be provided in the future and about the distribution of such items?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are ensuring that adequate health services, including reproductive health services, are put in place. That is a funding priority. The Government recently announced an additional £50 million for Kosovo. We shall keep that amount under continual review. We realise that as refugees return and as we become more aware of ways of supporting refugee women and girls, we shall need to reconsider the projects that we are funding and the support that we are giving to NGOs in this area. As I say, we shall keep the question of supplies under review.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the report is horrific. As the Minister knows, there are several training programmes—one is under the auspices of the Council of Europe—to help to rehabilitate these unfortunate traumatised victims. Have the Government considered consulting the fine expertise of, for example, the Institute of Psychiatry in Denmark Hill, which is probably the finest institution of its kind in the world?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have funded the WHO which has in turn funded a mobile medical team which is considering mental health in this context. It is drawing on expertise from a number of different countries. I am not sure whether it has drawn on the expertise of the Institute of Psychiatry, but I shall be happy to find out about that and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the United Nations and other agencies

917
involved will bear in mind the marked cultural differences and the strength of the Kosovar family and clan system which may be helpful in avoiding unnecessary abortions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we always try to ensure that we take on board the circumstances of the countries in which we work. The UN organisations have taken that point on board. One of our concerns is that despite strong family ties, women who have been raped have been reluctant to come forward because of the impact that that would have on their families. We need to work with both the families and individual women. Sometimes the culture and the family system make it difficult for such women to return. However, this is something that we are taking on board.

UNHCR: Former Yugoslavia
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is receiving adequate support and recognition for its humanitarian work in the former Yugoslavia.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is the internationally designated lead agency responsible for co-ordinating the humanitarian response in the current crisis. We have worked since the beginning to try to support and improve its efforts. This support includes airlifts, truck convoys and provision of key personnel. The Government recognise that UNHCR will need more resources to carry out the tasks required of it. We are exploring with UNHCR what further help we can provide.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that encouraging statement of confidence in UNHCR which, apart from its work in Kosovo, has to support 22 million people around the world. Can the noble Baroness explain why British contributions to UNHCR seem to have fallen rather drastically from 1996 to 1998, from 53 million down to 28 million? Why do Her Majesty's Government prefer to make contributions in Kosovo in kind rather than in cash? Is this because they agree with the rather harsh verdict of the Select Committee on International Development that UNHCR failed to provide effective co-ordination or to prepare adequately for the present crisis in Kosovo?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I listened carefully to the figures which the noble Earl mentioned. The figures that I have show a fall from about 36 million to 25 million. I shall check those figures with the noble Earl. We have allocated £5.37 million to UNHCR in the form of in-kind contributions to deal with the immediate Kosovo crisis. There have been criticisms of UNHCR, particularly by the Select Committee but also by Oxfam.
918
UNHCR recognises that it did not perform well, particularly in the early stages of the crisis. The UK Government's position has always been clear; namely, that UNHCR is the lead agency in charge and we have offered it whatever support we can to ensure that it works effectively in the region. We want to work with UNHCR to improve and increase its effectiveness. That is one of the matters we have considered in the context of our strategy to examine UN institutions overall. In the longer term, clearly we shall be able to learn from the way in which UNHCR has managed the current crisis, but it is our view that with support it can take this matter forward. We intend to give it every support.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can the noble Baroness advise the House to what extent the UNHCR is responsible for medical aid and medical services in Kosovo? I declare an interest in that my wife's daughter, my stepdaughter, is a qualified British GP, presently serving as a volunteer with an organisation called MERLIN, Medical Emergency Relief International, in Albania. She has just been either "hijacked" or seconded to the UNHCR, which is desperately short of qualified doctors. Can the Minister comment on the general situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a range of organisations, NGOs included, are working with the UNHCR in trying to deal with the variety of issues which have arisen in Kosovo. One of the ways in which we in international development have assisted the UNHCR is by flying in key personnel. It is no surprise that there is a shortage of qualified doctors and so on, given the scale of the humanitarian crisis within the region. The UNHCR is the organisation taking lead responsibility for co-ordinating the refugee effort. In addition, a number of NGOs and other international organisations are operating in the region.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minister any idea of the amount of aid that will be required to relieve distress in this case? Has any progress been made with the allies who fought in the war with regard to their responsibility for the necessary reconstruction? Is there any agreement between the European Union, the United States and the other countries involved in the war with regard to their contributions to the relief of the suffering in that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are ongoing discussions about the scale of the reconstruction effort that will be required in the region. It is far too early to tell how much will be required or how that effort is to be allocated among the different countries and financial institutions which will participate in the reconstruction.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, bearing in mind the severe criticisms by the Select Committee in another place of the UNHCR in the lead-up to these operations in Kosovo, is there any specific action that we can take;

919
for example, seconding management expertise to the UNHCR to remedy the deficiencies which have been identified?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House by going into some of the specific proposals we have made. I mentioned earlier that we have published an institutional strategy paper which will be the framework for our work with UN organisations, including the UNHCR. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of that report. We have been giving the UNHCR as much support as possible, not only in terms of airlifts and convoys, but also in terms of access to the expertise and knowledge that exists within DfID, which has had to manage some of these crises in the past. It has been a relationship that has worked well in terms of ensuring that the efforts put into trying to resolve some of the difficulties are taken on board by the UNHCR.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, in this conflict we have gone to enormous trouble and colossal expense to protect a Moslem minority from a so-called "Christian" majority. As far as I am aware, the voice of Islam has been completely silent; we have heard nothing from Moslem countries. Would it not be reasonable to expect countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to make a major contribution to the refugee problem?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, such discussions have been ongoing. The UAE has been contributing. My noble friend's concerns are not justified.

Administrative Bodies: Powers
3.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is appropriate to confer upon administrative bodies powers which have the effect of depriving individuals of their property or their means of securing a livelihood without recourse to an appeal at law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, administrative bodies exercising power over the individual may do so only under a specific statute. In most cases that statute also sets out the arrangements for accountability to Parliament, the roles and responsibilities of the body itself and of Ministers, and the requirement for the body to report on its actions. There is provision under administrative law to seek judicial review of such decisions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that an increasing amount of legislation, particularly for the self-financing regulatory agencies, is allowing inspectors and other individuals to take away people's livelihoods? For example, Section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990 allows for a person's goods to be taken away. In the case I have
920
in mind, that particularly applies to the noble Baroness's department. In a case concerning cheese, no fault was found with the cheese but the person concerned was not allowed to provide a defence. This applies also to the Environment Agency, which can withdraw authorisations under pollution control regulations; it applies to the Meat Hygiene Service and the Dairy Inspectorate. Under the cattle identification scheme, if an animal is found without an ear-tag and proof of identity is not provided within 48 hours, the animal can be killed without compensation. Does the noble Baroness think it is right and just under British law that these regulations—many of which come from European legislation—should be incorporated into our law and deprive people of their livings and of any defence at court? I should remind the noble Baroness that judicial review does not allow a defence to he presented; it is only on a question of law that someone can seek a judicial review.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in each of the cases to which the noble Countess referred, the bodies concerned operate within a statutory framework set by Parliament. The relevant statute also sets out the body's powers in relation to individual citizens and, in some cases, specific legal remedies are available, not simply the general one of judicial review. While one can sympathise with the individual in such cases, one also has to recognise the responsibilities of the Government, particularly in areas of protecting public health. A decision to make an emergency control order under Section 13 of the Food Safety Act may be needed to protect public health as soon as possible. That procedure is used only after an appropriate risk assessment and where there are no other effective means of protecting public health from serious threat. In those circumstances, if the Government did not use those powers, they would be rightly criticised.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, has the Minister's department carried out an audit of the legislation for which it is responsible under the Human Rights Act? If so, will the results of that audit be published?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that the Human Rights Act was passed in order to make it easier for individuals to enforce the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols. Those include the right to property and the right to a fair hearing. The Government cannot confer powers on administrative bodies that detract from those rights. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the specific issue of the audit.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that judicial review is the exercise by the court of its supervisory jurisdiction in order to ensure that the body that made the decision had the power to make that decision? It is not a process of appeal; it is not concerned with the merits of the decision; therefore the protection which it gives is very limited.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I absolutely recognise that. I feel that I am perhaps operating above my pay

921
grade in regard to these legal issues! My own legal education ended in 1969. The noble and learned Lord makes an important point. These are not appeal proceedings. Where administrative bodies take action some circumstances allow for appeal proceedings—for example, under other sections of the Food Safety Act. But where those are not considered appropriate, there is the backstop of a review by the courts, under judicial review.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, after having examined the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Comitology that was debated in this House last Friday—the day on which Ascot was proceeding on its orderly course—she will take action regarding the activities of the various committees set up without this nation's authority by the European Commission? I refer to the various regulatory, advisory and management committees, and to the fact that they issue regulations which in many cases are not subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament and which go directly into British law for enforcement under British law. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that that practice will cease? Will she ensure that all legislation, before it is enacted, receives proper scrutiny by Parliament?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I fear that my comitology is even worse than my legal expertise. The Government always take seriously the reports of Select Committees of this House and examine with equal seriousness the debates and comments on them. I am sure that that will apply in this case.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that one of the complaints of the noble Countess is that, apparently, in some cases bodies that are allowed by statutory instrument to charge fees for their services have also been making supplementary requests? Is that legal?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that that has been the concern. I do not believe that it applies in administrative bodies relating to the Department of Health. I shall certainly make inquiries as to the legal basis of that practice if it takes place within administrative bodies that are answerable to other departments and Ministers, and thereby to Parliament.

India and Pakistan
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to assist future relations between India and Pakistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as a longstanding friend of both countries, we are deeply
922
concerned by the fighting in the Kargil area of Jammu and Kashmir following armed infiltration across the Line of Control. We have urged both Pakistan and India to respect the Line of Control and to work to end the fighting. Our role, and that of others who wish them well, is to encourage both countries to resolve, through dialogue, the issues between them.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that in the past five to six weeks scores of Kashmiri civilians have been killed and injured, and over 30,000 people in the Kargil area and 50,000 in Azad Kashmir have been made refugees due to Indian air strikes, shelling and artillery fire? Does she agree that bilateral talks between India and Pakistan in accordance with the Simla Agreement or the Lahore Declaration have failed, and that to resolve the issue of Kashmir we need a UN-sponsored peace plan which would bring peace and prosperity in the region? Finally, would her Majesty's Government encourage the UN Secretary-General to send a special envoy to broker peace between India and Pakistan and to find a permanent solution to the issue of Kashmir which is acceptable to all the people of Kashmir—Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist and Christian?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that both sides are conducting artillery fire across the Line of Control. I am also aware that a number of allegations have been made by the Kashmiri side and the Pakistanis about Indian activity, which has been denied by the Indian Government; and that, similarly, allegations have been made which Pakistan has denied. The picture is indeed very confusing.
The noble Lord makes a specific suggestion about UN intervention. He makes his case very eloquently. Indeed, some may find it highly persuasive. However, I am sure that my noble friend will realise that if there is to be the involvement of any third party that is to contribute positively to the resolution of this matter it must be acceptable to both sides. That is not the case as regards my noble friend's suggestion. An approach that is acceptable to only one side is not a way forward. Her Majesty's Government believe that the sensible course of action is to pursue the discussions that were begun as part of the Lahore process and which continued last month with the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers meeting in New Delhi on 12th June. We hope that those talks will be resumed.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it worth pursuing the possibility of setting up a plebiscite or referendum so that the people of Kashmir themselves, whether they are in that area or in refugee camps in Pakistan or elsewhere, would have an opportunity to express their view about how they wish their country to be governed in the future? This dispute has been going on since 1947. Is it not high time that it was settled?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness is right. This has been a long-running dispute; it has continued for over 50 years. Her Majesty's Government believe that any solution, if

923
it is to be permanent and acceptable, must reflect the views of the population of Kashmir. However, I would point out to the noble Baroness that Kashmir is not a country as such. The suggestion that the noble Baroness makes has been made previously. I am afraid that it does not find support on both sides of this very troubled argument. At present, our best course of action, as a true friend of both countries, is to urge them to settle their differences between them. A great deal can be done through quiet diplomacy rather than through public statements, which only serve to inflame the situation.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the United Nations believe that this is a bilateral situation and should be resolved under Simla?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United Nations and everyone else who wishes India and Pakistan well, including the EU and the G8 Foreign Ministers, have urged India and Pakistan to do everything in their power to resume the discussions that took place on 12th June. We were hopeful about those discussions. We hope that the invitation that has been issued to resume them in Islamabad will be taken up.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment of 21st May be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 33 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
("() In preparing or revising any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) the Mayor shall carry out and have regard to a sustainability appraisal of the strategy.").
The noble Lord said: This is a modest amendment. I shall move it in my usual modest way, allowing colleagues to leave the House in good order.
The purpose of the amendment is to help minimise conflicts between the different strategies and promote the social, economic and environmental general purposes of the GLA. The Committee should note at, while it is my amendment, it is supported by the RSF'B. Friends of the Earth, CPRE and the wildlife trusts of London.
As the Minister knows, the spatial development strategy, as a broad land use strategy for the region, should form the context within which the economic and other strategies are set, integrating and balancing the various economic, social and environmental needs of the Greater London area and taking account of the surrounding south-east region.
It is in the knowledge of the difficulties and the balance which the GLA and the mayor of London will have in reaching agreement that we suggest that the Minister can be helpful to those outside the House who are deeply involved in such matters. We welcome the Government's statements that each of the strategies will be consistent with and complementary to each other. The purpose of the amendment is to invite the Minister to tell us how it is intended that the various strategies can be made consistent and complementary to each other.
A set of sustainability principles should be developed to underpin all the policies and the different strategies. Sustainable appraisals should also be carried out during the preparation of each strategy. I believe that that will help to ensure consistency between the different strategies, identify any potential conflict between policies and promote the integration of economic, social and environmental objectives of the GLA's main purposes.
I am certain that the Minister will tell us that it is early days, discussions are going on, the objective is well understood and is one objective for which we should strive. In another context, one would say this is a probing amendment to find out whether the Minister can help us, and particularly those outside the House, to understand how he intends to achieve his objective of policies which are consistent and complementary and yet at the same time reach a rapport between the various bodies affected.
The Government have stated that a sustainability appraisal will be carried out on the spatial development strategy. Given the non-hierarchical approach, it is illogical not to carry out such an appraisal of the mayor's other strategies. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I have put down an amendment in this group—Amendment No. 118. Like that of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, it is designed to ask the Government what mechanisms they will support putting into effect. However, we on these Benches continue to juggle with the difficulty that we would like to see as much autonomy as possible on the part of the new authority, but as the Bill contains much detail, inevitably we shall also have to raise points of detail.
In relation to Clause 33(4), can the mayor have regard to matters which are not listed in that subsection? Clause 34(4), concerning consultation, states that it is without prejudice to the mayor's other duties. Clause 33(4) has a similar but not identical thrust in its different context.
I hope we shall be told that the mayor can exercise discretion as to the matters to be considered in preparing strategies and add to the list of matters to which she or he must have regard. My question is whether everything is intended to be set out in Clause 33(4), or whether the mayor can add to the matters specified.
Lord Whitty: My noble friend Lord Graham is correct. I have considerable sympathy with the objectives behind the amendment and with the bodies he cites that support it. The Government's commitment to sustainability is clear and is reflected in the Bill's provisions. I do not believe that it is necessary to add to this clause because already on the face of the Bill there are sufficient protections and insurances to ensure that the mayor takes sustainability into account in this context, as in others, and to ensure that there is consistency between the various strategies.
For the record, among the provisions are commitments: in the authority's principal purposes, set out in Clause 25, which reflect the sustainable development objectives of our strategy; in the requirement to consider the impact of the use of the general power on the achievement of sustainable development and in using it to do so in a way best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, as set out in Clauses 25(4) and (5); and in the requirement that in preparing or revising any strategy the mayor must have regard to the effect the proposed strategy or revision would have on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. That is in Clause 33(4).
Also, the mayor must, in preparing any strategy, ensure that it is consistent with national policies. That means any policies of the Government which are available in a written form and which have been laid before Parliament or have been published by a Minister of the Crown.
The mayor must therefore have regard to our national strategy for sustainable development and the guiding principles and approaches contained within it. If those
926
are combined, it is inevitable that, in preparing or revising his or her strategies, the mayor must undertake a sustainability appraisal. That is effectively a requirement and it is already built into the Bill.
In response to the noble Baroness's specific questions, the matters in Clause 33(4) are those to which the mayor must have regard under the Bill. But under general administrative law principles, the mayor should also have regard to any other relevant practice. The mayor will therefore, as the noble Baroness requests, be able to form a view of his own on those matters.
With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for doing what I ought to have done; namely, to try to relate the concerns which have been drawn to my attention to the possible solutions that appear in other parts of the Bill. I believe that those outside the House can rest assured that there is nothing between them and the Government in relation to their interests. It is a question of seeing how we go, heartened by the manner in which the Minister has drawn my attention to the Government's commitment to ensure sustainability. Our concern is how that will be achieved. But it is early days and we need to see the authority and the mayor working together and, with the Minister, ensuring that these worthy objectives are achieved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 113 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 114 to 116 inclusive.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 20, line 7, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with international obligations:
(aa) national policy:").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 113 and not move Amendment No. 116. This amendment is one of the most important amendments to the Bill. It goes to the heart of the relationship between national and local government. The Bill goes beyond requiring the mayor to have regard to government policy, it requires him to have regard to the need to ensure that his strategies are consistent with government policy. He must therefore do more than consider national policy, he must follow it.
This is a major and undesirable constitutional innovation. It is right that public bodies should have regard to government policy. If legislation does not expressly impose such an obligation, the courts will do so on judicial review. But having regard to policy does not mean following it; the council can decide that it should not be applied in their circumstances or that the policy is wrong.
The law does not oblige local authorities to obey the Secretary of State's policies. Parliament has not obliged local government to follow national policies except in rare and limited cases; for example, the interpretation of the contaminated land regime. That sets a balance between national Government and elected councils. The Secretary of State will have policies on local government responsibilities, and he is right to do so, but he cannot demand obedience unless Parliament has given him the right to direct or the responsibility for determining appeals. Even in those circumstances, the exercise of intervention powers is limited by political reality and judgment.
Subsection (5)(a) is a dangerous and damaging innovation. It sets in law the desirability of consistency within government policy. The mayor must have regard to the need to be consistent. Although the provision does not in terms impose a duty to be consistent with government policy, the practical effect is not much different. The mayor would be hard pressed to justify in law a failure to follow a government policy, that could be complied with. The amendment reverses this rampant centralisation. The mayor will be obliged to have regard to government policy, but not to be consistent with it. Like all public bodies, the mayor's strategy should be consistent with this country's international obligations. The amendment maintains this obligation while removing the limitation in the present wording to obligations notified by the Secretary of State. Compliance with international obligations should not be dependent on a letter going out from Eland House to the mayor's office.
This amendment determines whether the mayor is an independent political figure elected by the people of London, and able to reflect their aspirations and concerns, or a government poodle who obeys the Secretary of State's orders. The clause removes the mayor's ability to decide his own policies and merely leaves him to apply the Government's. This amendment restores the proper balance and allows the mayor to decide what is best and the people of London to get what they voted for. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have two amendments in this group, but I shall not be moving Amendment No. 115. Amendment No. 114 has perhaps already been answered in part by the noble Baroness. She appeared to be able to follow more easily than did I the distinction between ensuring that a strategy is consistent with some other matter and simply having regard to that other matter. I found the detailed purport of the provision quite difficult to understand. I shall be glad if the Minister can explain in his reply the precise purpose of the clause.
We do not believe that the GLA should be required to observe national policies that are not in legislation. We understand that the GLA must abide by "extant legislation", which was the term used by the Minister when this issue was touched on in Committee on Monday. I accept that he probably did not mean only extant legislation, but the term sums up our views.
928
Policies that have been supported and found their way into the legislative process are one thing; a twinkle in a Minister's eye is quite another.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is a very interesting matter. I anticipate that the Government have in mind what happened towards the end of the reign of Mr Ken Livingstone when the Greater London Council was in existence. He set up in opposition to the government of the day on the other side of the river and said all manner of things about policies which were the total opposite of the government's. That made government extremely difficult, and it was resolved by the Greater London Council coming to an end. Obviously, it would have been very much better had those problems been avoided in another way. I remember being involved at the lime in that very difficult matter.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he can tell the Committee whether the statements in subsection (5) of the clause that we are discussing are legally binding on the mayor. What happens if he does not do them? If he simply fails to do what is said in the provision, is there a legal redress? I see that the Minister's noble friend is trotting off for a little bit of assistance, so perhaps I have put my finger on an important button. It seems to me that all of this is very desirable. Obviously, the mayor must do that which is legal. The noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench has pointed out that the mayor will have to abide by anything that is in legislation, but some of these matters will simply be government policy, international or domestic, which is not couched in legislative terms. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee what happens if this part of the Bill is not obeyed by the mayor.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Rereading subsection (5) in the light of all of the amendments that have been tabled, it occurs to me, and no doubt also to the Minister, that the mayor will himself be a major player on the international scene. In particular, in the European scene he is almost bound to be involved with other similar people, and it is extremely likely that he and the authority—however they play their part in international organisations—will need the Secretary of State's instruction with regard to obligations under international arrangements. The authority will be part of drafting many such international arrangements.
Lord Whitty: Clearly, we hope that the mayor of London will be very much party to the development of strategies and will develop an international position, but the GLA is not a nation state that makes its own international obligations. The GLA may contribute to our national position in those negotiations, but once that position has been agreed, it is a matter for the state as a whole to do its best to ensure that it is met.
These provisions are not put into the Bill because of any earlier experience, but on the basis of common sense. If we have a national policy relating to, for example, various environmental objectives, it is reasonable to require the mayor to have regard to the need for consistency with national policies. If we have an international obligation, as we do, under Kyoto,

929
which is not in legislation, it is sensible to have a provision whereby the mayor must have regard to the need to be consistent with such an obligation. For example, the UK has an obligation in relation to EU waste strategy—this will be in legislation—and the mayor may decide, totally contrary to the direction of EU legislation in these matters, that London can get rid of waste only through huge landfill sites. It must be right that the mayor should have regard to the need for consistency with that obligation and the national policies that are being pursued to fulfil it. Therefore, all we are saying appears to be common sense. It is not centralisation. It is not imposing any penalties on the mayor other than those which exist generally within administrative law to deal with a person who has not carried out his duty. Nor does it constrain the mayor in the way in which he develops his strategies. However, it is fair and reasonable to impose on the GLA the duty to be consistent and to have regard to the need for consistency with those international obligations which have been notified by the state.
In one sense, I think the noble Baroness is being helpful to the Government in saying that there may be matters about which the department has forgotten to notify the mayor. But I also believe it is not reasonable to expect the GLA or any other local authority to be aware of obligations which may be in the minutiae of some obscure treaty. Therefore, there is an obligation on national government to notify the GLA of any international obligations.
I repeat that this is not a centralising measure but a commonsense measure. It is designed to ensure that London and its new administration play their part in the delivery of both our national policies and our international obligations. I believe that that is a sensible provision. To act otherwise would be difficult to explain. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not think there is anything between ourselves and the Government as regards this matter, although the wording of subsection (5)(a) on page 20 is somewhat peculiar. The need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with national policies is absolutely clear, but it is,
"with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify".
International obligations are international obligations. I accept absolutely that the last thing one would wish to see is the mayor having to build some minor department or even to use half or a quarter or even 1 per cent of a clerk's time to find out with which international obligations he may have to comply.
The use of the words "such international obligations" seems to imply some sort of distinction. Will the Minister consider whether altering the wording slightly
930
will make his intentions, with which I believe we all agree, absolutely clear? The wording seems to me to be odd, to say the least.
Baroness Hamwee: I think the noble Lord is saying—and my reaction was similar—that it suggests some picking and choosing. There may be picking and choosing as to the relevance. But I believe that the noble Lord is saying that the mayor should ensure that the strategy is consistent with international obligations, provided that there is notification by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies to that point, will he answer my question as to what would happen if he does not do some of these things? How is the matter resolved? Or is there no answer to that at the moment?
Lord Whitty: This provision, and many provisions within this Act, require the mayor to have regard to various aspects. Clearly, having taken into account the international obligations and so forth, if there is no specific legislation then there is not a direct penalty as there would be, for example, for a breach of financial arrangements under the local government regime. Nevertheless, the mayor is subject to the general provision within administrative law: that it is open to the Government or anyone else to apply for a judicial review if there is a challenge that the mayor has not taken into account the requirements within the legislation. However, there is no direct penalty in the sense to which I believe the noble Baroness was referring.
As I indicated earlier, with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the duty to ensure that international obligations are carried out falls on the state. The state is party to those treaties. The state must therefore notify those other authorities and persons that are required to act in conformity. Therefore, I believe that the requirement that notification should take place is appropriate in those circumstances.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she believed that I had easily understood this matter. I must put her mind at rest and qualify that. I think that I understood it but it certainly was not easy when I went through it. The problem is with the word "such". Subsection (5)(a) states,
"is consistent with national policies and with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify".
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the word "pick". When I originally wrote my few lines to this amendment, in my own notes, which I did not read to the Minister, I said that it should not be left to the Secretary of State to "cherry pick" which of those international obligations he notifies to the mayor. I find that word quite unacceptable. I believe that the amendment, which refers to the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with our national obligations, is much more sensible.

931
Before I take up the Minister's suggestion and decide whether or not to withdraw the amendment, I should be grateful if he will comment on my remark that this duty is not upon local councils.
Lord Whitty: The obligation is not the same in relation to councils. The legislation is different. There are no obligations on councils to draw up strategies in this way as part of their legislative duties. That is why it is not covered in local government legislation. That is the only reason for that.
Much is being made of the word "such" and of where the obligation arises. Clearly there are many international obligations which are totally irrelevant to the GLA and which the GLA would have no part in helping the Government to meet. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, expressed the matter, it is meeting international obligations, provided that the obligations have been notified to the GLA. It does not mean that we shall be able to cherry pick but the GLA only has that duty provided that it has been told that it has that duty. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am interested to hear what the Minister has said. I was not intending to speak again. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I was a member of an authority which was obliged by law to make a structure plan. In some ways, that is not so different from developing a strategy. There is no question of not accepting government guidance. It is all part of the habit of local government. If councils do that anyway—as our officers did on our behalf and then informed us of what was taking place, for example, at Rio—why do we need special rules for the new authority in London? If they do not do it anyway, why are these rules not being applied to all major authorities in the United Kingdom?
Lord Whitty: The key answer to that is that structure plans and other obligations on local authorities are subject directly, or on appeal, to the Secretary of State. This power of the mayor is being laid down for the first time in new legislation in a unique authority. We therefore need a degree of clarity on the relationship between the mayor and national governments in this respect where, as the noble Baroness rightly says, custom and practice over decades has established a degree of understanding within the local authority structure. I believe that when one is dealing with an authority with an entirely new structure and powers, which consists of a geographical area of 6 million to 8 million people—I cannot remember the exact figure—we have an entirely new situation with which to deal. Therefore, we must legislate in this area with greater clarity than perhaps in other areas.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister said earlier that he thought I was trying to be helpful but rather confused things. I always try to be helpful to the noble Lord, as he knows very well. In fact, my help extends beyond the Bill; I am always trying to be helpful to the Government.
932
On that happy note, I am delighted that we have had this discourse across the Dispatch Box because it has enabled us to pull out a few more of the Government's thoughts. I shall read the debate with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114 to 118 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 20, line 13, after second ("the") insert ("safe and environmentally beneficial").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 119A in the name of [he noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall speak to that after she has introduced it if the Committee gives me leave to do so.
Amendment No. 119 returns in a way to an amendment moved on Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Subsection (5)(d) relates to the need to promote the use of the river. The wording on the face of the Bill is:
"the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames, in particular for the provision of passenger transport service and for the transportation of freight".
One of the reasons why the Thames has improved so much as a waterway over so many years must be the reduction of traffic upon it. The amendment introduces two considerations with regard to the question of desirability. The first is the issue of safety. Everyone remembers only too clearly the "Marchioness" disaster. Certainly, if there is to be a large increase in the use of the river as a route for transport, it seems to me that that implies traffic not only going up and down the river, but also large volumes crossing backwards and forwards. That may have been very fine in the days when movement was by man-powered boat—in other words, by rowing. Nowadays powered craft not only travel more quickly; they are also likely to be carrying more people. The problems of traffic control if there is large expansion in the number of vessels will be quite considerable. In my view, the situation is potentially dangerous. Therefore, the insertion of "safe" is important.
The phrase we seek to introduce into consideration of desirability is "environmentally beneficial." Modern craft are not only large. They are also noisy. That is not particularly evident to those standing on the river hank. But noise is important from the point of view of anything that lives in the river. Those concerned with the environment of any river must perforce take some account of both flora and fauna; some consideration must be given to that aspect. In the case of small boats, whose exhaust is often not only washed but silenced by the waters of the river, we could have a difficult situation.
Those are the reasons for the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider it seriously.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, Amendment No. 119A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, is

933
included in this group. It proposes to add to the transport uses of the River Thames, to which the clause makes specific reference, the word "waste", so that the river will be used for the transport of passengers, freight and waste.
I am sure all noble Lords are aware that waste is already transported along the River Thames. The amendment looks forward to our Amendment No. 451A to Clause 283. That amendment requires the word "transportation" to be added to those aspects of waste management which the mayor shall include in his waste strategy. I am in a slightly difficult situation. The amendment has not been grouped with the ones before us, and it is probably better if I do not go into great detail but deal with it when we reach it.
Basically, the problem is that the transport of waste is governed by different legislative regulations from those governing other aspects of waste management, such as how it is disposed of, how it is treated, or how it is recovered. We want to ensure that there is no block to the mayor's ability to cope with this aspect of waste management, which is very important, especially in the City, and to make sure that the river continues to be available as an important route for the disposal of waste.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right. We must bear safety in mind. No one wishes to do anything to threaten the safety of those who work on the Thames or travel on it. That goes without saying.
As to the question of the environment, I do not disagree with the noble Lord's amendment. But "environmentally beneficial" is always a matter of balance. There is no doubt that if all London's waste had to be carried through the streets of London over long distances there would be an enormous disbenefit to the citizens of London in terms of noise, pollution and congestion. Therefore, the role that the river currently plays in the transportation of waste is, I would say, on balance, beneficial, and it is in that light that we put forward our amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: With the leave of the Committee, I should declare what is now a non-interest, as a former chairman of Essex County Council and someone who had to spend a great deal of time, unsurprisingly, dealing with the problems of London's waste. Essex used to take, and, I think, still does take, of the order of 37 per cent of all of London's waste. Of course, consideration of the use of the river is significant in that respect.
Fortunately, the requirement has now reduced somewhat. Dumping at sea is no longer permissible. We should all be extremely glad that that is so. After a long battle, the point was finally conceded. The need for waste to be transported by river has therefore reduced. However, a proportion is still moved in that manner. Much also comes to Essex by land and will continue to do so, I suspect.
If one considers the river for the transport of waste it will be seen that nothing can be carried upstream because it would have to stop at Teddington weir. That means we are dealing with one-way traffic and implies
934
that there are adequate facilities in either Essex or Kent sufficiently close to the coast to dispose of the waste. That has been for many years the continuing problem.
I do not think we should debate what I would call the possibilities of the waste strategy at this point of the Bill. That would be wrong. But since the issue has been raised, and raised in relation to river transport, we need to recognise that if we use the river to transport waste we are forced to assume certain other conditions can also be met. Not only are they met at the expense of other communities; they diminish the capacity of those communities to dispose of their own waste. Those factors should be considered as part of the general issue.
Baroness Hamwee: Our amendment is not intended to address the issue of disposal or of the waste hierarchy, starting with reduction, use, and so on. It merely makes the point about the facility which runs through the centre of our capital. The contrast between that type of highway with the other congested highways is a point to be made.
The first time I saw in graphic form what happens to London's waste. I realised how much London dumps in a literal way on the counties surrounding it, including the noble Lord's county.
I believe that these two amendments illustrate the difficulties that we are bound to have and the time that we are bound to spend dealing with detail because of the prescriptive nature of the Bill. I doubt whether anything in subsection (5) needs to be spelt out. We have talked about consistency with extant legislation and with national obligations, and consistency of strategy between one and the other. The subsection also deals with resources. The question of the Thames is dealt with elsewhere. It illustrates the pity that the Government have seen it necessary to be so prescriptive and so detailed; and we get drawn into further prescription and detail.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I assure the noble Lord that I share fully the sentiments underlying the amendment. He is right. It is important to encourage the safe and environmentally beneficial use of the river. Indeed, the authority will have the improvement of the environment of Greater London as one of its principal purposes. I hope that I can persuade him that the amendment is unnecessary. We cannot conceive of circumstances in which any mayor would seek to promote the use of the river in a way that did not accord with the terms of the amendment. That is not because we have a naive faith in the good intentions of all future mayors of London, but because the authority's general purpose enshrines the improvement of the environment at the heart of everything that the authority does. Also, it is hard to imagine any situation in which taking traffic off the roads and onto the river would have no environmental benefit; or to imagine circumstances where the mayor would feel obliged by this provision of the Bill to promote something that was unsafe.
Therefore while we applaud and support the intentions of the amendment, we do not believe that a change to the Bill is necessary. I hope that in that context the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

935
Amendment No. 119A includes a specific reference to the desirability of using the river as a means of transporting waste. It is our intention that that should apply to the transport of waste within the provision because, as the noble Baroness said, over 20 per cent of London's municipal waste is currently carried on the Thames, saving hundreds of lorry movements a day, and we would wish to see this figure maintained and if possible increased. It is one of the reasons behind the provision in the Bill.
Our advice is that the term "freight" includes waste. Freight in its normal sense means any goods or cargo other than people carried for money. Waste would fall within that definition. While we agree with the thinking behind the amendment, I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not necessary. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment. I shall not deal with the other areas covered by a later amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister for her reassuring words, which I shall study with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119A not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("; and
() the views of such organisations representative of business as the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult having regard to the impact of his strategy on business").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 120 is grouped with Amendment No. 121. The amendment introduces two new matters to subsection (5) of the clause to which we believe that the mayor and the authority should have regard in settling any of the strategies. Amendment No. 120 includes the views of business and commerce. It could be said that that we have introduced consultation almost ad nauseam in the Bill. I have no doubt that the Minister in his reply will tell me that that is so. None the less, we debated in Committee only two days ago the problems of lists. The greater the list, the more exclusive it becomes rather than inclusive. What we want is inclusivity rather than exclusivity. Therefore I do not apologise to the Committee for introducing these additional thoughts.
Amendment No. 121 is equally, if not more, important. It introduces the requirement to have some regard to compliance costs. Strategies in the field of the environment, whether spatial or those which affect transport, air quality, and so on, all have compliance costs. If those were unreasonably imposed, they could make London less economic as a unit. That would not only have undesirable effects on London. If London's economy starts to suffer it would have undesirable effects at the national level and indeed on the economy of many of the surrounding areas.
I do not think, therefore, that it is unreasonable that compliance costs should be referred to in the Bill. They should be taken into account in the drawing up of the strategies. Of course I accept that with strategies which
936
bring about improvement, inevitably there will initially be problems of compliance, and almost inevitably also costs. The purpose is not to prevent compliance costs but that those costs be assessed in the strategy so that there is a cost benefit analysis. Therefore the improvement goes hand in hand with the viability of the economy of London and does not get out of step with it. We believe that that is important. That is why the amendments are on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the Government will say, as we are used to hearing them say, that the amendments are unnecessary. In this case, that is for a specific reason. We made clear when we spoke to the amendments on Monday that we consider the interests of business to be extremely important, and we moved an amendment to that effect. We also noted that the views of business are not the only views which are important.
Clause 33 provides that in preparing a strategy the mayor must have regard to the authority's principal purpose. There are three clauses dealing with principal purpose. It should involve consultation with a wider range of groups than just those with business interests. All the interests which have been identified should remain in the frame.
It is not possible for the mayor not to have regard to the views of citizens' interests in framing the strategy, given that the principal purpose includes economic and social development. For the reasons that I gave on Monday, economic and social development, as well as the environment, are of considerable interest to businesses. They will have views on those matters and, whether or not it is stated, the mayor must have regard to them. My concern is to ensure that the views of all those with interests, the stakeholders, are taken into account where appropriate.
Lord Whitty: The Bill provides for essential and central consultation with business; I hope not ad nauseam because I hope to find a more constructive outcome.
As the noble Baroness predicted, I think that the amendment is unnecessary. It would duplicate the provisions of Clauses 34(2) and 27(3) which relate to consultation with business organisations about the preparations for the strategy, where appropriate. The impact of the strategies on the interests of business is a matter for consultation with the authority because it is integral to the consultation process and to the preparation of the strategy.
The authority is not a legislative body and therefore does not have regulation-making powers like the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The requirement formally to undertake compliance cost assessment, which is normally included in legislation, is not included here. An assessment of the cost implications of the mayor's strategies and their potential impact on employment in London will clearly be part of

937
that consultation process and part of the strategy. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. It is no more and no less than I expected. I shall study his remarks with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("; and
() public safety including the needs of the ambulance, fire and civil defence services").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has a similar purpose to the last amendment and would require the mayor to draw up strategies that would have regard to the needs of the emergency services.
The emergency services, with the exception of the ambulance service, are part of the Greater London Authority's remit through the fire and emergency planning group, which we will be discussing at a later stage. There will be a Metropolitan Police Authority. There should be no difficulty about this matter, but these are important considerations and for the same reasons as we advanced Amendments Nos. 120 and 121, it is important that this matter should be considered by the Committee at this stage.
At Second Reading, I said that I hoped that what had been said during the passage of the Bill in the other place and here would make important reading for all those directly connected with the Greater London Authority at its inception; that is, staff and members. Therefore, although some of these debates might seem to be somewhat esoteric, they introduce matters which the new authority should take into consideration, whether or not such provisions are on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had to say, because I had hoped that some new light would be shed on the matter. Of course, the mayor should have regard to the needs and interests of the emergency services. As the noble Lord almost said, it is inconceivable that he would not, not only because they are important but because the mayor will be directly or indirectly responsible for two of those three services.
At the risk of sounding like a Government Minister, I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. Why is it necessary to single out the emergency services—important though they are—for special mention, particularly as the mayor has responsibility for two of them?
In our view, the amendment is unnecessary. I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the whole subsection is unnecessary and that to add to it still further would be a retrograde step.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the "Alternative Minister", said, this amendment is unnecessary. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it is not esoteric to raise the point at this stage of the debate.
I hope that noble Lords who have shown the greatest interest in the Bill will not be repetitive, as occasionally happens. Mention of these issues will clarify where the various aspects interlock. As I have explained, the mayor must consult people whose interests are affected, either by use of the general power or in the preparation of the strategy. The mayor would have to consult the services identified in the amendment where their interests were affected. He or she would also be expected to consult those services that have relevant expertise.
Public safety is already covered by the Bill. I am confident that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that we shall get through the Bill in a third of the time, with great expedition, if the three noble Lords from the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches do not all say the same thing.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was most interested to hear the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which is opposite to the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the Local Government Bill. At that time, I tried to reduce a different list of statutory consultees. I suppose that one should expect that kind of thing from time to time from the Liberal Democrat Party.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, says. She is right to have confidence in me: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert ("and
(c) to promote the prevention of crime and the promotion of community safety in Greater London,").
The noble Lord said: Crime and crime prevention are issues of the greatest importance to Londoners. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently observed in a survey, the most widespread source of neighbourhood dissatisfaction is crime. The highest level of dissatisfaction is in London inner city estates. In Brixton, in my own borough, a recent survey has shown that 82 per cent of the local population are very or fairly concerned about crime in their area.
As a result of the recent Crime and Disorder Act, which I greatly welcome, individual boroughs have a duty to co-operate with the police and probation services in the formulation of local strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder in their areas. The intention of Amendment No. 122A is to ensure that the GLA plays its part in ensuring that its strategies, whether in planning, urban regeneration, the environment or transport, contribute to the prevention of crime and to community safety.
The opportunities for crime reduction and prevention exist if support is properly given at the strategic stage. It is not good enough simply to assume that the police will sort things out after the event. Both crime and criminality can be prevented. Perhaps I may give a few examples: the design of Tube stations and trains or the nature of new developments and employment initiatives. There are some exciting developments in the crime prevention and community safety field. We have only to think of Youth Works which marries crime prevention, regeneration and employment initiatives. It is sponsored by Marks & Spencer, Groundworks and Crime Concern. That is one of the many initiatives which are available if a number of different strands are pulled together.
The creation of the Social Exclusion Unit within the Cabinet Office by the current Government was clear recognition of the interlinking of crime with many other departmental areas. If we are to crack crime we also need to tackle other factors. As a former chairman of Crime Concern and as a trustee of Lambeth Crime Prevention Trust, I can say that the real key significantly to prevent crime is now recognised as tackling the problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We need to understand the problems and bring residents into the centre of regeneration. We need to target economic development. We need to strengthen communities. We need to ensure that long-term commitment to sustainable neighbourhood regeneration exists at all levels of government, including regional government.
With the amendment, I believe that the new authority's strategies will have a strong strand of crime prevention which will assist in solving some of London's problems that today seem so intractable. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would require the mayor, so far as is practicable in preparing or revising any strategy, to include in it proposals to promote the prevention of crime and the promotion of community safety in Greater London.
We are already doing a great deal to reduce crime and promote community safety in Greater London. Clearly, the mayor will have a role to play in achieving the objectives we have set. He or she will do this through the influence he will have over the Metropolitan Police Authority in setting its budget; through the appointment of assembly members to the police authority; and through the prestige and consequent influence of his or her office, which offers a valuable opportunity to raise the profile of the fight against crime.
However, we have made it clear that the mayor's role must be distinct from that of the police authority and that of the police themselves. The mayor will not be involved in operational matters or "second guess" the police. Instead, the mayor will have influence over the policies and policy priorities in relation to policing the capital. The structure we have devised will provide democratic input to, but avoid the politicisation of, policing in London.
The mayor's strategies and his or her activities will clearly be directed at crime reduction and community safety. What other logical role could there be for the
940
mayor? Under the Crime and Disorder Act, local authorities and the local police force—known as the "responsible authorities"—are required to prepare crime reduction strategies for their area. In London, this is taking place at the London borough level, as many Members of the Committee know because of their distinguished involvement.
The Metropolitan Police Authority, once established, will of course have an important role to play in relation to these strategies as one of the key bodies with which the responsible authorities must co-operate. As I have made clear, the mayor will have an important role to play in the fight against crime in London. But lie or she should not duplicate what are, in essence, matters for the police and the London boroughs.
I hope that that explanation is satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: I listened with care to what the Minister said. I hope that when she referred to some noble Lords having some involvement at borough level she meant involvement in crime prevention and not in crime itself! In my borough we made it a strategic priority some nine years ago, long before the Crime and Disorder Act, which we too welcome.
There were times when I thought that the Minister was speaking in favour of the amendment. Of course the promotion of community safety is an important matter for the police and the police authority, but not solely for them. It is certainly an important matter for London borough councils and will remain so. Indeed, they now have a duty in that respect.
Similarly, there is a need at regional level—city-wide level, if that phrase plays better with the Government Front Bench—for the proposal to be reflected. In London as a whole, we must have a holistic approach to crime prevention and community safety. The police and the police authority will of course be important players in it, just as they are at London borough level. However, many other agencies are involved, including the Greater London Authority, the Probation Service, the voluntary sector and so forth.
Just as the Government have rightly recognised a strong case at borough level for the promotion of community safety, the case is the same at city-wide level and is a proper responsibility for the Greater London Authority. The Minister is right to say that this will be an important matter for the mayor. It is inconceivable that any high profile mayor will say, "Matters of community safety, crime, crime prevention and so on are nothing to do with me"—quite the opposite, I suspect. Therefore, I had hoped for a slightly more understanding and sympathetic response to an important amendment.
It will be for my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones to say what he wants to do at this stage, but if he chooses to withdraw the amendment I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall wish to return. I hope that during the intervening period the Government will give more

941
thought to how in this prescriptive Bill they can better address the important role in terms of the promotion of community safety.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the record,
I did not intend to imply that the noble Lord was involved in the pursuit of crime, but rather in the pursuit of combating crime. My experience of his abilities in local government here and in European forums leads me to know that, were he to choose at some distant time in the future to pursue a life of crime, he would be so effective that he would never be found!
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that tribute to my noble friend's versatility. I am very disappointed by her reply because there a philosophical misunderstanding about the nature of crime prevention and community safety strategies. We are not talking about influence over operational police matters. This issue goes far wider than any responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I took pains to mention the Social Exclusion Unit because I feel that its creation, which was supported by people in all parties, by chief police officers, local authorities and government departments, is about "joined-up government", to use a phrase coined by the Government. Its creation would link the strategies together and ensure that there is a strand of crime prevention throughout. The amendment is designed to place an explicit duty on the authority and the mayor to make sure that those strategies are as effective as possible in order to ensure crime prevention and community safety.
I believe that it is important that I mention the surveys showing that crime is top of Londoners' list of concerns, particularly in inner city areas. We already have a duty to promote health and sustainable development in Clause 33—we welcome those two important elements—but the third element surely is crime prevention.
Many of the tools are at our disposal. I mention merely Youth Works, which combines different strategies from many areas which hitherto have been kept in little boxes. They have not been treated as a coherent, holistic strategy—to use my noble friend's expression. This is an important matter about which I am very disappointed. I am sure that we shall raise this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 122B:
Page 20, line 34, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may formally move Amendment No. 122B, while the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith finds his papers. Some of my colleagues may have something to say and I can see that the Minister certainly has something to say about it. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble
942
Lord should have continued. I can reassure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary. Should noble Lords want me to go into detail I shall do so.
Lord Tope: I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that this amendment is unnecessary and I am therefore more willing than ever to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 124.
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
THE FURTHER EDUCATION STRATEGY GROUP for LONDON
(" .—(1) There shall be a Further Education Strategy Group for London.
(2) The Further Education Strategy Group for London shall have—

(a) the function of providing advice to the Mayor on the contents and implementation of the further education strategy; and

(b) such other functions as may be conferred or imposed on, or made exercisable by them by or under any other enactment, whenever passed or made.

(3) The Further Education Strategy Group for London shall formulate and submit to the Mayor and Assembly a draft strategy containing proposed policies with respect to further education in Greater London.
(4) As soon as reasonably practicable after the draft strategy has been submitted, the Mayor and Assembly shall prepare and publish a document to be known as the "further education strategy".
(5) The Further Education Strategy Group for London shall keep the further education strategy under review and may submit proposed revisions of it to the Mayor.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 124. The amendment bears a close resemblance to Amendment No. 123, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke on Monday evening. It reflects our view on these Benches that the Greater London Authority should have a strategic role in the planning of further education provision.
I shall begin by asking the Minister who currently has the responsibility for the strategic planning of further education in Greater London. I know that the Education and Employment Select Committee in another place asked that question of all the further education witnesses who came before the committee. They all denied having any responsibility for the strategic planning of further education until, finally, the Secretary of State said that he supposed that he must have that strategic responsibility. That may be so, and I look forward to some clarification. Certainly, it is no longer the responsibility of local education authorities. Since the incorporation of further education colleges, that has not been the responsibility of LEAs, so we are not in any way suggesting that we should impinge on what is currently carried out by LEAs—quite the contrary.
However, there is a need for better—indeed some—strategic planning of further education provision in our capital city and in other regions, although we are presently dealing with Greater London. If responsibility rests with the Secretary of State, I suggest that that

943
power should be one that is devolved. If it is still to be implemented through the Government Office for London, as to some extent I know that it is, I suggest that it would be better exercised and certainly more democratically accountable if it were part of the role of the mayor and the Greater London Authority.
We believe that life-long learning partnerships should have a strategic regional basis. That is something that we shall propose for the rest of the country as and when we move to regional assemblies, but we have an opportunity, which we should take, to deal with that first in London.
Following incorporation, further education provision in the capital, and indeed in the country, has become enormously competitive and, to some extent, wasteful in that provision. Therefore, there is a need for that strategic role, not in providing the services—that is not the role of the authority—but in planning their provision. I say that not only to try to reduce waste and duplication of provision but, more importantly, to ensure that proper provision is made. There is a greater danger—it happens in some parts of the country—that appropriate courses are not provided because it is not economic for a college to do so as they are too expensive and/or not profitable enough. So in some areas such courses are not provided at all. I suspect that may be the case on a sub-regional basis within London.
Therefore, it seems to be extremely important that the mayor and the authority need to have an overview of the provision of further education in the capital. I wonder how the mayor and the authority are to meet their responsibilities for economic development if they are unable to have a further education strategy that covers such important matters as the provision of training.
Funding is another issue. Currently, there are nine different funding streams in a further education college, for which I believe there is a need for a London view. I am aware that a White Paper is to be published imminently—perhaps the Minister can tell us when—on post-16 funding. I believe it is to be published before the end of the month. We are aware, as we keep reading, that there is a review under way on the role and purpose of training and enterprise councils, and so on.
Clearly, the role of the GLA will need to be considered in the light of that White Paper and the TEC review. I believe that the principle remains that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the mayor to discharge his responsibilities in relation to economic development and the general well-being of Londoners without also being able to develop a further education strategy. As we believe that that is an important gap in the provisions of the Bill, we take this opportunity to raise the issue. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has moved an amendment which is more than superficially attractive. Insofar as there is a lacuna in this area, it would appear to be a subject in which one might have expected the mayor to interest himself. But the Greater London Authority, as it is being established, has no
944
locus in the educational service directly at all, and when one is dealing with further education, while it is relevant to the mayor, it is properly the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
The nine funding streams which relate to further education, more or less have one source; that is, the DfEE. The way out of this dilemma from the point of view of the mayor is to ensure that he is consulted by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
It has always been a problem in any institution when we are dealing with a body that does not have direct responsibility, to give it some part to play in a specific service. However superficially attractive this amendment might be, because the GLA will not be in the business of education, it is perhaps a question that needs to be addressed to the DfEE rather than to the face of the Bill. Therefore, without a great deal more convincing, I cannot support the amendment from these Benches.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sure that the mayor will want to contribute to the improvement and development of education in London and she or he will be able to do this by bringing the key players together, by co-ordinating action and by encouraging debate.
But we have been quite clear that the responsibilities for education in London would not pass to the authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, acknowledged. Giving responsibility for education services to the authority would undermine the streamlined strategic: model of government we are seeking to create. Of course, responsibility for the preparation of a strategy need not necessarily depend on having control of the provision of key services. That is reflected in the model we have adopted in respect of culture, where we intend that the mayor's strategy should be a focal point for co-operation by a wide range of cultural organisations across London.
In the case of education, the mayor's formal locus of activity will, as acknowledged by the noble Lord. Lord Tope, be in the field of economic development strategy, which could include proposals to enhance the skills of people in all parts of London. But rather than trying to carve out a formal and distinct role for the mayor in respect of education, we consider it more appropriate to allow partnerships to develop between the mayor and those providing services, establishing relationships which will enable the mayor to make a positive contribution.
If the GLA has no responsibility for education, at whom would the strategy be directed and who would implement it? The GLA would obviously have no powers of direction and therefore a strategic approach, in particular to meet the training needs and skill shortages to which the noble Lord referred, would have to be in the context of the development partnerships. The noble Lord recognised and asked if it were true that a White Paper on post-16 funding is expected. It is expected shortly. It is clear that in the context of the noble Lord's amendments there are many ways in which we can come together. However, we do not feel that the

945
route suggested by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is appropriate and hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: It may be that the short answer to whether or not the mayor can create such a group to advise and to discuss educational matters, whether or not there is a provision in the Bill, is "yes". As I listened to the noble Baroness, it seemed to me that she was suggesting that that was the case.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That is so.
Baroness Hamwee: I am glad to hear that because, given that the mayor has responsibility, as she said, for economic development—the purpose laid down in the earlier clause—answering the question as to who is responsible for further education strategy (further education for this purpose includes training, but is far more than training), it is important to the economic and social health of London that there should be a focus for the subject.
The noble Baroness suggested that there may be other ways of addressing this issue. Perhaps it is something to which we can return at a later stage, if that seems appropriate. It is also something that could be properly developed in discussions outside this Chamber.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If it would be helpful, we would be only too prepared to do that.
Lord Tope: That was a helpful response and I am sure that we will wish to take up what I believe was an offer and discuss it further.
Perhaps I can make it clear—because in responding the Minister referred many times to education and education services—that the purpose of the amendments does not relate at all to pre-school education, primary, secondary or even higher education. It relates specifically to further education. I want to be clear about that. I am not in any way suggesting that the role of LEAs should in some way be related to the role of the GLA. I am talking specifically about FE, which is not now a role of local education authorities.
This is an important area that the mayor will have to consider. Indeed, I find it hard to understand how the mayor will carry out his or her responsibilities in relation to economic development, social development and so forth without having some role in FE strategy. But I will be happy to discuss this matter further and to consider it further in the light of the White Paper we are promised, the TEC review and so on. At this stage, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Consultation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 20, line 44, at end insert ("and have regard to the views of").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 34 requires the mayor to undertake certain consultations in the preparation for revision of strategies. Again, I hope that there will be a short answer to this; that is, that the
946
Government agree that consultation cannot be proper consultation unless they consult or have regard to the views of the consultees. My wording seeks to provide that explicitly.
I tabled the amendment at this point, well aware that there are other references to consultation, because it is perhaps most important at the point at which the strategies are created. I simply seek an assurance that consultation will not be an exercise isolated from the response to the consultation. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. This amendment does not add to the normal understanding, long established and commonplace in both statute and the courts, that to consult means to ask someone his views and to have regard to them. That is well established in what is intended here. If the noble Baroness is happy with that, I too am happy. Were we to pursue this, we would have long hours amending large chunks of other legislation to make it clear. This is established practice and it is the intention in this case.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not seeking a long debate, at any rate not at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 21, line 3, after ("Council,") insert—
("() such organisations representative of business of all sizes as the Mayor considers appropriate having regard to the impact of his strategies on the interests of business and commerce,").
The noble Baroness said: Although this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 127 I shall not be moving that amendment because "business of all sizes", referred to in Amendment No. 126, must encompass Amendment No. 127 which simply refers to "business".
Although the Government have introduced swathes of new amendments to the Bill in its passage through Parliament to date, it is still possible to put a finger on another error or omission. Amendment No. 126 does exactly that. Clause 34 requires the mayor to consult with various bodies in preparing or revising his strategies. They include the assembly, the functional bodies such as Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the London boroughs, the Common Council and any other body or person whom the mayor deems appropriate.
London is the commercial centre of the United Kingdom. In many respects it is the world centre for various commercial activities such as insurance, foreign exchange, the Eurodollar and other bonds. It houses the markets that fix the world price for many commodities such as gold and silver and all sorts of consumables such as coffee. Yet the Government do not seem to believe that it is necessary that it shall be obligatory—yes, obligatory—for the mayor to consult with the representatives of business and commerce before launching one of his strategies.
I can think of schemes a mayor might launch which look quite nice on paper. mollify one pressure group or another or are politically correct according to the mayor's personal politics but which could be a disaster from the point of view of a great city trying to earn its living and help the nation to earn its living.
Clause 34 (1)(e) provides that the mayor shall consult with any other person or body he deems it appropriate to consult. But supposing he acts arbitrarily or capriciously. or happens to share—I accept that it is most unlikely—a political credo with the anarchists who ran amok in the City last Friday, and as a result decides to consult nobody. As the Bill stands he can ignore business or commerce altogether.
It is interesting to note that in Clause 27 the assembly is required to consult business along with a collection of other special interests, albeit business comes bottom of the list. Yet in this most important function of deciding on his strategies the mayor is not required by the Government to consult with what many would consider to be the centre of the economic life of London and of the country.
The Government should not allow the views of this important constituency to be ignored by the mayor if he so chooses. He may not have to act on the views and the advice he receives when he consults business, but he must not be allowed to choose not to consult. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I believe that my colleagues in another place set out clearly our intentions under the clause and indicated that the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 27(3)(d) requires the mayor, before using the authority's general power, to consult bodies which represent the interests of people carrying on business where their interests will be affected. Clause 34(2) requires the mayor to do this when preparing or revising any strategy.
I make it absolutely clear that the interests of business or commerce are, in the Government's view, already clearly safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill. I repeat the statement of my honourable friend the Minister for London. He made it clear that the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue under the provisions of Clause 25(7) of the Bill about the exercise of the general power will include guidance about the circumstances in which consultation with business and other people whose interests are affected must take place.
My colleague's commitment is there. The Bill already provides what the noble Baroness seeks for those in business circles who have anxieties. I can assure the noble Baroness and the business interests that their interests are safeguarded by the Bill as it stands. I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his welcome response even though we would have preferred it to be more definite. It is interesting how often he says that certain things are not necessary because they are already in place. If something is not
948
necessary, it is not unnecessary to say no to It is the reverse and it would not hurt. It is not quite the same when something is said to be in the guidance. While I am not implying that that may not happen, it is always more comforting for us when we see the provision actually made. I take note of what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert ("and in respect of any matter related to the River Thames, any voluntary body whose purposes encompass all aspects of its amenity and use").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment would be to extend the scope of consultation required. I firmly believe that consultation in these areas with essential bodies is of particular importance, not least for the development of the River Thames.
There is a plethora of agencies currently responsible for the management, use and planning of the River Thames. Some are statutory: there are partnerships, non-statutory co-ordinating advisory bodies and interest and user groups. It is clear that there needs to he some form of rationalisation of the functions of these bodies.
The amendment provides that organisations which provide a co-ordinating role and are representative would be drawn into the consultative process of the GLA and thereby able to influence the authority towards adopting measures reflecting the needs of different user groups.
I have referred to the organisations involved with the river. Many are represented on an umbrella body, the London Rivers Association. The River Thames Society, a sister organisation, deals with amenity and recreational issues affecting the River Thames.
A consultative body would help to resolve the current complexities that abound and provide an important advisory and co-ordinating role for issues impacting on the River Thames. I am not saying that what I suggest here is the last word, but it is the direction in which I urge the Government to go. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The other evening my noble friend spelt out the importance of the River Thames in developing strategies for London. I broadly concurred. It is important that in developing those strategies the mayor consults those who have the responsibilities and represent interests concerned with the river. As regards the way in which the mayor carries out the consultations, we have not sought to create consultative committees. We have not sought to lay that down in statute. It would be inflexible to do so. The general intent of the Bill is that we do not single out one specific grouping with whom the mayor should consult. If we did that here, we would have to do it at many other points in the Bill. That would lead to an even more unwieldy Bill than we have at the moment. It would be

949
an unnecessary constraint on the mayor to put such a provision on the face of the Bill. The mayor needs to have some discretion in this regard.
I recognise the importance of what the noble Lord says. We would expect the mayor to consult in any event. But the way in which he does so and those he consults must be left to the mayor himself. I hope that my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Will the draft strategies mentioned in the Bill be published as drafts? That will enable any NGO or voluntary body to make representations if it wishes to do so, even if it is not specifically mentioned as having to be consulted. I do not see anything on the face of the Bill which requires such strategies to be promulgated in a form which would allow members of the public to make representations in this respect.
In the particular case of the Thames, I can think of several bodies which might well not be thought of by the mayor but which may have something useful to say to enable better strategies to be developed. If the Minister can assure me that there will be some provision requiring these strategies to be published in draft—and, for example, to be placed on the world wide web—so that anyone can inspect them before they become set in stone, that would be a very useful and democratic measure and would enhance the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: In most circumstances, the expectation is that there would be the opportunity for bodies which have not been picked out here, or mentioned in a list for consultation which the mayor may initially draw up, to have such a facility. We would not wish to prescribe that explicitly in all particulars in the Bill, but that is the way in which we envisage the mayor carrying out his duties.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I recognise that my noble friend does not wish to be too prescriptive about the organisational structure required for consultative purposes, especially as he would not be carrying out the responsibility; indeed, it would be the responsibility of the mayor. I understand that perfectly. However, I was seeking to emphasise the huge number of different organisations whose views need to be taken into account. I believe that it will be necessary for some clear machinery to be established to enable those voices to be heard effectively. They have a great deal to offer. There is a collective wisdom here which is important for when we come to the development of this major waterway.
I did not sense that my noble friend was too distressed about the principle behind the amendment. I believe he underlined, as he has previously, the importance of a form of delegation, so to speak, involving the mayor; in other words, that he or she
950
should have the ability to devise a policy with colleagues on the authority. The organisations to which I referred will want to see some coherence in this respect. We have discussed, albeit briefly, the importance of that particular theme.
It was an idea expressed by such an organisation which led to my tabling the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for what he said. He made an important contribution to this short, but not insignificant, debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 21, line 22, after ("considers") insert (", and the Assembly agree,").
The noble Baroness said: Under Clause 34(6) the mayor need not consult on revisions to a strategy if he considers that the strategy will not be materially altered. I am not suggesting that that proposition should be reversed, but I believe that there should be a check on the mayor's view on the matter. Therefore, I propose that the assembly should be required to agree that there is no material alteration in order to allow the mayor to rely on this provision.
The assembly has a scrutiny role and I believe that my amendment would be consistent with it. However, although the matter could be raised under the provisions for dialogue and public debate between the assembly and the mayor, I think that this is important enough to receive its own focus and for it to be a matter for provision in itself. That would not simply allow the assembly to question the matter, as no doubt it could under other provisions; it would also give it the right to say, "Mayor, you're making too great an assumption about your revision not bringing about an alteration that the rest of London would consider material. We think that it's a matter on which you should consult London and that you should follow the provisions laid down". I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness said, the amendment would require the assembly to be in agreement before the mayor could waive the consultation requirements set out in Clause 34 in relation to revising strategies.
As noble Lords know, we have made provision for extensive consultation to take place in relation to the mayor's strategies. That is essential to ensure that where particular interests are affected, their views are listened to and taken into account. However, under Clause 34(6), if the mayor considers that a proposed revision to a strategy will "not materially alter" the strategy in question, he will not be required to carry out consultation.
This provision is intended to ensure that the mayor does not have to consult on every minor and technical amendment he may make to the strategies. However, I must emphasise the words "not materially alter" a strategy. For consultation requirements to be waived, the proposed changes must satisfy that test.

951
The mayor must be able to demonstrate that he has good reasons for deciding not to consult on a particular strategy. He would have to be able to justify the view that revision did not materially affect the strategy. Those reasons could be challenged and tested if the mayor failed to consult where consultation was, in fact, appropriate. Of course, through its monthly meetings, the assembly will be in a prime position to question a mayor about any changes that he may intend to make to the strategies.
I hope that my response has reassured the noble Baroness that the mayor will not be able to use subsection (6) to circumvent the consultation requirements elsewhere in Clause 36. It is simply a way to ensure that minor and drafting changes can be made in a sensible way. I trust, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sad to say that I do not believe the Minister's response has taken the matter forward. Of course I accept that the mayor should have the ability to make what the noble Baroness describes as "minor and drafting changes" but the clause leaves the matter to the mayor's consideration in a case where,
"he considers that the proposed revisions will not materially alter the strategy in question".
As the Minister said, and as I suggested in my opening remarks, if there is a proposed revision the assembly can of course raise it at the next monthly meeting. However, the raising of the matter in that context will not require the mayor to follow the provisions of Clause 36. That would leave judicial review, which is an extraordinarily heavy sledgehammer, as the only really effective means of redress. It is clear that I did not explain myself sufficiently. The Minister's response repeated very much of what I said in my opening remarks. My concern is that the assembly should have the ability to make the mayor think again and do the right thing, which would be quite consistent with its scrutiny role.
I shall read what the noble Baroness said. I certainly wish to consider the matter further. We are concerned that the assembly, which has a clear scrutiny role—I accept that for this purpose it does not have a policy-making role—should be able to exercise that scrutiny role effectively. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before we hear the Statement on the prevention of terrorism Act, I take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be
952
confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
5.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware, the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are subject to annual renewal by the affirmative resolution procedure. It has, however, recently come to my attention that, because of technical defects in the drafting of the 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, certain provisions contained in the 1989 Act have not in fact been in force since 22 March 1998.
"I therefore come before the House today to apologise for this regrettable error for which I take responsibility. I also wish to explain what happened and to advise the House that I intend to revive these provisions, by order, as soon as practicable, subject of course to the approval of this House and the other place.
"The provisions concerned are Sections 16A, B, C, with Schedule 6A and Section 16D of the Act.
"Section 16A makes it an offence to possess articles for suspected terrorist purposes. Section 16B makes it unlawful to collect information likely to be useful for terrorist purposes. Together they form Part IVA of the Act.
"Section 16C provides the power to impose a police cordon in connection with a terrorist investigation, with Schedule 6A setting out the powers that may be exercised within a cordoned area. Section 16D imposes parking restrictions in a specified area. Together they form Part IVB of the PTA.
"The powers in Sections 16A and 16B were brought into the PTA in 1994 and Sections 16C and 16D in 1996. They continued in force each year until March 1998. It was then both my intention and my understanding—and I believe the understanding of the House—that these provisions had continued in force following the renewal debates in both 1998 and 1999.
"However, this has turned out not to be the case. Earlier continuance orders had referred collectively to Parts I to V of the Act, a formulation which obviously includes Part IVA and IVB. It was however as a matter of policy proposed by Ministers and agreed by Parliament that in the 1998 and 1999 orders, Part II relating to exclusion orders, should not operate. The 1998 and 1999 continuance orders, following the omission of Part II, listed separately Parts I, III, IV and V in a way which—inadvertently—did not include Parts IVA and IVB. This drafting subtlety

953
escaped the notice of the draftsman, Ministers, including myself, the House and the legal profession at the time.
"It has indeed only come to light as a result of an eagle-eyed author of an article in issue 19 of the Criminal Law Week of 24th May 1999. As soon as it was drawn to my attention, I sought advice; and once the status of the sections was clarified the police were advised not to rely on these provisions. I very much regret that these provisions have not in fact been in force since March 1998.
"My information is that six people have been charged with offences under Sections 16A and B since 1995 but no convictions have thus far taken place. One person was on bail awaiting trial for offences under Sections 16A and B which were alleged to have been committed after 22nd March 1998. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has told me that steps have been taken today to quash the indictment. Three other people—referred to as Kebilene and others—are also currently on bail charged with offences under Section 16A of the PTA but the alleged offences occurred before 22nd March 1998. None of these alleged offences relates to Irish terrorism.
"Records on the use of Section 16C—the power to raise a police cordon—are not held centrally. But I understand the section has been used reasonably frequently in recent times. The Metropolitan Police alone, for example, have used the provision 86 times since 22 March 1998. However, there have been no convictions under Section 16C for breach of a police cordon during the period in which this provision has not been in force.
"Notwithstanding the ceasefires in Northern Ireland, we still face the threat of terrorism from many quarters. In these circumstances I think that it is right that the earliest practicable opportunity is taken to revive these measures, so restoring what we all believed to be the status quo. I have therefore today tabled a draft order to bring Sections 16 A, B, C and D back into operation. This order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the revival of the provisions before they may be brought back into force. These debates will take place as soon as practicable.
"There is a separate but related point about Sections 16A and B of the PTA which arises in the case of Kebilene and others. This is a judicial review case which is scheduled to be heard by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords on 19th July. The case turns on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should continue to give his consent to the prosecutions for offences under Sections 16A and 16B of the PTA if they are incompatible with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The Government believe these provisions, in their current form, are not incompatible with the ECHR and are an important part of the armoury in the fight against terrorism. It is entirely consistent with this
954
position to seek the early revival of these provisions now that it has come to light that they are not currently in force. In adopting this course of action the Government are not attempting to pre-empt. or in any way influence, the outcome of the appeal. We shall await their Lordships' judgment with interest.
"But that need not, and must not, stop us from taking action to ensure that all measures required to counter terrorism are properly available."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement. I am sure that your Lordships will also have sympathy with the Minister for having to confess that lawyers, even parliamentary draftsmen, let alone Home Secretaries and other Ministers with legal qualifications, can err. But this error arose directly from the regrettable fact that the Government did not continue all the provisions of the PTA. They intended to drop Part II and accidentally dropped Parts IVA and IVB too. This is a most serious matter.
As I understand the position, it is not now an offence to possess articles for the purposes of terrorism. That means it is not an offence to possess a gun, explosives or detonators for the purposes of terrorism under this Act. It is not an offence to possess disguises, masks, goggles and all the other apparatus of terrorist attacks. Nor is it an offence currently—as a result of this error—to collect information for the purposes of terrorism such as lists of targets, details of the movements of potential targets and other particulars. Of course these have not been offences since March 1998, originally because of the unrealised error. But that error was realised and indeed made public apparently on 24th May, nearly a month ago. Therefore, these have not been offences—with the Home Secretary's knowledge—for over four weeks.
What is more, the Home Secretary confirmed in another place that he had known about this matter since 26th May, if I heard him accurately. As I understand the position—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—they are not offences in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain. What is more, it would seem that they will not be offences for another few days because the Home Secretary has decided not to use the urgency provisions which I believe to be available to him. If he had used those provisions, the necessary orders could have been brought into force immediately and confirmed by Parliament subsequently.
The drafting point has been described as subtle, technical and obscure. Indeed, it was buried in the text of the orders. However, once pointed out, it is not at all a complex point but an extremely simple point of drafting. It is important that it is corrected at the earliest opportunity.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister when the police were advised of the position. We understand from the Statement that the Metropolitan police have relied on the cordon powers 86 times since the provisions were

955
no longer in force. How many times have the RUC relied on the cordon powers since the provisions were no longer in force?
So far as concerns the future, the provisions are necessary and important. They were supported by all sides when introduced by the previous government; everyone thought they were being renewed and everyone supported their renewal. We will facilitate the passage of the new order which has been made today. We are disappointed that the Home Secretary has not used the urgency provisions which, in this case, would have been entirely appropriate. I have obtained the permission of the Opposition Chief Whip to say that we are prepared to debate and pass this order tonight or tomorrow, should the Government so wish. We will do everything we can to facilitate the passage of the order at the earliest opportunity.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the words of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It states that:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide … that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force … shall continue in force".
But also that:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide … that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force".
So it is envisaged in the machinery of the Act that it should be expressly declared in the regulations that are passed under this Act that those provisions which continue in force should be named; and that those provisions that should cease to be in force should also be named. That was the way in which the statutory instrument itself was drafted; namely, continuing certain parts of the Act and declaring that the provisions at Part II of the Act shall cease to be in force.
The point that is so narrow, so technical and so mechanical is simply that Part IV is said not to include Part IVA and Part IVB. Nobody thought that that was an omission. I understand that the anonymous contributor to this journal has expressed his view and the Home Office lawyers have presumably agreed with that view. But it seems to me to be not at all clear that that is the right position.
Be that as it may, this is not a moment for sackcloth and ashes for the Home Secretary because he has made some dreadful error, some dreadful mistake; on the other hand, it is not a moment for spreading the blame to other people in this House or in the other place. I was on the Front Bench when the 1998 order was passed; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was also in his place. If there is any suggestion that members of other parties failed to stop this matter and are in some way to blame, that is entirely wrong. The Government should not adopt by family motto—Ar Bwy Mae'v Bae, "Who can we blame?"—and seek to spread the responsibility any further than where it rests. We are entitled when we come to the House to assume that if there is a technical or a mechanical defect, then the Government will take
956
full responsibility for that. I have heard that in the other place there is an attempt to spread the responsibility beyond the Home Secretary himself.
My question to the noble Lord is: if the order is now to go through and the earliest practical measure is to be brought before the House, when is that to be? I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said; why not straightaway? Why do we not do it now if it is so urgent?
My final question concerns why the Government have made a pronouncement on a pending case, which is before the Judicial Committee of this House, concerning the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Why did the Government make a reference to that case and firmly state their position on it when it is a matter that is to be decided at a later date? Is it right and proper for the Government to take that stance?
5.17 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Home Secretary would have been manifestly derelict in his duty if he had come before another place, or asked me to repeat a Statement in this House, without telling your Lordships the fullest possible related background detail. He has behaved absolutely properly. He said quire clearly in the Statement I repeated that there is a separate but related point. It is quite separate but it is related. The Home Secretary takes the view—which I share—that in speaking to Parliament we ought to be as candid, as open and as helpful as possible. The Home Secretary has behaved entirely properly.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Home Secretary has said that in adopting this course of action the Government are not attempting to pre-empt or in any way influence the outcome of the appeal. Indeed, I take the noble Lord's point further because I think it is an entirely mistaken one. The point that the Government will submit, through their lawyers, to the Appellate Committee will be that we believe that the statutory provisions are convention compatible. That is simply a recitation of the Government's position. It does not determine the outcome; it does not influence the outcome. As the Home Secretary said, it is deliberately intended not to affect the outcome.
I agree with the noble Lord that it is not a case for sackcloth and ashes. I think that the Home Secretary has behaved rightly. I repeat his words:
"I therefore come before the House today to apologise for this regrettable error for which I take responsibility".
In the recent past, that has not always been the attitude of some Ministers in some departments. He could not have been clearer; he is not attempting to blame anyone. He is stating the bare truth; namely, that he missed it; his colleagues and Ministers missed it; the House missed it; the legal profession missed it; and the draftsmen missed it. It is surprising not that these small phrases should have been missed, but how rarely such errors occur. One ought to pay a proper tribute to the work carried out by the draftsmen, very often at very short notice and under great pressure, in getting things absolutely right.

957
Having said that, this is an important matter. We need to have it properly in perspective. I have already given the figures; there have been six charges since 1995 and no convictions. So, although these are important weapons in the armoury, they are not the only ones we have. No one should be unduly alarmist in claiming that they are.
I do not know who was the author of the article in Criminal Law Week. It may have been a woman. I do not assume that all legal knowledge reposes in the male sex. But he or she will have this undoubted continuing moment of glory and, I dare say, free drinks in legal circles for some time to come.
In reply to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, there are related offences in Northern Ireland which correspond to Sections 16A and 16B and there are comparable, although slightly different, powers that correspond to Sections 16C and 16D. But those do not depend on this legislation; they depend on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
My understanding is that the article was published on 24th May. It was brought to the personal attention of the Home Secretary on 26th May, in his Box. He then asked for advice to be taken. When advice was taken and, I believe, Law Officers were consulted, he thought it right to come immediately to the House to explain what had happened. He was absolutely right not simply to put into action the emergency procedure to which reference has been made. That would have been seen, with some justification, as a device to avoid responsibility and to avoid above all the duty to be candid to this House, which is what he has been. That means that if the affirmative procedure is used the House has the fullest opportunity to consider this matter. That is the proper, scrupulous way to treat, with proper regard, this House's interests. I do not know whether the Opposition Chief Whip has spoken to my noble friend Lord Carter. So far as I am concerned, we are ready to move as urgently as may be required.
There was a question about when the police were told. They were told informally that the status of the provisions had been queried on 27th May. There was no delay there. We had to obtain proper advice. As soon as that was available, at the end of last week, more authoritative guidance was given.
I stress that no charges have been brought in respect of Sections 16C and 16D, the cordon powers. Those powers do not stand alone. They have a relation to common law powers. The proposition was put that certain offences are no longer offences. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkley, if I noted his point correctly, said that possession of a gun, explosives, disguises and so forth would no longer be offences. That is not right. The fine point—and it is an important distinction—is that these two sections, which were wrongly thought to have been continued as part of Sections 4A and 4B, do not provide the foundations of criminal liability. But possession of a gun without a licence is in any event a criminal offence, and there are extremely severe penalties; so is the possession of explosives. If there is material such as disguises, masks and goggles, they can
958
form the evidential basis in appropriate circumstances for charges of conspiracy to cause explosions or grievous bodily harm, or any serious offence.
I am not minimising the mistake that was made. The Home Secretary could not have been plainer than he was: "I apologise. I take responsibility". But we have to put this matter in the proper context. There have been relatively few charges. There have been no convictions. The powers that the law has to deal with the possession of weapons, explosives and similar devices remain utterly intact.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House should be indebted to my noble friend for repeating the Statement, and to the Home Secretary for acknowledging the mistake that was made. We hope that it will not be fatal. He acknowledged that mistake very clearly indeed. That is never an easy thing for any Minister. But we could not have expected him to have been more frank than he was. He was open. He spoke with integrity, and Parliament is indebted to him for that.
Will my noble friend comment further on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the speed with which the necessary legislation should be put through Parliament? I would counsel rather more delay than he suggested. It is important that we digest carefully, in this House and in another place, what has been said today. It would be the worst of all worlds if further mistakes were to be made. We must feel impelled to try to avoid that at all cost. It is important to get this matter right. I suggest that speed is not necessarily the best instrument to use when one is in a difficulty of this kind.
I thank my noble friend for the characteristically sensible way in which he repeated the Statement and answered questions on it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My proper approach ought to be that I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships, subject to discussions with the usual channels. I ought to have said, and I am sorry that I overlooked this, that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, indicated to me informally before I came to the Chamber to repeat the Statement that he was willing to stand ready on behalf of his party to co-operate in the way that the noble Lord. Lord Cope of Berkeley, indicated.
It is a relatively simple revision—but then, we all thought that originally. As the Home Secretary said in his Statement, the draft has been laid. We ought to get on with all appropriate speed in dealing with this matter. I stress that we have a duty—and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Thomas of Gresford—not to alarm people unnecessarily. There is a very significant weaponry of criminal legislation available. I repeat, without attempting to derogate from the seriousness of this point, that very few charges have been brought and there have been no convictions.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, we are of course willing to co-operate with business managers in

959
processing the remedial amendments, recognising as we do the seriousness of the situation, and particularly its impact on affairs in Northern Ireland in the coming week.
At such a time there is always a temptation to blame Ministers and the draftsman of the legislation. But I am afraid that I must make myself unpopular. All of us in this House must recognise that we are not entirely blameless. We have no excuse. Although the other place seems nowadays to rush through legislation, often according to a timetable and under a guillotine, when the flawed and imperfect legislation reaches this House we do not make full use of the ranks of noble Lords who are learned in the law and other noble Lords with vast experience. We yield far too often to pressure to endorse measures for, to put it politely, rather dubious political reasons. For example, last September, we were "connived" into passing the post-Omagh legislation all in one day. Much good that has done us.
The impact on terrorism has been very limited. I am afraid that the same is evident in what some call the "grale-diggers" Bill, but which I term the "disappeared" Bill. Both Governments were conned, deceived and double-crossed. I am afraid that that may lead us to the conclusion that, rather than being persuaded—I use that polite term rather than "bullied"—into giving speedy treatment to ill thought-out legislation, of which in the past year there has been a whole host, particularly regarding Northern Ireland, the lesson of the Statement is that this House must insist on proper scrutiny, and on proper time for that scrutiny, from this day on.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for his offer of co-operation, which I gratefully accept. I repeat, for those whose interests he keenly and properly represents, that none of the six cases I mentioned related in any way in terms of allegations to Irish terrorism, although I take the noble Lord's general point about rushing through legislation.
All I can say is that this is a draft order to put right the non-references to Sections 4A and 4B. It is not quite
in the category of the Northern Ireland legislation, if I may paraphrase and use that shorthand, which your Lordships discussed and passed in one day in September last year.
I have been given an indication which I ought to share with your Lordships. So far as I understand it, another place intends to take this business at 7 o'clock tomorrow. It would therefore be possible, if your Lordships and the usual channels were agreeable, that we should do it immediately following the dinner break tomorrow. That is the up-to-date intelligence that I have which has just come to me.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I was cut to the quick by the way the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, glanced in my direction when he said that all the lawyers in the House were guilty too. Thus I stand subject to that. I wish to make one serious point which perhaps the Minister will answer. As he said, it is unusual for the draftsman, whether departmental or in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, to make a slip of this kind. It is
960
a slip and it is easy for it to be replicated the following year once it has been made. I echo the tribute that the Minister paid to the draftsman but I wonder whether he is satisfied that in the Home Office or in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, if that is where the fault was, the resources are sufficient to meet the great pressure that the draftsman is frequently under, to which he rightly referred. This might be an opportunity for review.
Finally, I welcome the speed with which remedying will be brought about. In support of what my noble friend Lord Cope said, it would have been possible, as I understand it, to have made use of the emergency procedure, to have closed the gap straightaway and at the same time to have come to Parliament and made the frank Statement that the Home Secretary made. However, that is water under the bridge: it will he dealt with quickly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks and for the tribute he paid. He has far more knowledge and experience than I of the expertise available. His question on whether there is sufficient resource, either departmentally or in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is a proper one to take up. if undertake to transmit it to the Home Secretary. One of the problems is that if something happens and the public are rightly concerned, the pressure to bring in legislation is great. Added to what I may describe as "manifesto commitments"—if I do not irritate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, too much by using that phrase—the noble and learned Lord makes a good point. We overlook the pressure we put on people with deadlines which are difficult to meet. Sometimes the pressures are not reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said that he might want to blame lawyers and so on. I do not take that view. The statement that Jack Straw made is quite unambiguous and I repeated it on his behalf.
"I … apologise for this regrettable error for which t take responsibility".
That is the proper and honourable stance for a Home Secretary to take.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are talking about statutory instruments. That is the answer to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Molyneaux. As an appointed member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I take a marginal amount of responsibility for all this. At least, I would if we were allowed to discuss matters of policy, which is directly contrary to Standing Orders. I am regularly hauled over the coals by the chairman for trying to do so.
At our meeting yesterday we were advised that art emergency order was in the process of being laid. We were advised by one of our legal counsel that there was nothing wrong with it from our point of view. I have no doubt—although I have not the authority of the committee to speak—that we will give it every fast-track procedure that we can. However, if it is to be debated tomorrow, it will almost certainly have to be

961
accompanied by a rubric stating that it has not been reported on by the Joint Committee. But that should by no means hold it up.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the characteristically helpful response of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I agree with him that it is something to put the drafting right but it has nothing to do with policy determination because the policy determination was that which underpinned the original draft which turned out to be incorrect. I take his point about the necessary care to be attached to the rubric and to the thought behind his observations.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Williams, confirm this? I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is wrong in talking about guns, explosives, masks and so on, when a conspiracy was in order. First, none of this unfortunate event has affected the powers of the police in Northern Ireland under the Emergency Provisions Act. As regards the trouble that has occurred under the Prevention of Terrorism Act it only relates to matters which would not otherwise in themselves have caused a criminal prosecution to be available where people possessed such things as, in my time, lengths of nylon cord and other matters which were part of the apparatus of bombs. But they could not in themselves have been included in an offence under either the explosives Act or the firearms Act. Therefore, there is a very narrow area in which the defect will apply and only in Great Britain, not Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall divide those points into two parts. The noble Viscount is quite right: it does not affect Northern Ireland. That is a reassurance I sought to give earlier, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.
On the second point, the noble Viscount also is quite right. The provisions—again I paraphrase, I hope accurately—were essentially to deal with the possession of items or information in circumstances which might give reasonable suspicion that—I put this generally—they might be connected with terrorist purposes. He is quite right. It was to fill a gap in the law which would not otherwise have been covered.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one important point was put to him by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew? It related to the Home Office legal advisers' department. That department has been under immense pressure for many years. I hope that the Minister will look into it, as he indicated he would, as a matter of urgency. I do not believe that the situation should be allowed to continue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that. The noble Lord has particular knowledge of the Home Office. I never cease to marvel at the quality and expertise of the work we get, under extremely trying circumstances, with very long hours of work. To take one example, with the Northern Ireland legislation of September last year, to my certain knowledge officials
962
were working long hours through the night having to attend in the Box for the Home Secretary in the Commons and then immediately having to come here, with no rest. The work was not only of first-rate quality but they were always cheerful and enthusiastic. That is not something one is paid for, it comes from a loyalty to the cause, which is a good cause, well served by them.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.37 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 35 [Publicity and availability of strategies]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 21, line 27, after ("strategy") insert ("and draft strategy").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving Amendment No. 130 and grouped with it are Amendments Nos. 131, 132 and 133, the last of which is also in my name and those of my noble friends. Amendment No. 130 was trailed by my noble friend Lord Avebury shortly before the Statement. Clause 35 concerns the publicity to be given to each strategy and its availability. We are concerned that, as is proposed in the clause, there be adequate publicity, but we do not believe that it will be adequate unless similar publicity is also given to each draft of each strategy. We want to be sure that those who may be affected by a strategy and may wish to
contribute to it are able to inform themselves and take part in the process at the draft stage, and not only to be informed after the strategy is in place. We believe that to make drafts available will enable the final form to reflect the widest input. I accept that there are quite extensive provisions for consultation in connection with the preparation and provision of strategies, but that consultation relates to bodies and organisations. If it is not specifically articulated in that way, that is how it is likely to be read.
We touched on a similar issue concerned with best value plans and reviews at both previous stages of the Local Government Bill. In that Bill the Government have referred to the involvement of "representatives of" wide interests. We understood that that was intended to mean, as we had hoped, more than formally constituted groups of representatives. We should like to see something of the same flavour in the context of this Bill.
Amendment No. 133 is also concerned with publicity. It proposes that a copy of each strategy shall be sent to each principal library—by which we mean main library—in each London borough and be available for inspection. Despite recent sad closures in some parts of London, libraries are still regarded as important places of information. I believe that that remains the position despite the increasing use of electronic technology. Those libraries are a repository of information. It is up to each borough to decide how to disseminate information, but, on being consulted, as they are required to be by statute, most boroughs will themselves trickle down that consultation. We believe that this is a minimum requirement but nevertheless an important one.
Other noble Lords have tabled amendments that are concerned with electronic technology. Despite the gathering pace of new technology, not everyone has access to the Internet; and some who have access may not be very good at using it. I cast no aspersions on anyone other than myself. We want to ensure that traditional methods remain widely available. Although we support the autonomy of the boroughs, as this clause is about the GLA's strategy, it is appropriate that the authority should be subject to a minimum standard. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 131 and 132. At the moment there is no guaranteed provision for copies of the strategies to be available outside the mayor's office. Further copies are available to the public on payment of a fee to be determined by the mayor. The mayor is also obliged to take such steps as in his opinion will give adequate publicity to each strategy. None of these provisions is adequate in the interests of "transparency" (to use the current buzzword).
The mayor's office will not be readily accessible to most residents of London, especially considering the state of public transport on the one hand and the plans of the Deputy Prime Minister to drive private cars off the streets of London on the other. I ant willing to give very good odds that, in common with most local and national government and government agencies, any available parking will be restricted to officials only. There must be a way for someone who lives in Havering or Hillingdon to be able to discover what the mayor has in mind without having to traipse all the way to central London.
As to payment for copies of the strategies, one citizen's reasonable fee could be another's prohibitive expense. It may be that the mayor will consider it reasonable to provide a copy to every branch of every public library—certainly, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to that. But, as drawn, the clause does not require him to do very much at all. In his opinion it may be sufficient for him to
publicise the strategy perhaps by notice in a newspaper, local or national, that is read by a small proportion of
the population. Which Members of the Committee can honestly say that they read the public notices in the paper of their choice? To send a copy of the strategies to each of the London boroughs is merely common courtesy. The councils can then make their own arrangements for giving residents access to the copies.
The mayor is obliged to consult the councils when formulating his strategies. Why should he not be obliged to send them a copy of the result? Is there to be a queue of council chief executives waiting for their turn to read the document? The Minister may very well argue that, naturally, the mayor will send copies to councils, but laws are made to make sure that people do what is expected of them. This amendment guarantees that the councils receive the information that they need promptly, without difficulty and also without charge to their council tax payers. It also ensures that the mayor cannot keep councils in the dark about his plans or delay informing them about those plans.
964
Amendment No. 132 also requires the mayor to post his strategies on a website to be established by him. The Government claim to have a target of 25 per cent of government services to be accessible electronically by the year 2002. They even sent Members of this House a disk to enable them to reach government direct, provided they know how to use the Internet. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that most noble Lords know how to use the Internet. I confess that I do not. Perhaps in the circumstances I should not make that admission. However, I have young grandchildren who know how to use it. This provision will require the mayor to follow the excellent example set by the Conservative administration in the London Borough of Wandsworth. It is also environmentally friendly for the information to be published on the Net rather than paper.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We believe that these amendments which relate to arrangements for publicising the GLA's work, in particular its strategies, are unnecessary. Clause 35 already requires the mayor to take such steps as he or she considers necessary to secure adequate publicity for each strategy. This requirement allows the mayor a sensible degree of flexibility. He or she will be able to decide whether or not to place a copy in each of London's libraries if lie or she so wishes, post them on an Internet site or send them to each of the London boroughs. We believe that it would be unduly prescriptive to legislate on these points.
I appreciate the sentiments behind the noble Baroness's proposal that would require the authority to maintain a public Internet site free of charge and post its most important literature on it. Now is the time for confession. I too have difficulty accessing information on the Internet. My 10 week-old grandson, I suspect, will be able to use it with fluency before I can. But this is surely a matter best left to the authority to decide for itself and not a point upon which we should legislate in the Bill.
The Committee will note that we have tabled amendments that will tidy up arrangements for the publication of GLA documents, including the mayor's. The effect of these amendments is that each of the authority's documents would be available for inspection free of charge, as the noble Baroness recognises, at the GLA's offices for a period of six years, and copies would be obtainable for a reasonable fee. These arrangements will bring the GLA into line with similar arrangements for local authorities. We shall shortly be discussing those matters.
In the light of my comments and the tabled amendments to be dealt with shortly concerning the authority's publications, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. However, as always we. shall consider very carefully the points that have been made by both noble Baronesses in dealing with these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My concern here was not to be too prescriptive. We have been trying to avoid that for some days now. I do not believe I am the only Member

965
of the Committee with experience of local government who, as local government has modernised itself over the last few years, has made attempts to ensure that information is available without residents having to go to an undue amount of trouble to obtain it. I believe that that is extremely important and that for a strategy or a draft strategy prepared by a borough to be available only in one place would be inadequate. One must localise far more imaginatively than simply providing for a paper to be inspected after the person who wants to read it has approached reception desks, been directed to different departments and had to make clear precisely what is required and so on, during office hours on only five days of the week. To have information available, particularly on issues on which the public may want to make an input (and that is why we referred to draft strategies), where it can conveniently be read by those who may not be able to do so during working hours is very important to the good operation of the authority. That was why we were concerned to make that quite clear. Of course I appreciate that the mayor can take other steps but, given that there are certain prescriptions, we want to make sure that they are the right prescriptions.
I heard what the noble Baroness said. I shall read her answer. In the light of amendments which are to be made to the Bill following the Government's proposals in a few minutes, the general subject may be one to
which we shall return.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment perhaps I may ask a supplementary question of the Minister. Is the opinion of the mayor required to be reasonable? Is there an implied "reasonable" in his opinion? If not, would it not be a good idea to put it in there?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 21, line 29, leave out from ("available") to end of line 30 and insert ("for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments has been trailed in the previous discussion. They deal with the arrangements for inspecting and obtaining copies of a number of GLA documents and TfL's annual report.
The amendments cover the mayor's strategies, the mayor's annual report, the GLA's budget, substitute calculations (for example, a revised budget), the capital spending plan, TfL's annual report, the mayor's guidance documents on applications for bus service permits, and the state of the environment report. The amendments ensure that the arrangements for inspecting and obtaining copies of all these documents are consistent.
The effect of the amendments is to require the mayor to leave a copy of each document available for inspection, for a period of six years from the date it is first made available, at reasonable hours, free of charge at the GLA's principal offices. The amendments also ensure that any person, and this includes London bodies and organisations as well as members of the public, will, on request, be supplied with a copy of each document or any part of it for such reasonable fees as the mayor may determine. Keeping documents available for inspection for six years is of course consistent with the requirements under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 for agendas and minutes and reports of council meetings.
I shall not run through the details of all the amendments that are in this group. The vast majority of them make consistent arrangements for the documents referred to at various points during the Bill.
I shall draw particular attention to Amendment No. 219B because that deals with the GLA's budget. In addition to providing for inspection and obtaining copies, it places an express duty on the mayor to publish the consolidated budget and the component budgets of the GLA in each of the functional bodies. This will ensure that it will not be necessary to look at more than one document—the mayor's final draft budget and amendments passed by a two-thirds majority of the assembly of course, so that the GLA's actual budget can be inspected. Amendment No. 224E makes similar provision for substitute budget calculations.
Amendment No. 238B fulfils the commitment of my honourable friend the Minister for London to consider making provision for people to obtain copies of the capital spending plan at reasonable cost. This clearly deals with the formal documents of the GLA. A number of other points were raised in the previous debate but this will put into the Bill the commitments and the arrangements for publishing GLA documents. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may raise one question with the Minister. Clause 35 deals with the publicity and availability of strategies. Amendment No. 130D defines what one would have assumed to be a reasonable period for the availability of these strategies after the date of publication as six years.
There is in that amendment an in-built assumption that the strategy will be revised and republished within a six-year period. Should that not take place, at the end of a six-year period from first publication of the strategy one would face the situation in which a strategy still in place ceased to be available to the public under this particular restriction. One has to face the reality that it is unlikely that a strategy will go completely unrevised for a six-year period. It is not wholly inconceivable that in matters of waste disposal or possibly of air quality the strategy might be reviewed every year, but in fact its content might still be found to be valid, in which case there would be no need to republish. Although one could say that one is arguing about improbabilities, the business of the Committee is to consider such things, among others.

967
I invite the Minister to consider this possible impossibility, if one may use that phrase, and perhaps advise us how he would deal with such a situation if it arose because there is, it seems to me, a potential problem.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord has raised a point which concerned me. too, though I had not even considered the quite obvious point now he makes it that a strategy may still be in effect but not available if the authority were to stick to the letter of this provision. My anxiety related to the revision of the strategy because at that point no doubt members of the public would wish to see the strategy which is being revised and it might not be available.
I wondered too what the position was on draft strategies. I accept that to a large extent this has been covered by the answer in the previous group about whether the GLA could refuse to make draft strategies available.
Finally, will the Minister say how all this lies with the draft freedom of information Bill? I admit that I am not as familiar with it as I might be and it is, after all, only a draft. But given the Government's commitment to freedom of information, is it likely to be a period which will remain appropriate?
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may give the noble Baroness some comfort in relation to the freedom of information Bill. If it were enacted as it is now, the mayor would have no duty whatever to provide any information on anything if he felt it might damage himself or anyone of his acquaintance in any way whatever. But perhaps it will be revised slightly before it reaches us.
My technical question is in relation to the publication of a strategy which is, over time, subject to a number of small revisions. Is the date of publication of that strategy the date on which the latest revision is published? A strategy may well remain in place for 10 or 12 years, with occasional small revisions. Is the date of publication of a strategy the original date or the date of the publication of the latest amendment to that strategy? If so, is it the whole strategy or any amendment which is available for six years from that date?
Lord Whitty: The commonsense answer which, in this case, is also the legislative answer is that if a strategy is revised, then that revised strategy is available for six years from that point. Therefore, the totality of the revised strategy is available. If it is revised within six years, clearly the original strategy is still available for the period of six years. The noble Baroness asked whether it is possible to compare the revised and original strategies. That is possible for six years from the publication of the original strategy and the revised strategy will be available for six years.
Baroness Hamwee: But it is available only for six years. So if the revision takes place in year seven, common sense suggests that the original strategy should be available.
Lord Whitty: This legislation does riot provide for the strategy to remain extant beyond the six-year period.
968
We chose six years because that is the period which applies to similar formal documents in local authorities. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness said—arid I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the previous debate—the mayor is required to act reasonably. If that strategy is still in effect, it would be reasonable to expect the mayor to provide that strategy in the same form. Six years was chosen for consistency but it is also subject to the requirement placed on the mayor by the legislation that he should act reasonably.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps the Minister will explain to me what are "reasonable hours" mentioned in Amendment No. 130A.
Lord Whitty: They are clearly not the proceedings of this Committee. "Reasonable hours" would normally be interpreted to be something slightly beyond normal office hours. In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness raised the question of means of access to documents. My noble friend indicated that we shall consider that point as will, no doubt, the mayor in exercising his reasonableness. However, "reasonable hours" does not mean half past one in the morning in terms of the physical copying of the document. Some flexibility should be allowed to the authority in determining precisely what are those "reasonable hours".
Lord Dixon-Smith: In view of the fact that we are all reasonably requiring the mayor to be reasonable, it seems to me that if a strategy had not been amended for a period of six years, it should be republished. Should that provision not be included in the Bill so that the matter is taken care of?
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that such a requirement is necessary. I take note of what the noble Lord says and I shall consider it. But there is a clear implication and any test of reasonableness would lead to the same conclusion as that drawn by Members of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 130B 130D:
Page 21, line 31, after ("strategy") insert (", or any part of such a strategy,").
Page 21, line 31, leave out ("member of the public who requests it") and insert ("person on request during the appropriate period").
Page 21, line 32, at end insert—
("() In this section "the appropriate period" in the cave of any strategy is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of the strategy.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 133A:
Page 21, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State shall give his reasons for making a direction under subsection (1) when issuing the direction.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 36 enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to the mayor if he has failed to publish a strategy and does not seem to be taking steps to prepare one. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to impose a time limit. Subsection (3) requires the mayor to comply with the direction. We can certainly understand the need for those powers just in case, for one reason or another, the mayor is dragging his feet over one or more of the strategies he is supposed to create and publicise.
However, there is one element missing from the powers which the Secretary of State is taking. He should be required to tell the mayor why he is making the direction. That may simply be, "Well, you have taken six months and that is far too long", or, "You have declined to form a strategy on that subject and I require you to do so". The reasons may be obvious to everybody, including or especially the mayor. The circumstances in which that power may need to be invoked may be extremely remote. However, whatever the reason for issuing the direction, it should contain just that one extra sentence or two which explains to the mayor why he is being subjected to that procedure.
There does not seem to be any sanction against the mayor for failing to comply with a direction. But, equally, the mayor does not seem to have any right of appeal against such a direction. In what I have described already as the extremely remote circumstance of the clause being invoked, I believe that the mayor should have the right to know the exact nature of the complaint against him. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: If we must have the clause in the form proposed in the Bill, then I agree with the noble Baroness that we need the amendment. We believe that an extra step is desirable in the process. Our Amendment No. 134 proposes that the assembly should first be able to take the mayor to task if he fails to publish a strategy before the Secretary of State can step in.
The assembly can do that through questions and so on. However, the amendment provides a more formal provision which gives the assembly a specific role. That is appropriate because the assembly will be closer than the Secretary of State to what the authority is doing. The assembly will have been involved with issues relevant to the strategy.
We are concerned about the ability of the Secretary of State, however far in reserve the powers may be, to intervene to the exclusion of the other part of the authority. So we propose that the assembly, which is the scrutiny body, will be most aware of whether or not the mayor is not preparing or—possibly more relevantly—not revising a strategy when he or he should be doing so, and it is only if the assembly fails to take necessary steps that the Secretary of State could carry out this exercise.
Lord Whitty: I think I need to explain that these provisions are intended solely to be transitional. They would enable the Secretary of State to issue a direction
970
to the mayor to prepare and publish the first of each of his strategies within a given period if it appeared that he was not taking the necessary steps in time to prepare the strategy.
Under the clause, only the very first of each strategy is "prepared and published." All future strategies are regarded as revisions of that first strategy, and the power of the Secretary of State in this clause would not bite on those further revisions. The provision is therefore more limited in scope than I think either noble Baroness indicated.
I do not in practice expect that the Secretary of State would need to issue a direction. It is likely that the incoming mayor will have pretty clear ideas about what he or she wishes to do in relation to each strategy, and it is therefore unlikely that the Secretary of State will have to hurry him or her up. Nevertheless, this is a fall-back should that situation arise.
That means that this clause as we envisage it would not apply to the ongoing situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, where effectively she would give powers to the assembly to do that hurrying-up process. Clearly, the assembly has broad powers of scrutiny and can hassle the mayor into producing those strategies. However, the amendment as drafted envisages the assembly actually taking over in those circumstances the executive powers of the mayor—not just temporarily, but, by implication, permanently. That would blur the executive and scrutiny function to a degree which would be inconsistent with the general approach to the structure of this authority, and I could not accept that.
Amendment No. 133A is unnecessary, given that we are dealing with transitional arrangements and the only reason for using this power would be that the mayor had not published the initial strategy. The reasons are, therefore, built into the purpose of the power to direct and would never need to be explained in that broader sense, because this is not an ongoing power.
I therefore hope that both noble Baronesses will understand that beyond the general requirement that the Secretary of State must act reasonably within the terms of the clause—in other words, his action would be open to challenge by the mayor or others—their amendments are not necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think I agree with the Minister. In fact, I think I said in moving my amendment that the chances of this happening were extremely low; and that the mayor knows what he wants in his strategy and will no doubt go ahead with it.
The point is that the Government propose in Clause 36, albeit for transitional purposes, to deal with the unlikely event that we have both discussed of the mayor's not going ahead. In that unlikely event, and the unlikely need for the clause to have to be brought into action, with two "unlikelys" on the table I can see no reason why we could not say, "If this unlikely thing should happen, and if therefore the Secretary of State should do that, he should

971
at least take a sentence or two to say why he was doing it." In no way would it destroy the Bill; it would do no more than clarify something which is unlikely ever to happen.
Lord Whitty: In this, as we have all acknowledged, extremely unlikely hypothetical situation, the Secretary of State is still required to act reasonably, as he is throughout the Bill. Therefore, spelling it out specifically in this case would perhaps cast doubt on other points where the Secretary of State is expected to act reasonably. I am not sure that saying that the Secretary of State should supply an explanation fully meets the general requirement to act reasonably. An explanation might turn out to be unreasonable. If anything, the noble Baroness's insistence on an explanation rather than a general requirement to act reasonably would dilute the requirements on the Secretary of State.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: With that very reasonable explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [The Mayor's monthly report to the Assembly]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 22, line 2, leave out ("three") and insert ("five working").
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the distribution by the mayor of information to members of the assembly for its first and subsequent meetings. Subsection (1) requires that reports should be submitted three days before the meeting of the assembly.
Three days may appear to be reasonable. I accept that once it is into its swing the assembly will normally be meeting monthly. But it depends very much on the mayor, his style and how readable the reports are as to whether the three-day period is long enough. In my early days in local government if anyone had sent me the book of reports that I had to go through for a council meeting three days before the meeting, there is no way that I could have read it and absorbed the implications. Even should the mayor write in a clear and relatively concise style, I would suggest quite seriously that three days is not a very long period to absorb the content of those reports and then perhaps do some research work so that the member of the assembly feels that he can form a valid opinion on them.
Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 are designed to extend the period to five days for that reason and also because "submit a written report" does not necessarily mean that the member has received it. Even if a report is put on e-mail, if we go into the digitally literate age and assume that all members of the assembly can use e-mail, it does not mean that the recipient is there to receive it, so he may still get it rather late. The amendments extend the period by two days, which I do not regard as unreasonable.
Amendment No. 137, which is grouped with the other two, is to enable the mayor to notify the assembly of, say, business which might arise in the period between
972
his submitting his report and the meeting of the assembly, so that the assembly can consider it. I suppose it could be argued that the amendment to a certain extent negates the intention of the others, but that is not so. It is there to ensure that should some emergency happen which the mayor felt it appropriate for the assembly to discuss, he could notify the assembly so that it would know it was coming and do what preparation it could. We have tabled Amendment No. 137 in order to ensure that such an emergency procedure exists. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments seek to alter the arrangements set out in the Bill for the mayor's monthly report to the assembly.
Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 would require the mayor to submit his written report to the first and subsequent monthly meetings five working days in advance.
Amendment No. 137, is, I assume, intended to allow him to bring urgent issues which arise after the five working days deadline to the assembly's monthly meeting. The deadline of three days strikes the right balance between ensuring that the mayor's report covers recent decisions, and allowing the assembly sufficient time to consider the report and decide what questions to put to the mayor. A full-time assembly should have no difficulties with doing this in three days. Three days is also the length of time which local authorities generally and the assembly are obliged to give the public to inspect papers before meetings. We shall be bringing forward an amendment to clarify that the mayor should submit his report three clear days before the meeting, in line with the approach for local authorities in tine Local Government Act 1972.
Amendment No. 174 appears to be an attempt to address the problems that a deadline of five working days could create. The issues which interest the assembly most in any month, and on which assembly members are keenest to quiz the mayor, may fall outside the scope of his report.
Clause 37 does not limit assembly members to questioning the mayor about issues covered in the report. Nor does it prevent the mayor from submitting a further report to the assembly after the three day deadline if he wishes to. We are exploring whether the Bill as drafted would prevent the assembly from considering a supplementary report at a monthly meeting. But where issues are covered in the mayor's report, the assembly will have, in good time, not only details of the mayor's significant decisions, but also the reasons why he took them. And it is this information which will enable the assembly thoroughly to scrutinise the mayor's actions.
I urge noble Lords not to press the amendments. I repeat that we shall read and consider carefully the points raised by noble Lords during the debate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Bill states that the report will be submitted, does that mean that members will receive it—that it will be posted? Or will they be in the building and able to pick it up? It makes

973
a difference whether you receive a report with just a day to spare when perhaps you are at another meeting. It is not only a question of reading a report of what the mayor has done but also reading his response to the proposals of the assembly. There is a lot to consider before a meeting. The noble Baroness knows the situation well from her experience in local government. It would be interesting to know what "submit" means. Does it means that the mayor puts the document in the post?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: "Submit" means "make available to" and "present to". The comparison with local government is not always valid. The small number of assembly members will be full time, and therefore would be expected to be in their place of work and able quickly to access the information, unlike some members of local authorities.
Baroness Hamwee: My point relates to that last remark. Submission to the assembly is not the same as "submission to" or "receipt by" members of the assembly. I believe that a member of the assembly, whether or not full time, may be outside the assembly building undertaking the work of the assembly. The scrutiny role requires an understanding of events outside the building. Although it is a small point, it bears examination.
The Government propose three clear days. Are those three clear working days, or three clear days? Members of this House and of local authorities—I accept that there are differences—are well accustomed to working on Saturdays and Sundays. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, nods wearily—no doubt from experience in both capacities! However, noble Lords on the Conservative Benches made the point about the need to undertake research following receipt of papers, and to contact other people. One cannot assume that people will be available on Saturdays or Sundays to reply to reasonable and necessary inquiries. I should like to be assured that there is an adequate period for the assembly members to undertake the work on which they will eventually spend all their time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The answer to the noble Baroness's question is three days, and not three working days. I repeat: we shall consider carefully the points raised during the debate.
Lord Tope: I am a little disappointed with the Minister's response. I welcome her statement that she will consider the point carefully. I realise that she understands well the difference between three working days and three clear days. In other words, to send it out on Friday afternoon for consideration on Monday does not follow the spirit of the provision.
We all hope and believe that the relationship between the mayor and the assembly will be constructive and co-operative. I hope and expect that the mayor will send out such documents in good time. I believe that if it were a straightforward local authority the matter would be covered adequately in the authority's standing orders.
974
That is not appropriate to the relationship between a mayor and an assembly. I express a personal view. I hope that at an early stage the mayor and the assembly will work out some convention on how they will work together. That is best left to them.
However, since we are legislating, and it is not a major matter of government policy, I hope that the Government will consider carefully the points made. I hope that those Ministers who have experience of local government will recognise that three days (not three working days) may all too often be inadequate because they cover weekends. They may cover periods when hard-working full-time members may be representing the assembly outside the country at some important event and unable to see the document. The danger of providing for three days in the Bill gives the mayor a defence for sending it out late. The mayor is complying with his or her statutory requirement; and there is little that the assembly can do about it. If we are to specify a time limit, it needs to be a reasonable one. A period of five clear working days is a reasonable time limit.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. The simple amendments provoked a worthwhile discussion, to which I listened with care, as I am sure did the Ministers.
I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady
Farrington, will consider the matter further. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 22, line 20, at end insert—
("() The mayor shall additionally respond in writing within a reasonable time to any written question from any assembly member about matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by him.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment envisages that the mayor may be subjected to questions for written answer in the same way that Members of this House can put down Questions for Written Answer by Government Ministers. That would be a very worthwhile procedure. On that assumption, Amendment No. 139 would also require that the answers should be published. Clearly, a procedure would have to be established to make a distinction between a written question and what might be regarded as normal correspondence. It would be an enhancement if assembly members undertook the function of monitoring, supervising and questioning the way in which the mayor fulfils his function, and therefore it would be worthwhile to include Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 in the Bill.
Amendment No.140 deals with Clause 37(4) and refers to "The duty of the mayor under subsection (3)". I am not sure whether that is restrictive, but if there is any possibility that it is, it would be better if it referred to the duty of the mayor under the whole section and not just under subsection (3).
Amendment No. 141 adds a duty for the mayor to publish his answers under subsection (4). I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We support the amendments. We have tabled a similar amendment, Amendment No. 192A, but it is not so elaborate and would not be as effective.
The noble Lord's reference to correspondence made me realise that access to information, in the way we are accustomed to dealing with it in relation to local authorities, may be relevant here, because certain correspondence is available to members of the public on inspection. I now realise that this may be a more complicated issue than I had anticipated when drafting the later amendment. Nevertheless, these provisions regulate the relationship between two constituent parts of the authority, and therefore it would be appropriate to have some provision which ensured that the mayor could not avoid answering the questions.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 138 is intended to place a duty on the mayor to answer in writing and within a reasonable time, any written question from an assembly member about his or her statutory responsibilities. Amendment No. 139 would require the text of such questions and the mayor's responses to be sent to each London borough and the Common Council and to be made available on an Internet site which the authority would be obliged to maintain.
Amendment No. 140 would allow the mayor not to disclose advice from GLA staff in answering written questions from assembly members as well as questions put to him at the monthly assembly meeting.
Amendment No. 141 would require the mayor to send his monthly report to each of the London boroughs and the Common Council at the same time as he sends it to the assembly.
The Government made it clear in another place that it is certainly the intention that the mayor should be required to answer written as well as oral questions put to him by assembly members at their monthly meeting. Similarly, it is the intention that if the mayor is not able to answer all the questions assembly members put to the mayor at a monthly meeting because there is not enough time, he should send written answers to assembly members whose questions were not reached. We also intend that written answers to questions put at the monthly meeting, including those given after the meeting, should be publicly available.
We shall be bringing forward amendments at Report stage to clarify these intentions.
I am not persuaded by other aspects of the provision which the amendments would make. I do not agree that the mayor should be required to answer written questions put to him by assembly members other than at the monthly meeting. If an assembly member writes to the mayor asking him a question, we fully expect that the mayor will reply, but the monthly assembly meeting is the key forum in which the assembly will hold the mayor to account, and a statutory duty to answer questions should rightly be reserved for it. We should
976
not be looking to replicate for the GLA the arrangements for MPs to question the Government in Parliament. The mayor, unlike the Government, is required to submit a report to the assembly each month. If the assembly urgently wishes to put questions to the mayor on handling a major crisis, for example, it can summon the mayor.
A duty to answer questions put at any time would detract from the arrangements for a monthly report and questions at a monthly meeting which are the centrepiece of accountability for the GLA. The mayor and assembly will of course be free to agree their own procedures for handling written questions put to the mayor other than at the monthly meeting. No doubt the resources available within the GLA to handle questions will be an important consideration in reaching such an agreement. it would certainly not be in Londoners' interests if the burden of assembly members' questions was so great that the mayor was left with little time to get on with the job.
I have made it clear that we do not intend to require the mayor to send to the London boroughs and the Common Council those documents which the mayor is required to send to the assembly and/or make available to the public. The assembly's statutory right to receive documents from the mayor derives of course from its status as part of the same authority.
I have assured the Committee that amendments will ensure that the mayor is obliged to answer written assembly questions put to him or her at the monthly meeting. The text of the questions and the answers will be publicly available, including those which the mayor answers after the meeting.
I appear to be repeating at every point at this stage that we will carefully consider the views that have been expressed. The reason for that is that obviously a bigger picture is emerging from the questions raised by the amendments, and we wish to consider them as a whole. I say that without commitment, but I certainly promise careful scrutiny.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is the Minister saying that access to information by the public will be legislated for in the Bill? If that is so, will it include a provision for the authority to charge for that information in the way the legislation allows in the case of local government?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have to admit to a certain disappointment at the response of the noble Baroness, particularly in relation to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139.
The Bill establishes a totally new type of authority. Not only will it have full-time professional members, but it will have a full-time professional mayor. He will need to be quite an exceptional mayor if he is to fulfil Londoners' expectations. If he is not a thorough-going professional, then he probably should not be doing the

977
job. If he cannot handle a quantity of written questions in between meetings and answer them, then perhaps the priorities should be different.
Baroness Hamwee: We on these Benches have been very grateful for the care the Government have taken when referring to the mayor, either to refer to "the mayor" or to say "she or he", in that order. I hope that in the legal formulae the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will accept that the male embraces the female because we would like to be assured that he accepts the possibility that there could be a female mayor.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness is in danger of tempting me to make the observation that certain psychologists' surveys indicate that the female brain is more capable than the male of grasping more than one activity at once.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are trespassing on to dangerous territory. I was always taught that under the Sexual Definitions Act 1936, for "him" read "she". In any event, I am afraid that I am an optimist and I always hope that the female embraces the male.
I heard what the Minister said about considering the debate on these amendments. I am grateful to her for that and shall hope optimistically for some favourable response in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 141 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 141A:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
STATE OF PUBLIC HEALTH REPORT
(" .—(1) The Mayor shall produce and publish a report on the state of the public health in Greater London to be known as a "state of public health report".
(2) The report required of the Mayor under subsection (1) shall be published—

(a) in the case of the first state of the public health report, before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day of the first ordinary election, and

(b) in the case of each state of the public health report subsequent to the first, before the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which the previous state of the public health report was published.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is framed in similar terms to the duty to report on the state of the environment in Greater London, which is set out in Clause 281. The Secretary of State for Health recently said that public health is central to the Government's strategies. He then went further and said that he would be setting up an observatory in every NHS region to advise on impact health assessments and to evaluate progress towards cutting health inequalities.
All that is very good so far as it goes. But Sir Donald Acheson made clear in his report last year that health inequalities occur in a wide variety of other areas, such as a housing, education, planning and transport. Those
978
in Greater London come under a wide variety of authorities. Sir Donald said that unless we can eradicate inequality in these areas, we cannot eradicate all health inequalities. Without a general overview at regional level by the mayor on the state of public health, we cannot expect to tackle London's considerable health inequalities in all those areas.
The amendment is designed to ensure that the mayor takes regular stock of this and publishes key indicators in order to measure progress on public health. Without such a report, it will not be possible to assess how well the mayor is carrying out his or her duties under Clause 33(7)(a). There is a huge demand for information about the state of London's health, particularly by the Chief Medical Officer and by the King's Fund, and that needs to be drawn together for the benefit of Londoners and for the benefit of the strategy being developed by the GLA.
Currently Clauses 37 and 38 do not provide a duty to report on public health. Failing the Government placing a specific duty on the authority to produce a full health strategy, on which I moved an amendment in Committee, we believe that this is the next best option. I urge the Minister to consider it carefully. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: A great deal of effort is being made in relation to public health in London. I am aware that the new London NHS region is devoting a considerable amount of effort to developing a public health strategy and doing so in conjunction with all the relevant stakeholders, including local government and the voluntary sector. That is extremely welcome.
However, given the responsibilities placed on the mayor to look closely at public health indicators and to ensure that in developing strategies public health is kept in mind, it is extremely likely that the mayor will want to take an overview of the public health of the people of Greater London and of the policies which the Government and other agencies are following.
It is also inevitable that the mayor will produce something like a report on the state of public health. Given that the work is being done within the NHS region, would it not be better for that report to be published under the name of the mayor, which would give it a great deal more prominence and ensure that other agencies focus attention on its implications?
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, proposed in his amendment because it corresponds to what is likely to happen and will give a considerable boost to this area of the mayor's work and responsibilities.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord's amendment would require the mayor to publish a state of public health report three years after the first ordinary election and subsequently every four years. We believe that it would be wrong to impose such a requirement on the authority. The GLA will have no responsibilities for the provision of health services in Greater London. It will not be responsible for the state

979
of health of Londoners. People's good or bad health depends upon a wide range of factors, including what they do to themselves.
However, the GLA will be under a duty, both in the exercise of its powers and the preparation of its strategies, to consider their effect on the health of people in London and to promote improvements in their health. The mayor will therefore be instrumental in seeking to effect improvements in public health. We have no doubt that both the mayor and the assembly will take an intense interest in what can and should be done to improve public health in London; and an equally intense interest in the quality and reliability of the provision of health services. Undoubtedly, they will produce reports of both a general and specific nature about the health of Londoners.
However, the monitoring of public health and the provision of public health services will not be their responsibility. The London executive of the NHS, the health authorities and other bodies will do that. We do, of course, expect there to be close liaison and co-operation between the GLA and the responsible health authorities and bodies. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that in the circumstances it would be wrong and inappropriate to require the mayor to produce a specific report and that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: We are well aware of that and did not intend the measure to be about the provision of health services. We tabled the amendment because of the mayor's duties and responsibilities, in particular social development and the environment. We believe that the state of public health is closely related to those two issues.
I believe that a report would be a necessary basis to allow those scrutinising draft strategies to test whether the strategies proposed are correct. I regard this provision, or something similar, as necessary in order to ensure that the constituent parts of the authority—the mayor and the assembly—are able to do their jobs properly.
Lord Clement-Jones: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his support on the amendment. I know that it will carry considerable weight in London health circles. We tabled the amendment as a step back from requiring the authority to produce a full health strategy. We feel strongly that there is a good case for that. But, given that that is not possible, there are other ways of producing a health strategy. It is essential to have a state of public health support which pulls together progress being made by the different agencies and authorities in London. Who better than the mayor and the authority to do that pulling together, to demonstrate that leadership? I t is not about the delivery of health services, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee made clear. It is about the indicators and other aspects of the other strategies pursued by the mayor that have an impact on public health in London.
In many respects the health service plays a fairly limited part in ironing out health inequalities. Housing and education probably form a more important part in
980
ironing out health inequalities than the health service, which often deals with acute health as opposed to prevention or promotion of good health.
I do not believe that it is wrong to require the mayor to produce such a report. The duty being imposed—once every four years—is not an onerous one. I do not believe that an authority faced with a requirement to produce a report once every four years will find that unduly onerous. We hope that there will be a centre of excellence on public health matters, whether in the regional health authorities or in the authority itself, and that there will be a unit that concentrates on and has expertise in public health matters in Greater London. Wherever it is placed, it will help to produce that report. However, it is important that the report is produced and we believe that the best place to produce it is the GLA. Clearly, we shall not press the matter in Committee, but we may want to return to it on Report.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Is the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, saying that he would envisage the mayor being able to require people working for the health service in London to work for him in producing the report? I was unclear whether he was saying that the centre of excellence could be required to work with the mayor were the health authority not to consider that. Of course, the mayor, working in co-operation with the London health service executive and others, will have information necessary to produce the mayor's strategies. The service executive would not have to produce its own reports. It would want to monitor and assess the effect of the different strategies on health.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that additional response. I am not sure that I am clear about what the Minister is trying to say. There is a duty of co-operation and partnership under the new Health Bill, which, in a sense, should meet such matters. Of course, if the NHS region has information, it should be able to provide that to the GLA, if the GLA has the responsibility for drawing up the state of the public health report. It would not be a question of executive responsibility for a public health unit, but if it were felt appropriate that the mayor should have his or her own public health unit in order to assess health—there is a duty under Clause 25, I believe, about carrying out the mayor's duties under Clause 33—there may well be a need for health expertise within the GLA itself.
With the greatest respect, I believe it is a slight red herring to worry at this stage about where the expertise will be, and who will have control over that expertise. With the right partnership between the different agencies and authorities, which will be essential in drawing up other strategies across the board in London, it should be entirely possible once every four years—I emphasise that—to draw up a state of the public health report.
I urge the Government to think again because this is a matter that has considerable support and takes things a notch further than the health assessment inserted by the Government in the other place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 22, line 24, after ("year") insert ("and at least ten working days before the debate to be held under section 39 below").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 38 provides for the preparation by the mayor of an annual report and Clause 39 provides for an annual debate. I tabled my amendment to suggest that in addition to the mayor being obliged to produce it,
"As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year",
the mayor is under an obligation to ensure that the report is available in good time before the annual debate. Therefore, I suggest that it is available at least 10 working days before that debate—in other words two weeks. I believe that that is the minimum period one should expect, although one would hope that it would be available considerably earlier.
I realise that in drafting the amendment I should have made a similar amendment to line 39. Nevertheless, this amendment enables me to raise the general point. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: On this amendment we are arguing whether the report should be available in 10 working days or seven working days. Either provision is substantially better than we generally have in this House or the other place when discussing major reports from any government of any complexion. It is important that, as soon as the report is available, it is subject to immediate scrutiny and immediate debate. Seven days seems an adequate period for the full time assembly members and for most organisations within London to have considered it. I see no great advantage in extending the period to 10 days. I believe that a period of seven days gives enough time for interested parties to digest the report and it is not too long before the debate is held. Therefore, I am not convinced that that change is necessary.
Baroness Hamwee: I read Clause 39(2), which I assume is the source of the seven days—that the debate shall be held at least seven days after publication—as being an obligation on those organising the debate to make sure that there is sufficient time. I believe that the balance is slightly different. I agree that seven days and 10 working days is probably the difference of only one week and not three days. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 22, line 35, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) information of such descriptions as the Assembly or any of the London boroughs or the Common Council, prior to the end of the financial year to which the annual report relates, have notified the Mayor that they wish to have included in the annual report.").
The noble Baroness said: I speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 147 and 148. This series of amendments is an extension to Amendment No. 143 which we discussed on Monday. The amendments are intended to ensure that more information is made available to the boroughs and the public than provided for in Clause 38.
As drafted, only the assembly has the right to tell the mayor, in advance of the financial year, what information it will require in the ensuing annual report. However, the contents of the annual report are not only of concern to the assembly or the mayor—London is not their private fiefdom—as everything that they do affects each of the boroughs and the residents of the boroughs.
As I have said many times, the Government have deliberately divorced the assembly from the boroughs by refusing to make their constituencies coterminous with the boroughs. They have produced 14 super constituency representatives with no loyalty to any individual single borough. They have produced 13 representatives, euphemistically called "London representatives", but in reality the delegates of the political parties, and, by the exercise of naked political patronage, they have given them a place on the list which has ensured their election.
So where is the local accountability? How are the local councils to know what the mayor has done—or not done—for their own borough, and why, if they are not entitled to require the mayor to report on it? The mayor could totally neglect a borough and not give a single word of personalised explanation which the councillors could then pass on to their residents.
Amendment No. 147 requires the mayor to send a copy of the report to each of the London boroughs and to the common council, and to make it freely available on a public website to be established by the authorities. I do not need to say more on that point.
My motto, confirmed by the College of Arms, is "quare non?"—"Why not"? I ask the Minister the same question.
Amendment No. 148 adds to the perfectly reasonable embargo on the publication of the annual report until it is sent to the assembly, by saying it also has to be sent to the boroughs and the common council in advance. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness referred to "naked political patronage". My party—I cannot speak for others—agreed a selection procedure which allows every member of the party in London to exercise a vote in the selection of candidates. To the extent that membership of a party allows the members to exercise a voice through a democratic process within the party, perhaps that is patronage because they will be conferring the ability to stand; but no more than that. On behalf of these Benches I cannot let it be suggested that patronage will be conferred on the select 11.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness is absolutely right to pull me up on that point. As a matter of fact I said "all" parties and the same will apply in our

983
party; it is one member one vote for the list. The noble Baroness corrected me and it certainly did not apply to my party either.
Lord Whitty: It is probably better for me not to get too involved in this debate. I always find it slightly bizarre when Members of the House of Lords object to naked political patronage.
Baroness Hamwee: In our case, never naked.
Lord Whitty: I shall not pursue that: either.
Amendment No. 144 is intended to allow not only the assembly, but also any of the London boroughs or the City to require the mayor to include information in his or her annual report. It will allow both the assembly and those councils to exercise this right at any time up until the last day of the financial year to which the report relates.
The purpose of Clause 38(2)(c) is to give the assembly a substantive role in deciding what the annual report should cover. That ability lends weight to the assembly's clear scrutiny role. It is one of the mechanisms by which the assembly will hold the mayor to account.
Most of the GLA's statutory responsibilities are of course vested in the mayor. It is right that he or she should be responsible for reporting, in this case in an annual report. The assembly is part of the GLA along with the mayor. It will have a key role in the budget process. It will be responsible for most of the appointments of GLA staff. It will scrutinise all London issues. It will make proposals to the mayor. Because of its status and role, it is right that the assembly should have a say in what the annual report will cover.
While co-operation between the GLA and the London boroughs is vital, it is also the case that the boroughs and the common council of the City are not part of the GLA. They do not have a role in holding the mayor to account in that direct sense. They are separate and independent authorities and there is no case for them to require the mayor to include information in his or her annual report.
I should also point out that a statutory right for anyone to require at the end of the year that information should be included in the annual report is not practical. Careful advance planning is required to collect reliable, comprehensive and robust information of a financial and statistical nature. It cannot simply be produced as if by magic at any time up until the end of the year. This is a technical side issue but it indicates that the amendment is not practical as well as not desirable.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 and the posting of information to the councils and on the website, we have discussed this before. It may be sensible for the mayor to do it though it does not seem sensible for us to lay it down in legislation. The key point is that this information should be publicly available and this clause guarantees that it will be. These
984
amendments therefore are not necessary, and the first amendment would be undesirable. I ask the noble Baroness therefore to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I take the point in respect of Amendment No. 144, and the Minister is probably right in relation to Amendment No. 148. However, Amendment No. 147 concerns only the passing on of this information to the London boroughs or the Common Council and there is no reason why that should not be the case. I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister said. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 145 to 148 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 22, line 43, at end insert—
("() A copy of the annual report sent to the Assembly shall be kept available for the appropriate period by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge at the principal offices of the Authority at reasonable hours.
() A copy of the annual report sent to the Assembly, or any part of that report, shall be supplied to any person on request during the appropriate period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.
() In this section "the appropriate period" in the case of an annual report is the period of six years beginning with the date of publication of that report pursuant to this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [The annual State of London debate]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 22, line 45, leave out (", to be known as a "State of London debate").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 149 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 150.
Amendment No. 149 deals with the debate which, according to the Bill, is to be known as a "State of London debate". The Bill prescribes an annual debate with much detail about the procedure. Even this is more than we on these Benches regard as appropriate. We believe it is up to the authority to determine how it conducts itself, though we are not suggesting that a debate is not a good thing—far from it.
But is it really necessary for legislation to impose a title on the debate? Moreover, it is a title which smacks very much of the language of the late 1990s which might become out of date fairly quickly. Whether or not it does, our point is that the more that is prescribed the less the authority may look for new and effective mechanisms for consultation and debate with Londoners. We point to the Government's concern to give a name to a debate to be held by another entity as an example of far too much nannying. I doubt that the American constitution required the President to call his annual statement the "State of the Union Address".
Amendment No. 150 is very different in nature. It proposes that spring may not be the right time to hold a debate. I appreciate that it will follow on from the end of the authority's financial year, but there is a lot to be said for shifting the debate and the consideration of the

985
budgets, to which we will come later, to the autumn. We propose an autumn budget cycle to fit in better with the boroughs' budget cycle so that the boroughs will be informed of and no doubt make representations in connection with the authority's budget in time to deal with that as part of their own operations.
This is important. At borough level one has had too much experience of hanging on, waiting to see what the precept from the GLC, as it was, was going to be and then the police precept, and so forth, working on the basis of rumours, suggestions and leaks. Our main concern is about the budget cycle. It may follow that a debate which fits in with it would be appropriate. That may be in the Government's mind. That is why we proposed the dates in Amendment No. 150.
Lord Tope: I support my noble friend. It has been suggested to us several times in Committee that some of our amendments are too prescriptive. We have occasionally suggested to the Government that they are too prescriptive. For them to feel that it is necessary to enshrine in legislation the title of a debate is a little too prescriptive. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us that it is not a gimmick apeing the State of the Union debate in the United States. I can see no other reason why we should call it a "State of London debate".
I want to concentrate particularly on Amendment No. 150—
Lord Harris of Haringey: I want to make sure that the noble Lord is aware that it is not necessarily apeing the United States of America. A number of London boroughs, including my own, have an annual debate on the state of the London borough concerned. It is simply carrying on a tradition which already exists in a number of London boroughs.
Lord Tope: I am delighted to hear it. As the noble Lord said, most London boroughs have such debates. None of us is required to do so by legislation. It is not stated in legislation that I am required to have a state of a London borough debate in a prescribed three-months period of the year. That is not the point. It is not that there should not be such a debate but that we should be legislating to say what the mayor must call it and the months in which it should be held. I wonder why we need to prescribe the months in which the debate should be held.
As it has been suggested that we should do so, let us look at that. I recognise that the intention here is that we should be debating the mayor's annual report as soon as possible after publication. In a sense, that is a backward-looking process. It is necessary and desirable and I am sure that it will happen. But, as my noble friend said, we are trying to look forward and set the debate, whatever it is to be called, in the context of the forthcoming budget both of the London boroughs and the authority itself. We suggest that the autumn months of September, October and November are about the right time in an annual budget process to be able to have a meaningful and worthwhile debate as regards the
986
priorities of the authority and those for London. Enough work has been done on the coming year's budget to make it a meaningful debate and not enough to make it too much set in stone and too finalised.
Therefore, if we are to prescribe the period when we should have the debate, let us have it in the context of the priorities for the authority and the budget that should reflect those priorities. I believe that the Conservative Party recognised some of the difficulties in having the debate in the April, May. June period in its Amendment No. 151 which suggests that the debate should not be held in that period if it occurs during an election period.
If we are to continue to hold elections on the first Thursday in May or early in that month—it may move to a weekend—and if the Government adhere to their earlier proposals that there should be annual elections in the London boroughs and elsewhere, then we might just as well not state April because that will never be possible. It would have to be in the latter part of May, which would be difficult. In reality, therefore, we are talking about a debate in June, except, of course, when there are European parliamentary elections.
This is a nonsense. If we are to prescribe the time I urge that we have the debate in the budget context and in terms of the forthcoming priorities of the mayor, the authority and London generally. It should be taken at the proper time in the budget process, which is better in the autumn than immediately after the end of the financial year.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I admit to some sympathy with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, over the timing of the debate. If the period must be specified, one is always vulnerable to the possibility of a general election. There is nothing one can do about that so long as the Prime Minister has a discretion over the setting of that particular event.
Moving the debate to the autumn would have one further advantage, not yet mentioned. By that time the financial out-turns on the previous year would also be known. Although, in the context of a State of London debate, financial out-turns might seem relatively unimportant—one hopes that such a debate would spend a great deal of time on more significant matters than financial affairs—to have available the financial results from a previous year would be both advantageous if there is to be consideration of future budgetary matters and also advantageous because it is also a measure of outcomes which would enable judgment to be made on the relevance, appropriateness and precision of previous planning. In certain circumstances it could also be a measure of competence, which would then become very public indeed.
For a number of reasons I support moving the timing of this particular debate to the autumn.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It will be interesting to know the Government's motivation for the timing they have given. If the timing is changed to September, October or November, we shall have a great political debate about London mixed with several party

987
conferences and the opening of the Westminster Parliament with all the debates attached to that. It is a time of great political discussion. I do not know what are the Government's reasons.
I referred previously to the picture of Mr Livingstone being in command of the assembly. I can visualise him having very great fun with a debate on. London at party conference time. I know that that is entirely speculative. I wonder what is the Government's motivation for the time they have given.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am fascinated by this clause and Clause 40, which appears to have all the characteristics of a spoof clause if we are to have something called a "People's Question Time". The mayor has to hold and attend a meeting to which the public are to be admitted. That is clear enough. It is to be known as the "State of London debate". In the next clause there is to be what is known as a "People's Question Time". As I read the clauses there is no obligation on anyone at the meeting to debate anything. There is no obligation on anyone to answer questions. Nor is any right given to the citizens of London to ask questions.
This is one of the most extraordinary examples I have seen of filling up the statute book with provisions which have absolutely no purpose other than to have the mayor go along, hold a meeting, sit shtoom as long as he wants and when he has had enough bring the meeting to an end. That is completely without purpose. Both clauses should be removed.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend stated why we agree with Amendment No. 150. I would not like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to think that because I have not commented on a "State of London debate" and its name, that we do not have any views. I am saving that for my Amendment No. 151. We agree that the name is ludicrous.
Lord Whitty: I find this debate quite amazing. I am not a great one for importing Americanisms, but I rather like the term, "State of London debate". If we owe more to the London borough of Haringey than we do to the Founding Fathers of the Republic, so much the better. I am not sure that the noble Baroness is correct to say that it is not in the constitution of the United States; it is certainly a very early decision in the history of the USA. However, if it is not in the constitution, it probably should he, though that may be an ultra vires remark.
I am also amazed by the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. We are talking about opening up the process of consideration of important London issues to a wider participative audience—that is to say. an audience which affects the mayor and which can reflect public opinion within London. The precise structure and standing orders of such an event may well not be laid down by legislation. Indeed, to use the noble Baroness's term, it would certainly be extremely overprescriptive to do so. Nevertheless, I should have
988
thought that the fact that the events are being held, and are being required to be held, is a significant advance to democracy, whatever one may think of the name.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Minister does not seem to have grasped my point. We are going to have an event—a meeting—which is called a "State of London debate", but what I am trying to gel: across to the Government is that, as I understand the provisions, there is no duty imposed on anyone who participates to debate anything or, indeed, to answer any questions. Moreover, there is no right given to ask questions. Unless I have missed the point, it seems to me that these provisions are completely redundant. All that will happen is that the mayor will go along and start the meeting. He is undoubtedly under a duty to attend, but there is no obligation on him to do anything which would take democracy forward in the way spelt out by the Minister.
Lord Whitty: The imaginative leap of the noble and learned Lord always amazes me. The event will allow citizens of London and their representatives to raise issues with the mayor and to debate and propose certain changes to his strategy. It is a requirement that the mayor at least sits there and listens to the debate. Indeed, the concept of "questions" tends to imply that there is a facility for answers. How that procedure will work has yet to be determined. No doubt it will evolve over time. But the idea of any of the putative candidates for mayor of London sitting shtoom for several hours while citizens throw points at him is quite remarkable. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, is not in his place this evening. I think he may well have had views about that, as would other putative mayors who have been mentioned during the debate.
I believe that Members of the Committee have got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick. Alternatively, it may be that their instincts are not quite as open and democratic as those of the Government. I hesitate to believe that of any of the noble Lords who have spoken. The intention here is more than a gesture: it is a major contribution to an event in London in which people think they can—and, indeed, they can—positively participate. It brings back a new dimension to governance and accountability within the capital.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am sorry to intervene again, but perhaps the Minister can help me with the following point. Noble Lords will see that in Clause 47 the mayor is under quite a specific statutory duty to answer questions put to him by assembly members. I am perfectly content to see that in the statute, but what I do not understand is that, when we get to either the "State of London debate" or to "Question Time" under Clauses 39 and 40, no obligation is imposed on the mayor to participate in the debate or to answer any questions put to him.
Lord Whitty: All I can say is that we are talking about new events, standing orders for which will no doubt evolve. As regards the idea that the mayor of London should have a major, high publicity, high profile

989
event round which questions are put him and then refuse to answer, I should point out to noble Lords that that would certainly not do his re-election chances much good. The whole point of this event is participative; it will involve organisations and people within London. I am sorry that noble Lords cannot see the advantage of it.
As to the timing, I can tell the Committee that the reason for this timing is that it will be shortly after the production of the annual report. I understand that there are some arguments for having further information available later in the year, but the main point about producing the annual report was that it should be current, that it should contain full information on what has happened in the past financial year and that not only the assembly but Londoners more widely should have the opportunity to react. That is the reason for the timing and I would defend it. It would become less current and more decisions would be set in concrete if we were to wait until six months after the report had been published. Therefore, it is sensible for the mayor to engage with the public in London rapidly after the production of the report.
I hope that I have expressed my indignation at what I think is an attack on a major advance for democracy; it is not a pure gimmick, as noble Lords opposite seem to regard it. In fact, it is a genuine move to try to involve far more members of the public than has historically been the case within our capital. I believe that noble Lords should appreciate that.
Lord Tope: We have had a most entertaining debate, if somewhat unexpected, the consequences of which, I fear, will be that we shall see more government amendments on Report to make this provision even more prescriptive. The purpose of our amendment was not to suggest that there should not be a debate—indeed, we do not question that at all—but that we should not prescribe in legislation what it should be called.
In his reply. the Minister's only comment was that he rather liked the title, "State of London debate". That is fine. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will probably tell us in a minute that she quite likes the title "Greater London debate". However, the question that I should like to address to the Minister and, if I may, to the noble Baroness is: why do they feel unable to trust the mayor to make such a major decision for herself or himself as to what to call the debate? Why does the Minister not trust the mayor to decide whether to call it a "State of London debate", a "Greater London debate", or any other sort of debate? Why do the Government feel that they cannot even trust the mayor that much that they have to prescribe in legislation what the name shall be? I hope that the Minister can answer that question.
Lord Whitty: I think that the noble Lord demonstrated an unexpectedly patronising view as regards the mayor by referring to "his" debate, quite apart from the sexist overtones—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should point out to the Minister that the noble Lord actually referred to
990
"herself" or "himself". As a matter of a fact, I wondered how we got "her" in front of "him". It certainly was not patronising to the female sex.
Lord Whitty: Leaving aside that aspect of it, I believe that the noble Lord referred to it as the "mayor's debate". However, it is not the mayor's debate; it is the people of London's debate, which Parliament, as part of this reform of the way in which London is governed, is laying down that Londoners should have. If we regard it as the mayor's debate, we will miss the whole point. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will take that point on board and accept that it is reasonable for us not only to prescribe that event but to do so in a way that Londoners, who are outside the normal political classes, will actually recognise and accept as an important event in the political calendar.
Lord Tope: I do not want to go on and on about this, but I do not see why I should let the Minister off the hook so easily. All right, it is the people's debate. However, we are requiring the mayor to call the debate and, when he does so. he will have to call it something. My question to the Minister, which he keeps failing to answer, is: why is he not prepared to trust the mayor to decide what he is going to call this debate when he calls it? Does he have the answer yet?
Lord Whitty: I may now have a new answer here, but I shall stick to the old one. The Government believe that we should give a clear steer to the people of London as to what kind of debate we are expecting. Therefore, it is not up to the mayor—or, indeed, the mayor and the assembly together—to describe or define how that meeting operates. They are required to call it so that the people of London can participate. I think that that might be regarded with some favour by people outside these walls. The Liberal Democrat Benches are usually open and inclusive about these matters and want to inform people what event they are being invited to. The noble Lord has intervened frequently in this debate but I regret that for once he is on the wrong tack and we are on the right one.
Baroness Hamwee: If that is so, I am on the wrong tack with him. Throughout this debate we have made it entirely clear that we do not object to the holding of a debate—indeed quite the contrary—but we object to the Government prescribing the title of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, proudly told us of the debate held in his borough. We applaud that as an exercise. I do not want to put words into the noble Lord's mouth, but if he were told by central government that he had to call that the state of Haringey debate I wonder whether he might not feel a little insulted at the suggestion that he could not work out an appropriate title for his borough.
Lord Harris of Haringey: When we instituted that tradition a few years ago I devoted my address to the assembled councillors of the London borough of Haringey and the three people in the gallery to the subject of the evils of the then—I believe—about

991
12 years of Conservative government and the impact that had had on local people. I can quite understand why the Government might have wished us to change the title of that debate to something that related specifically to the responsibilities of the local authority and the work that we were doing in the borough. I can see why the Government might wish to specify in legislation that the debate we are discussing should be called the "State of London debate" rather than, say, the state of foreign affairs and the policies which are being adopted by the Government debate, as otherwise the mayor could give a lengthy address on that subject. I am sure that none of us in this Chamber would want to see that happen.
Baroness Hamwee: The authority's remit includes sustainable development in the UK. That is the extent of its remit outside London. Therefore I believe that the mayor would have some difficulty in holding a debate on the state of the universe, interesting as that might be.
There is a significant point here. I am quite prepared to accept that the Government have no answer to Amendment No. 149. As I say, we are concerned about the extraordinary degree of prescription here. As regards Amendment No. 150 on the timing of the debate, and more particularly how it fits into the budget cycle, that is a matter to which we shall return. lit is with some regret that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Feltham Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre
7.33 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre Feltham.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I come to the terms of this Question, I would like to say two things. First, I wish to acknowledge the debt of gratitude we all owe to the recently retired Director-General of the Prison Service, Richard Tilt. He led the service during one of its most difficult periods. He was there during those unhappy days when Mr Howard told the country that "prison works", a view that prison governors knew to be nonsensical; when numbers in custody escalated month after month; and there was a mood of near despair among many of the most responsible members of the Prison Service. Mr Tilt led the service with dedication and good humour and was rightly greatly admired by his colleagues. We wish him well in his retirement. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of
992
Mostyn, will pass on our congratulations to Mr Tilt on his well deserved award of a knighthood in the Birthday Honours List.
Secondly, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will recognise that debates on prisons of this character inevitably tend to take place when things have gone badly rather than well. We all know the considerable amount of admirable work that is carried out day by day by members of the Prison Service. Often the chief inspector's reports recognise this, but the one we are discussing today unhappily tells a very different story. It is right that when serious failings have been identified—as they have been in this report—Parliament discusses the issues involved.
Let me turn to the details of the report. Sir David Ramsbotham has presented his conclusions in the starkest terms. He says that his report on this unannounced inspection at Feltham is,
"without doubt the most disturbing that I have had to make during my three years as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. I have to disclose to the public not only that conditions and treatment of the 922 children and young prisoners … are in many instances totally unacceptable. They are in many instances worse than when I reported on them two years ago".
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will recognise, that is an extremely severe criticism and it is one which I know he will wish to meet.
The chief inspector adds that the picture emerges of an institution and staff overwhelmed. He says that the conditions at Feltham are unacceptable in a civilised country. This brings me to my first question to the noble Lord. What action has been taken to meet these trenchant criticisms? As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will recognise, the most damaging revelations are those related to the chief inspector's penultimate report. Sir David reminds us that in that report he made 187 recommendations. The purpose of his most recent inspection, he says, was to determine whether adequate action had been taken on these recommendations. His conclusion is that,
"Regrettably, on our return, we found that little had been achieved, and that there was a marked deterioration in the provision of care, especially for juveniles and young prisoners located in the Health Care Unit".
I must tell the Minister that I was particularly concerned with what the chief inspector said about the nursing staff. He said that half the posts were not available for patient care. Nine places were vacant and four staff were on long-term sick leave. Inevitably Feltham found it difficult in these circumstances to retain staff because of the forbidding problems in the unit. Staff simply resigned or retreated into long-term sick leave.
The regime in the in-patient area was, said Sir David, very deprived, partly due to gross shortage of staff. There was no confidence that patients would always get their medication on time, nor that basic nursing observations would be completed. The average time unlocked each day was no more than four hours instead of the 12 hours required and was often nil at weekends. Staff said that the mental health of in-patients was at risk of deterioration because of the prolonged periods locked in and the poor levels of nursing. Let us be clear

993
about this. What is being described in this report is a disgraceful situation. Mentally afflicted young people were being held in conditions which are a most serious reflection on our society.
The report goes on to pass more general comment on the situation at Feltham. One senior manager told the chief inspector that the core of the institution was rotten—his words, not mine.
As is unhappily the case in a number of establishments, industrial relations seem to be poor—indeed, very poor. When efforts were made to improve conditions and there were consultations with the staff, there were constant "failures to agree"—that is a term of art—and progress was stopped dead in its tracks. The report said that managers and staff trying to improve the poor conditions and treatment of these young people were constantly thwarted by the time it took to achieve any form of agreement.
I have no interest in matters of this kind of simply blaming the Prison Officers Association for these problems at Feltham. In many cases it is clearly not its responsibility. In any event, there are large numbers of decent, conscientious prison officers working in our prisons. Unhappily, as we all know—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will certainly know—a number of branches of the Prison Officers Association are not prepared to co-operate with management when it attempts to establish more civilised conditions in our prisons. To take a more recent example, there is such a branch at Wormwood Scrubs prison.
I hope that by the time we have another report on Feltham we will be told that there has been a significant improvement in industrial relations there. I shall welcome anything that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, can say to reassure us that there has already been such an improvement. In the meantime, I was encouraged to read of the chief inspector's comment that there had been a swift response to his report by the Minister for Prisons—presumably the noble Lord, Lord Williams, himself—and by the director-general. That at least is good news. But I hope that we shall not be compelled to read many more reports such as this.
Another folly related to a group of teenagers, whose homes were in London, being sent off to Yorkshire just a few weeks before their discharge. There has sometimes been a gloomy sense of inevitability within the service that it has just got to put up with a good thumping from the chief inspector every now and then. The Feltham report is far more than a good thumping; it is a brutally frank report about a deplorable situation which was allowed to develop in one of our prison establishments.
I look forward to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, can tell us. I hope that he will be able to reassure us that dramatic changes have been put in hand at Feltham. When the chief inspector next reports on another, perhaps unannounced, inspection, which is what we want—hopefully it will take place before too long—I hope that we will then be able to read of a very different situation obtaining at Feltham.
7.43 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for putting this Question to the Government.
Perhaps I should start with a disclaimer. I am no expert on prison reform. What I hope to contribute is a view of the issues facing management, having myself been in management for some 40 years in both the public and private sectors. I shall proceed with some caution because of the complex management task which faces the senior management at Feltham.
I am encouraged by the fact that the chief inspector's two reports—the first in 1996 and the second at the end of 1988—both address the issue of the roles of the Prison Board and of the senior management. There is no doubt that they have a very difficult task. As Feltham is large and is both a young offender institution and a remand centre, they have many variables with which to deal. The depth and spread of the necessary professional skills is formidable.
An added difficulty is created by the public and political context within which the management works. There is no—at least I suspect no helpful—public consensus on the ways in which young sentenced and unsentenced people should be treated. Voters do not always support those who are thought to be soft on crime. Yet those involved in the service will always be striving to implement regimes which will reduce recidivism—a task with its own great difficulties since, whatever else we can modernise we cannot modernise human nature.
Yet management needs to be accountable. It is often said—I think with accuracy—that one cannot manage what one cannot measure. Recidivism may be the best long-term surrogate for the more complex list of performance indicators, which is itself the subject of criticism by the chief inspector in his annual report.
In these difficult circumstances, senior management needs to find strategic direction; it needs to set out its own position and aspirations clearly and needs, where possible, to have its task simplified. Using this last test, one positive step would be success in reducing the average remand time from 142 days to 71 days, which is the Government's target for March 2002. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made towards this target?
Remembering the dual capacity of Feltham and looking at the management organisation in the reports, it might well be a useful simplification to create a more formal split of responsibilities between the young offender institution and the remand centre. The agreed objectives for each will have great differences between them, the needs of the one being different to those of the other, and the measurement of managerial progress in each is probably best carried out in differing ways. It may well be easier for management and staff to cohere around a simplified set of objectives, one for the young offenders and one for those on remand.
No doubt other ways can be found to improve management's ability to make progress, which, in the chief inspector's view, has eluded it in the period between his two reviews. Nevertheless, I am left with

995
the perception that one underlying problem needs to be tackled if progress is to be made. The two inspection reports leave me with the uneasy belief that Feltham's senior management and staff are both working in a house to some degree divided against itself. Two of the most trenchant inspectorate statements which apply to Feltham are, first, on the wider culture:
"It is inward looking; it is a blame culture and it does the name of the Prison Service no good".
And, secondly, which follows up the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, although it is a wider comment in the report:
"I find it quite inappropriate that Industrial Relations procedures should inflict such a severe impact on the treatment and condition of prisoners".
However, for their part, and in discussion with the inspection team, the Prison Officers' Association staff say that "Staffing levels are insufficient"; that "Morale is low or very low"; and that "Communication between staff and managers is poor"; and much more of the same ilk. Indeed, the staff imply in some of the evidence that they have given a deeper relationship with the prisoners than they have with the senior management.
Surprisingly, in the many pages of recorded opinion—apart from the one senior manager referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—the senior management's views are not included. I wonder if this is Government policy. If it is, is it wise? I cannot believe that the Prison Board and the senior management would agree with every detailed comment, nor with every one of the 187 recommendations in the first report. But we have no means of knowing if they stay almost wholly silent. Perhaps the Minister will comment. It seems unlikely that much progress will be made between the inspectorate's second and third reports. if there is no coming together by senior management and staff under the direction of the Prisons Board to achieve consensus.
One area that clearly needs such consensus and agreement is staffing. Is the staffing, to the greatest extent possible within the changes and chances of this life, adequate to the task in hand? There is in reality no room for continued disagreement and debate on this issue if everyone is to give of his or her best—and particularly not if it has become an article of faith that, "We are always short of staff'. In the old days, the 1950s, I was told in the steel foundry which I managed that we were always short of work at Christmas. When I said, "Not this Christmas", they looked at me pityingly, with a look that said, "He's young. He will find out, hard though he may try". The Prison Officers' Association seems to be in something of a similar bind. Its members probably believe that senior management try, but do not have any faith in their ability to succeed.
Admittedly, it is hard to change endemic cultures. But if they lead to low expectations, they will usually be self-fulfilling, and thus entirely inappropriate to the complex and professional task to be done at Feltham. It seems certain that Feltham needs cultural change in the relationships between the senior management and the staff. How do the Government propose to assist the Prisons Board to achieve that change?
996
Finally, while it is both helpful and necessary to have reports from the inspectorate and, as a result of due diligence, from the Board of Visitors also, would it not also be helpful if the Prisons Board and the senior management, led by the governor, were to respond in writing and in the public domain? That step would show leadership and a commitment, which will not be satisfied either by the Feltham vision or by administrative instructions. Nor are frequent changes of governor likely to be helpful.
At any one time there are 800 young people whose future depends in large measure on their experience at Feltham. It is a grave and risky, but I would say exhilarating, responsibility to be discharged in the public interest. I am sure that there are many at Feltham who are determined to assist in convincing your Lordships that progress can and will be made in the next two years. I hope that the Minister can be similarly convincing.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this subject before the House. I am rather less warm in my thanks for being allowed to read the document. It is one of the most depressing I have ever read. The description of the physical conditions in which these young men, indeed boys, are living reminds me more of an extract from Solzhenitsyn than something happening in our own society. It is incredibly depressing—the idea that people are restricted in terms of access to light, exercise and indeed food.
That said, the physical conditions merely contribute to what else is going on. I refer to the fact that in many cases any process of rehabilitation seems to be stopped before it has started. The only aspect that seems totally to receive a rubber stamp of approval in the report is voluntary service. My interest in Feltham is totally down to the fact that many years ago—too many years ago now to be reflected by anything in the report—I was part of a voluntary unit, the Apex Trust, working at Feltham on pre-release courses.
Much of what was said then is exactly the same as I read in the report. It was said that members of staff had bad attitudes. Certain people were renowned for being bad, for provoking assaults with which they could not be connected, for making sure that people could not get out of their cell and for being very "anti" to the idea of being able to have access to showers, soap and clean clothes.
I thought that most of the complaints would turn out to be whingeing. Those of us who work in any of the voluntary groups involved in prisons hear and experience the fact that certain units within the Prison Service are very "anti" such groups. Indeed, that is stated in some parts of the report. The idea is mentioned that such people think there is too much access to volunteers, that volunteers are messing up the system, that there is too much criticism. But the report accords with much of what I heard from inmates and those working within the voluntary group. It is a confirmation of all that I heard that was negative about the whole process.

997
It should be borne in mind exactly what that means. These young people are probably at their lowest in terms of self-esteem. It is a time when they probably have the greatest number of doubts about themselves. After all, what is a teenager except a mass of doubts covered in spots? Basically, that is what we have here—young people who are having to look at themselves for the first time, having been told by society that they have failed. They are in prison. One way of dealing with that is to develop a hide like a rhino; one tries to get through to them. They are faced with these kinds of conditions. There are the problems of getting people into education units, and of people being transferred out. I shall mention the inappropriateness of the education courses shortly. There is the additional idea that people must turn up dirty, smelling bad and hungry. If we want to create a background that is going to reinforce failure, I suggest that we have taken a damn good step forward.
As to the education and the rehabilitation courses within them—for want of a better expression—the report states that many people work well but that those under school age (I shall not attempt to use the acronym) seem to "burn up" most of the time. It also mentions something that is no surprise to anyone; namely, that large numbers of those under the age of 16 find themselves placed back in classroom situations in which, almost by definition, they will have failed—thus reinforcing the idea of failure. The staff believe that it is inappropriate to place them back in that situation and that something more creative should be done. The report also states that courses such as cookery achieve more, and there is less disruption. That is no surprise to anyone who deals in this sector. If we reinforce failure with more failure, the result will be resentment.
The report also mentions that there is no initial assessment of such problems as dyslexia. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will not be at all surprised that I raise the point again. He is well aware of this matter and has given it his attention. It is suspected that up to half the prison population suffer from dyslexia. They have a condition which is a disability. They are entitled to some support under the education Acts passed under this Government and their predecessors. Unless there is some process included in the induction procedure to find out who those people are, a major opportunity to help them is being missed, one which may well be able to remove them from the cycle of re-offending and being such failures educationally and thus difficult to employ.
In the modern world the cycle of re-offending is universally recognised. People fail educationally. They come from a social background where crime is thought to be a real option, at least by their peer group. They are sucked into a life of crime. Dyslexia contributes in that process. It is not a decisive factor; social conditions are probably more important. It is said that a "thick" middle-class child is often labelled dyslexic. It is to be hoped that we are now moving on. But in a working-class background, when someone is under-achieving and feels frustrated, that may well be happening.
998
The Prison Service has the opportunity to do something about it. Effectively, it has the most captive audience that anyone can ever have, and there is time. Unless the rest of the system supports the idea, we shall not be able to take the opportunity to improve the situation, to improve the lot of the individual and to remove people from the cycle of re-offending.
If we can try to reinforce positive aspects, there may be a way forward. As the report stands, the only comment made that receives universal praise concerns the few weeks with voluntary groups before the offender leaves. When talking about young offenders, that is probably the most damning condemnation of an institution or part of an institution we will ever get. None of it works properly until they are about to leave.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in the gap. Listening to the debate this evening I was much reminded of my own experience, regularly speaking to traumatised young people who had had unhappy experiences in their families or had no parents at all. I spoke to the professionals who work with these young people. Low self-esteem is infectious. The other day I talked to the director of a unit who remarked how she woke up in the morning finding herself depressed, with no confidence in herself; she felt that everything she did was lacking. She asked herself why she felt that way. Then she realised it was exactly how the young people felt with whom her workers dealt directly. The feeling had passed to the workers and on to her.
Low self-esteem, misery, despair are infectious. The people who work with traumatised young people need support to cope with it. On the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, about the division, the house divided unto itself, there needs to be support all the way up. The people at the top need to listen to those beneath them. In a sense they must be a strong parent or father, supporting the younger members of the family as they deal with the youngest and most difficult members.
My question to the Minister is this: are the staff supervised? By that I mean: do they have an opportunity to talk to a professional in mental health work on a regular basis about their experience?
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this debate and to associate ourselves with the thanks from this side of the House to Mr Tilt. I would be grateful if the Minister could pass them on to him.
This is a most disturbing report. We have had the benefit of four significant speeches, with the masterly summary by the noble Lord, Lord Hams, of the report. My noble friend Lord Eccles made some constructive proposals about future management. We also had the unexpected and welcome personal experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in connection with the problem.
Looking at one or two criticisms of the report which cannot be laid at the feet of the management of Feltham, the first is of overcrowding. It is an endemic problem

999
with the Prison Service and one of the important recommendations in Sir David's report was the need for a new young offender institution, preferably to the east of London. At the time of his visit in 1998, no action appeared to have been taken about it and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister can tell us what progress has been made.
As my noble friend Lord Eccles pointed out, Feltham is a remand centre as well as a young offender institution. The remand population is sadly growing and it is a highly transient one. It is a major impediment to the building up of a settled regime and, in the case of Feltham, the drain on resources by the remand side, at the expense of the youth offender institution, is marked. So this is another major problem for the Home Office to address.
Running through the report is a constant complaint about lack of resources, but on more than one occasion one feels that that has been used as a convenient excuse for shortcomings in the regime which better management might have addressed. Nevertheless, an undoubted problem it is.
Moving on to more specific criticisms of Feltham, we find the bald statement that there is a failure on the part of management to understand the needs of the patients, which is disturbing. Indeed, the overall conclusion that staff morale is low is a cause of great worry, which, moreover, cannot fail to affect staff relations with inmates. Relations between management and staff clearly leave a lot to be desired and the high staff turnover tells its own story.
Incidentally, there is an instance of a good idea which is possibly spoilt in its implementation. The accelerated promotion scheme is clearly to be welcomed, attracting candidates of ability with good career prospects. But staff complain that too many are in that category at Feltham who are perceived to have their own personal agenda. Because their stay is limited and known to be limited, it leads to an uncaring situation on their part. We would welcome the Minister's view on the subject.
The report had serious criticisms of basic prisoner amenities; for example, inadequate washing and shower facilities, dirty clothing and bedding and lack of exercise periods—blamed on staff shortages in many cases. However, in the case of dirty clothing and bedding, the presence of clean bedding in adjacent lockers invites an explanation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, these are matters of real concern as they affect the whole demeanour of an individual, the more so when he or she is in conditions of confinement.
The section relating to healthcare at the institution makes bad reading. It has been more than covered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I understand that Feltham provides medical services for several other prison establishments and the resulting staffing demand which necessitates transfer from other departments is unsettling and one of the most vigorous of the staff's complaints. I also note that indifference to the shortcomings of the Feltham healthcare regime appears to have extended up the scale to area managers.
1000
One of the most welcome and interesting features of Sir David's report is the admittedly small and isolated pockets where he found good practice. The contrast between Partridge and Swallow units is salutary and disturbing. In the latter, the report refers to,
"What … amounted to institutionalised deprivation, compounded by the fact that many staff seem to have surrendered to this process".
Compare that with Partridge wing, where the environment was clean and well organised and the inmates motivated and,
"Staff interacted positively with [the young prisoners]".
One must also compliment those in Quail unit for the information and support for young prisoners facing potential life sentences for murder. That was praised by the inspector. This uneven performance must surely point to a failure in consistent management. But sadly, in the case of Feltham, it must also highlight the fact of good staff delivering high standards in spite of, rather than thanks to, the managerial environment.
On 24th March we had a very constructive debate in your Lordships' House on the serious situation which had developed in the recently opened Medway prison for young offenders. I was privileged to take part in it and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replied on behalf of the Government. One of the salient features of the incident was the frankness with which the private contractors acknowledged the many serious shortcomings in the first few months of the institution. They produced a detailed statement of how they were to be addressed. I suggest that this is not the place, in what I believe has been a constructive debate on Feltham, to go into the question of private versus public management of prisons. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to page 8 of the inspector's report which states:
"I am most disturbed by the very negative influence of current Industrial Relations procedures, which can obstruct any form of change, and can be seen to be a major contributory factor in the inability of Prison Service management to make progress in actioning our recommendations".
It is not the policy of these Benches to advocate wholesale privatisation of the Prison Service. Her Majesty's Prison Service has many loyal men and women who serve in it. Nevertheless, the prison staff associations are national negotiating bodies, as are the Home Office and Prison Service, and between them they have an obligation to work together to eliminate outdated industrial relations procedures so as to make it unnecessary for an inspector to make such observations in any future report.
The report is a hard-hitting one, and I find no evidence that it is unfair. We have had a constructive debate. Some of the criticisms are outside the control of management and can be laid at the feet of senior levels of the Prison Service. On the other hand, some problems are properly within the responsibility of Feltham management to address and rectify.
The report notes that the Minister for Prisons, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the Director-General gave a swift response to Sir David's concerns. I should like to echo the thanks and congratulations of the noble

1001
Lord, Lord Harris, in that respect. Both are to be congratulated. However, we look for actions which match these reactions.
We from these Benches appreciate that neither manpower nor material resources grow on trees, but these problems, particularly overcrowding, will not go away. We look to the Government to ensure that these problems are addressed vigorously.
I conclude by referring to the inspector's last recommendation on page 37:
"A director the Prisons Board should be accountable for improvements to be made to the treatment of young people held at Feltham as identified in the time-targeted Action Plan".
I suggest that the presence of one person will unlock many of the other problems. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a bleak report, and it will not be the last one in that category. We are determined to improve and change the Prison Service. It is a great advantage to look at the recent Honours List to which the noble Lord referred. I absolutely echo, and am grateful for, the congratulations offered to Sir Richard Tilt. Usha Prashar, chairman of the Parole Board, is on that list, as is Vivien Stern—long overdue—for her work with NACRO. Helen Reeves of Victim Support is also on that list, as is Mrs Mary Blackburn of the Boards of Visitors. That is an indication, but no more, of the importance we attach to the work of those engaged in the penal and criminal justice system generally.
It is customary to thank the noble Lord for securing the debate. Very often it is cosmetic, but this evening it is not. The one regret that I have is that so few noble Lords are here to participate in the debate. We see once again where the balance of values lies between a packed House agog to deal with the question of club rights and something that falls into a fundamentally different moral category.
These are very worrying problems. The report was published on 26th March. It is particularly critical—I accept that—of the fact that many, many of the first report's recommendations remained unactioned. Personally, I found aspects of the report quite shocking. I well understand the anger and concern expressed by noble Lords because I share those sentiments. I can tell noble Lords about a number of events that have taken place. The new governor, Mr Clifford, took up post on 19th April. To pick up the noble Viscount's last point, a new area manager, Mr Peter Atherton, is responsible for Feltham. They are determined to turn matters around.
There are good staff who have worked in difficult conditions and have had successes. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. As examples, I refer to the Nightingale pre-release course and the Quail murder charge project. Referring to a slightly different aspect of what is, by and large, a gloomy history, both of those activities received Butler Trust awards recently. Those awards are not lightly handed out, as noble Lords will be aware.
1002
To give some history, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, to whom I pay ready tribute—I have frequently said in his presence on public occasions that the more of an irritant he is to me the better I am pleased—came to see me on 11th December of last year to tell me of his deep concerns and preliminary findings. I immediately contacted the then Director-General, Sir Richard Tilt. Having spoken to Sir Richard, I had a joint meeting on 16th December with him and Sir David Ramsbotham. By that time—only a matter of days later—the director had been to Feltham and had immediately instituted a task force to report back to a steering group as a matter of urgency. We were approaching Christmas, but it was heartening to me that Sir Richard said that that task force was to go in on 23rd December.
The task force was to identify issues for immediate action and chart a plan for improvement to be implemented over the next six months. I intend to go to Feltham myself when those six months are up, or a little longer, to satisfy myself about what has happened. If any noble Lords wish to join me on that occasion I shall be more than happy to make arrangements. It is critical that we define objectives and then castigate ourselves if we have not achieved the overwhelming majority of them. In this context, and perhaps in others to follow in the next few days, if Sir David returns and finds in a sensible period of time—perhaps 12 months or so—that the overwhelming bulk of his recommendations have not been put into effect, people will have to reconsider their positions with great care.
I will deal with some specific matters. The task force, which has worked very quickly and in a focused way, identified 39 issues for immediate action. Thirty-three have been implemented and the remaining six are well in hand. I shall give some examples which have been referred to by noble Lords in particular contexts. One is to make significant inroads into the transit camp problem (as Sir David described it) by ending the use of Kestrel as a daily discharge unit and the use of Osprey for allocation purposes. Another is a reduction of the capacity of Feltham by 72 to reduce overcrowding and to allow refurbishment of two units to start.
A further recommendation, which was a particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is an increase in the quality of healthcare by a move into a fully refurbished healthcare unit and the provision of eight officers on detached duty from other establishments to offset the staff shortages to which the noble Lord referred. Another recommendation is to increase PE from two to five classes in both the morning and afternoon sessions and to increase the numbers attending education by 30. A further recommendation is to secure another £2 million funding to develop a separate regime for the under 18 year-olds which will include 12 hours out of cell each day and 30 hours purposeful activity each week, for which a further £3.4 million capital investment is to be made to provide separate reception and education facilities.
These are only beginnings. I want to deal with the specific question about the new establishment to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred. The number of prisoners has already been reduced. That is in part to facilitate the opening of the new healthcare

1003
centre and in part to allow for the refurbishment of other units and, significantly, to try to break the back of overcrowding. There will be an overall reduction in the proportion of remand prisoners, which point was well raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
We must draw together many aspects. I slot in the fact that I have invited the Chief Inspector to conduct a thematic review, starting later this year, of how we deal with remand prisoners in the whole of the prison estate. That is another review which I believe is long overdue. It is undoubted that the presence in the general prison regime of a large body of remand prisoners causes a distortion in what should be the fundamental work of the prison system in dealing with prisoners of whatever age group.
If I may trespass without reproof into the Lord Chancellor's Department's area, with great respect, I believe it is incumbent on every person in judicial authority who is remanding in custody as opposed to bail to ponder a very long time before taking that decision, and also to ponder upon whether they know the conditions that remand prisoners have to tolerate. That is a much wider problem than Feltham, but I do not think we shall get anywhere in terms of prison reform without dealing with these matters on a general spectrum basis.
I am coming to the question of the new young offender establishment. A planning application to build a young offender establishment to serve east London and Essex is being taken forward. It is unlikely that that establishment will be open before late 2002 at the earliest. That is the answer that I am able to give.
Those are some particular questions which were raised and some particular steps that have been taken. I can personally tell your Lordships, because I have involved myself closely, that the area manager, who is new, and the governor, who is new, are entirely determined to change things at Feltham. We are extremely fortunate to have a successor Director-General of the Prison Service of the quality of Martin Narey to follow Sir Richard Tilt, an extremely difficult act to follow, as they say. I am not saying this in a flippant way. He is determined that when these questions are raised there will be no sheltering, there will be no shuffling off of responsibility. He is prepared to accept the responsibility, as I am.
There was a particular question about accelerated promotion schemes. The Governor of Feltham is happy with his staff, which includes a Governor Grade 5 currently in the accelerated promotion scheme, and the current Deputy Governor is in fact a graduate of that scheme. What I have seen of it at work in the Prison Service is encouraging; indeed I have—I must spare her blushes—an excellent graduate of that scheme seconded from the Prison Service, indeed seconded from Feltham, to work in my private office as an Assistant Private Secretary. That is an extremely useful and important cross-fertilisation between Prison Service headquarters, the Home Office and the prison regime itself.
We discussed dyslexia on a previous occasion and I was able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who had his particular interest which he described to us, that
1004
advice on dyslexia screening has now been circulated to all prison governors as I promised it would be. There is now screening on arrival and induction, with proper testing and assessment, to ensure that education is properly targeted, and in particular there is additional CSR spending for the Morrisby testing, which again is an invaluable tool, curiously very well spoken of by young men in young offender institutions, amazed at what it tells them about themselves. It surprised me.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised questions about mentally disordered offenders. On 18th May eight were waiting at Feltham for admission to hospitals under Part 3 of the Mental Health Act of 1983. This is wider than Feltham but I ought to tell your Lordships what we are doing in the context of more sensible co-operation between the National Health Service and the Prison Service. It has been lamentably bad in the past years. In fact, I would not have described it as co-operative working at all. I have had very close contacts with my colleague, my noble friend Lady Hayman. We are instituting much closer workings. We will have a health policy unit and a health task force in place by the autumn and the winter of this year respectively. I went to a most heartening conference this morning, the first of its type, with professionals from the health service and the Prison Service, 500 of them in the Queen Elizabeth Centre, all eager to deliver what we can deliver: much better outcomes in terms of prisoner care.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, claimed to be a non-expert. We could do with rather more non-experts in your Lordships' House because he asked extremely interesting questions, if I may say so without appearing to be over-pompous. He asked about questions of management in a more general sense. I can answer him in what the Home Secretary has approved. The Home Secretary, the new Director-General and myself came to the conclusion that we ought to organise the management of the prison system in a different way. We now have two boards. One is a management hoard, chaired by Martin Narey as the new Director-General, and the other is the strategy board, which I chair, which is designed to take a long term view, not simply to respond, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, to the immediate disaster of the moment. I believe that is the proper way to manage a reformed, invigorated, modern Prison Service.
The noble Viscount also raised the question of what happens in terms of response to reports which are frequently damning, often critical and sometimes extremely positive. I have to say, the world being what it is, that when one has excellent reports on particular institutions, I detect no publicity for them. I ought to say that young offender institutions can be made to work. I was at Huntercombe recently, which is a great success story, dealing with offenders who are just as difficult as those at Feltham, an excellent staff, excellent members of the Prison Officers' Association, a first-rate governor, and, interestingly, very good donations and assistance from the private sector, Nissan and Kwik-Fit to mention but two. It can be made to work given the determination.
What happens on the reports is that there is always a response, however many the recommendations. We respond to every one of them in writing. The response

1005
is tabulated in the form of "Accepted", with a timescale, "Rejected" or "Postponed", with reasons given, brief reasons, I accept, but that is a useful discipline in management terms and in terms of discharging our responsibilities. Those documents go from the Prison Service, with the approval of the Director-General and myself, to the Chief Inspector. Therefore the consequence of every report is an action plan. I have to say at once, because it does not need to be underlined too much, that that scheme of things plainly did not work in terms of consequence and effect after the first of these reports.
The noble Viscount raised a very important question which I have discussed on several occasions with the new Director-General, namely the vice which many boards of visitors identify of a governor who starts to succeed and is in post for far too short a time. It is a frequent refrain from boards of visitors and we have taken that very much on board so that we should be looking to new circumstances where governors do not, having turned round an institution and made it a success, find themselves transferred to another institution.
The other important tool that we have is that all the annual boards of visitors' report come to me. I do read them. Obviously I have to take advice and I try to respond as fully as I possibly can to each set of criticisms or recommendations.
On speeding up court procedures, the noble Viscount and I are in absolute agreement. We have to speed them up. Curiously, it was Mr Martin Narey who devised the scheme for speeding up juvenile court cases. The pilot schemes are working well and I believe we can get remand times down. First of all, we ought to because it pollutes the court process, and, secondly, we must because it distorts and disturbs the true purpose of the prison regime.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister has been extremely helpful, if I may say so, replying to a range of issues. One matter which he might touch on, if not this evening, perhaps in correspondence, is what the position is in terms of industrial relations. It is one of the most worrying aspects of this report and I should be grateful for anything he could say about it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly. That is one aspect that always strikes my mind and I am hoping to deal with it in a moment or two. I realise that I have taken more than my 10 or 12 minutes, but I refuse not to because it is too important, I think, not to give a full public response.
With the new regime, the new governor is now turning around the industrial relations situation there. I must say, in fairness to members of the POA, that many of them do good, unsung, extremely difficult, stressful work with different ways of dealing with young offenders.
The past industrial relations climate undoubtedly contributed to the difficulties which Sir David identified. Discussions are taking place because we shall get nowhere without involvement and discussion. They
1006
are starting to pay dividends. The area manager is pleased to report that currently industrial relations are good.
I have dealt with the question of health. That is not specific solely to Feltham. We must have that joint systematic approach which I mentioned a few moments ago.
Perhaps I may summarise briefly. We have addressed to a large extent the shortfall in staff. Ten officers started training in April. Reverting to the efficient use of officer time, a profiling exercise is taking place at the moment. Progress has been made on the amending of shift patterns and staff consultation will start in July.
PE is much better managed, and I have indicated that. Available activity places are better used. There will have been a further 71 places brought on stream by the summer. Six hundred mattresses have been replaced and more are available. That is specifically to deal with the filthy conditions identified by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. General cleanliness and hygiene have been improved. New cleaning schedules have been introduced and—I go back to the management point—new inspection arrangements. Additional laundry facilities have been made available. Some gain has been made already in the frequency of clean clothing. We have started on a backlog of small repairs. A new healthcare inpatient facility opened at the beginning of April.
The new governor and deputy governor are in post. The exercise yards have been created in the short-stay side of the establishments. Proposals are in hand—this was not mentioned specifically but it particularly concerns me on any prison visit I make—to end the standing queue of visitors outside the front of the establishment. We hope that we can achieve an efficient, workable system of booked visits. An overhaul of the management structure is under way.
We started at a very low ebb—I did—when Sir David came to see me as recently as 11th December. We are not out of the woods. I have indicated. and it has been received with general approval, that I want to visit the establishment in August or September to see for myself. I repeat that if any noble Lords are sufficiently concerned at that time to wish to join me, the area manager, the prison governor and his staff will be more than pleased to receive them.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.35 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 39.
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 151:
Leave out Clause 39 and insert the following new Clause—
ANNUAL GREATER LONDON DEBATE
(" .—(1) In addition to the requirements of section 37, the Mayor shall once a year convene and attend a meeting of the Assembly to be known as the "Greater London debate".
(2) The sole item on the Agenda of such meeting shall be to debate the annual report of the Mayor prepared pursuant to section 38.
(3) The Greater London debate shall be held on a date determined by the Mayor on not less than three months' notice during April, May or June, excluding the date of and three weeks preceding a General Election, elections (other than by-elections) to the Authority, elections to the European Parliament or to London borough councils.
(4) The first Greater London debate shall be held in April, May or June 2001.
(5) Where the Mayor has determined that the debate shall be held in the month of June and a General Election or an election to the European Parliament would entail a breach of subsection (3) above, the Mayor shall give not less than one month's notice of a revised date which shall not be later than two weeks after the date of the election.
(6) As soon as practical following the Greater London debate, the Mayor and the Assembly shall hold a meeting to which two members of each London borough and the Common Council shall he invited to attend and participate in, the sole purpose of which meeting shall he to discuss the Mayor's annual report and the proceedings at the Greater London debate.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment proposes the entire deletion of Clause 39 and its replacement by another clause which has the same intention as the Government's clause.
On the last amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made it clear that they are not concerned about the intention but about the name of the debate. The drastic step which we propose to delete Clause 39 in its entirety is necessary because there is so much wrong with the drafting of the original clause that it is impossible to amend it piecemeal, phrase by phrase.
Our first objection is to the name of the meeting—the "State of London debate". I count myself as an admirer of the United States of America but that does not mean that we must copy every single Americanism or every facet of American politics. At the beginning of each political year, the President of the United States attends a joint meeting of both Houses of Congress and delivers what is called the State of the Union Address—a cross between an annual report and the Queen's Speech. It is the height of pretentiousness to use that name for the annual general meeting of the assembly. It is the ultimate in "me too-ism". It will make the assembly of one of the world's greatest cities the laughing stock of the political world, as indeed, it seemed to do when the earlier amendment was debated.
The next major fault is the lack of clarity as regards who is to take part in the debate. We know from subsection (1) that the mayor will be there. We know that the meeting is to be open to all members of the public. But in what capacity will that be? Will they be there as participators or merely as audience? We assume that it is as audience because Clause 40 creates the function with the rather twee name of the "People's Question Time". As the Government describe this function as the "State of London debate" we must assume by an analogy with the State of the Union address to Congress, the participants are the assembly members as well as the mayor. The Bill does not say so. In fact, it does not say anything.
What is the agenda? We assume that it is the State of London, but what else? There is another clue. The date of the meeting is connected with the date of the publication of the mayor's annual report. So by a process of deduction we can discern through the mist what we think the Government are getting at. But that is no way to legislate. Clarity is required and that is what our amendment provides.
There is an answer to all the questions raised by the omissions in the present draft. New subsection (1) makes it clear that it is a meeting of the assembly. New subsection (2) makes it clear that the sole subject on the agenda will be the mayor's annual report. Subsections (3) and (4) fix the date of the meeting but make sure that it does not get mixed up with local elections, elections to the European Parliament or, of course, a general election. Subsection (5) fixes the date when a general election is due. Last but not least, subsection (6) of the amendment requires the mayor and assembly to hold a joint meeting with the representatives of the boroughs and the Common Council solely for the purpose of discussing the annual report and, no less important, the proceedings at the debate. That latter provision seeks to build and maintain the links between the boroughs and the differently constituted assembly.
But there is still one thing missing. The meeting is to be open to the public. In that case, where is it to be held? Bearing in mind that it is not practical to hold it in the middle of Hyde Park or at the Millennium Dome, what restrictions are there to be on numbers? What arrangements will be made for the event to be televised? Will there be any obligation on the TV companies to broadcast it? There is a great deal more work to be done by the Government on that draft clause before it is in an acceptable shape.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is nothing in the Government's draft clause which is not in our amendment. The extra clarifications which appear in our amendment do not detract from the, Government's draft in one single iota. On the contrary, it fills the gap which should not exist. There should not be gaps. The clause as it stands does not make sense. Our amendment improves considerably the Government's draft and I hope the Minister will accept this suggestion, as well as many others which I have made, in the spirit of constructive contribution. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The Conservatives have a number of points on the amendment with which we would agree but I regret that we are unable to support it. We believe that various debates should be held, and a debate with the assembly is one of those. But the clause does not provide a debate with members of the public. I make that point deliberately because it was suggested a number of times during the debate on the last group of amendments that we oppose a debate with members of the public. We do not. We oppose only the prescription of the name. As that provision is not included in the amendment before the Committee, we regret that we cannot support it.
The Conservatives, too, choose to attach a name to the debate. It may be a less contentious name, perhaps a less fashionable name, and that I think would be

1009
appropriate. Nevertheless, for the reasons we gave earlier, we do not feel that it is right for the legislation to provide what the debate should be called; the mayor is quite capable of finding the name herself.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister replies, I should just like to say that the purpose of the amendment was to try to match the intention of the Government's clause. The clause does not say that the public have to participate. That is the point I was trying to make—that the thing is a nonsense. If there is an intention that the public should come to this meeting and be able to debate it should say so, and it does not. After all, in a normal local council it is perfectly in order for the public to attend, but they do not have the right to participate in the discussion. The clause does not make that clear either. That is the point that I was trying to make in relation to the amendment.
Lord Whitty: I am sure the noble Baroness is trying to be helpful, as ever, and I understand the way in which she is approaching the matter. But by trying to be helpful she has fallen back on the deeply familiar. Instead of a new, innovative event whereby the mayor of London presents his report on London, his "State of London" report, to representatives of the public and the public themselves, we have yet another meeting of the assembly with the mayor, where he or she is to discuss the annual report.
We are trying to develop new means of communication, new means of participation, in London. I take the point that there must be some lack of clarity in what we have put here, because there have been various different interpretations of it. We shall have to consider whether we should come forward with greater clarity, at least to the extent of requiring the mayor to determine the procedure, to a limited extent at least.
But moving in the direction that the noble Baroness proposes, which is to take it to a normal meeting between the assembly and the mayor, which just happens to deal with the annual report, is not what we had in mind. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has clarified the position and that the Liberals are on board. I withdraw my previous allegation that they were rejecting a more expansive and more inclusive method of democratic participation. That is what this is about.
I am not entirely clear about the lesser provisions of the clause either. It is slightly bizarre in that it relates to elections in June only. The authority and London borough elections themselves will not be in June. At least, we have not decided to change the normal May dates, and one could presume that May is the month for the elections. I am not quite sure why there is the focus on June. The only elections in June are normally the European elections, which happen once every five years. The coincidence is unlikely.
I do not think this amendment is necessary. In many ways it is unduly prescriptive, as is the new idea, which no doubt the mayor will adopt in various different guises, of a duty of the mayor and the assembly to meet
1010
with representatives of London boroughs and the City. I am sure the mayor will engage in that, but to be prescriptive and define on the face of the Bill yet another formal meeting would be to go rather against some of the criticisms which we have had from the Opposition Benches during the rest of this evening.
I therefore think that there is a lack of imagination in the attempt by the noble Baroness to clarify. There is clarification by the clause, but we regard it as clarification in the wrong direction. We will consider whether, in order to make our intention clearer we should bring forward an amendment at a later stage, but I cannot accept the clause, and I hope that after consideration the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am not surprised that the Minister cannot accept our amendment. I am not sure that I would have liked it anyway. The truth is that I tried to draft an amendment that matched the intentions of the Government, which I think are non-existent. It is all very well saying that all I am suggesting is that the mayor should attend a meeting of the assembly. Maybe that is not what he intends with this great "State of London debate", but let me read to the noble Lord what the clause says:
"The Mayor shall once in every financial year hold and attend a meeting which is to be open to all members of the public, to be known as a 'State of London debate'".
And then what? There is no agenda. We do not know whether the public are allowed to participate. We know nothing. At least my amendment was a little clearer than the clause, which says nothing at all.
I have told the noble Lord, the Chief Whip, that I shall do my best not to take too long, and for that reason, and that reason only, I shall not argue the advantages of my amendment over this extraordinarily badly drafted clause.
The noble Lord picked me up on the question of April, May or June, and asked what kind of election would take place in June. First, I mentioned only those months, although we quite liked the previous amendment, Amendment No. 150, of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was trying to match what he said.
Nevertheless, on the understanding that the Minister will take this away and will come up with a clause that will not make London a laughing stock, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [People's Question Time]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 23, line 13, leave out (", to be known as a "People's Question Time"").
The noble Baroness said: This is an uncontentious amendment. The purpose is to leave out not the proposal that there be a question time open to members of the public, at which they may ask questions and be given

1011
answers, but merely the description. I dislike the title "People's Question Time" even more than I dislike the "State of London debate".
My distaste for the name, since it is a matter of taste, and that is inevitably personal, is not very relevant. My objection is that the assembly ought to be able to find its own title, and if the members of the assembly are not capable of finding a title I would query their ability to deal with things that matter rather more than what this is to be called.
In another place the Minister said that the public should not be deterred from attending by the occasion's being referred to in a way which would make them think it was simply another boring old meeting. I concur with that, but let us leave it to those who will be involved in one way or another with the new authority to find a name and methods of publicity and so on which will attract members of the public, rather than feeling that any of us in Westminster or Whitehall should tell them how to do that by prescribing the title. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, remove the name "People's Question Time" from the twice-yearly meeting open to all members of the public for which the clause provides. We are strongly committed—and this is a serious point—to strengthening the link between local people and local governments. An important aspect of this is to catch and retain people's interest, to enhance local accountability. We believe that a "People's Question Time" is a much better place to do that than a meeting which is to be open to all members of the public.
Amendment No. 152 would, in our opinion, be a backward step in our drive to engage people's interest. While I can understand that there may be a question of taste, I believe that putting it as the "People's Question Time" is different from describing something as a meeting open to the public. Many noble Lords may have been at meetings open to the public in which they were, if lucky, allowed to ask one question at the end. That is a common perception. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: As the Minister knows, I am always keen to help her, and I should like to help her here. We wholly share the objectives. That is not at issue. But can the Minister tell me why the Government have chosen the rather old Labour, even socialist, phrase "People's Question Time" rather than the more usual description in local government of "public question time." Would that not avoid the need for this debate?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is a matter of taste.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: It is more than a matter of taste. We have "the people's Peers", and "People's Question Time". It is ridiculous. I am sorry to say that it just makes us laugh.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In the spirit of helpfulness which seems suddenly to have broken out,
1012
perhaps we could simply have a clause which states that the mayor and the assembly shall twice in every financial year hold and attend a question time open to all members of the public; and that the question time shall be held on a date, and so on. Then the mayor, the assembly and the authority can decide whether they want to give it some sexy name, but we would all know exactly what was intended.
Baroness Hamwee: I paused to see whether there was to be an answer. It appears not. I think that the mayor and the assembly should, if they wish, and if it is more of the age in, say, 2010, call it "Londoners' Question Time" or "Citizen's Question Time"—there are many descriptions. Whether it is an old Labour, a new Labour, a real Labour or a socialist term, I do not know or care. My point is that it is not for us to tell them what to do. That point has probably been recorded now half a dozen times. Perhaps the time has come for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 23, line 24, at end insert—
("() shall satisfy himself that the meeting is held at a venue of sufficient size to accommodate all members of the public who may wish to attend and to provide them with sufficient facilities to ask questions and to hear the proceedings; and
() shall ensure that all members of the public shall be allowed to ask questions of the Mayor and members of the Assembly present at the meeting.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 153 is a probing amendment to extract from the Government more details of this rather bizarre idea of a so-called People's Question Time. I shall not comment further on the outlandish name which has been sufficiently commented on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in debate on the previous amendment—to which we added our two penn'orth.
I agree that this rather quaint name for the function seems to have originated in some socialist student society. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, when he discussed it in that way. Indeed, the whole outlandish idea smacks of people's soviets that Russia originally favoured until people started raising awkward questions of their leaders.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: As regards the people's Russia and the Soviet era, I lived there. I can assure noble Lords that there were never any public question times.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Baroness is probably right. It is no substitute for proper representation by a local councillor having a tie with the ward or borough which the Government have discarded in favour of the 14 remote super-constituencies and 13 other assembly members whose first allegiance is to their political party.

1013
The proposal is as half baked, ill-thought out and lacking in detail as many of the other matters included in the Bill, to say nothing of the ones which await a ministerial decree before we can discover what the Government have in mind.
The meeting is not confined to voters. At least seven million people live in Greater London. Will tickets be needed? How is that compatible with the stipulation that all members of the public should be entitled to attend? If only one in 5,000 people wanted to come, that would mean 3,500 people who would have to be accommodated. It could even be more. If it were less, it would prove that the whole exercise was just window dressing.
I suspect that it might just be a platform for pressure groups, which is fair enough. I fear, however, that it might also attract the sort of anarchists who rioted in the City last Friday and who do not understand the concept of free speech and peaceful demonstration as compared with the opportunity to stick masks on and have a punch-up.
In my normal spirit of helpfulness, and in order to assist the Government improve the Bill, we have stipulated that the meeting must be held at a place which holds all those people who wish to come. I have no idea where that might be. The Albert Hall might not be big enough. Wembley Stadium? But what if it rains? The Millennium Dome? Getting all those people there and away again in a short period would be a major problem—the mayor's problem, and that of the Government who have landed him with it.
The function is described as a "People's Question Time". But, curiously, the Bill does not specifically provide the right for anyone to ask any questions. It is all very well giving the function a name, but where is it stated that individuals can ask questions? Our amendment makes good that deficiency. Of course there is no requirement for the mayor or assembly members to answer. If a few thousand people turn up and hundreds of them want to ask questions, how long will the meeting go on for? Will there be power to adjourn the meeting? Or will it become like the midnight marathons that your Lordships sometimes have to endure?
The Bill does not say how disruptive persons are to be dealt with. That is something the Government have to answer. So far it seems to have been overlooked. Our amendment only scratches the surface of the problems that this eccentric and costly concept produces. The most sensible idea—I told the Minister that we are trying to help—would be to abandon the whole project, dump it in "file 13", the dustbin where it belongs. If the Government are going to press on with it, they have to provide the power for the assembly to make practical rules, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, for the conduct of what at Second Reading I called the people's "pow-wow". In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I was going to refer to it as the Dome amendment, but perhaps I shall not.
We support the proposal that there should be proper opportunity for Londoners to question both mayor and assembly. I have a question for the Minister on the clause. There may or may not be an answer. My
1014
underlying point again is the difficulty of writing so much on to the face of the Bill. My question is in connection with Clause 40(2) which states,
"A People's Question Time shall be held on a date to be determined by the Mayor and the Assembly".
That is fine. But how are they to determine it? What are the voting arrangements to be? Should each assembly member have one vote and the mayor have one vote? Alternatively, is the assembly, by a majority, to have one vote and the mayor another? It is a slightly facetious question because one hopes that they will be able to co-operate and sort out the matter without that kind of row. But if this provision is to be prescribed, perhaps everything needs to be prescribed.
9 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 153 would place an explicit and clear duty on the mayor to hold the People's Question Time in a venue large enough to hold all the members of the public who may wish to attend and make provision for people to ask the mayor and assembly members questions at the meeting. The duty contained in the first part of the amendment is not sensible. No one can believe that the mayor who will be elected on the mandate by the people of London would hold public meetings in a venue that was deliberately not large enough to hold all the members of the public who may be expected to attend. Nor would he or she choose a venue that was not suitably equipped and did not meet the needs, for example, of disabled Londoners. Inevitably, there will be a period of trial and error. The clause clearly states that the meeting is to be open to all members of the public, but it would not be reasonable to put the mayor in a position whereby one person too many to fit into the venue would leave him or her in breach of their statutory duty.
My experience of a public consultation meeting, which was mandatory, during a review of surplus school places, was that at one meeting far more parents than anticipated had turned up. One member of the public tried to get the meeting closed down by the police and threatened to switch off all the lights. That was in spite of the fact that I had offered at the beginning of the meeting to hold a separate meeting to ensure that everyone's views could be known. That kind of situation demonstrates that the noble Baroness's amendment is not a sensible one.
It is obvious from the title that members of the public can ask the mayor and assembly questions. We intend to bring forward an amendment whereby the mayor would decide the procedure for the event, following consultation with the assembly. We would anticipate that, as in many other areas, this would be achieved through a process of consensus, following those discussions. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I feel for the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, who has had to speak to, and reply to, three horrible amendments. The truth is that

1015
there is something drastically wrong with the way the Bill has been framed. I know that that is not the fault of the noble Baroness.
In the margin against Clause 40 are the words "People's Question Time", and if you look at it quickly that is what it appears to be. However, Clause 40 states that the mayor and assembly twice in every financial year should hold a meeting which is open to members of the public, which will be known as the People's Question Time. Great. There shall be a meeting; there can be a meeting; there must be a meeting twice in a financial year. And we are going to call it the People's Question Time.
Subsection (2) tells us that the date will be determined by the mayor and the assembly and that it shall be not less than one month before or one month after the State of London debate, which we somewhat ridiculed. At least one month prior to that People's Question Time the mayor shall decide where it is to be held and shall take sufficient steps to give adequate notice. When those people come, what are they going to do? The Bill does not say that they can ask questions. It is all very well having something in the margin, but it is ludicrous.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Would it help the noble Baroness if I told her that I accept her point that an important part of the process will be the arrangements for people to ask questions? I am sure we can bring forward suitable amendments on Report if necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am delighted to hear that the Government will bring forward some amendments to clarify the situation. I do not want to rub salt into the wound, but a number of amendments were added between the other place and this place, and the provision is still very poor. However, it is late at night and I should not like the Minister to think that I am less than gracious in accepting her kind offer. All I say is that more drafting is definitely needed in order to make sense of the clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 154:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY AUTHORITY
(" . The Authority shall make available at reasonable cost (or at no cost) copies of all public documents and minutes of the Authority and shall promptly make all such documents freely available to anyone visiting a public internet site to be maintained by the Authority.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a sensible amendment, not one of those silly ones. All I can say is that it needs sensible debate, and in the spirit of trying to hung things along I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Clause 41 [The Deputy Mayor]:
[Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 23, line 31, leave out ("appointed by the Mayor") and insert ("elected by the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: I am left somewhat breathless from the recent proceedings. One of the more bizarre reasons for not moving an amendment is because it is sensible. I am proposing this amendment and those grouped with it because they are sensible. They provide for the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly and for other matters which flow from that.
The position of the Liberal Democrats is well known. We would have preferred the mayor to have been elected by the assembly, and I am not going to go over that again. We are not moving the amendment simply as a second best option, trying to go for the deputy mayor if we cannot get the mayor in that way, although there is a good reason for that.
We all agree that the relationship between the assembly and the mayor will be critically important. The deputy mayor will be in a difficult position, at best, if he or she is seen simply as the creature of the mayor, the mayor's nominee. A deputy mayor who is elected by the assembly will mean that that person is in a much stronger position to represent the assembly to the mayor, and the mayor to the assembly. Therefore, having a deputy mayor in that role who is elected by the assembly and answerable to the assembly, but obviously working closely and co-operatively with the mayor, is the best possible solution, given that the mayor is not directly elected by and accountable to the assembly.
The purpose of the amendments is to provide for the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly for those reasons. Because the deputy mayor will be elected by the assembly, we are providing in Amendment No. 163 that the assembly, having elected the mayor, may also have the right by a two-thirds majority to remove the deputy mayor in the unlikely event that that was felt to be necessary by two-thirds or more of the assembly. It asks the Minister to explain why in all but one of the subsections in Clause 41 there is a reference to "shall", but in subsection (4) the reference is to "a person must"? It is not an important point, but we are intrigued to know the reason. I am sure it is one point which the Minister will be able to clarify to our satisfaction.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We do not support the amendment for the reasons I touched on earlier. There should be an opportunity for the deputy mayor to be elected, because we believe that the proposal muddies the water by mixing up the executive with the legislature.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with all his experience believes that this amendment would create a workable situation. The mandate for the mayor will produce someone of certain beliefs and understandings and the mandate for the assembly may produce a body which thinks differently. The assembly may appoint a deputy mayor deliberately to disagree with the mayor in order

1017
to make life difficult for him. I believe that this is a most unwise amendment. I do not know whether it is light-hearted or serious, but coming from a serious local government politician, I am truthfully surprised. That sounds rather pompous, but I cannot see the proposal working.
I believe that the Government have got this right; that the mayor chooses the deputy mayor from the assembly. My noble friend Lady Miller suggested the alternative; a dream ticket of mayor and deputy mayor elected together. In those two ways, there would be a deputy mayor who could work with the mayor, but I do not believe that this amendment would be at all wise.
Earl Russell: I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, finds the idea of cohabitation quite so shocking. If the French can do it, why cannot we?
Lord Whitty: Yes! If the noble Earl had been here earlier when we spoke of transposing the American constitution for the London one, he would realise that we are not transposing the French one either. We are setting up a new unique authority with two different parts. In a sense, the deputy mayor is a bridge between them.
I cannot but agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, when she says that the Government have got this right. It would be extremely difficult to envisage a situation in which the deputy mayor was elected by an assembly which was of a different political persuasion than the mayor. Indeed, the mayor may be of no political persuasion and the assembly of mixed political persuasion. However, the deputy mayor must share the platform and the commitment of the mayor and must act as his or her deputy and represent him or her and be involved as part of the mayor's executive in the authority's decision-taking structures. It would be a recipe for confrontation and chaos were the deputy mayor to be elected by the assembly.
We believe that all the parts of this new authority need to act together, but we do not want to build in another area of conflict by making the deputy mayor an indirect but nevertheless separate mandate from the mayor. We have been over the arguments in earlier stages in the Bill and I shall not go through them in any more detail. We do not accept this approach to changing the constitution, which we have proposed from the beginning in relation to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked me about an issue of grammar. I do not believe that it is as significant as he suggests. My interpretation would be that "shall" means that someone has to do something and "must" means that someone must not hold two offices at the same time. All the shalls impose a duty on someone.
A noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Whitty: I am glad that I have some support in this matter! My fall-back position is that it is not significant.
Lord Tope: I am prepared to accept the Minister's fallback position. He has done rather better with that one
1018
than he has with "People's Question Time", the "State of London debates", and so on. I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to answer that point. I shall read Hansard with care to see whether I understand it any better. However, I shall accept his fallback position. It is not a matter of major significance.
On a more substantive matter, I do not accept the election of the deputy mayor by the assembly. I do not accept the rather pessimistic view that it must necessarily or likely be a recipe for confrontation. We are all approaching the Greater London Authority on the basis of a co-operative body. It is on that basis that we propose this. We can all think of more pessimistic "what if' situations. I could, for instance, suggest what if the assembly passes a vote of no confidence in the deputy mayor—a member of the assembly—who has been appointed by the mayor? In what position would that put the deputy mayor?
We can all envisage scenarios that would be entirely negative and destructive. That is not the way in which any of us is approaching this matter. It is highly probable—much though each of us for different reasons may regret it—that the assembly will not normally have a majority of members of any one political party and, therefore, will need to work on a co-operative basis. I believe that the election of the deputy mayor, working co-operatively with the mayor, would strengthen the authority as a whole. I anticipated that that view would not be shared by the Government Front Bench or indeed the Conservative Front Bench, but that does not necessarily make it wrong. Nevertheless, at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158 to 164 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Functions]:
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 24, line 9, leave out first ("Chair") and insert ("Chairman").
The noble Baroness said: I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 165 to 169 and 171 to 191.
However, before I do so, and with the leave of the Committee, I refer back to Amendment No. 154, on which I think I said, "This is not a sensible amendment". I would not have realised I had said that had it not been picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I did not intend to say that.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness. What I heard her say—I hope this is right—was that she was not moving the amendment because it was sensible. I thought that was rather a bizarre reason for not moving an amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Lord. I intended to say that as it is such a serious amendment, and as we were trying to move on, I would not move it this evening but bring it back on another occasion. I hope that clarifies the position for the record.

1019
The 26 identical amendments in the group to Clauses 42, 43 and 44 call for the deletion of the word "Chair" wherever it appears and its replacement by "Chairman".
Perhaps I may ask for the Committee's indulgence by mentioning my qualifications to speak on the subject of this series of amendments. From 1985 to 1988 I was Chairman of the 300 Group, an all-party organisation dedicated to getting more women into the other place. From 1986 to 1992 I was the Chairman of the Women into Public Life Campaign, dedicated to ensuring that more women receive more appointments to public bodies. For my efforts in those two spheres, Her Majesty honoured me with the MBE for,
"services in the advancement of the status of women in public and political life".
From 1993 to 1996 I was the Chairman of the Greater London Area of the Conservative Party. From 1990 to 1994 I was the Chairman of the Barnet Family Health Services Authority. Since 1997 I have been the Chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital and Community Friends.
In none of those offices has anybody dared to call me "the Chair". Maybe it is because, despite my well-known mild and self-effacing manner, they simply did not dare to, or maybe they realised that I am not someone who can be sat upon. Certainly I do not need any lessons from anyone on how the interests of women are best promoted. I believe that they are certainly not promoted by those who cause the women's movement to be held up to ridicule by the sort of verbal absurdity that we find perpetrated in the Bill.
The French, the Italians, the Spanish and the Portuguese languages have two genders for their nouns. Hundreds of other languages have the same defect. The Germans run to three—masculine, feminine and neuter—with the word for "Miss" being male for some unfathomable, Teutonic reason.
The Queen's English—your Lordships will note that the name of our language which is spoken all around the world is English, not British or United Kingdomish—fortunately does not assign any gender to its nouns. The word "chairman" does not assign any connotation of the sex of the holder of the office.
Another grotesque word that is sometimes used is "spokesperson". Thank goodness all the perpetrators of this sexist nonsense do not call him or her the "spoke". There is a story which I cannot prove that one local council decided that the phrase, "manhole cover" was politically incorrect; and since "personhole cover" was too crass even for them, referred to them as "horizontal aperture closures".
A female executor is called an "executrix"; so why is a female director not called a "directorix"? Why is a female judge not called a "judgess"? Female ushers are called "usherettes", so why is a female Minister of the Crown not called a "Ministerette"?
I use the phrase "sexist nonsense" because in the name of what they call "political correctness", verbal vandals actually perpetrate gender disputes where none exists. Only yesterday some noble Lords in this Chamber were talking about "Peers" and "Peeresses". I am not a Peeress; I am a Peer and am proud to be a
1020
Member of this House as a Peer. A "Peeress" is the wife of a Peer. I did not say the "spouse" of a Peer because I would not insult my poor husband who is sitting in the Peeress's Box.
As I said, a Peeress is the wife of a male Peer. I am a Peer and when someone stands up and says, "My Lords", that includes me and every other noble Baroness in this House. My summons from Her Majesty the Queen instructs me to attend "with the other Lords". There are those who say that we should be using this different language and argue that it is the symbolism that counts. It is not. What counts is getting our arguments across without detracting from the main point.
In saying that, perhaps I may touch on the issue of consistency. In the three clauses that I am discussing the, draftsman used the word "chair" 26 times. However, Schedule 21, paragraph (6)(1) requires the Metropolitan Police Authority to appoint not a "chair'', but a "chairman"—a "chairman", after all this other nonsense of 26 times calling it a "chair". Schedule 23(3) requires the mayor to appoint a "chairman" of the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and not just a chairman, but a vice-chairman as well. Schedule 14 provides for the payment to be made to the "chairman" of the London Transport Users' Committee. Section 237 amends the Regional Development Agencies Act, passed only last year, by providing for the mayor to appoint a "chairman". Lastly, whoever drafted paragraph (3) of Schedule 25 was clearly torn in two directions and produced the following compromise,
"Appointment of member to take chair",
and then it says,
"The Mayor shall appoint one of the members of the. Cultural Study Group for London to chair it".
The draftsman could not make up his mind whether it was a "chair" or a "chairman" and came up with those two sentences.
The amendments we are proposing make not one jot of difference to the Act or the working of the authority. But it eliminates a piece of linguistic nonsense that I should have thought the Government would prefer not to inflict on the residents of London or to give arty degree of credence to by including it in an Act of Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It is with the utmost reluctance that I rise to oppose my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, whom I first met in the 300 Group, which she was later to chair with elegance and distinction.
I have been a chairman, but not of as many organisations as the noble Baroness. After 11 years on Surrey County Council, during which I had insensibly—because all Liberal Democrats tend to speak in this language—unconsciously and unwillingly offended people by occasionally calling them "chair" when, according to the constitution of the county council I should have called them "chairman", I myself became chairman of the county council. I raised with the chief executive whether I could call myself "Chair". He said, "Certainly not". I said, "Why not?" He said, "Because

1021
of the way in which the standing orders of the county council are written at the moment you have been elected as a chairman and not as a chair".
This particular Bill is trying to guide—I put it no stronger than that—this modern institution into a more modern way of conducting its business. I believe that growing numbers of people find obnoxious terms which have "man" at the end of them, but are posts which may be filled with either men or women. Most of us do not get into a great tizzy about it, but we would still rather that things were not like that.
Some of the examples which the noble Baroness put before us did not follow the pattern of what she was saying. For example, the enviable characteristic of the word "judge" is that it does not distinguish between men and women. I could be a good or bad judge of a flower show, an apple, a taste or whatever I like. I cannot be a judge in court because I am not qualified, but Members of the Committee will know what I am trying to say.
If we are to be a little more modern let us choose one of the more acceptable modernisms. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that "chair" is preferable to "chairperson", which is a repulsive term. It also has the great advantage of being consistent with the longstanding formality such as the need to address oneself to the chair. It is a way in which the seat of authority becomes first the office and now it is attached to the person who holds that office just as it is attached to the person who sits in the chair.
Interestingly enough, I took part in this very same debate in my own party many years ago at nine o'clock in the morning in Dundee, which is not a very attractive place or hour at which to conduct that kind of debate. I knew that I would have against me a very distinguished member of my party who was extremely cultivated in his own tongue. In fact, he was an English scholar. So I referred to the English dictionary which was in two volumes. It was printed in such small print that one needed a magnifying glass to read it. That was kindly provided by my county council. I found that the earliest use of the words "chair" and "vice-chair" are in letters of about 1780, written by the chair and vice-chair of the East India Company to each other. I do not believe that we need any further justification for this very small shift towards modernism. It was not even that modern.
Baroness Blatch: I rise for the first time in this debate. Having had some experience of local government, I find it deeply frustrating not to he taking part in this Bill. But, given the convention of the House that we do not become involved in every Bill, I have been full of restraint. If we have heard the best intellectual justification for most inelegant language, then I find it rather feeble.
When I was leader of Cambridgeshire County Council until 1985, I was entirely happy to be called the leader of the council. Until that time there was no contention about it. In the May elections of that year Cambridgeshire became a hung council or, as I look back on it now, I prefer to call it an unhinged council. Within hours of taking office the next morning the
1022
persons leading the Liberal and Labour parties and myself came together to decide how we were going to run the council. I found depressing the hours of debate about what we called each other. That took predominance over issues such as health, education and the state of the roads.
It turned out that the leader of the council was hierarchical and anyway at that time we did not have any one party which could claim leadership over the council. So there was a great debate. By the end of the day I became known as "an equal member of an egalitarian triumvirate". I was meant to languish with some gratitude in this new title of mine, but I said, "If I am going to be chairman of anything, I would like to be called chairman".
We went through "chairman", at the Liberal behest, to "chairperson". Then there was a discussion about that, after which we became "chair". We then had another debate which followed where it was decided that "chair" was also hierarchical and unacceptable to the council. So we then went through yet another debate and became "spokesman" through to "spokesperson" and then to "spoke". I had to suffer the indignity of being called "Madam Spoke" at meetings.
I remember on one occasion insisting that if I was going to be sitting in the chair at a meeting and had to be called anything, I would like to be called "chairman". There ensued something like a three-quarters-of-an-hour debate describing me as a disgrace to my gender because I was being offensive to my Liberal and Labour colleagues on the council by insisting on being called "chairman". If it had not been so serious, it would have been absurd; indeed, it was taken to absurd lengths.
It is inelegant. We all know that "man" is a universal term for a human being. As an individual, I have no objection whatever to being called "Chairman" or "Madam Chairman"; they are equally acceptable to me. Similarly, I find the term "Ms" inelegant. When I was a Minister, I refused to call anyone "Ms"; indeed, I preferred to use the christian name rather than "Ms", because I think that that is also inelegant. We have corrupted the language with this kind of political correctness. I find that if offends more people than it pleases. Of course, it pleases the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. It has been on their political agenda for a very long time. However, I believe that it provides a disservice.
I know that the Minister will argue against my noble friend's amendment. There are two Ministers: a lady Minister and a gentleman Minister, and only one of them will respond. I am not a gambling lady. but I will bet that there will be an objection to my noble friend's amendment. I find that rather sad. First, my noble friend has argued the case most cogently; and, secondly, she has also referred to the inconsistencies in the Bill. For example, why is the term "chairman" acceptable in one part of the Bill and yet wholly unacceptable in another part? What is the argument and the intellectual justification for that?
My final statement relates to the Civil Service. This kind of language is endemic in the Civil Service; indeed, it knows no other. I have to say that I spent a good deal

1023
of my time and energy when I was a Minister in three departments—namely, the Department of the Environment, the Department for Education and the Home Office—fighting against this nonsense and this inelegance. I want to convey to my noble friend the fact that I support her most enthusiastically, but I am not hopeful that the amendment will bear fruit on the other side of the Committee.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: I cannot get enthusiastic for this debate and that probably proves something about business or the private sector. For 10 years I was in the chair—and I choose my words carefully—of Grand Metropolitan and everyone at every level called me Allen.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have been in the chair quite a lot and I have always been "the Convenor".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I knew what was going to happen as soon as I was asked to respond to this amendment. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. with whom, I believe, I maintain a good friendship, that if she is going to develop her argument about ushers and usherettes I have absolutely no intention of being a "Whippet". I think that that would be most offensive.
I was intrigued by this series of amendments. As others have said in this short debate, I am conscious of how sensitive an issue this can be. I shall not mention the various offices I have held, but I was proud at one time to be the chairman of Lancashire County Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, discussed the term "chair". I shall return to that point.
I agree that debates on this matter can become heated and fearsome. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would not want that to happen here. I found that I had to change what I called myself when I reached Crewe because otherwise I became locked in sterile debates. Occasionally I forgot to change my title when I was in Lancashire and called myself the chair. Various people objected to that. Or I referred to myself as a chairman south of Crewe and various people objected to that too. When I chaired a committee in Europe I found the term "president" easier.
I will outline our reasons for the use of the term "chair" rather than "chairman". It is just one part of our proposal to modernise London governance.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We decided to update the terminology used to refer to the presiding officers of the assembly to a usage now recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary. When I acted in the capacity of chairman of Lancashire County Council on several occasions primary schoolchildren asked me how I could be the chairman as they expected to see a man. There is a serious point here as regards children's expectations of our democratically elected representatives.
1024
It is true that previous legislation uses the term "chairman". Where this Bill modifies earlier Acts or makes provisions in the context of earlier legislation, the term "chairman" therefore appears. Alternatively we could have insisted on bringing before the Chamber amending legislation to all previous legislation 10 enable us to use—this would appear more logical on the face of it—the term "chair" throughout. However, we think it is unpractical in legal or handling terms to ensure consistency across the whole Bill by amending all references to "chairman" to "chair". The references to "chair" are therefore confined to the authority itself.
The authority could also choose to designate the leaders of its various committees as "chair" should it wish to do so, as happens now in relation to bodies established by the Local Government Act 1972. Therefore I think that there is a logic here. I hope that the Committee will not discuss this matter at length on many occasions because I know from past experience how much time that can take. Perhaps it may soothe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if I tell her that I wrote down carefully the letters, EMET. Those letters, if pronounced phonetically, sound like a small, industrious animal. I am sure that it is not at all offensive to be an EMET.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: What is an EMET?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that the noble Baroness was part of an egalitarian body in Cambridgeshire. I have forgotten the exact terms but together they form the word EMET.
Baroness Blatch: I was an equal member of an egalitarian triumvirate—a nonsense which I had no part of.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I find it hard to believe that in any gathering of which the noble Baroness was an egalitarian member she did not play a full role.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank my noble friend for adding to what I said. When she said they called her "Madam Spoke", I made a joke saying "Thank goodness they do not call a spokesman a "spoke"" I cannot imagine that anyone would call a person a "spoke". That sounds extraordinary.
My noble friend mentioned that, apart from being described as "Alan", he was described as "sitting in the chair". I have another friend who, when he became elected leader of his group on the council, said to the lady taking the minutes, "Please, do not describe me as "Councillor so and so, the chair" because I do not consider that I am a chair. I do not like the word; I am not a "chair"; I am a "chairman'"'. The lady taking the minutes said that she was not able to do that because under the rules and regulations he had to be described as a "chair". Eventually, they came to a kind of stand-off where the minutes said "Councillor so and so was sitting in the chair". That brings me back to the point that my noble friend made a few moments ago.

1025
I listened with care to the explanation given by the Minister as to why in certain places in the Bill it refers to "chairman" and "vice-chairman" as opposed to those places where it refers to "chair". I shall go through all those clauses very carefully to ascertain whether the words are simply being brought in to replace a word that was already there. It seems to me that perhaps different draftsmen were involved; some more politically correct than others.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch that there is a serious point involved here. What we said was not just for fun and an attempt to make the matter look even sillier than it is; political correctness is creeping in everywhere. The Minister said that she hoped I would withdraw the amendment. I was tempted to divide the Committee, not only on this amendment but, at some stage, to divide 26 times. But it is late and she need have no fear that that will happen tonight.
I am sorry that the Minister did not have a "persondate" to accept my amendments. It would have been extremely nice had she been able to do so. I shall certainly check and do all the things I said I would.
Baroness Blatch: I believe my noble friend is about to withdraw her amendment. If that is the case, before she does so, I wonder whether the Minister can help me further in answer to my question about why there is an inconsistency between the use of "chairman" and "chair" throughout the Bill. On page 235, in Schedule 14, there is a reference to "chairman" but no reference to an Act of Parliament. The Minister said it occurred when it refers to Acts of Parliament. On page 279 there is also a reference to "chairman"; again there is no reference to an Act of Parliament. On page 303 there is a reference to "chairman" and "vice-chairman"; again there is no reference to an Act of Parliament. It would be helpful to know to which Acts of Parliament the examples I have mentioned refer, which gives the right for the distinction to be made between the use of "chairman" and "chair".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The first example the noble Baroness gave referred to the London Transport Users' Committee, which is established under a different Act of Parliament. I have not had time to check whether that is the case in every example she gave. It is my understanding that that is the way the Bill has been drafted.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As to that particular point, I have said that I shall check all of those issues. Perhaps officials will manage to check the other side of the matter for the noble Baroness because we shall return to it. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 166 to 169 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 24, line 15, leave out from ("conferred") to end of line 16 and insert ("upon him by the Assembly pursuant to section 45").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 170. I think it will not detain the Committee as long as the previous group of amendments. Clause 42 deals with the functions of those who hold the chair and deputy chair of the assembly. Clause 42(2) deals with the function of chairing. I am trying to choose my words carefully so as not to alienate the Conservative Benches. Clause 42(2)(b) provides that the chair of the assembly shall have,
"such other functions as may be conferred or imposed … under this Act or any other enactment".
My amendment proposes that, rather than functions conferred by primary legislation, the functions will be those conferred by the assembly under Clause 45, which deals with assembly procedure—in other words, under standing orders.
I wish to make two points. The lesser is that the details of the functions, in addition to chairing meetings, will be matters for the standing orders. The other point is: if any functions are to be conferred by legislation, are they to be conferred on the authority rather than the individual person who is to chair meetings or act as chair of the assembly? This provision seems to open up an inappropriate opportunity to confer functions which, if they are set out anywhere, should be in the Bill. What we are really talking about is a procedural matter which would be best dealt with by standing orders.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The first element of the noble Baroness's amendment would delete the reference to the chair of the assembly having those functions conferred or imposed on him by the Bill. That simply means that the chair will have the functions that Parliament decides that he or she should have; for example, presiding over assembly meetings or standing in for the mayor if there is both a mayoral and deputy mayoral vacancy. So I do not accept the proposed deletion from Clause 42(2)(b).
As to the second part of the noble Baroness's amendment, it is unnecessary. Clause 45 allows the assembly to determine its own procedures and Clause 46 enables the assembly to arrange for its functions, other than where expressly prohibited, to be discharged by a single assembly member. The assembly will, therefore, be able to confer other functions on the chair if it so wishes. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the hope of slightly decreasing the average time that is spent on groupings, I simply beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Appointment]:
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 186 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Meetings of the whole Assembly]:
[Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 188A:
Page 25, line 8, leave out from ("election") to ("there").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 188A and 188B were tabled for entirely humanitarian reasons. As drafted, the Bill requires the assembly, after its first meeting, to meet,
"thereafter at intervals of not more than one month … to consider the Mayor's monthly written report".
It is not unknown for this House to become somewhat edgy if it is required to sit into August, and it becomes even more concerned if it has to return in September. We are probably asking a great deal of both the mayor and the assembly that they should have to meet monthly, year in, year out, non-stop, without the facility for any break at all.
It is for that simple humanitarian reason that I move Amendment No. 188A and commend Amendment No. 188B. These two amendments remove the requirement to meet at intervals of not more than one month and remove the adjective "monthly" from the subsequent paragraph (a). That is in order to allow those who, we hope, are as human as Members of this House to have a short break during the summer. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: If everything has a humanitarian intention—I take the noble Lord's word for it and I know him to be fairly humanitarian—I hope we will not be kept up too long on this Bill in the subsequent Committee days. Nevertheless, if the amendment has a humanitarian intention, the noble Lord should have moved an amendment stating, "except for August" or words to that effect. The effect of what the noble Lord suggests would be far more drastic than he intended. It would delete the requirement in Clause 44(2) to ensure that the mayor appears regularly before the assembly and provides a written report to that assembly. If we delete "monthly" then the mayor would have to present himself or herself to the assembly not later than 15 days after the election and never again thereafter.
The noble Lord entertained us earlier with the story of his acquaintance, a French mayor, who disappeared to Mexico. The amendment would enable the mayor to do so without any further requirement for him to appear and produce a report. Clearly that was not the noble Lord's intention, and if he wishes to consider the matter, I am sure that the deletion of August could be given reasonable consideration. It is in most local government standing orders that they meet monthly. Nevertheless, in practice some monthly meetings are cancelled.
If that was the noble Lord's intention, he put forward the wrong amendment and may wish to consider it for a later stage.
Lord Tope: I entirely share the humanitarian concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I also agree with the comments of the Minister. For those reasons I shall not support the amendments as drafted because of their effect. Nevertheless, the noble Lord
1028
raised an important point. Perhaps rather than the Opposition bringing back an amendment, it is a small point that the Government should consider. It is probably not correct that most local authorities' standing orders require them to meet monthly, but it is a matter for those authorities to determine. Here we are talking about legislation which has the effect of requiring the assembly to meet in August. I doubt whether the Government gave that any thought; it is hardly a major matter. However, since it has been raised and I expect that the assembly would prefer not to meet in August, at the very least it should be free to determine itself whether to do so. Perhaps the Government should consider the point before a later stage.
Lord Whitty: I will undertake to consider the point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who made a proper point. I am not certain at this stage whether it is I or the Minister who should bring forward an appropriate amendment. I am glad that the point is taken. There is sometimes virtue in moving an amendment incorrectly because it produces the desired response. That is exactly what I received. If the Minister would be kind enough to say that he would bring forward the appropriate amendment, he might do it on terms with which he would not have to argue. However, if he invites me to do it, I might have to use terms with which he would still wish to argue. That would take more time, so perhaps he would consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 188B to 191 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Assembly procedure]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 25, line 32, at end insert ("and may publish standing orders accordingly").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 192 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 193. Neither amendment raises a major point. Amendment No. 192 provides that the assembly, having determined its own procedure and that of its committees under Clause 45(1),
"may publish standing orders accordingly".
I assumed that the assembly would publish standing orders but, given the prescription of the Bill, I thought it better to ask. Amendment No. 193 seeks to leave out Clause 45(2)(c) which provides that the subsection to which I have just referred is subject to any other provision under this Bill or any future, or even past, legislation. My particular query is related to future legislation. Why is it necessary to say this, since I assume that future legislation will in any event override this legislation? Perhaps the Minister can assist me as to the necessity for the whole of that provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 45 enables the assembly to determine its own procedure and that of its committees (including quorum) except where provisions in this Bill provide otherwise. Amendment No. 192 would steer it towards publishing its standing orders but would not require it to do so. In the circumstances, this seems to be an unintended effect of the amendment. As currently drafted, Clause 45 permits the assembly to determine its own procedures. Therefore, the option of whether or not to publish its standing orders already exists under that discretion. Frankly, I find it difficult to conceive of an authority which would think it other than sensible to publish its standing orders to assist its members, staff and the public to understand its proceedings.
Amendment No. 193 would delete subsection (3) of Clause 45 from the Bill. This is an essential provision. Although the assembly is rightly allowed a considerable degree of discretion, it must still follow the provisions of this Bill and legislation that affect the procedures of the assembly which we believe are essential for the effective and transparent working of the authority. For example, we have provided in the Bill for a series of meetings and debates, which we have debated with great seriousness in this House, and also required that the political balance of the authority should be reflected in its committees.
We do not believe that it should be possible for the assembly to disregard these matters. I am sure the noble Baroness agrees that it is important for the committees to reflect the political balance of the authority. They and other provisions of the Bill play an important part in determining the culture and nature of the authority. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the noble Baroness, and therefore I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As to the first matter, the Minister has answered my question in the affirmative. I am still not convinced that it is necessary to have Clause 45(2)(c). I do not for a moment part company with the noble Baroness on the proposition that the procedure of the assembly must be subject to legislation. I would have thought that that was the case without the need to say so, but I shall not labour the point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the noble Baroness if I make clear that the procedures can be subject to future legislation, but sometimes legal arguments arise as to whether a later Act overrides an earlier one.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 192A and 193 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 194:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
BROADCASTING OF AND ACCESS TO PROCEEDINGS
(" .(1) The Authority shall provide facilities to enable proceedings of the Assembly and its committees or extracts therefrom, to be broadcast both live and as recorded on radio and television, and at the Authority's discretion, over the internet.
(2) The Authority may provide such facilities free of charge, or may make a reasonable charge approximately equal to the cost to it of it providing such facilities.
(3) The Authority shall provide without charge adequate facilities to enable representatives of all bodies having functions under this Act and the London boroughs and the Common Council and accredited representatives of the media and a reasonable number of members of the public to attend—

(a) any meetings of the Assembly, and

(b) any meetings of its committees at which the public is entitled to be present.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 194 speaks for itself. First, it requires the authority to provide facilities for broadcasting on the radio and television. It gives the authority a discretion about additional broadcasting over the Internet, but I freely admit that that cautious approach about this new means of communication is only because it is new, and possibly all the ramifications and implications of it have not yet been discovered.
It allows the authority to make a reasonable charge for providing the facility because I suppose that it could cost the authority something by way of heating, lighting and the supply of electricity and so on. On the other hand, the authority has a discretion not to charge if, for example, the sums involved are not worth the bookkeeping trouble, or if the authority felt it ought not to make a charge as part of its public service.
Parliament fought a rearguard action for years, decades even, first against radio broadcasting and later against television. No-one would now doubt the value of both means, especially television, in informing the public about the activities of Parliament, especially of the other place. If there is some reservation in some quarters about the public actually seeing the antics that sometimes occur in the other place, they have only themselves to blame. The same applies to the temptation for some members to play to the camera in the hope that they may get on the "Six O'Clock News".
My only complaint about the broadcasting of Parliament is that not enough is shown of the proceedings in your Lordships' House and, when one listens to the debate here and compares it to the debate in the other place, one is really disappointed that the public do not see more of what is happening here. Perhaps the public would have a much better idea of what we do if they saw more of our very well-informed debates and Question Times and, if I may say so, the very courteous way in which they are conducted on all sides of the House.
In our opinion, if the broadcasting of Parliament or extracts from its proceedings is an everyday feature of the news, there is no reason why the affairs of the assembly should not be the same. Of course, there is no

1031
obligation at all on the broadcasters to broadcast anything, but that will depend on how interesting or otherwise the assembly's proceedings are. There is certainly enough space on the new digital and cable channels to fit in the assembly without depriving anybody of the re-runs of old soap operas and sitcoms, even though they do not seem to make programmes like them any more.
Apart from providing facilities for broadcasting its proceedings, the amendment requires the authority to provide facilities for the London boroughs and the Common Council, and for a reasonable number of members of the public to be present at the meetings of the assembly and at committee meetings. I am surprised that this last item is not already provided for specifically in the Bill. I do not think we should be told that such matters are provided for in this or that local government act. If I do not have the time to look it up—and, frankly, I do not—why should members of the public, with fewer facilities than I enjoy, have to do so?
This Bill is about the Greater London Authority and, so far as possible, it should be self-contained, even if an extra couple of lines of text are needed in an already giant-sized Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the Greater London Authority should provide these facilities for broadcasting. However, I find it difficult to conceive that the 25 politicians who will comprise the assembly, and still less, the mayor, will be so publicity shy and so reluctant that they have to be required by statute to do so. That is just not a real probability, either with the nature of the authority or in this day and age. Whilst I have every sympathy for, and indeed support, the intentions here, I do wonder how it squares with the view which we take on these Benches, and indeed has been taken on the Conservative Benches on a number of occasions, that the Bill is already much too prescriptive. I question why it is necessary to put it on the face of the Bill when it is so improbable that a publicity shy mayor and a publicity shy assembly will refuse to allow the people of London to know or to hear what they are saying.
Therefore, I have considerable doubts about the amendment and suspect that I am about to hear the Minister tell us that it is not necessary.
Lord Whitty: I am about to echo the noble Lord's views on the matter. It is fairly unlikely that London's politicians will decide that the proceedings should not be broadcast. This amendment asks us to compel the authority to do so. When your Lordships' House, well ahead of the other place, decided that it wanted its proceedings broadcast, that was our decision. It was not laid down by statute. We should favour the new authority with the same freedom to decide whether or not its proceedings should be broadcast. I believe that it will decide so to do.
In specifying the requirements of the new GLA building, the Government will require the provision of media facilities. Therefore, in one sense, we are anticipating such a decision. But it is a decision for the authority to make.
1032
With regard to the provision of adequate facilities, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct because I refer her to the arrangements for the public to attend which exist in other legislation relating to local authorities; in particular, the Local Government Act 1972. The provisions will require the proceedings of the authority, unless subject to confidentiality, to be open to the public. The same criteria which apply to other local authorities in relation to access to meetings and documents will apply to the GLA. I am sure that the GLA members will wish to make clear to their public the facilities which are available for them to view their debates.
Therefore, the first part of the amendment is over-prescriptive and the second part is unnecessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I cannot argue with the Minister's explanation for refusing my small amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 195:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
PETITIONS
(" .—(1) The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Assembly may receive petitions bearing such minimum numbers of signatures of electors registered in Greater London as the assembly may from time to time determine.
(2) Any petition so received shall be the subject of a report from the Mayor to the Assembly including specific comments on such matters contained in it as the Assembly may request.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, very lightly, imposes a further duty on the mayor, his deputy or the assembly; namely, the duty to receive petitions from the electors of Greater London.
The assembly will fix the minimum number of signatories required to protect the mayor or the assembly from being pestered by crackpots and small but vociferous single-issue groups. I say that it is a light duty because the clause provides only that the mayor or assembly "may", not "shall" receive petitions. That will entitle them to reject petitions which are no-hopers. Once the petition has been received, the petitioners will be sure that their request will be considered or their complaint investigated. We believe that that facility is important in any democracy. It is certainly available in the other place, where there is a long tradition of petitions being put "in the Bag", which hangs symbolically behind the Speaker's Chair.
The assembly will represent 7 million Londoners and a vast number of businesses. As I have already had to remind the Committee on several occasions, the assembly members will be remote from them because of the way in which the assembly is constituted Therefore, a means of direct access to the mayor and assembly, as a matter of importance to a substantial number of Londoners, is vital.
The proposed subsection (2) makes sure that the petition is not pigeon-holed before it has at least been considered. This amendment provides a facility which any democratic legislature should be only too willing to provide. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: Again, I have much sympathy with what lies behind the amendment but I wonder about it. First, I do not think it is possible to draft any legislation that can protect us from crackpots. If there is, after 25 years in local government, I hope the Government will pass it very soon.
I cannot think that it is necessary to have legislation to enable the authority to receive petitions. I am sure they will come anyway. The important point, which is in part addressed in the second part of the proposed new clause, is what happens when the petition has been received. In that sense, I am not certain that this goes far enough. I hope that the mayor and the assembly will make provision for petitioners presenting a proper petition, in terms of the legislation, not only to present their petition but to speak to it, explain what it is about and be available to answer questions. That is what many good local authorities of all political persuasions already do, and have done for many years.
Therefore, the amendment is probably not adequate, but I return to my previous point, which is why it should be necessary to have it in the legislation in the first place, legislation we are already describing as too prescriptive. It seems to me that this is a proper and appropriate matter for the mayor and the assembly to decide for themselves. They cannot refuse to receive petitions; petitions will arrive anyway. It is inconceivable that a petition received from a number of Londoners will not be considered properly. It is for the mayor and the assembly to determine these matters: what constitutes a proper petition for their consideration—presumably signed by a given number of electors, or representative bodies and so on; and how they will treat petitions in terms of hearing petitioners and so on. These are matters which are properly considered by the mayor and the assembly, not matters which need to be enshrined in legislation.
As I have said, most local authorities already have some provision for dealing with petitions from people who live and work in their areas, but so far as I know there is no legislation, nor any intention of legislation, requiring local authorities to have such a provision. So, while I entirely support the objectives of the amendment, I cannot support it, because the matter should be left to the mayor and the assembly to determine how they want to deal with it.
Lord Whitty: Without any collusion whatsoever, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has made my case for me. I have nothing to add, and I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment in the light of the noble Lord's remarks.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think I might withdraw in view of the fact that the Minister agrees
1034
with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but I shall not do so on the basis of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, making those comments.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Discharge of functions by committees or single members]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 25, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The clause deals with aspects of the procedure of the assembly, specifically its power to delegate. It says that it may delegate either to a committee of the assembly, which is entirely acceptable, or to a single member. I have some hesitation about delegating to a single member. I am not aware that that would be practice anywhere else in local government, or indeed in general. It is, of course, not unusual for a body to appoint committees, and it may even be that the committees will subsequently delegate aspects of their work to the chairman. But that would always be subject to the sanction of the committee.
It is not for us to lay down on the face of the Bill in detail the way in which the assembly shall do its business. So what we are dealing with here is perhaps more a matter of judgment than something which should appear on the face of the Bill.
I am concerned that the assembly may delegate some of its functions to one member to be discharged on its behalf. That is a quite extraordinary arrangement. It was because of that scepticism that we tabled the amendment. We wish to explore what is in the Government's mind in making this extraordinary proposition. I do not think that it is a wise one. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before he replies, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I share the concerns of my noble friend.
Clause 46(1)states:
"Subject to any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act, the Assembly may arrange for any of the functions excisable by it to be discharged on its behalf ",
by a single member of the authority. However, subsection (3) states:
"Subsection(1)(b) above does not apply in relation to functions under or by virtue of section 20A of the Police Act 1996 (questions by Assembly members to representatives of the Metropolitan Police Authority)".
Given that that is an area which cannot be delegated to a single member of the assembly, does the Minister argue that almost any function contained within the Bill can be delegated to a single member of the assembly?
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 196A takes up a similar point to that made by the noble Baroness.

1035
I have provided that the ability to delegate to a single member,
"does not apply to functions relating to the capital spending plan",
of the authority. That seems far too significant to allow a single member to deal with it. I doubt that the assembly would agree to delegate functions to a single member in that connection. But, for instance, under Clause 108 the assembly's comments on the plan are invited. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for a single member to respond.
Lord Whitty: One of the oddities about this debate is that for most of the evening we have been accused of being over-prescriptive but when we are allowing the assembly to determine its own procedures we are attacked. Amendment No. 196 would prevent any function of the assembly from being delegated to an individual assembly member. Amendment No. 196A relates to a specific matter. But Amendment No. 196 is a substantial restriction on the assembly's ability to decide its own procedures. The Bill contains a number of restrictions on the assembly's ability to decide how to discharge its functions. As regards a handful of key functions, such as questioning the mayor, the exercise of assembly power to summon, the assembly's role in deciding the budget and matters in relation to the chief finance officer and the auditor, under the existing provisions of the Bill a single member cannot exercise any of those functions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, drew our attention to the clause in relation to the police authority.
In general, we say that the assembly will determine its own procedures, and in other areas there is the freedom for the assembly to delegate to a group or single individual. I do not believe that it is likely that the assembly will delegate a substantial role in capital spending to a single member of the assembly. Nevertheless, I believe that it is right that the assembly has the authority to determine its own procedures in that respect.
Noble Lords may believe that this is a way in which the majority group on the assembly would deny other assembly members the ability to scrutinise the mayor. That is not the implication because Clause 44(3) makes clear that assembly members will be able to question the mayor in all respects; and we intend to bring forward amendments in relation to written answers too. The Bill does not affect the ability of any other member of the assembly in exercising the scrutiny function. What it does is to provide the authority with the ability to so organise the procedures that there is an element of delegation to committees and individual members. Whether that is likely to be the situation in the case of capital spending is another matter. But it should be left to the assembly to decide. Therefore, I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: What matters is the words on the page, not what the Minister has said in reply. I assume that there can be delegation to a single member of the assembly unless there is an express provision stating that there cannot be delegation to a single member of the assembly. In that event, I cannot understand why there
1036
is only one area referred to in subsection (3). In the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a single member of the authority could receive delegated power from the mayor and act without accountability, but there is no mention of those to whom they would be accountable and whether the power would be an absolute power to act as an individual in the name of the assembly. The Minister's reply simply did not address that concern. One must therefore assume that any other provision in the Bill could be delegated not only to a committee but to an individual member who could act without accountability, representing the whole assembly and, I assume, then reporting back to the committee or to the mayor.
Lord Whitty: The functions I referred to in my initial reply are provided for in Clause 44 which deals with meetings. It expressly states that Clause 46 shall not apply. The next reference to Clause 46 not being applicable is in Clause 52(1) and there are others relating to the budget, for example, recurring throughout the Bill. The restrictions are not referred to in this clause because there are already exclusions within the Bill.
It is only the Metropolitan Police point, which does not appear elsewhere in the Bill, that needs to be expressly added in the clause. All other areas where there should be a restriction are dealt with in the Bill. That may not be enough for the noble Baroness. Clearly, it is not enough for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to Amendment No.197A which deals with capital spending, but that is how the Bill is drafted.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He will not be surprised to hear that I am not satisfied with it. Nonetheless, we will study the matter carefully and may return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I96A not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Openness]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 197.
Page 26, line 30, leave out ("which is available to").
The noble Lord said: As a general rule, in local government any document that is in the possession of the authority, unless it contains information which is either commercially sensitive or personally sensitive, is, by right, available to the public.
If I have correctly understood the drafting of Clause 48, it provides that any document in the possession of the authority and available to the assembly shall be available to the public. That puts the mayor of London in a unique situation. As I read it, if he holds documents which are not available to the assembly because he does not make them available, they are not available for publication. The consequence is that it is much more difficult for members of the public to discover and understand what advice the mayor might be receiving on particular issues. Information on planning and highways issues, and many

1037
other subjects, are of great interest to the general public and are highly contentious. The public will want to know what guidance the mayor is receiving and I believe that they are entitled to know that.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 197 and 197A is to remove the exclusion so that documents held by the mayor are also available to the public. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord said that he was not clear about how the clause operated. I am not clear as to how his amendment would operate. I assume that it is intended to extend the rights of assembly members under Section 100F of the Local Government Act 1972 to inspect documents relating to any business to be transacted at a meeting of the assembly. As currently drafted, Clause 48(3) provides that this right to inspect documents applies only to documents available to the assembly. This means that assembly members will not have the right to inspect advice to the mayor. The amendment would allow assembly members to inspect documents which were in the possession of the GLA and the assembly. It is not certain whether it would in fact allow rights of inspection to all GLA documents, as I assume it is intended to do.
Amendment No. 197A would require the authority to make available for inspection on request any document in its possession which did not contain information defined as exempt or confidential under the terms to which the noble Lord referred.
The Government cannot accept either of these amendments. We have made it clear that the arrangements for access to information for the GLA are to be tailored to the separation of the executive and scrutiny functions within the authority. The provisions of the Bill are designed to provide private space for the mayor to consider policy options and to take decisions. This means that the mayor is being treated more as a Minister than as an equivalent to other local authority leaders, committee chairs or whatever.
We have done that consciously because the GLA is a unique form of city-wide government. We are separating the executive and scrutiny function and it is not structured like other local authorities. It therefore requires tailor-made mechanisms for accountability, and the Bill includes provision for the mayor to make a monthly report to the assembly setting out the decisions he has taken and so forth. However, it does not allow access to the advice from the officials of the authority to the mayor. Therefore, the approach is not identical to that for a traditionally structured local authority. It has more resonance with Whitehall and Westminster, and we believe that the executive power of the mayor requires the personal advice given to him to be outside the provisions of access to other GLA documents.
I expect that there will be some opposition to that provision, but it is intentional. In any case, I am sure that it is not one that the amendment corrects. I am working on the presumption that the amendment was intended to do so, in which case I shall have to oppose it.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I now understand why there is so much difficulty in making progress on the subject of open government. It seems to me that the sort of shadowy secrecy in which the Government indulge is being permitted to spread.
I have listened with interest to what the Minister has had to say. I accept that we are establishing a new type of authority with an entirely new way of working that will have an executive mayor who in some ways will be able to act in a similar fashion to a Minister of government. However, I would have thought that, although we are establishing a new authority, we could have moved the procedures with regard to openness forward in this regard.
I do not accept the Minister's response to these amendments. If they do not wholly achieve what I had set out to achieve, I shall have another go. We can take the matter no further this evening. If my amendments are faulty, as the Minister advises me they may be, it would not be wise to press them. We shall return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197A not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Proposals by the Assembly to the Mayor]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 197B:
Page 27, line 15, at end insert —
("() The Mayor shall take such steps as are necessary to implement any proposal submitted by the Assembly under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 197B. Clause 50 provides that,
"the Assembly may submit a proposal to the Mayor".
My amendment adds that,
"The Mayor shall take such steps as are necessary to implement",
such a proposal. I have no doubt that I shall be told by the Government that the assembly should not have the ability to bind the mayor in that way.
The point is that the mayor should be required to do something about it and not just say to the assembly, "That is very nice, thank you", and not even consider the matter. If that is so, why is it necessary to have Clause 50, which says that the assembly can submit a proposal to the mayor£ That seems to be the sort of commonsense thing that one would expect the assembly to be able to do. If the assembly cannot bind the mayor but can simply put a point to the mayor, that would not require a clause in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: I find it extraordinary that the exponents of the great Liberal traditions seem unable to grasp the concept of the separation of powers in the Bill. The noble Baroness and the Liberal Democrat Party adopt a logical position: they do not like the separation of powers. Once we have the separation of powers, we have to be logical about the matter, and that is the position of the Government.

1039
The amendment of the noble Baroness does not say that the mayor should take seriously any proposals. It says that the mayor should implement such proposals. In effect, that turns the assembly into the executive arm of the authority. That is not the intention. Certainly we would expect the mayor to take them seriously and to give a considered response to them. That is not what the amendment says. It therefore cuts across the intention of the whole structure of the authority.
I understand that Clause 37(2)(c) needs to be read with this amendment. That indicates that the mayor must respond to assembly proposals. The fact that the mayor has to take the assembly seriously in such proposals is clearly written into legislation. But this provision would go far further than that and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As I said when I moved the amendment, I knew that the proposition that the mayor should simply have to do what the assembly asks would not be attractive. I understand the separation of powers. That does not mean that we will not go on protesting about that separation.
I was glad to be referred to Clause 37(2)(c), but whether proposals have to be submitted under a particular section or simply submitted without the legislative provision is the point that I was making. However, we keep having the same debate as to how much it is necessary to show on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 27, line 20, leave out (", (3), (4)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 198 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 200, 200A and 201.
Clause 51 gives the assembly powers to summon persons into its presence to give evidence on various matters. This statutory power is unique in local government. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong on that point. The power is analogous to that inherently belonging to Parliament. Looking forward to Clause 54, we see there that the power is backed by severe criminal sanctions; that is, a fine of up to £5,000 and three months' imprisonment. Unlike in other spheres of local government, the assembly does not make most decisions and does not necessarily have access to offices, or the right to receive documents and explanations. Hence the assembly's access to information is restricted.
It is argued that there is therefore a need to allow the assembly to summon persons connected with the authority to give evidence and to produce documents. I should have thought that the place for the assembly to go for that information was the mayor, his officials and his office. However, the Government feel otherwise. So
1040
we find draconian powers, backed up by severe penalties affecting people who by any normal process would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the assembly.
Amendment No. 198 is a paving amendment to make way for the deletion of subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) catches any person who within the preceding three years had a contractual relationship with the authority or with a member of his staff. Subsection (4) catches anybody who has received a grant from the authority or a member of his staff.
The best way to illustrate the excessive nature of these provisions is to reduce them to a number of examples. Anyone having a contractual relationship with the authority could be any business any where in the EEC because of the obligations for open tendering across the EU. We could therefore have a firm in Greece, not within the jurisdiction of the British courts, being summoned before the assembly under threat of sanctions in the magistrates' court, which equally has no jurisdiction. We could even try to summon a clerk in the Greek firm who did not speak English. Similarly, this would be an opportunity for disgruntled employees—or, more likely, former employees—to create problems. Its scope is so wide that a sub-committee bent on empire building or its chairman bent on personal or political advancement could summon a wide range of witnesses irrespective of need or relevance simply to make a name for himself or themselves. We have only to look across the Atlantic to see what can happen when one has committees with untrammelled powers to subpoena witnesses. Simply put, the power is just too wide. The Government must take the provision back to the drawing board and produce something more practical and reasonable.
Similarly, we object to subsection (10). That exempts the mayor's two political advisers, paid for at the public expense, and his staff paid for by the taxpayer from having to give evidence to the assembly. I realise that there is an argument that if they could not give advice in confidence they would be inhibited in their work. But I repeat that these people are paid for by the council tax payers and that they should be directly answerable to the assembly. The staff of Ministers are not exempt from appearing before parliamentary committees, however distinguished their rank in the Civil Service. We only have to recall how the Cabinet Secretary himself, now the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, was put on the rack in an Australian court in 1986 and had to admit that he had been economical with the truth over the Spycatcher affair to see how even the most senior civil servants in the country can be called to give an account before a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
We seek to delete subsection (10). It is partially contradictory to Clause 59(4) and (5). These two subsections stipulate that any of the 10 members of the mayor's personal staff, other than his special advisers, must, if so required by the assembly, attend every routine monthly meeting of the assembly and answer any questions put to them. If they have to attend the routine meetings and answer questions, why should they not be required to attend special investigation meetings and answer questions? Conversely, how does subsection (10) prevent the assembly from asking awkward

1041
questions of the mayor's personal staff at the normal monthly meetings? Ministers themselves are answerable to select committees. Why should the mayor's advisers and staff not be answerable to the local taxpayers via the assembly? There is no reason or need to create an unaccountable elite.
Amendment No. 201 is simply a small drafting amendment to Clause 53. That clause states that the Secretary of State may by order prescribe the categories of information a person who is required to give evidence to the assembly may refuse to give and the categories of documents that he may refuse to produce. That may be helpful to a potential witness or it may not. Clause 54(3) confirms that a person is not obliged to answer questions or to produce documents to the assembly if he could refuse to do so in an ordinary court. That is quite right.
The purpose of our amendment is to make sure that any order made by the Secretary of State does not erode the right that a person has. It is arguable that by a convoluted trick from Clause 51(1) and Clauses 52 and 53 and Clause 54(3) the result is achieved without our amendment. To assist the layman who may be faced with a summons from the assembly, the addition of just four simple words makes it plain and avoids the journey that I have just described. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These amendments are not acceptable to us. The assembly must be able to undertake the proper scrutiny of the actions of the mayor and of the staff of the authority. The categories of summonable organisations and individuals that we have identified in the Bill are those who will be responsible for either the allocation of the GLA's resources or their use. As such they must be able to be held to account by the authority to avoid abuse and to expose abuse.
As regards individuals or organisations which have had a contractual relationship with the authority or who have been paid a grant by it, they have a duty to explain whether or not they have fulfilled the contract, subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. Individuals or bodies who might have been at fault where contracts have been let illegally or grants have been used for purposes other than that for which they were given might very well be unwilling to accept the assembly's invitation to meet them were it not backed by sanctions. That is why we have provided them in this clause.
If such persons or bodies could not be summoned, which is what the noble Baroness is proposing in the amendments, the assembly would be incapable of ensuring that the public funds for which it is responsible were not misused. However, the need for scrutiny does not need to extend to the scrutiny of the advice or political advice which the mayor receives, as we discussed when dealing with the previous amendment.
Amendment No. 201 would make the Secretary of State's order-making powers in Clause 53 subject to the provisions of Clause 54(3). Under Clause 53, the Secretary of State would be able to prescribe categories of information which someone summoned by the assembly could legitimately refuse to give. Clause 54(3) already exempts people who are summoned from having
1042
to give evidence to the assembly which they would be entitled to refuse were they in a court in England or Wales. As drafted, the provisions of Clause 53 could not override or affect the Clause 54 provisions and, therefore, do not need to be subject to them as proposed in the amendment. We believe that the assembly needs the powers set out in these clauses and that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister tell the Committee how the political adviser will be accountable and held to account publicly?
Lord Whitty: I can tell the noble Baroness that it is the mayor who is publicly accountable, not his individual political advisers. It is the same situation as one has in Whitehall.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the Minister misunderstood my question. I repeat: how is the political adviser to be held accountable publicly?
Lord Whitty: The role of a political adviser is to provide political advice to the mayor. The mayor is responsible for the actions taken, not the political adviser. Therefore, the legal adviser is in a different role from the rest of the staff of the authority.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before I express in full my disappointment in the Minister's answer, perhaps he could comment on another matter. Earlier I asked about Clause 51 which gives the assembly powers to summon persons into its presence to give evidence on various matters. The noble Lord may remember that I then leapt forward to Clause 54 and talked about the power being backed by severe criminal sanctions. I then returned to Clause 51 and said that I believed that that statutory power was unique to local government. I would like the Minister to comment on that aspect.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness is right to say that this is unique to local government, as indeed are the powers of the mayor and the authority.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I know of no other system whereby people can be called forward and then it is down to an assembly to decide the matter. People can end with fines of up to £5,000 or three months' imprisonment. I find this whole series of matters, galloping as it does from one to the other, to be totally unsatisfactory. If I may say so, it is extraordinarily late at night. The best that I can do at this stage is to say that we will take it away; but this is not a matter that will be dropped. We will return to it. This whole matter is absolutely shocking.
In passing, I have to make a further comment. This Bill grew like Topsy in the other place. Yet we have dealt with clause after clause which is not clear, especially those I spoke about earlier. The Minister kindly said that the Government will try to clarify the points raised, but it seems to me that this Bill has been

1043
extraordinarily badly drafted. I feel extremely sorry for both Ministers because they have to answer to this, but the fact remains that this is a shocking state of affairs. I feel that someone should take the matter up and deal with it in a much more appropriate manner. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 27, line 24, at end insert —
("() The Assembly may also require the Secretary of State, or any person who has within the three years prior to the date of the requirement been the Secretary of State, to attend proceedings of the Assembly for the purpose of explaining, and justifying any guidance or direction given by him under this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 202. As we have discussed, the assembly can require the attendance of witnesses. Amendment No. 199 suggests that the Secretary of State should also be required to attend proceedings of the assembly to answer questions. The Secretary of State can, among other things, cap the authority's budget; give guidance governing the exercise of powers—and regard must be had to that guidance—and he can limit the authority's powers and national policies. The assembly has a scrutiny role.
From time to time when we try to widen the powers of the assembly we are accused of not understanding the principle of the separation of powers, but we appreciate the model that is being put forward. We believe that the assembly should have the opportunity to deal direct with the Secretary of State. I appreciate that questions may be asked of the Secretary of State in Parliament with regard to the powers that are exercised. However, I do not believe that that process would be adequate or appropriate in the case I am discussing. In a modern system of London government, where the Secretary of State will play such a large role in the authority, I suggest that there is no reason why he or she should not appear before it in order to answer questions.
I turn to Amendment No. 202. Under the Bill the Secretary of State may prescribe categories of information and documents which a person may refuse to provide to the assembly. Earlier today I asked how certain measures would comply with the forthcoming freedom of information legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, I believe, that he sought to reassure me on this issue. I was not in the slightest bit reassured by his comment, although I was not surprised by it; namely, that as the proposed legislation is weak in that almost anything can be exempted from its provisions, there is no inconsistency in this regard.
Amendment No. 202 seeks to require the Secretary of State to explain his reasons for issuing any order under this part of the Bill. I am aware that when my honourable friends in another place proposed a similar amendment they were considered to be silly. However, I do not think that these are silly points at all. These matters raise serious issues. I understand the argument about lines of accountability being blurred in that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. Although I understand that argument, I do not accept it as an argument against these amendments which permit
1044
no more than the asking of questions. Therefore I do not think that they involve a blurring of accountability or a breach of privilege that Members of Parliament would find offensive. I do not believe that I am coming anywhere near that.
We do not believe that powers should be retained at the centre when their dispersal is necessary. In this case the assembly members have direct knowledge of the situation. As I say, they are members of a scrutiny body and they should be able to ask questions of the Secretary of State direct. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I did not know that in the other place these two amendments that were spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were thought to be silly. However, we on these Benches will stand side by side in support of these so-called silly amendments.
When my noble friend Lady Blatch asked about political advisers, the Minister said that advice would be given to the mayor and he would be accountable for what he did as a result of following that advice. Several times during the course of this Bill we have asked whether the Secretary of State will be the mayor for London as he has taken upon himself so many powers that one wonders how independent the mayor will be.
If the Secretary of State is happy that members can be summoned before the assembly in this unique way—there is no reason why there should be such a power—and as the Minister tells us that the Government want the Bill to be modern, new and so on, the Secretary of State should be prepared to come before the assembly, if that is what the assembly wishes, to answer questions in the way he or she expects everyone else to.
Lord Whitty: I have to withdraw the accusation that the Liberal Democrats do not understand the separation of powers; they have a very innovative approach to the separation of powers. However, as the noble Baroness anticipates, to move down this road would be a blurring of the lines of responsibility. The Secretary of State is responsible for the powers conferred on him or her by Parliament. He or she is not responsible to the Greater London assembly. His powers do not emanate from the Greater London assembly but from the Palace of Westminster. It would be anomalous if he or she had to account for the use of those powers to an assembly which did not grant them and which has no authority over them.
Whether the Secretary of State or his representative might wish to give information to the assembly is an entirely different matter. But the question of accountability should be clear—it is to Parliament and not to the assembly part of the authority.
Baroness Hamwee: Of course the powers emanate from Parliament, but, given the way the Bill is framed, their exercise is pretty much courtesy of the Secretary of State. This is a serious issue and we may want to come back to it, in this form or another. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 200 and 200A not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Restriction of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Failure to attend proceedings etc]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 30, line 13, at end insert (", or
(e) knowingly makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material manner").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 203 deals with an anomaly in the Bill, yet another omission of something that ought to be there. Clause 54(1) prescribes a list of offences in relation to a summons to appear before the assembly. Briefly they are: fails to attend a meeting; refuses to answer a proper question; refuses or fails to produce documents; alters or destroys any document. Curiously, omitted from the list of offences is a witness lying to the assembly in respect of a material matter.
The assembly has no power to make a witness testify under oath. Unless an offence is created, it will be better for a reluctant witness to go and lie, rather than refuse to go to the assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My honourable friend the Minister for London agreed to consider this amendment when it was brought forward in another place. We thought then that it was unnecessary because it would be covered by the provisions of the Perjury Act 1911. Having taken further legal advice, we remain of that view. In those circumstances, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I will agree to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, I am not happy or content that the matter falls within the Perjury Act and I shall take legal advice on it. There are so many mistakes in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [The Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards]:
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 205 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 30, line 25, at end insert —
("() The guidance shall provide that the standards to be observed by the Mayor shall be the equivalent of standards to be observed by Ministers of the Crown.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208.
In dealing with the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards, Amendment No. 206 proposes that in the case of the mayor the standards,
"shall be the equivalent of standards to be observed by Ministers of the Crown".
It might be said that, in the mayor's executive powers, the mayor has responsibilities that are arguably greater than those of Ministers of the Crown. At the very least, in a different context the mayor's responsibilities are arguably equivalent to those of Ministers. The electoral mandate that the mayor will have is much greater than that of Ministers.
Ethical standards will be important for the reputation of the authority, although I believe that generally it should be a matter for the authority itself to set them up. However, an amendment from these Benches to delete Clause 55 would be likely to be misunderstood. I therefore sought to avoid that by not tabling such an amendment.
We propose that the mayor should be subject to the ministerial code of conduct by the guidance providing equivalent standards. I hope that the Government may give us some comfort that those standards will be as stringent. The standards for assembly members, and indeed staff, should be as close as possible to those that apply to a local authority. We anticipate detailed provisions for local authorities coming down the track quite soon. Amendment No. 208 seeks to insert that new provision applying to assembly members and staff. In the current cultural, moral and legislative climate we are currently considering, through a joint Select Committee of this House and another place, the whole question of ethical standards. We expect legislation on that point very shortly. I do not see the need for any distinction other than a technical one. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We support Amendment No. 206, in that our Amendment No. 207 is extremely similar.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred directly to the fact that ethical standards in local government are being looked at in a wider context. It is our intention that, when any such Bill has been agreed by Parliament, the new ethical framework will apply to the GLA. In advance of that legislation, appropriate measures need to be included to ensure that the GLA operates to ethical standards.
The noble Baroness's amendment recognises the fact that the existing local government provisions are not directly well suited to the structure of the new authority, which will be based on the separation of powers. So an alternative approach is needed.
I agree with the noble Baroness's amendments in so far as they recognise that the mayor, as an individual elected to take executive decisions, will need different treatment from an assembly member. However, I do not agree that an exact parallel can be drawn between the office of mayor and a Minister of the Crown. After all, the mayor will be directly elected to take the decisions, whereas the Minister is elected to be a Member of Parliament and is then a member of a collective

1047
executive which takes individual decisions. Those in which a Minister, for example, might have an interest can be passed on to another Minister. The mayor is not in that position.
To base the provisions on the ministerial statutory code also involves problems. The ministerial code has no statutory force. It is up to the Prime Minister to write the code and enforce it. It would be slightly odd to use that code as the statutory basis for securing ethical standards in relation to the authority.
We shall be taking work forward to secure high ethical standards generally in local authorities in tandem with our other proposals to modernise local authorities. Thai is the most appropriate framework in which to establish ethical standards for this authority. Therefore, in advance of the new ethical framework, we will leave it for the Secretary of State to be able to issue guidance to the authority on a range of ethical matters. But in the end, the ethical framework for local authorities generally will need adaptation which will be applied to the authority as a whole.
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord saying that the department and those advising it on the drafting of the Bill are incapable of defining what the ethical standards should be which should be upheld in the course of the establishment of the authority?
Lord Whitty: No. I am saying that it is a matter of guidance rather than something to be shown on the face of the Bill. That is partly because we shall be issuing a new ethical framework shortly to go into subsequent legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not believe there is much between us on the point. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 30, line 27, at beginning insert ("disposal ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a more specific amendment relating to the mayor. It proposes that the guidance should deal not only with disclosure and registration of interests but also with the disposal of interests. I said in speaking to the last amendment that the mayor is in a particular and sensitive position. She or he will have to be extremely careful. Interests could quite easily arise in connection with transport contracts, with the whole issue of regeneration and. so on. Huge commercial interests will be involved in the exercise of the mayor's functions. I believe that the mayor must be careful not to put herself or himself in a position where there could be any questioning of a conflict of interest.
Unlike a Minister of the Crown, with the awarding of contracts the mayor is in an even more sensitive position. The current ministerial code issued by the Prime Minister provides for this in detail. It explains why Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or apparent conflict of interest. It deals with legal obligations, with the interests concerned, and makes the point by way of a general principle that the
1048
Minister should either dispose of a financial interest giving rise to an actual or perceived conflict or take all steps to prevent it.
I hope that we will have assurances from the Government that this particular but important point is in the minds of the Government in considering how to deal with the question of standards and perceptions. We must all be concerned that the new authority and its constituent parts are assisted in every way not to bring the authority into disrepute by perception, quite apart from whatever the reality may be. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment would add the disposal of interests to the list of matters that may be dealt with in the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards. Clause 55 sets out the basic framework around which the ethical guidance will be structured. It could be more wide-ranging if, after consultation, that was felt to be appropriate. 'What we have sought to do in drafting this clause is simply to set out the essential features that the guidance will include—the bones on which we shall put the flesh.
As the noble Baroness is aware, we sought the views of the Neill Committee in relation to the handling of mayoral interests. The views that that committee expressed will be taken into account in the preparation of the guidance. That guidance will be made available in draft for consultation. This is a matter on which we wish thorough consultation to take place. The amendment could be seen as pre-empting that process as it would signal that the disposal of interests must be included in the guidance when that might not be the conclusion we reached following those consultations.
I reassure the noble Baroness that the guidance would not be precluded by the current wording of Clause 55 from including reference to the disposal of certain interests, or the creation of blind or bare trusts. But, as I have explained, more detailed consideration of this particular matter is needed. As the noble Baroness said, the handling of mayoral interests is a very sensitive area. All of these issues are to be taken into account in preparing the guidance, and we shall consult on the: draft. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps the Minister can inform the Committee when the draft is likely to be available for consultation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am unable to do so at the moment, but I shall write to the noble Baroness and ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, is given a copy of that letter.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's response is helpful. The noble Baroness suggested that this amendment would pre-empt consultation. It seems to me that the whole of Clause 55(2) on that basis pre-empts consultation. It is perhaps a little late at night to pursue this further, but I hope that we are able to see that draft and that consultation will be well under way before Report stage. I am sure that all Members of the

1049
Committee want to ensure that the public understand our concern that impeccable propriety must be exercised in this unusual situation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I am able to confirm that the draft will be available before Report stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 30, line 36, at end insert—
("() In addition to the matters which may be included in the guidance issued under subsection (2) the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Assembly members in accepting office and the members of the Authority's staff in accepting employment shall be deemed to agree to be bound by the "Seven Principles of Public Life" set out in the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life published in May 1995 and this obligation shall be specifically incorporated in any contract of employment.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move Amendment No. 207 and speak also to Amendment No. 212, but I can be extremely brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has dealt with a number of matters and in response the Minister has informed the Committee that guidance is to be available before Report stage. Clause 55 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ethical standards to the mayor, assembly members and the authority's staff. Subsection (2) prescribes the contents of that guidance in very general terms. They are certainly not objectionable in themselves. Paragraph (e) includes the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe model codes of conduct.
However, the amendment seeks to ensure that the code of conduct includes the Nolan principles. We know not what the Secretary of State has in mind and we must wait until we see the guidance. However, we want to ensure that the standards are the minimum that should be applied; in other words, Nolan.
Amendment No. 212 relates to Clause 59 which set out the terms of employment of the mayor's personal staff and special advisers. All that our amendment does is to require the Nolan principles to be included as those minimum standards. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 207 would require the mayor and assembly, in accepting office, and members of the authority staff, in accepting employment, to agree to be bound by the seven principles. This obligation would be included in any contract of employment made with the authority. Amendment No. 212 would require the mayor's 10 personal appointments also to be bound by the seven principles.
I have some doubts as to whether this is the best way to proceed. The GLA will in due course be subject to the new ethical framework for local authorities, as we explained a couple of amendments ago. That legislation
1050
will essentially give effect to the Government's formal response to the Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in Local Government. It is our view that the ethical arrangements for the GLA should be firmly grounded in our wider proposals for local government generally.
Secondly, the principles in themselves have no statutory force in relation to any local authority or any public body. It would not be appropriate to incorporate them into law or into contracts of employment in respect of the GLA alone. Of course we anticipate that the ethics guidelines would be based very much on the framework already set out in the Nolan report and on the Government's response to it. But it is important that arrangements for the GLA are consistent with our proposals for local authorities more generally.
In relation to Amendment No. 212, this would require the seven principles to be written into the contracts of the mayor's two political advisers and 10 other staff. These mayoral appointments will all be members of the authority's staff under the terms of the Bill and will therefore be covered by the Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards. In addition, noble Lords will wish to note that Clause 60 applies Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972 to the GLA. This makes provision for the disclosure by employees of the authority, which will include both the 10 and the two, of interests in contracts and so on.
I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness that we are planning to meet what I think is the intention behind these amendments, but we need to do so in a way that is consistent with the ethical framework which we will be advancing for local authorities in general.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I should have thought that there would have been statutory force if they agree to these terms when they come into the ambit of the thing. I do not understand the Minister's answer. He says that that is not done normally in local government. There are all sorts of things that the Government are wanting to do in this Bill that are not done in local government, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But certainly at this time of night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 30, line 39, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall publish the guidance issued pursuant to subsection (1) and any variation thereof he may issue from time to time.").
The noble Baroness said: This small amendment probably needs the least explanation of any that we have dealt with today. The Secretary of State is going to issue guidance to the mayor, the assembly and the staff about the ethical standards they will be required to follow. We want them to be published and put in the public domain so that the residents of Greater London can see that they are being complied with. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is of course important that the Secretary of State's guidance should

1051
be in the public domain, but it is not necessary to make specific provision for this. When the Secretary of State issues the guidance he will be publishing it. The guidance will be publicly available and the Secretary of State will of course ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place so that the guidance is widely disseminated. For example, departmental publications are made available on the Internet. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Appointment]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 30. line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("political advisers and other members of staff whose aggregate remuneration and expenses in each year shall not exceed the amount provided for in the consolidated budget agreed pursuant to Part of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 56 provides for the mayor to be able to appoint not more than two people as his political advisers and not more than 10 other members of staff. My amendments suggests that rather than having a limit by numbers there should be a budgetary limit. At the very least, I wonder aloud whether the issue is not as regards the cost in aggregate of the mayor's staff, including political advisers. Of course, if a budgetary limit is set, it will be for the mayor to decide how to use that budget.
If one deals only with numbers, anomalies may arise; for example, the mayor's appointees may be paid well out of line with other staff working for the authority. That would be inappropriate. However, I am puzzled as to why the Government feel it necessary to impose a numerical limit on this when the issue may simply be one of cost. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: In turn, I was rather puzzled by the amendment. As the noble Baroness explained, it limits the number of political and personal advisers in terms of aggregate remuneration rather than numbers. It deletes all reference to number.
The intention of having a limit by number is to ensure that there is not an over-balance of staff in relation to the rest of staff, including very senior members of staff, who will be appointed by the assembly and not by the mayor. The two plus 10 will be appointed by the mayor, although they will be authority staff.
As it stands, the amendment ignores that need to ensure a balance and, therefore, a limitation on numbers. Therefore, in an extreme situation it is open for the mayor to appoint 100 members of the staff so long as he pays them significantly below the national minimum wage or, indeed, they were people with a private income who did not need to be paid at all. That is not a sensible approach.
As regards the budget figure, the noble Baroness must recall that the budget is proposed by the mayor. The assembly needs a two-thirds majority to overturn the
1052
mayor. Therefore, the assembly could do so only if the mayor provided a profligate budget and if it could garner a two-thirds majority. On the other hand, if the mayor were in a position that he needed so many political advisers because he had so little political support within the assembly, the assembly could severely limit the amount provided in the budget for the remuneration and expenses of the staff so that, in fact, it would not be possible to appoint two plus 10 staff. The latter would be more difficult to achieve because of the role of the chief administrative officer who must ensure that both the mayor and assembly have adequate resources to fulfil their functions.
Moreover, some flexibility is required in relation to the budget once it is set. If we leave it as it is so that there is a limitation on the numbers that the mayor can appoint, it will preserve the balance in terms of numbers and within the budget-making process. It is then for the chief administrative officer to ensure that the budget is spent for the purposes for which it is dedicated.
This is a misplaced amendment which would not achieve the noble Baroness's intention. Therefore, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Because Clause 46 is not disapplied, does that mean that this function can he delegated to another member of the assembly?
Lord Whitty: Which function?
Baroness Blatch: The function of Clause 56.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that that relates directly to the amendment. Under Clause 46, if there is not a disapplication, functions can be delegated to a single member of the assembly. But the amendments to which we were referring concern the appointment by the mayor of members of his personal staff, not the power in Clause 46.
Baroness Blatch: We were indeed talking about the mayor and his ability to appoint staff, but I was saying that if Clause 46 is not disapplied the mayor can delegate this to a single member of the assembly.
Lord Whitty: The mayor cannot delegate it. The assembly can delegate it to a single member. But we are talking, in relation to the amendment, about the mayor's power to appoint, not the assembly's role in appointments of the rest of the staff. Of course, the assembly does have the authority to appoint staff, and could theoretically delegate that to a single member. So I suppose the noble Baroness is right, if that is what she is driving at.
Lord Tope: The essential point that my noble friend Lady Hamwee was making in moving the amendment was that the issue here, surely, is one of the total expenditure on such staff, rather than their actual number. The Minister seems to be suggesting that it is otherwise. I would have thought that it was the amount of public money spent which was crucial, not how the

1053
mayor chooses to divide up the amount of money allocated to him. That is the crucial point we are driving at here.
The Minister seems to be suggesting that the actual number is more important than the cost. If the mayor chooses to pay below the national minimum wage—and, unless it has escaped my notice, I do not think it is proposed that he shall be exempt from that legislation—he will be caught by the legislation, just like any other employer. Therefore, that does not apply. If he chose to have people working for him who were so rich that they did not need to be paid, I imagine they would be volunteers and not staff. So I think that is a rather spurious argument.
I should like the Minister to clarify what is meant in the clause. It refers very specifically to two persons and to not more than 10 other members of staff. It does not say "full-time equivalent." Is this legislation actually prohibiting the mayor from, for instance, appointing 20 part-time members of staff equivalent to 10 full-time members? It appears to be so. Is he not able to have four or five part-time political advisers equivalent to two full-time?
The Minister seems to be concerned that numbers matter more than cost. The wording here is very specific—two persons and 10 other members of staff—so it would seem that the mayor is not able to employ a greater number of people part-time, but must restrict himself to full-time employees. If that is the case, can the Minister tell us why the Government wish to restrict to such a great extent the individual liberty of the mayor to determine his most personal staff?
Lord Whitty: I would have thought that the provision related to full-time equivalents, but it seems that my previous understanding needs to be revised, and that it applies to 10 members of staff and two political advisers. I think I had better clarify that to the noble Lord in writing.
However, the point is that the numbers of staff are the limitation. The remuneration, of course, has to be dealt with in the budget. In relation to political advisers, it is also affected by the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe the maximum limit for political advisers to political groups within local authorities. I believe that we are dealing with subjects related to that in the next amendment.
The aim is not primarily to determine the level of remuneration; it is to determine that the mayor shall have only a small level of personal staff. The rest of the staff will not be political appointments, and the responsibility for appointing them will be a matter for the assembly. The budget can be altered by the assembly, but only by a two-thirds majority, should the mayor over-provide on remuneration. I think that the issue in certain circumstances might be remuneration. The second main issue is how many personal staff, outside the normal practice of appointment for local authorities the assembly will exert, can the mayor make by himself. We are limiting that by number. That will he the general expectation: that we shall limit it by number.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the noble Baroness decides what she will do about the amendment, I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about whether or not it could be part-time workers; and even more interested by the answer that the Minister gave. Wearing a different hat, I lead for the Opposition on the Employment Relations Bill. In that Bill several clauses make sure that part-time workers should not in any way be discriminated against or dealt with differently from full-time workers. The Greater London Authority Bill seems an extraordinary Bill.
Lord Whitty: My initial reaction to the noble Lord's question was along those lines. That is why I need to clarify that aspect of my response.
Baroness Blatch: It was not clear whether the answer referred to full or part-time. Is it 10 full or part-time personnel?
Lord Whitty: As prescribed here, it is 10 personal appointments and two political advisers. There is a total of 12. The noble Lord asked whether the number can be broken down into full-time equivalents and therefore more part-time than 12. My initial reaction would be, yes. I think that the noble Baroness's reaction would be yes. My latest understanding, however, indicates that there is a different answer. I had better clarify that to noble Lords.
Lord Tope: I understand the position in which the Minister finds himself. I await the letter with interest, as I am sure we all shall do. From reading the provision, my understanding—he has confirmed it—is that it relates to the number two and the number 10 and how many hours those people work is a matter to be determined between them and the mayor. But he can have no more than 10 whether they work for two hours or 42 hours a week.
If the Minister writes to me confirming that that is what is meant, I hope that he will also tell me why the Government feel it necessary so to restrict the mayor in determining how he disposes of the total hours available to him. This seems ludicrously restrictive on a mayor. If we are going to do this by number, surely the number is two full-time equivalent, and 10 full-time equivalent. To say to the mayor, "If you are going to get your number's worth, you must employ full-time staff whether or not that is sensible", is ludicrous. The Minister has taken the point. I look forward with considerable interest to receiving the letter from him, and the subsequent amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's point about needing a two-thirds majority of assembly members to overturn the mayor's budget was telling. It is a point at which we shall arrive on Monday. Our concerns about the majority needed to make any alterations to the budget are amply confirmed by the warnings tonight of the difficulty of doing so.

1055
The point highlighted by my noble friend and supported by others is important. On the question of the minimum wage, we referred to national policy. Clearly, that would apply. However, I add to my noble friend's points that in a modern authority one would want employers to be able to encourage, for instance, job shares. That might be desirable. I, too, look forward to the amendments. And if they are not forthcoming from the Government, they will be forthcoming from these Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Terms and conditions of employment]:
[Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 66 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 212ZA.
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF ORDER-MAKING POWERS
(" . Any power conferred by this Part on a Minister of the Crown to make an order which has not been exercised before 1st May 2004 shall become null and void.").
The noble Baroness said: This is what one might call the sunset clause, moved rather after sunset, but I shall not spend long tonight on this point.
We have talked a great deal about the control exercised by central government in relation to many aspects of the new authority. We have previously made the point that trust between the different spheres is very important. That is a term which my noble friend tells me is used in certain European contexts to avoid any notion of a hierarchy by reference to tiers. I referred on Monday to the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which concerned rebuilding trust between the two spheres of government. The constraints on the exercise of powers also tend to constrain success.
If the Government are concerned that they may be creating a monster, a creature that will get out of control, then they should know fairly soon whether it is necessary to retain powers in central government. I accept that the example of the GLC may be quoted back at me. We, on these Benches, have always felt that there were other methods that could have been used to deal with the GLC rather than abolition.
We propose that the sun should go down on the Secretary of State's powers if he does not exercise them, on a power by power basis. We propose that if any given power is not exercised by May 2004, immediately prior
1056
to the second election of the mayor and members of the assembly, then that power should disappear. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has been consistent in claiming that the Secretary of State's powers in the Bill are excessive, and I understand her view. However, we contend differently. We believe that the Secretary of State needs certain reserve powers, and although some powers accorded to the Secretary of State are transitional, the bulk of the powers are reserve powers to be used in exceptional circumstances.
There is no logical reason why those reserve powers, if they are not exercised in the term of office of the first mayor, should be unnecessary in the term of office of the second mayor, or the mayor's second term, depending on circumstances.
We consider that a proper balance is struck in the Bill in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State, which are mainly reserve powers. Apart from the powers which relate to the setting up of the authority in its early days, we consider that the powers we have built into the Bill should apply throughout the period of whichever mayor is elected henceforth.
We need a balance. We are not giving total autonomy to Greater London; nor are we totally. laying down from the centre what a Greater London Authority should do. We are giving it a fair degree of flexibility and freedom, subject to reserve powers. That seems to be the correct and sensible constitutional balance which does not run out on 1st May 2004. If it is right now, there is no obvious reason why it should be wrong on 2nd May in five years' time.
Baroness Hamwee: I confess that I would have been surprised if I had received any different answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.

Tax Credits Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the reasons were ordered to be 'printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before midnight.

  Public Interest Cases
  Public Interest Cases
  Kosovo: Reconstruction
  Kosovo: Reconstruction
  Europol: UK Police Officers
  Europol: UK Police Officers
  Osman v. United Kingdom
  Osman v. United Kingdom
  Sub-critical Nuclear Tests
  Sub-critical Nuclear Tests
  Kosovo: UK Forces and Landmines
  Kosovo: UK Forces and Landmines
  Yugoslavia: UK Aircraft Sorties
  Yugoslavia: UK Aircraft Sorties
  Retired Officers: Salaries and Conditions of Service
  Retired Officers: Salaries and Conditions of Service
  Yugoslavia: Conditions for Resumption of Bombing
  Yugoslavia: Conditions for Resumption of Bombing
  Yugoslavia: NATO Bombing
  Yugoslavia: NATO Bombing
  Kosovo: Operation Agricola
  Kosovo: Operation Agricola
  Information Warfare
  Information Warfare
  Service Personnel: Secondary Medical Care within the NHS
  Service Personnel: Secondary Medical Care within the NHS
  Royal Parks Agency
  Royal Parks Agency
  "Bloody Sunday" Inquiry
  "Bloody Sunday" Inquiry
  Slaughterhouses: Meat Hygiene Service Complaints Procedure
  Slaughterhouses: Meat Hygiene Service Complaints Procedure
  Slaughterhouses: Activities of OVSs and MHIs
  Slaughterhouses: Activities of OVSs and MHIs
  Slaughterhouses: Specified Risk Material
  Slaughterhouses: Specified Risk Material
  Slaughterhouses: Recording of Conversations with OVSs and MHSs
  Slaughterhouses: Recording of Conversations with OVSs and MHSs
  Slaughterhouses: Inspection Entry to Administration Offices
  Slaughterhouses: Inspection Entry to Administration Offices
  Slaughterhouses: OVS Charges
  Slaughterhouses: OVS Charges
  Meat Hygiene Service Enforcement Powers
  Meat Hygiene Service Enforcement Powers
  Meat Hygiene Service Staff
  Meat Hygiene Service Staff
  Slaughterhouses: Sterilisation of Knives
  Slaughterhouses: Sterilisation of Knives
  Slaughterhouses: Post-mortem Inspection of Carcasses
  Slaughterhouses: Post-mortem Inspection of Carcasses
  Slaughterhouses: Humidity
  Slaughterhouses: Humidity
  E.coli 0157
  E.coli 0157
  Slaughterhouses: Meat Hygiene Service Instructions
  Slaughterhouses: Meat Hygiene Service Instructions
  Meat Hygiene Service Remit
  Meat Hygiene Service Remit
  Slaughter Process: Traceability of Meat
  Slaughter Process: Traceability of Meat
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Recognition of Species
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Recognition of Species
  Fresh Meat Regulations: Definition of "Hygiene"
  Fresh Meat Regulations: Definition of "Hygiene"
  Principal Official Veterinary Surgeons
  Principal Official Veterinary Surgeons
  Slaughterhouses: Meat Hygiene Service Manning Levels
  Slaughterhouses: Meat Hygiene Service Manning Levels
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Transfer Between Plants
  Official Veterinary Surgeons: Transfer Between Plants
  Slaughterhouses: Telephone Costs for OVSs
  Slaughterhouses: Telephone Costs for OVSs
  Honey Production and GM Crops
  Honey Production and GM Crops
  Pilot Animal Quarantine Scheme: Channel Tunnel
  Pilot Animal Quarantine Scheme: Channel Tunnel