Sitting of 11 April 2000

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

  CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 18 April.

  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Ethical Foreign Policy
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on the implementation of the ethical dimension of his foreign policy since May 1997. [117165]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We have a proud record of pressing for torture to be banned world wide, the death penalty to be abolished, anti-personnel land mines to be banned and extreme forms of child labour to be ended. We helped to achieve an International Criminal Court. We have been lifting the stranglehold of debt off poor countries, hugely increasing our overseas aid and banning arms exports that could be used for either external aggression or internal oppression. Never before have a Government given such a priority to promoting human rights in British foreign policy.
    Mr. Amess: Given the Government's extraordinary double standards—for instance, in their dealings with China and Zimbabwe—how can the Foreign Secretary consider a visit to Iran, whose regime carries out the gouging of eyes and the amputation of its citizens' limbs? Will he defend that as an ethical act? Will he reconsider his visit? Will he at least condemn such brutal acts against the citizens of Iran?
    Mr. Hain: Of course everybody in the House, led by the Foreign Secretary, will condemn actions such as the gouging out of eyes, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that my right hon. Friend should not go to Tehran when
    168
    he has the opportunity to support the reform programme carried out by President Khatami, which has improved human rights there and made Iran freer than it has been for a long time? Should we stop trying to make the world better because we cannot make it perfect? The Government try to make it better at every opportunity.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister rightly mentioned the banning of land mines with pride. Could that be extended to cluster bombs?
    Mr. Hain: I will happily look at that proposal. Cluster bombs are in a different position from anti-personnel land mines. Through the Ottawa convention—we led that process—we achieved a worldwide ban on anti-personnel land mines. I know that my hon. Friend welcomes that.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will remember that the Foreign Secretary's statement laid particular emphasis on human rights. After the treatment that has been meted out to Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Council of Europe's decision to begin proceedings that may lead to Russia's suspension, do the Government feel no discomfort at the notion of welcoming Mr. Putin to London next weekend? This is the man who became president after presiding over the indiscriminate and disproportionate shelling of civilians in Chechnya. Should not the visit be postponed until Russian actions match Russian words?
    Mr. Hain: We very much welcomed Mary Robinson's visit to Chechnya. It was important that she went and Britain supported her in that task. We use every opportunity to take up human rights matters with the Russians, as the Prime Minister did with President-elect Putin and as will occur when he visits Britain shortly, on the basis that our involvement is without illusions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps asking us to boycott any contact with the Russians to leave us with clean hands, but that does not improve people's rights in Russia, which is the objective for which we have been consistently working.
    Ann Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is both an ethical and a moral imperative for the United Kingdom to do everything possible to help the people of Ethiopia, whom we see dead and dying on our television screens every night? Is he aware that the European Union has sent only half the food aid that it promised last year? Will he do everything in his power to speed up the process of getting that food to the people? If not, it will be too late.
    Mr. Hain: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the crisis in Ethiopia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is leading the way in providing more food aid than any other country, apart from the United States. We are very aware that 8 million people face starvation in Ethiopia and the situation is dire. Britain has a proud record of providing food aid and of making sure that the other international institutions address the serious crisis there.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In this week's New Statesman, the Minister reveals to us all that

    169
    he is seen by the Foreign Secretary as his soul mate. As they are so close, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Foreign Secretary supports the Minister's view, expressed in the same article, that the ethical dimension of foreign policy was "the hook" on which this Labour Government found themselves, was oversold to begin with, and has now been abandoned and
    consigned to the memory hole.
    How does the Foreign Secretary feel about his ethical foreign policy now that even his deputy publicly denounces it?
    Mr. Hain: I realise that the hon. Lady has used all her considerable creative energies to try to read into the New Statesman interview numerous things that were not there. Let me say, however, that I am proud to work alongside my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose soul mate I have been for many years. That is true on my side, anyway.
    My right hon. Friend has presided over a foreign policy that has given Britain a leading role in the world in the defence of human rights, with a strong ethical dimension of which we can be proud. That is recognised by countries throughout the world.
    Let me add that it is a bit rich to be lectured about ethics by the party that was happy to arm the Indonesian dictator Suharto, happy to support the repression of the East Timor people, and happy for its Ministers to mislead Parliament over the supply of arms to Iraq, as exposed in the Scott report. We take no lessons from that party about ethical foreign policy.

    Lisbon Summit
    Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the follow-up plans to implement the decisions of the Lisbon EU summit on economic reform. [117166]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Lisbon summit arose from a British-Spanish initiative. Its agenda reflected Britain's commitment to economic reform within Europe. The summit committed the European Union to removing barriers to e-commerce, and to ensuring that access to the internet in Europe is as competitive as any in the world.
    At Lisbon, the European Union agreed that the goal of full employment was back on the agenda. It was the first time for a decade that it has done so. We will now work with the Commission to follow up its conclusions. The commitment to hold annual summits in the spring to review progress will ensure that the Lisbon agenda remains a high priority for the European Union.
    Jane Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend share my delight that that goal of full employment is now seriously and explicitly back on the agenda in Europe? Does he agree that what Britain must do is engage in Europe, and not seek to let down the people of this country as the Conservative party seeks to do by opting out?
    Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree. I note that the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs put out a press
    170
    statement on the day of the Lisbon summit referring to the "job-destroying" working time directive and social chapter. Since the Government came to office and introduced both those measures, we have created 800,000 more jobs than were created at the time the Conservative Government were resisting them.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How does this country's continued support for Turkey's accession to the European Union square with an ethical foreign policy, given Turkey's awful human rights record?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about economic reform.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Did the Foreign Secretary read the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last week which claimed that Britain was shaping the agenda within the European Union, and bemoaned the fact that Germany was no longer undertaking that role? Is that not a powerful statement that we can and do secure the best for Britain from Europe, and is it not the most powerful response possible to the xenophobic isolationism of the Conservative party, which ill serves the British national interest and would put 3 million British jobs at risk?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The agenda of the European Union is dominated by two initiatives taken by the British Government, to promote European security and to promote economic reform within Europe. The people of Britain are seeing real benefits from the decision to provide a legal base for our border controls for the first time during our membership of the European Union, and from the decision to give us one of the best deals in regard to structural funds among all European Union countries. That is the gain of positive engagement in Europe, all of which Conservative Members would put at risk.
    Mr. Richard Spring: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Prime Minister himself who last year, speaking to the CBI, criticised the working time directive for being over-regulatory? That being the case, why did he not demand its reform at Lisbon? Surely what businesses actually want, instead of all the talk of an inclusive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy, is less red tape, less bureaucracy and less interference, not pointless prime ministerial technobabble.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the conclusions of the Lisbon summit. If he had done so, he would have seen that it was not techno-babble of any kind, European or British. It provides specific deadlines by which specific action must be taken: this year, a legal framework for e-commerce; next year, a fully liberalised telecommunications market; by 2001, a Community-wide patent; by 2003, electronic access to all public services. Those measures are sought and wanted by business. Thanks to the Government, they have been secured within Europe.

    BBC World Service
    Mr. David Rendel: What plans he has to increase funding for the World Service to meet the costs of the digital revolution. [117167]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): The Government granted the BBC World Service an extra £44.2 million over the three-year comprehensive spending review period 1999–2002, partly to finance expansion into online and other digital services.
    Mr. Rendel: The World Service is producing record audiences for its radio services. I am sure that the Minister would join me in congratulating the World Service on that, but the expansion so far into online services has produced a full online service only for English, Chinese and Arabic. What plans does he have to enable the World Service to expand its full online services to the other main world languages?
    Mr. Hain: I agree that the expansion in the World Service's listenership throughout the world is extremely welcome. More than 150 million people listen to it weekly. That is good news. The online service is growing from strength to strength. I would like it to expand to other languages where possible and where its management decides, but it is still the best used internet service anywhere in the world—and long may it remain so.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What progress has been made in the negotiations between the Foreign Office and the military Government in Pakistan on restoring democracy? Has my hon. Friend assessed the political situation in Pakistan?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that supplementary question is out of order on this question. If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will see that it deals with the World Service and the digital revolution.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Admirable as the new services that the World Service is operating are, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the BBC is adequately funded to continue necessary transmitter investment so as to make certain that the existing short wave radio service, which can reach some of the more obscure parts of the world, is maintained and sustained?
    Mr. Hain: I know of the right hon. Gentleman's close interest in the matter. I agree that it is important that the World Service be allowed to expand its short wave service. It is expanding its FM service massively too, which is also to be welcomed. We have provided an average yearly real-terms increase in funding of 3.9 per cent. for the World Service, which is in stark contrast with the record of the Conservative Government, who cut its funding year after year.
    Barbara Follett: Has my hon. Friend seen the reports in the press that suggest that the new director
    172
    general of the BBC is considering closing Bush house? Will he make representations to the BBC to let him know how important the World Service is to the House?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that the World Service is important to the House. Indeed, it is important to the Government, which is why we have increased its funding substantially. As to whether the World Service is sited in Bush house, or whether the BBC can best utilise its capital and other revenue resources on some other site, that is a matter for the BBC, its board of governors and its management.

    Hungary
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen political and economic links between the UK and Hungary. [117170]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The UK has an excellent relationship with Hungary. We have a strong political dialogue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi on 29 February. I have just hosted Zsolt Nemeth, the Deputy Foreign Minister, during a UK visit. I also met the Hungarian Speaker, Janos Ader, during the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit.
    British Trade International's Opportunity Hungary campaign is encouraging more UK trade and investment in Hungary. We are supporting Hungary's accession to the EU through technical and financial assistance.
    Mr. Marsden: Having recently met, as co-chairman of the Future of Europe trust, an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from Hungary, I was left in no doubt, first, of Hungary's keenness to join the European Union; and, secondly, of the business opportunities in that country for companies such as PowerGen, British Aerospace and Tesco. Does my hon. Friend believe that Hungary's early accession to the European Union would create a beacon of stability for south-east Europe? Does he also agree that any tampering with current European treaties, as Conservative Members advocate doing, would dangerously jeopardise the enlargement that we all should like to see?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the excellent work that he does as co-chairman of the Future of Europe Trust. He is absolutely right that it is essential that Hungary should be encouraged in its European Union membership application. Last year, bilateral trade with Hungary was worth £1 billion, and British companies invested $1 billion in Hungary. He is also right to say that the accession procedures are going well. Only yesterday, I spoke to Commissioner Verheugen in Luxembourg, and he assured me that of the 31 chapters of the various acquis that are necessary for the negotiations to be completed, 21 chapters have been opened and 10 have been closed. Progress is therefore going well. We must just ensure that we are ready for enlargement by completing the intergovernmental conference this year.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Is the Minister aware of reports, last week, in The Wall Street Journal Europe, that Hungary and Poland had been rebuked by the French

    173
    President and the German Foreign Minister for expressing concerns about the European security and defence identity? President Chirac is reported to have asked Mr. Geremek, Poland's Foreign Minister,
    whether Poland wished to be America's 51st state,
    and Mr. Fischer lectured him about the imperatives of being a "good European". The article goes on to state:
    Implicit in these admonitions has been the threat that the West Europeans will stall the easterners' applications for membership in the European Union.
    Will the Minister now dissociate Britain from any such threats and make it unequivocally clear that countries such as Hungary and Poland which have applied to join the European Union should not be intimidated into acquiescing in European federalist developments that they dislike?
    Mr. Vaz: I do not know which part of the internet the right hon. Gentleman has been looking at, but there is clearly something wrong with his software. There is no question but that Hungary and Poland—two NATO members—fully support the common security and defence policy of the United Kingdom and of the European Union. That was the message that was given to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when their representatives met him a few weeks ago, and that is the message that I received only last week from all the Visegrad Foreign Ministers. When they came to see me, they were extremely relaxed about the matter. They want a policy that will provide for the peace, stability and security of Europe. They want to be part of that.
    Mr. Maude: How does the Minister explain consistent reports that those countries are expressing real concerns about the European defence initiative not including current members of the European Union? Does he not understand that, although those countries certainly want to join the European Union, many of them have serious reservations about the slide towards a European super-state? Why does not the Foreign Secretary now exercise some leadership in Europe and start making the case for the candidate countries to be able to join the European Union without having to sign up to every aspect of the acquis? Does not the growing size of the European Union mean that the old "one size fits all" model is simply out of date?
    Mr. Vaz: I feel very sad for the right hon. Gentleman that he has to rely on second-hand information. The Foreign Secretary and I have first-hand information because we have actually met the Foreign Ministers concerned. We have had those discussions with them. They fully support our defence policy. They want to be part of the European Union, and, as members of NATO, they very much want to be part of the defence policy of Europe. I would rather take their word for it than his.

    Belize-Guatemala Border Dispute
    Maria Eagle: If he will make a statement on the on-going border dispute between Belize and Guatemala; and what steps the Government are taking to resolve it. [117171]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): There is an on-going border dispute between Guatemala and Belize. Recently, the tension increased with the abduction, on 24 February, of three members of the Belize defence force and a policeman. All four were released and although tensions have remained, constructive discussions have now taken place in the presence of the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States, and further talks are planned.
    Maria Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that what central America needs more than anything at the moment is a period of stability? Is not an essential part of that encouraging the move to democracy in Guatemala? Will he assure the House that any intervention that he makes to assist in resolving this dispute will bear those two facts in mind?
    Mr. Battle: Yes; both I and my noble Friend Baroness Scotland have spoken to the Governments of Guatemala and Belize about the need to reduce tensions and to have serious negotiations. I agree with my hon. Friend that human rights in Guatemala are important, as is its movement to democracy. The context in which the conversations take place should be amicable, and negotiations must not move down the route of violence and the hijacking of personnel.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does not the United Kingdom have a continued interest in that part of central America, inasmuch as Belize is a fellow Commonwealth country and a territory where the British armed forces have jungle training facilities, as well as staging rights? Since Guatemala has made welcome progress towards democracy and has ended its civil war, should not it now engage in the talks for which a direct agenda has been outlined?
    Mr. Battle: The answer generally is yes. I want to emphasise that the United Kingdom has no legal responsibilities in relation to Guatemala's border dispute with Belize, which goes back to 1859. However, we are ready to give diplomatic assistance to both sides to bring about a peaceful solution. That is our role, and we will continue to work towards it.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: What recent meetings he has had with the German Foreign Minister to discuss manufacturing industry. [117174]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the subject with the German Foreign Minister at the General Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg yesterday.
    Mr. Ennis: Does my hon. Friend agree that Vodafone's recent takeover of Mannesmann shows that British companies can compete in Germany? Does he further

    175
    agree that in order for British companies to compete in the future, Britain must maintain its central role within the European Union?
    Mr. Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend. Bilateral trade with Germany last year was worth £49 billion, and 700,000 British companies invest and create jobs in Europe. It is extremely important that we keep that relationship going.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When the Foreign Secretary met his German counterpart, did they discuss the problems that Germany and, to an extent, this country are encountering with manufacturing costs? Is he aware that, for the first time in recent years, Germany has started to export its manufacturing capacity to other parts of the world—not least the far east—because of the heavy social and other costs involved with manufacturing within the EU, and within Germany in particular? Until recently, we have had some advantage—but we are giving it away.
    Mr. Vaz: I do not know whether that exact point was discussed by my right hon. Friend, but I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this matter as chairman of the manufacturing group in this House. Our relationship with Germany is a good commercial one, based on the creation of jobs in both countries. We want to make sure that German firms are able to succeed in this country, and that our firms succeed in Germany. That is what being part of the EU is all about—a market of 390 million people; soon, we hope, to be enlarged by a further 120 million to create the largest single market in the world. We want the climate and conditions for our manufacturing industry to survive and prosper.
    Mr. Richard Burden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the anger and opposition felt by so many people in this country at BMW's decision to break up the Rover Group is directed against BMW as a pan-European company, rather than against German industry or the German people as a whole? Does he agree that German companies—including those that located to Britain in support of BMW's presence here—and Rover dealers in Germany stand to lose out as well? Will he ask his counterpart in the German Foreign Ministry to join us in asking BMW to consider seriously all credible alternative bids for Rover, so that German and British industry can thrive?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done as a west midlands Member of Parliament in promoting the need for jobs in the area following what has happened. I assure him that the Government have put their faith in the taskforce, to which £129 million has been allocated. BMW is working with Alchemy and the British Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to ensure the best possible outcome. We shall do everything that we can to help that process. The record of past taskforces is good. Within nine months of the 1998 Fujitsu closure, when 580 jobs were lost, 97 per cent. of the work force were in employment again. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that we can to help the process.
    Mr. Francis Maude: In his foreword to the Department's annual report, the Foreign Secretary places
    176
    great stress on the role to be played by his Department in what he refers to as a "joined-up organisation", with the Department of Trade and Industry to promote trade and investment. What effect does he think that it has on the efforts of those trying to attract inward investment when they read reports of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence calling the management of BMW liars? Does he think that helps?
    Mr. Vaz: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friends did not say that. He will also know that we were disappointed by BMW's decision, because a commitment was made to the company. Rather than making cheap political points, the right hon. Gentleman should work positively to ensure that those who have lost or may lose their jobs are put back in employment.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When he next intends to visit the Gulf states to discuss the future of Iraq. [117175]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We have regular dialogue with countries in the region on Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were all helpful in securing agreement in the Security Council to resolution 1284, drafted by the United Kingdom. Every country in the Gulf supports the implementation of that resolution, which unilaterally removes any ceiling on oil exports by Iraq and offers the suspension of sanctions in return for progress on disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. I regret that Iraq has yet to say whether it will take up that prospect of an end to sanctions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the United Nations has miserably failed to enforce its own resolutions and not stopped sanction busting by Saddam Hussein, enabling him to raise the money to fund his illegal regime, could we not consider a change in policy away from the enforcement of sanctions, which some of us have supported through thick and thin for nearly 10 years, towards a policy of indicting Saddam Hussein in the international court for war crimes, murder, genocide and crimes against humanity? Should not that be the new approach?
    Mr. Cook: No international court would be competent to pursue those charges. We could pursue them only through a United Nations Security Council resolution to establish a special tribunal on Iraq. As I have said before, I see no realistic prospect of our obtaining agreement to such a resolution. Because of that, Britain was in the lead in supporting the formation of an International Criminal Court, which would have prosecutors who could decide for themselves who should be brought before the court, and which would end the arrangement by which special UN clearance was needed for anybody to be indicted. Once we have such a court, the way will be clear to proceed against dictators such as Saddam in the way my hon. Friend wishes.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In the meantime, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been a sharp increase in the smuggling of oil by Iraq. What practical steps are being taken to stop that?
    Mr. Cook: The United States and United Kingdom navies operate in the Gulf and have carried out some successful operations, including one recently against oil smuggling. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is no reason to smuggle oil out of Iraq. As a result of the recent resolution, Saddam can legitimately export all the oil that he wants. The only reason he chooses to smuggle some of it is that he does not want to be held to account for the money that he receives for that oil. He does not want to put it towards children's food, hospitals and medicines for his people. He wants to use it to support his military. That is the only reason for the smuggling.
    Ms Oona King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we can and must target sanctions more effectively—I hope that he will have recourse to the report by the International Development Committee on that subject—the fact remains that it is Saddam Hussein himself who bears responsibility for the plight of the Iraqi people? If he wished to take up the opportunity to exchange oil for supplies and humanitarian relief, he could.
    Mr. Cook: At present, Iraq is exporting a volume of oil roughly equivalent to the volume exported by Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. It has just been announced that Iraq will increase its production by another 700,000 barrels a day, which will bring its exports above those of Iran. Potentially, $10 billion is available for humanitarian purposes in Iraq. In those circumstances, I find it hard to understand why people in Iraq are going hungry and are short of medicines. The only reason for that is the priorities of Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions.

    Montenegro
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the political situation in Montenegro. [117176]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We continue to support the democratically elected Government of President Djukanovic, and are keen to see the democratic and economic reforms already under way in Montenegro expanded and developed. We strongly condemn the economic measures taken against Montenegro by Milosevic, including an embargo on food and medicines. I discussed the current situation with the Montenegrin Foreign Minister, Branko Lukovac, at the stability pact conference last month.
    Mr. Heath: Does the Minister agree that it is desperately important to underpin the democratic aspirations in Montenegro? When will the stability pact for south-east Europe deliver for Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania and the other states in the region? Do the serious criticisms expressed in the German press, the Bundestag
    178
    and the European Parliament give him any cause for concern about, or any lack of confidence in, Mr. Bodo Hombach, the co-ordinator of the stability pact?
    Mr. Vaz: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in those matters as the chairman of the all-party group on Kosovo. Yesterday, at the Luxembourg General Affairs Council meeting, we heard a very good report from Javier Solana and Chris Patten about the work that they have undertaken following the successful conclusions at Lisbon, where it was decided that there needed to be a much more proactive role in trying to deal with the situation in Montenegro. The hon. Gentleman, more than anyone else in the House, knows how difficult the situation is, but we need to support the Government of Montenegro and ensure that they have the capacity and the confidence to deal with the very difficult situation they are in. Montenegro has had 82.7 million euro given to it in the past two years. We want to ensure that Solana and Patten can work with Bodo Hombach—who has done an excellent job in difficult circumstances—to deliver a practical result for the people of Montenegro.

    Iran
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on human rights in Iran. [117177]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Although there have been improvements in Iran's human rights record since the election of President Khatami in 1997, we continue to press his Government over continued persecution of the Baha'i religious minority, the lack of transparency in Iran's judicial proceedings and the trial of members of the Iranian Jewish community.
    Mr. Dismore: I remind my hon. Friend that the 13 Jews who were detained in Iran more than a year ago face the start of their trial on Thursday. I urge him to use all possible endeavours to put pressure on the Iranian Government to ensure that they receive a fair trial, with adequate legal representation and international observers, so that we can bring that travesty to an end and ensure the detainees' release from those dubious, bogus and trumped-up charges.
    Mr. Hain: I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in that trial, and I applaud him for it. It is an interest that the British Government—including my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself as the Minister responsible—have consistently raised with the Iranian Government. There has been some good news: it is not clear that the trial will start this week. The judicial spokesman has said that the defendants, who do not have representation, will now have time to appoint lawyers, which is good. He has also announced that proceedings will be open to the media and media representatives, which is also good news. It is also clear that only a few of those involved will be charged with espionage and the others will face lesser offences, thus removing the prospect of the death penalty. I hope that the Iranian authorities will take account of the enormous concern across the world about the trial and act accordingly.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: While I welcome that question and the Minister's response to it, does the

    179
    Minister agree that all matters pertaining to middle east issues are of the greatest sensitivity? Does he agree also that someone who will be taking an increasing role in these matters is the Government's so-called special envoy, Lord Levy? In the circumstances, will the Minister confirm to the House that there is no question of Lord Levy's having been in contact with any foreign intelligence agencies?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman started off very well, and I applaud him for that. He shares our concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the plight of the Jewish detainees in Iran, an issue that we shall continue to address.
    As I said during the previous Foreign and Commonwealth Question Time, Lord Levy plays an important role as the personal envoy of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He is highly respected throughout the middle east. He meets presidents, kings, foreign ministers and others to promote the peace process. His role should be applauded and not continually sniped at. The hon. Gentleman should think of a better ending to his question next time.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that although there remain considerable causes for concern about the human rights record within Iran, reports of reputable human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International show that there has been a slight improvement, and do not bear out the more lurid allegations that were rehearsed at the beginning of the sitting by, for example, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)? The important matter in Iran, with the election of the new, reform-minded Government, is for countries such as the United Kingdom to work constructively with the new regime to try to help Iran to make the transition towards a modern Government who can play a positive role within the region?
    Mr. Hain: That question was a breath of fresh air and common sense after the previous one. My hon. Friend makes the important point that, under President Khatami and his reforming Government, there has been considerable progress on human rights and in other respects. The recent clear mandate that he received for reforms in the elections in Iran has given him the opportunity to work with the international community—Britain included, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will travel to Tehran shortly. That will ensure that Iran is brought back into that community on a basis of friendship with other nations, rather than on one of hostility, as in the past. We need a process of critical but active engagement to assist that reform process, which is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Certainly, we must express concern for the 13 members of the Jewish community who are detainees, but is it not correct that Muslims are experiencing similar charges? If that is the case, is it not wrong to concentrate only on people of one religion? Should we not express concern for both Jews
    180
    and Muslims? Does the Minister agree that there has been a substantial advance in human rights in Iran over the past five years?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial advance in human rights in Iran. There is, however, a long way to go. I can confirm that Muslims are charged under the same procedure in the same trial, and we are equally concerned for their human rights. Given the sensitivities in the middle east, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand why there is particular concern for the detainees who are of Jewish descent and who have been prosecuted.

    BBC World Service
    Mr. David Chidgey: What assessment he has made of the impact of the World Service's internet site on the target audience. [117178]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We support the World Service's aspirations to be a major internet player and I am delighted that in December there were more than 20 million page impressions and audio listeners monthly. The BBC World Service is now the most listened-to audio news online in the world.
    Mr. Chidgey: I am pleased to hear the Minister echo those sentiments. I am sure that he agrees that it is a tremendous success story for the BBC. Does he agree also that it is an opportunity for Britain to become the most successful and the best provider in the world of news services on the internet? Bearing in mind how BBC television lost out to CNN as a provider of world television news services, what plans does the hon. Gentleman have to ensure that the BBC on the internet will grasp the opportunities for Britain that are now presented to it?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I agree with him. We are working with BBC World Service to help and encourage it to spread its online provision, which is the most listened-to online information service in the world. As was noted earlier, it is spreading into other languages. The BBC deserves praise for taking the lead in its commitment to expand and to use the full potential of the internet. We also support BBC World's activities to provide increased television coverage across the world for the BBC. There are 7 million listeners to BBC World, which is available in 500,000 hotels and other places. We welcome that as well.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that the BBC World Service is respected throughout the world as an independent and authoritative source of news, especially for people living under repressive regimes? The number of people accessing BBC online services increased by 218 per cent. last year, but my real interest is in the repressive regimes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rephrase."] I shall press the rewind button, Madam Speaker. It is vital that the message gets through to people living under repressive regimes, and it is therefore absolutely necessary that parallel-portal services are made available throughout the world, so that people living under

    181
    repressive regimes can more easily access BBC online services. What talks has the Minister had with the BBC to ensure that the extra parallel-portal services are made available, so that the people who most need an independent source of news can get it?
    Mr. Hain: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was making a bid for a Front-Bench job. However, I agree with the important point that he raises. We are in close touch with BBC management to encourage them to go down that route. It is very important that every opportunity is taken to expand the BBC's services in the fast-moving world of modern information technology. The BBC is the voice of freedom across the world. That is especially important for people living under the repressive regimes in which the hon. Gentleman is now taking a close interest.

    Poland
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What assessment he has made of the current state of relations between the UK and Poland; and if he will make a statement. [117179]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Our relations with Poland are excellent. We maintain a strong political dialogue, and Poland is one of our most important trading partners in central and eastern Europe. We warmly welcomed Poland's membership of NATO in March 1999, and we continue actively to support Poland's application to join the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Minister met Poland's Foreign Minister Geremek in February. The weekend before last, in London, I met the Polish Minister for European Affairs, Andrzei Ananicz.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will no doubt be pleased but not surprised to learn that, on my visit to Poland in January—when I went to the Deblin Royal Air Force academy and later had the pleasure of attending the RAF ball in Warsaw—there was no sign whatever of the attitude alluded to earlier by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).
    However, does my hon. Friend recollect Poland's chief negotiator saying that the last thing Europe needs is a pick-and-choose community? Is not it clear that the applicant countries want to join the European Union because of what the EU has achieved and because of its aspirations? Is not it equally clear that those countries will have little time for any British Government who seek to undermine those achievements?
    Mr. Vaz: I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to visit Poland in January. My first visit as Minister for Europe was to Poland, although no one invited me to the ball—perhaps my shoes did not fit.
    My hon. Friend is right to point out that Poland wants to be a first-class country in the European Union. We do not favour a two-tier EU. That is why we fully support Poland's ambition to join the EU. It is making excellent progress. When I spoke to Mr. Ananicz a fortnight ago, he said that the negotiations were going well. Of course, the most important element for Poland, the chapter on agriculture, has not yet been opened. Poland has
    182
    ambitious targets to join and we have made it clear that we shall support it. We support 10 twinning arrangements in Poland, and we also provide funds through the know-how fund, which we shall continue to do.
    The twinning arrangement between Gdynia and my hon. Friend's constituency is very important. We would like to see such arrangements extended to other constituencies and cities in the United Kingdom.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share my concern that Poland will be on target to join the EU by 2004? He referred to extra work being needed in terms of agricultural reforms, and I draw his attention to the fact that law and environmental protection need further work. How much technical assistance are the Government prepared to provide to help Poland achieve its target date?
    Mr. Vaz: As the hon. Lady knows, Poland has set its own target date. That cannot be achieved until the intergovernmental conference is completed by the end of this year and is ratified in the various national Parliaments. We do not want to discourage Poland; we want to encourage it. It is important that the applicant countries know that they have the support of countries such as the United Kingdom.
    When I was in Poland, we launched a number of schemes. We have extended our twinning programme and, as I have said, the know-how fund provides assistance. I have said to Foreign Minister Ananicz, and my right hon. Friend has said to Foreign Minister Geremek, that if we can help in any way, we will stand ready to help. We want Poland to be part of an enlarged Europe. It will give us a single market of 500 million people. Poland is already a member of NATO, and we want it in the European Union. We are Poland's best friend in Europe.

    Brazil
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What steps he has taken to encourage Brazil to sign international labour convention 169. [117180]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Ratification of the International Labour Organisation's convention 169, which refers to the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, is one of the short-term objectives outlined in the Brazilian Government's national human rights plan, which we strongly support. The convention is currently with the Brazilian Congress for ratification.
    Mr. Goggins: May I thank my hon. Friend for that positive reply? He may be aware that 22 April marks the 500th anniversary of the arrival in Brazil of the first Europeans. Given the terrible impact that colonisation has had on its indigenous people, does my hon. Friend agree that now would be a very good time for Brazil to sign ILO convention 169, which enshrines the rights of indigenous peoples to have control over their own lives and livelihoods? Will he urge the Brazilian Government to mark this significant anniversary by taking the important step of ratifying the convention?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has an active and deep interest in Latin American affairs. The answer to his

    183
    question is yes. We regularly raise indigenous issues with the Brazilian authorities, and we hope that ratification can be achieved. We have raised the matter within the United Nations in the working group on the draft directive on the rights of indigenous people. At the recent sessions of the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, we have regularly raised these matters with the Brazilian authorities and non-governmental organisations.
    We support the projects to support indigenous peoples in Brazil. We welcome the Brazilian Government's progress in demarcating Indian lands, and we shall keep up the pressure. However, my hon. Friend makes a useful suggestion: the anniversary would be an excellent opportunity for ratification, and we would welcome the Brazilian Government taking it.

    Balkans
    Mr. David Tredinnick: What progress is being made in co-ordinating the international effort in the Balkans; and if he will make a statement. [117181]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I am happy to report three recent examples of progress. First, the European Council in Lisbon agreed that the international community needed a more coherent strategy to support Kosovo and the region. Secondly, on 28 March, the Contact Group, bringing together Russia and the leading NATO allies, met for the first time in more than a year. Thirdly, on 29 March the regional financing conference of the stability pact pledged more than 2.4 billion euro for reconstruction projects in the region. The United Kingdom has pledged to contribute £100 million in bilateral technical assistance over the next three years.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not think that some lessons can be learned following the recent attack on Polish and United States troops in southern Kosovo, and that since co-operation has been resumed with KFOR, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should look seriously at the matter.
    Is the Minister aware that at a Future of Europe Trust meeting this week in the House, representatives expressed great concern about the way in which the federal aviation authority was stopping flights into Montenegro? Will he look into that matter?
    Mr. Vaz: I was not aware of what the Future of Europe Trust discussed this week, but I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleague to discuss the matter, as I have done in the past. The circumstances are difficult. KFOR, the United Nations mission in Kosovo, and all the other groups that are in the region as a result of UN resolution 1244, are there to try to rebuild Kosovo and the region. We should do our best to help that process. These are difficult and sensitive issues. The forces out there are working as well as they can. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to take this discussion forward.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement of the
    184
    stability pact was greeted with considerable enthusiasm by all countries in south-eastern Europe, but is he aware that some disquiet is now coming into that process as a result of the slow pace of delivery? Can he guarantee that the British Government will be at the forefront of saying that now is the time to act; that the rhetoric is excellent and the will is there, but that we need to see action on the ground to build democracy and an economic pathway for the Balkans into the mainstream of the European family?
    Mr. Vaz: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he did when he had ministerial responsibility for the Balkans at the Foreign Office. He gave enormous leadership to the process. The decision taken at Lisbon was important. The involvement of Javier Solana and Chris Patten, working with Bodo Hombach from the stability pact, will ensure much quicker delivery. We know that progress takes a long time and we realise that people are frustrated at the time that it takes. We are frustrated but, as my hon. Friend more than anyone else in the House knows, these are difficult circumstances. I hope that, with the new impetus given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Lisbon, the process will be quickened.

    Visa Applicants (Sub-continent)
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What arrangements he is making to assist visa applicants at British high commissions in Dhaka, Islamabad and New Delhi. [117184]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The number of permanent entry clearance staff at Islamabad and Dhaka has been increased within the last year. All three posts receive additional temporary staff during the busy season. I have put in hand feasibility studies at each post to consider further how services to visa applicants can be improved. Decisions will be made before the summer recess.
    Dr. Iddon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Bengali community is funding an Immigration Advisory Service office in Sylhet to put applications in order before they are submitted to the entry clearance post in Dhaka? Will he consider funding such charitable offices not only in Sylhet but in Islamabad and New Delhi, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has recommended?
    Mr. Vaz: I am aware of what the Immigration Advisory Service proposes to do and, indeed, has started to do. We welcome the involvement of agencies in a complicated and difficult area of law. As my hon. Friend may know, I went to Sylhet to see the operation there a few weeks ago. I am confident that when the feasibility studies have reported, we shall consider how we can improve the facilities in New Delhi, Dhaka, Sylhet and Bombay. On his forthcoming trip to the sub-continent, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will look at the visa facilities. I cannot promise funds for the IAS, because it does not come within the remit of the Foreign Office, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will write to the Home Secretary expressing his view.

    USA National Missile Defence Project
    Mr. Eric Illsley: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the USA national missile defence project. [117185]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The United States Administration has not yet decided to proceed with the deployment of a national missile defence system. Nor will they do so before later this summer at the earliest.
    We have welcomed repeated US assurances that they will take a number of factors into account before making any such decision, including its possible impact on strategic stability and on international arms control.
    We continue to urge both the US Administration and the Russian Government to seek an agreed way forward on this issue. We have made it clear to both sides that we wish to see the anti-ballistic missile treaty preserved and further early progress made in reducing the nuclear arsenals of each country.
    Mr. Illsley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. During its visit to the United States three weeks ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee was left in no doubt that the American Government, their advisers and American politicians are wholly convinced of the missile threat from North Korea and of the possibility of such a threat from Iran—hence the talk about upgrading Fylingdales. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to this issue is agreement with Russia and the United States? Have the British Government held any discussions with the new Russian Administration? If so, are further discussions planned?
    Mr. Vaz: I assure my hon. Friend that, when discussions take place between the Prime Minister and Mr. Putin, those issues will be raised—as they have been raised in the past at meetings between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Ivanov. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should continue along the lines that he suggests; I look forward to reading the Select Committee's report.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. James Gray: What representations he has received on the rule of law in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [117168]
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom's relations with Zimbabwe. [117169]
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Zimbabwe. [117182]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My colleague, the Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—and I have repeatedly expressed our concerns at the deterioration in the economy and stability of Zimbabwe. I met President Mugabe last week in the margins of the European
    186
    Union-Africa summit. I am grateful to President Obasanjo of Nigeria for helping to arrange the meeting and for having played such a positive part in it.
    I emphasised our deep concern at the present situation in Zimbabwe; in particular, at the failure of the Zimbabwean police and the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law, by complying with the court order to clear the illegal occupation of farms, or by protecting the right of citizens to peaceful demonstration without fear of violence. I also stressed the importance that we attach to free and fair elections within the time frame set out in the constitution of Zimbabwe. President Mugabe assured President Obasanjo and me that he intended to hold elections in May. He also agreed to send a delegation to London to discuss all our concerns.
    Yesterday, I opened the discussion among European Foreign Ministers on Zimbabwe. I am pleased to report that 11 countries spoke strongly in support of our concerns and that we unanimously agreed conclusions demanding respect for the rule of law and urging free and fair elections. We agreed that the EU should provide monitors to observe that the conditions for elections are free and fair.
    This morning, I spoke to Don McKinnon, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. I gave notice that I will want to raise our concerns about Zimbabwe at the forthcoming meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group.
    I agree with Lord Carrington's statement this morning that we must put as much international pressure as possible on the Government of Zimbabwe. That is what we are doing. However, the solutions to the problems of Zimbabwe must be found in Zimbabwe itself. I spoke this morning to Mr. Kenwood, president of the Farmers Union, who stressed that he and his members were citizens of Zimbabwe and wanted to seek a solution in a cool and level-headed manner.
    I very much regret that President Mugabe has not approached our dialogue in that same spirit. Indeed, he has repeatedly tried to turn the election into a confrontation between Zimbabwe and Britain.
    I have therefore sought in all my statements to demonstrate that Britain is not an enemy, but a friend of the people of Zimbabwe. It is because of that friendship that Britain is leading the international demand that the Government of Zimbabwe respect the rule of law and that the people of Zimbabwe must have the right, through free and fair elections, to decide for themselves who will govern Zimbabwe. We will continue to take every responsible and reasonable step to secure those twin demands.
    Mr. Gray: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that statement and for his commitment to cool reason. None the less, if he agrees that what President Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe looks very much like ethnic cleansing, although, in this case, it is directed against many British passport holders, when does he intend to replace the rhetoric and the discussions that he described with some real action? For example, will he consider freezing President Mugabe's international assets? Will he speak more directly to the Commonwealth about the possibility

    187
    of suspending Zimbabwe? If he will not take either of those actions, when does he intend to do something to which Zimbabwe will really listen?
    Mr. Cook: We are taking every reasonable and responsible step. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we will consider freezing the assets of President Mugabe. I can predict the reaction if we were to confiscate his assets; he would then confiscate farms in Zimbabwe. One farmer to whom I spoke today said:
    We are the ones who get beaten over the head here, whenever he gets beaten over the head there.
    If we want to provoke such retaliation, that is certainly how we would go about it. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman: if those on the ground want to proceed with the matter in a cool and level-headed manner, the least that we can do is to try to make sure that we do the same in this House.
    Mr. Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman will know that my interest in Zimbabwe goes back 30 years. We both believe that it holds perhaps the greatest potential of any country in central southern Africa. Would he emphasise to the House that we have no argument whatever with the good people of Zimbabwe and that we want to play our part through aid to ensure that they do not suffer through the mismanagement and wickedness of their Government? Will he assure us that aid will continue to flow to Zimbabwe, but that it will go through non-governmental organisations and direct to projects that will help the people of that long-suffering country?
    Mr. Cook: I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is important that the message goes out from this House that we want the people of Zimbabwe to succeed. The real tragedy of that country is that it is potentially one of the richest and wealthiest in the region, but that its economy has now been reduced to the extent that it has 60 per cent. inflation and no foreign exchange reserves. I very much hope that the people of Zimbabwe will soon, as a result of the pressure on its Government, have the opportunity to take control of their own government through free and fair elections.
    On aid, we have for some time restricted any new aid to the Government of Zimbabwe. We are looking for ways in which we can channel it through non-governmental organisations and now a quarter of all our aid to Zimbabwe goes through NGOs. However, the NGO sector in Zimbabwe is still weak and it is not easy to replicate entirely all the aid that we provide through its Government.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will be very much aware that not just this but other countries have played an enormous part in helping to revive the agrarian economy of what was Rhodesia. In fact, just two years ago, 700 farms in good areas were available for black people to farm the land. Does he agree that the time has come to put more pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe and that we should not rely just on the countries of the European Union to do that?
    188
    Would it be more successful if we included countries of the Commonwealth in the representations that we make? After all, Zimbabwe is still a part of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Cook: As I said earlier, I will raise this matter at the Commonwealth ministerial action group when it meets in two weeks' time. I have already discussed the issue with a number of other Commonwealth leaders and I particularly welcome the help that President Obasanjo gave us in Cairo. Indeed, the assurance that elections will be held in May was given to him and not just to Britain. Therefore, I expect him to support us and to make sure that we proceed on that point.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about farms. Some 100 farms held by the Government of Zimbabwe are not being allocated to anybody, and they are going to waste. Over the past three years, half the farms that have been allocated under the land reform scheme run by the Government of Zimbabwe have gone not to the rural poor, but to members of the Government and officials employed by the Government. They have tended to get leases at half the rents paid by others who received farms. In those circumstances, although we are willing to fund a programme of land reform, it must be a programme targeted at the rural poor and not an urban elite.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The holding of free and fair elections is vital. Has there been any indication from the Government of Zimbabwe that they will be prepared to accept Commonwealth observers or monitors at those elections? Would my right hon. Friend confirm, along with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, that the only precedents for suspension from the Commonwealth have been when there has been a military coup in a Commonwealth country? Does he see any further scope for a role for an intermediary from a Commonwealth country, such as President Obasanjo or President Mbeki, because the vital interests of South Africa and the region as a whole could be threatened if there is a crisis of confidence among the white people of that area?
    Mr. Cook: Many of the countries in the region are conscious that the decay of Zimbabwe's economy is of legitimate concern to them, and it is important that we explore every possible opportunity of working with them to find a resolution. My hon. Friend refers to precedents for suspension; there is only one and that is the case of Nigeria under its military regime. Nevertheless the Commonwealth ministerial action group has been gradually pressing for a widening of the scope of its action, and I expect support for us discussing that when we meet next month.
    Mr. David Winnick: Should not the whole vexed question of land in that country be properly dealt with through the rule of law and negotiations? Is it not unfortunate that Mugabe and his cronies and thugs are using racism and xenophobia to whip up a situation so that Mugabe can hang on to power, because it seems to me that that is certainly the main motive in the present situation? Should not racism and xenophobia be

    189
    denounced everywhere, whether it is in the country that we are now discussing or nearer home, as we witnessed yesterday with questions about asylum seekers?
    Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that racism has no place to play either in Zimbabwe's politics or in Britain's politics. One point that has repeatedly been stressed by the farmers whose lands are occupied is that they are not white British farmers but citizens of Zimbabwe. They are entitled to protection under the rule of law in Zimbabwe, and if any citizen of that country loses the right of the protection of the courts and the rule of law, all citizens of Zimbabwe have their rights put at risk.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the high commissioner for Zimbabwe in London the fact that many of us who took to the streets in the 1960s and 1970s to end colonial rule in Rhodesia, and against Mr. Smith, and who supported the black liberation movements, are deeply saddened by what is happening today, indeed, even embarrassed?
    Mr. Cook: I hope that what my hon. Friend has said in the Chamber will be heard, and we will certainly make sure that it is drawn to the attention of Zimbabwe's representative in Britain. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we make sure that the people of Zimbabwe have the rights and democracy that many of us wanted them to have after independence. I have been accused in one or two quarters of having a colonial attitude in lecturing Zimbabwe on rights and democracy for its people. I totally reject the idea that that is a colonial attitude. We would have a colonial attitude if we were failing to insist on the same rights and democracy for the people of Zimbabwe that we insist on for ourselves.
    Mr. Francis Maude: The whole House will want to send a message to the people of Zimbabwe, which should be one of Africa's most prosperous and stable nations, that we are their friend, and that Britain stands by its friends when they are in trouble. They are in trouble because of the regime: the wholesale intimidation of journalists and anyone with dissident views; the way in which the Government are cynically encouraging thugs to invade property despite the Government failing to win the recent referendum; the continued prosecution of a pointless and costly war in the Congo; and the postponement of the elections. All that is condemning Zimbabwe to penury and oppression. It is a process that now has all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing.
    Everyone in Zimbabwe that I know of agrees that land reform is needed, but, so far, the 1 million or so acres that have been acquired by the Government over the 20 years since independence have been given not to the dispossessed but to Mugabe's cronies. Apart from our concerns for Zimbabwe itself, the House must be aware that, on the Foreign Office's own assessment, around 50,000 Zimbabweans either have, or are entitled to, British passports and are therefore entitled to enter Britain, so this country cannot stand idly by.
    Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House why bilateral aid to Zimbabwe's Government is now increasing and Britain is still providing Zimbabwe with military assistance, as shown in the recent reply by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon.
    190
    Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)? Why is nothing being done, as far as we know, to investigate the possibility of freezing the overseas assets of Mr. Mugabe and his cronies? Those would be sanctions directed against the regime, and not the people. Why did the EU yesterday decide to continue to provide aid to the Government of Zimbabwe? Has the Foreign Secretary agreed to meet Morgan Tsvangirai, the Opposition leader, later this week when he is in Britain, as I plan to do?
    Why has it taken so long for the Foreign Secretary to get around to involving the Commonwealth? Should not that family of nations be the main vehicle for international pressure, threatening suspension if Zimbabwe fails to return to the rule of law? Why should attempts not be made now to get the recent Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, or another respected African leader, to take the lead in putting pressure on the Mugabe regime to change?
    Is it any wonder that Mark Chavunduka—one of Zimbabwe's leading newspaper editors, who was tortured by the Mugabe regime last January—said, when I met him last week:
    I was disappointed when I heard the statement by Robin Cook—basically, it was a bit wishy-washy. I would go for a far tougher course of action…?
    Last week, the Foreign Secretary had the chance to make crystal clear to Mr. Mugabe the abhorrence felt throughout the Commonwealth at his Government's behaviour. Does he understand how mortified and angry British people are when, instead of winning any concessions from Mr. Mugabe, the Foreign Secretary limply promises to muzzle his own criticisms?
    There is a serious crisis in which Britain has a direct interest. Crises call for statesmanship. The Foreign Secretary does not even get close.
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his exercise in burning the midnight oil rather than listening to exchanges in the Chamber. I am grateful to him for agreeing with—indeed repeating—many of my points.
    I am happy to confirm that, like the right hon. Gentleman, I shall meet Mr. Tsvangirai. I suspect that he is looking forward rather more to a useful discussion with the Government than to one with the Opposition of the sort that we have just heard. As for why I am raising the issue only at the next meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, I cannot do it any earlier than when the next meeting happens to be. I have already told the Secretary-General that it will be on the agenda on that occasion—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions and he is entitled to hear the answer.
    On the question of military training, the training provided is not to the Government or the army of Zimbabwe, but to the whole of the southern region of Africa, and it is training in peacekeeping intervention by the Organisation of African Unity or the United Nations. The group is based in Zimbabwe, but provides services across the whole of the region and to the other countries in the region. I can think of no better way of losing us influence with neighbouring countries of the region whose support we now need than withdrawing that facility.

    191
    The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should withdraw aid to Zimbabwe, but which aid would he have us withdraw? Does he want us to withdraw the aid that we are providing to combat HIV, when a quarter of the population of Zimbabwe suffers from AIDS? Does he want us withdraw our support for irrigation, which helps those who do not currently have land? Does he want us to stop providing assistance with sanitation, which helps to prevent the urban and rural poor being exposed to disease? Those are the projects that we are undertaking. I cannot imagine a worse way of convincing the people of Zimbabwe that we are their friend, as the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants us to appear.
    Finally, the right hon. Gentleman's statement is flatly in conflict with the statement made last Sunday by the Leader of the Opposition, who said:
    I think the Government needs to restore better relations with Zimbabwe.
    The whole House is baffled as to how the right hon. Gentleman imagines any of his prescriptions will achieve the objective of the leader of his party. Instead, he has indulged in empty gesture politics that will not help to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe. Perhaps he should adjourn, go and see the leader of his party and ask who really speaks for the Tory party on foreign policy.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that Her Majesty's Government have now suspended the export to Zimbabwe of all arms and arms-related equipment, including spare parts for Hawk aircraft?
    Is not the blunt, unpalatable truth that, if the United Kingdom acts on its own, it is likely to be far less effective than if we initiate concerted action through the Commonwealth, especially among Zimbabwe's African neighbours? What initiatives have the Government taken to persuade Zimbabwe's neighbours that the stability of Zimbabwe is as much in their interests as in anyone else's?
    Finally, if it comes to the question of refugees—we must all fervently hope that that will not be the case—will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will accept not just their legal but their moral obligations to all and any refugees from Zimbabwe, whatever their ethnic origin?
    Mr. Cook: On the last point, it is extremely important that we do not say anything that could be misconstrued or create a sense of panic. As it is, we always have contingency plans for every country, in case we should be required to assist. I will say no more on that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me.
    I agree that the pressure is likely to be more effective if we work with African leaders, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in the course of Cairo, I discussed the position of Zimbabwe with the leader of every country neighbouring Zimbabwe.
    On the supply of arms and weapons to Zimbabwe, I can tell the House that for a long time we have not provided licences for any equipment that might be used for oppression within Zimbabwe. We recently took a decision that we would not provide any licences for new
    192
    equipment that might be used in the Congo. We are, of course, saddled with existing commitments from the previous regime—
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: No, you are not.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady supports a party which as recently as 1992 sent five Hawks to Zimbabwe, and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was a Minister in the Government who agreed to do it. We will of course continue to make sure that the matter is kept under review, but at present there will be no new equipment for Zimbabwe, either for the Congo or for internal repression.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will remember that, at the time of the Lancaster house talks, land and cash from the United Kingdom and the United States were major issues in those discussions and the agreements. He has rightly said that, to date, the redistribution of land has been a dismal failure. He will also know that President Mugabe blames the financial position largely on the British Government. Will my right hon. Friend set the record straight and make it clear that the financial position is a result of the fact that Zimbabwe is not using the funds appropriately to achieve the objectives set out in the Lancaster house agreement?
    Mr. Cook: In fairness, it must be said that Britain has supplied £44 million to support land reform in Zimbabwe. We remain willing to help further, but it must be a programme, first, that involves the rule of law and fair price to a willing seller, and secondly, that tackles the needs of the rural poor, not those who happen to have access to, and influence in, Harare. We remain committed to taking that forward. I hope that we will have the opportunity to do so, but we need co-operation from President Mugabe to achieve that.
    I share with my hon. Friend his view that the position of the economy of Zimbabwe cannot be blamed on Britain or any other European power. President Mugabe has been in power 20 years and must accept at least some of the responsibility for the present state of Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe are inclined to share that view.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: As the son of parents who stood their ground on a coffee shamba in the heart of Kikuyuland throughout the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, and as someone who made his maiden speech in the House on the subject of Rhodesia almost exactly 40 years ago, may I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the comfort and security of the Chamber, we all need to measure our words extremely carefully? While contingency arrangements must obviously be made for any unhappy developments, threatening words from outside Zimbabwe are not likely to be well received, via the BBC World Service, on their wirelesses by European farmers who may be miles away from any other European.
    I have known Mr. Mugabe for a great many years, and my belief is that he is not a man who is incapable of being persuaded to take a reasonable course of action in certain circumstances. Has the Foreign Secretary, for instance, approached Mr. Nelson Mandela or Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, to ask whether they might be prepared to go and mediate,

    193
    as they demonstrated during their leadership of their two countries the great contribution that Europeans can make in an African country?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and his appeal for restraint. He speaks with real authority. Those of us who have been directly in touch with people in Zimbabwe in the past few weeks can confirm that his words are echoed by people on the ground in Zimbabwe.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of trying to find someone who can connect with President Mugabe and speak to him with respect and authority. I assure him that we are continuing to seek such a way of making an approach. He will understand that it will not help at this time if we start to discuss names in public.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, although the issues are emotive, they require a delicate balance between forcefulness and diplomacy, and that the shadow Foreign Secretary's recent indulgence in juvenile partisan abuse on the radio did him no credit at home and may have damaged British interests abroad?
    Mr. Cook: I have already been obliged to express my views once on the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude); I do not want to have to return to him.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the position is getting worse and has been deteriorating in the past two or three weeks? Does he also realise that his perceived inaction makes matters worse not only in Zimbabwe but in Kenya? We hear that some opposition Members in Nairobi are calling for similar policies in Kenya. The right hon. Gentleman cannot walk on the fence indefinitely. He must take action. For how long is he prepared simply to say that he will continue to hector President Mugabe when the latter is not in listening mode?
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on awaking from his slumber. I will spare the House repetition of all that I have said since we started discussing the matter at 3.30 pm. President Mugabe's strategy for the general election is clear: he will stand as a candidate who opposes Britain. It would not be wise, nor would it help the people of Zimbabwe, if we volunteered to fill the role that President Mugabe is writing for us.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right to ignore the Opposition's domestic political agenda. We are in serious difficulties with President Mugabe. The message that my right hon. Friend has repeated today is important, and it should be repeated to the audience in Zimbabwe. That corrupt regime, which has squandered the money for land reform, will not improve the interests of the ordinary African, white or black. However, it is important that the ordinary Zimbabwean knows that land reform is available and that the British Government will be at the forefront of those who try to achieve that fairly and consistently.
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to repeat the message, and I hope that the BBC World Service and other outlets will carry it
    194
    to Zimbabwe so that the truth is known: Britain stands ready to support a programme of land reform provided that it is within the law and that it helps the poor of Zimbabwe. That remains our offer, and we await discussions with people from Zimbabwe. I want the people of Zimbabwe to know that it is not true that we do not support land reform. However, such land reform must be in the interests of the people and not only of the Government.
    Mr. Tom King: Are not the vital interests of neighbouring African countries also affected? The present circumstances, in which there is no rule of law and property is expropriated, threaten any prospect of inward investment in Zimbabwe. Some of that property belongs to banks, and its expropriation will thus undermine them. The circumstances threaten not only the economy of Zimbabwe—any suggestion of their repetition elsewhere will undermine prospects of serious inward investment in other neighbouring African countries because people will have no confidence in the security of their investment.
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, if confiscation of farms proceeds, I cannot imagine that a prospective investor will have confidence in investing in Zimbabwe in the way in which the people need. That could have a ripple effect in the region. In the areas where farms have been occupied, there have been many protests by farm workers who are now denied their livelihoods and cannot support their families.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Despite the valid criticisms of the policy of violent expropriation, does my right hon. Friend share a slight sense of unease that the media and, indeed, the Chamber, take a keen interest in Zimbabwe only when farmers of European origin are involved? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unwise to place Britain in a position whereby we actively endorse the opposition party in Zimbabwe, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, appears to do? We should criticise policies that are wrong, but we should not attempt to decide Zimbabwean politics.
    Mr. Cook: It is not for us to decide the politics of Zimbabwe or of any other country, but we have the legitimate right to express concern about the human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe or elsewhere. I repeat a point that I made earlier, as it requires to be stressed: those farmers who face the prospect of confiscation are every bit as much citizens of Zimbabwe as President Mugabe, and many of their families have been there for generations. I met one at the weekend who is in great distress about what is happening to what he properly and rightly described as "his country". He regards himself as a Zimbabwean; he should be given the chance to help to build the future of Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the Foreign Secretary shed light on the suggestion that, despite the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, no polling date has been determined because the constituency boundaries have not yet been settled?
    Mr. Cook: As I understand the legal provision, the Parliament of Zimbabwe will require to be dissolved this month because it will come to the anniversary of its

    195
    election and elections for a new Parliament must be held within four months of the dissolution. I welcome the fact that President Mugabe has committed himself to elections in May and hope that he will carry that through, but the right hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. There are
    196
    valid concerns about Zimbabwe's preparedness for elections and one is bound to say that the only possible responsibility for that lies with the Government who have been in power for the past four years and have known that there must be elections this year.

Points of Order
4.2 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office published its departmental report yesterday and, yet again, hon. Members had a problem obtaining copies in the House. At 5 pm, the Vote Office was prevented from handing over a copy as the Department had insisted that the document had not yet been laid before Parliament. I understand that although the Foreign Office was preventing Members from obtaining the report through the Vote Office, it was made available on the internet, together with a press release, about two hours earlier. Would not it have been more appropriate for Members to have been the first recipients of that allegedly important document?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Probably for the first time, the hon. Lady has a point. Due to an administrative error, the report was not laid before the House in time. However, it was laid before the House at 5 pm. We regret that this has happened and are taking steps to make sure that it does not happen again.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the Local Government Bill, which is the principal business of the House later today? When we passed the Human Rights Act 1998, we gave ourselves a discipline that each Bill would carry a certification from a Secretary of State that it was either compliant with human rights legislation or that he was unable to provide such certification. I understand that this is the first Bill of which a Secretary of State has said:
I am unable to make a statement that in my view the provisions of the Local Government Bill are compatible with the Convention rights…
I understand from the Clerk that that is a debatable point, but, bearing in mind the undertakings given by the Lord Chancellor when the human rights legislation was going through the other place about the gravity and seriousness
198
of a Secretary of State being unable to give such an indication, should not the notes available in the Vote Office have offered some explanation?
Madam Speaker: That is why this is certainly not a matter for the Chair; it is for Ministers to explain.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished; I am still speaking.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) says, the explanatory notes do not make explicit why the Bill is not fully compatible with the European convention on human rights. I suspect that he is referring to clause 91 and section 28, which relates to it.
I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is a matter for argument and debate. It is for the Minister to explain the Government's position, and also to explain what appears in the Bill.
Now, Mr. Fabricant.
Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to have interrupted you.
I was wondering whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had said that he would make a statement to the House, given this morning's news that Alchemy Partners is withdrawing from the Longbridge taskforce set up by him, because of a conflict of interests involving the selection of the chairman of the taskforce by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Madam Speaker: I am not aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the second time in a week, a Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to apologise for the unavailability of documents in the Vote Office. Would you wholly deprecate any instance of documents' not being available in the Vote Office, and ensure that Ministers pay more attention to their Departments so that this does not happen so regularly?
Madam Speaker: I have already done that quite recently. I gave the House an assurance that I would take steps to help to improve the situation; I have done so, and will continue to do so.

Organ Transplants (Presumed Consent)
4.6 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national register of people who have not given their consent to transplant of their organs after death; to lay down procedures to be followed before an organ transplant takes place; and for connected purposes.
I apologise in advance for any incoherence. I have been struck by flu, and am thinking of applying for a brain transplant. However, I shall do my best.
The position is quite straightforward. At present, about 200 people die every year owing to the lack of organs suitable for transplant. Only 11 per cent. of the population have registered with the national organ donation scheme, but more than 70 per cent. have said in response to repeated surveys that they would have no objection to the transplant of their organs. In a great many cases, because people did not carry donor cards their organs go with them into the grave or, more frequently, are cremated. As a result, people who could have lived die. A number of cases have been reported in the media recently. I believe that that should concern us all, and that we should consider seriously whether it is in our power to improve the situation.
My Bill proposes that we establish a national register for those who object to the use of their organs for transplant. The existence of the register should be made known as widely as possible. One suggestion is that there should be a box on the electoral registration form. We should ensure that people know that they have such an option, which it is easy for them to take if they do object. About 3 per cent. of the population have signed up to a comparable scheme in Belgium.
The Bill would require a surgeon considering a transplant to take two steps. We would require him or her first to consult the national register of people who object to transplants, and secondly to consult the next of kin, if they are available, to find out whether they object either on behalf of the deceased—perhaps they know that the deceased did object, but had not got around to registering—or because they say that it would greatly distress them. If either condition obtained, the transplant would not take place; but if neither the deceased nor the relatives objected, it would be assumed that consent had been given, and the transplant could take place. The effect would be to cover the middle ground of people who are sympathetic to organ transplants, or have no particular view one way or the other—many people have not given it a thought—but have not obtained a donor card.
Some exemptions are necessary. First, I propose to exempt children on the ground that we cannot reasonably expect a five-year-old to take a decision of the magnitude of whether to go on to a national register. Secondly, for similar reasons, the Bill would exempt people with a long-term mental disability that makes it impossible for them to make a rational assessment of the situation. Thirdly, it would exempt non-residents. We cannot reasonably expect, say, a tourist to be aware of the register.
Beyond that, I am aware of one or two objections. In the Royal College of Nursing debate, where the proposal for informed consent was rejected by three to one, the significant factor seems to have been taking the decision out of the hands of relatives, or the effect on children. Neither would happen under the Bill.
200
A number of people feel that the Bill does not go far enough and that, if you or I, Madam Speaker, carry a donor card, our relatives should not be able to override our wishes. I believe that, in the interests of achieving a broad consensus, we should accept that relatives have the last word. The British Medical Association warmly supports the Bill in the belief that the number of relatives who will veto a transplant is very small, unless they are aware that the potential donor was opposed.
I have consulted a number of religious groups. The general tenor is that there is no religious objection on the ground that the soul is deemed to leave the body at the time of death. To quote the Board of Deputies of British Jews, it is an honour if the last act of the individual on earth is to save the life of someone else—it is not only an honour but a duty.
I ask the House to support the Bill. I am aware that it is not uncontroversial, but the purpose of ten-minute Bills is to give an opportunity to air issues that may not be entirely ripe for Government legislation. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to Second Reading, so that we can pursue the debate and prepare the ground for possible Government legislation in the next Session.
I see no reason to detain the House any longer.
4.13 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) moved the Bill in a modest and moderate way. I shall try to reply very briefly in the same spirit. He has cleverly anticipated some of the main objections that might be raised to a shift from having to opt into a transplant scheme to having to opt out of one, principally those concerning children. We are all aware of the scandal involving the removal of children's organs for research purposes at places such as Alder Hey children's hospital in Liverpool, the subject of early-day motion 139 which is open for signatures and was tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff). That case has perhaps brought to people's attention exactly what is involved when organs are taken from dead bodies.
I personally have no objection to the use of organs for transplanting. Indeed, I have held a donor card since I was old enough to do so. However, I am very concerned about the shift in emphasis from opting into a donor scheme to opting out of one.
The hon. Gentleman's argument might be stronger if we were still talking in the terms—primarily in relation to the physical carrying of a donor card—in which he almost exclusively presented his Bill. The fact is that very many people who would almost certainly have no objection to their organs being used will never get around to filling in a card or, if they do, will end up leaving it at home—as I myself have done on many occasions.
I should have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view if it were the only way of securing a plentiful supply of organs for transplant, but it is not. We live in the age of the internet and of electronic communication. If it is as easy as he suggests for people to be advised of their right to opt out by ticking boxes on ballot papers, for example, why do we not first at least try to use those methods to ensure that more people opt in? There are numerous opportunities for people to be asked to opt into a scheme and to have their decision registered electronically, so that, over time, if someone really wishes

201
his or her organs to be used in that way, it could easily be arranged. They would have only to say yes once, and their consent would be placed on an internet site, electronically and permanently maintained up to date.
As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge—hence the concessions that he made in framing his Bill—this is not an open and shut case in which there are no arguments on one side, with all the arguments on the other. All that can be done to try to make it easy for people to register their willingness to have their organs used should be done before we fall back on the position of very last resort—that of moving to a scheme whereby consent is presumed.
Before I and many other people who have very great sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve could give him our support, we would have to be convinced that ordinary people who wish their organs to be used have been contacted in a manner that makes it much easier than it is for them to register that fact. If in five years the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate that we have all been contacted and given numerous opportunities to register in a single simple action on an electronic database our willingness to have our organs used in that way, and if he can demonstrate that there has been very little uptake of that, I will listen to his proposals with more sympathy. However, to date, those modern methods have not been tried nearly hard enough. Until they are, I should feel bound to oppose his Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 23.

Division No. 159]

[4.19 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Coaker, Vernon

Ashton, Joe

Colman, Tony

Ballard, Jackie

Connarty, Michael

Banks, Tony

Cotter, Brian

Barnes, Harry

Cummings, John

Barron, Kevin

Dalyell, Tam

Beard, Nigel

Darvill, Keith

Begg, Miss Anne

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Best, Harold

Davidson, Ian

Borrow, David

Donohoe, Brian H

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Etherington, Bill

Brake, Tom

Flynn, Paul

Brand, Dr Peter

Follett, Barbara

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Butler, Mrs Christine

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Fyfe, Maria

Chidgey, David

Gardiner, Barry

Clapham, Michael

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clwyd, Ann

Harris, Dr Evan

202

Humble, Mrs Joan

Roy, Frank

Iddon, Dr Brian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Savidge, Malcolm

Keeble, Ms Sally

Sheerman, Barry

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Khabra, Piara S

Skinner, Dennis

Kidney, David

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Soames, Nicholas

Kingham, Ms Tess

Squire, Ms Rachel

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Steinberg, Gerry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Stunell, Andrew

Llwyd, Elfyn

Swayne, Desmond

McAllion, John

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Tonge, Dr Jenny

McDonnell, John

Tredinnick, David

McFall, John

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

MacShane, Denis

Tyler, Paul

McWalter, Tony

Vis, Dr Rudi

Mahon, Mrs Alice

White, Brian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Maxton, John

Meale, Alan

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Willis, Phil

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Wood, Mike

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Woodward, Shaun

Oaten, Mark

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Pike, Peter L

Wyatt, Derek

Pollard, Kerry

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rapson, Syd

Dr. Nick Palmer and

Rendel, David

Ms Jenny Jones.

NOES

Amess, David

Öpik, Lembit

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Plaskitt, James

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Robathan, Andrew

Bennett, Andrew F

Sanders, Adrian

Burnett, John

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

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Townend, John

Crausby, David

Trend, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Wilshire, David

Livsey, Richard

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tellers for the Noes:

Nicholls, Patrick

Mr. Edward Leigh and

O'Hara, Eddie

Dr. Julian Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Dr. Evan Harris, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Michael Jabez Foster, Jane Griffiths, Ms Jenny Jones and Dr. Ian Gibson.

Organ Transplants (Presumed Consent)
  ORGAN TRANSPLANTS (PRESUMED CONSENT)
  Dr. Nick Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to establish a national register of people who have not given their consent to transplant of their organs after death; to lay down procedures to be followed before an organ transplant takes place; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 109].
Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker has also imposed a 15-minute restriction on Back Benchers' speeches.
  4.30 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State rang me last night sending his apologies to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He also sent very special greetings to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). My right hon. Friend has, of course, been in Japan at a G8 meeting of Environment Ministers, and has also had a meeting with the new Japanese Prime Minister. He is currently travelling home.
  Last spring, the House debated the Government's first Local Government Bill. That legislation introduced the new duty of best value, which came into force last week. This Bill takes another firm step towards modern local government. It has already been considered in draft by a Joint Committee of both Houses last Session, and by their lordships.
  Over the past three years—in stark contrast to the ideological dogma that underpinned the Conservative party' s approach to local government—the Government have worked to develop a new partnership with local people and local councils. We have worked to give local people a bigger stake in shaping their future, and to revitalise local democracy—fostering new local democratic institutions that are appropriate for the new millennium.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister explain how, in a scripted speech, she has the brass neck to go on about ideological dogma when the principal purpose of the Bill is compulsorily to impose a system that thousands of councillors regard as less accountable, less transparent and less representative? Why does not she listen to the view of Lord Dixon-Smith, who opposes the compulsory provision? He has 28 years of experience in local government, in contrast to her meagre three years of service there.
  Ms Armstrong: I was clearly wrong to give way, so I shall continue with my speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will learn something from it, and realise that he has made a few mistakes.
  We have increased the level of resources available to local councils to meet local needs. We have established new partnerships, giving local councillors real influence in shaping national policies. We have abolished crude and universal capping, and we have replaced the ideological dead hand of compulsory competitive tendering with a new best value regime that has been widely welcomed by local authorities and is already delivering better value
  204
  local services for local people. We are putting local people at the centre of determining what works best for them in their localities.
  The new Local Government Bill builds on the foundations of that new partnership and delivers a new democratic settlement for local communities. The Bill will bring new life to local government, bringing an end to the red-tape town hall committee culture and building modern local government that puts local people at the centre of decision making and enlivens local democracy.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: How does the right hon. Lady square this extraordinary paean for her own efforts over the past three years with the brutal shift of £500 million of central Government money from the shire counties to the inner cities?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman cannot add up. This Government, in contrast to the previous Government, have put a further 7.8 per cent. in real terms into local government over the past three years. It is not true that £500 million less goes to shire areas now than they had at the start of this Parliament, or than they would have had if the Conservative Government had continued in office. Over the three years before the election, local government finance was cut by 4.3 per cent.
  The Government's modernising agenda for local government is a unified package: changes in local political structures are integral to effective service delivery. Modern local government is, in turn, a vital part of the fabric of the dynamic, democratic, fair and inclusive society that people want to see. It is vital to securing the quality of life that people deserve and have a right to expect.
  The Bill makes much clearer to the public the fact that local councils are there to serve, and the public will understand more clearly who is accountable for local decisions and where the buck stops when things go wrong. That is a vital component of any democratic renewal. The Bill is intended to bring new life to local democracy and to create dynamic local government that listens to what people really want.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The right hon. Lady refers to accountability to the public, but many people are worried that public access to council meetings and decision making will be restricted. The Darlington Labour council leader said:
  Holding meetings in public would merely create a theatrical experience for onlookers.
  Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Bill will increase secrecy, lack of openness and lack of transparency in local government?
  Ms Armstrong: As my speech continues, I shall deal with those issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will enjoy that part of my speech, and he can wait for it to come.
  The vast majority of local councils have already begun to modernise their working arrangements by consulting their public and devising new ways of working that empower them to tackle 21st century problems. The Bill

  205
  will create the framework so that all citizens can be assured that they are governed locally by a local authority that is fit for the purpose for the new millennium.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Ms Armstrong: Which point?
  Mr. Gray: I wished to intervene on the point that the right hon. Lady was making. She obviously did not gather that.
  Along with all the new Labour cant words that she uses, the right hon. Lady makes great play of allowing local authorities to decide how they will run themselves and modernise themselves for the new century. Why, then, has she said specifically that most councils in the land may not do what they wish, but must conform to one of the three options that she offers them? Why has she ignored the unanimous cross-party recommendation from the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, on which I served?
  Ms Armstrong: I am coming to that point. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was challenging my saying that we are in the new millennium. Given where he is coming from, I would not have been surprised if he had.
  Local councils have a vital role in exercising community leadership. They know that if they are to carry out that role effectively, they need to modernise the way in which they work to meet new demands—for example, social inclusion, community safety and sustainable regeneration—in addition to local government's historic purposes of nurturing and educating our children and protecting the vulnerable.
  Only modern councils can carry out those vital roles—councils that are in touch with the people, with councillors scrutinising the work of executive members and thus ensuring that those who make the decisions locally are held accountable for those decisions locally. They will deliver better quality local services in a responsive way, and work within a strong, clear ethical framework that strengthens the bond of trust between the community and those who seek to serve it.
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the devolution settlement for Wales is reflected in this legislation, and we have been working with the National Assembly to achieve that. Both the Government and the Assembly agree that it is essential to get the arrangements for local government right. We are listening to views in Wales to ensure that we get the approach right for Wales, and it is up to councils in England and Wales to listen to their local communities too.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Before the Minister leaves the subject of Wales, will she say something about community planning? I appreciate the work that has gone into the co-operation between the Government and the National Assembly, but the Welsh Local Government Association has requested that the Bill impose on local authorities a duty to undertake community planning, rather than merely giving them the power to do so.
  Ms Armstrong: I am becoming more and more convinced that I should not take interventions, because
  206
  the next point in my speech is to reaffirm that the Government have already told the House of Lords that we have agreed that point with the Welsh Assembly and other bodies.
  Part I gives local authorities a broad new power to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their areas, or of the people who live there. It will give the initiative back to local authorities, enabling them to take new action to respond to the specific needs of their communities, and build new partnerships with other local bodies to deliver real improvements in local conditions.
  Accountable councils in this age can do more than just deliver services. They also give clear direction to their communities, and help to ensure that local action reflects local priorities and is co-ordinated effectively. Effective community leadership means generating support for change and working with others to deliver that change. It means managing and negotiating differences and co-ordinating and facilitating action by others, not just by the council itself.
  That is why community strategies are such an important part of our plans to modernise local government. With the new power to promote well-being, it will be for local authorities and their communities to determine what action should be taken. We therefore want to see strategies being prepared by "local strategic partnerships", bringing together councils, public sector agencies, local businesses, voluntary organisations and local communities. Those strategies should set out a shared vision for the community that reflects local aspirations and recognises the potential for all sections of the community to contribute ideas and resources.
  Because of the importance that we attach to that role, and the potential for effective community planning to help deliver many of the changes that are essential if local quality of life is to be improved, we will table appropriate amendments to give local authorities a duty, rather than simply a power, to undertake community planning.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Clause 3 deals with the limits that will be put on local authorities' powers, and with the prospect that that will be done through guidance. When the Bill goes into Standing Committee, will that Committee be able to see examples of that guidance, and know where the Government intend to put the limits?
  Ms Armstrong: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have consistently sought to give the House opportunities to see guidance and regulations during the passage of legislation through the House. We certainly intend to do the same this time, and substantial draft guidance has already been issued in relation to other parts of the Bill. We have received comments on that guidance, and some of the Government amendments will reflect that process. We want to rework the proposals constantly, in the light of the ideas and views that are brought forward.
  The new powers and responsibilities for local government, in addition to the new responsibilities in connection with best value and the new freedoms arising from changes in the financial regime, present both challenges and opportunities for modern councils.
  The traditional council committee structure is not well placed to deal with the new responsibilities that modernisation brings—it simply cannot cope. Local people

  207
  deserve better. That is what the reforms of the political management system will provide—a more efficient, transparent and accountable system that can meet the challenges of modern governance.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Armstrong: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will finish this section of my speech, because I suspect that it deals with a matter that he wants to raise.
  Amendments were carried in the other place which have contradictory effects, but which essentially could allow councils to retain the status quo. That cannot be an option. We simply do not agree that the outdated committee system can deliver. All councils will have to change to reflect the new demands on them and the expectations of local people.
  Under these provisions, councils will draw up new constitutions in which the full council, meeting in public, decides the policy framework and budget, while the executive—whatever its form—is accountable for implementing the policies and delivering the services that local people want within that policy framework. The overview and scrutiny committees will hold the executive to account for what they have done and what they are planning to do. The provisions will also ensure that councils consider how the implementation of service delivery is working for the citizen.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Armstrong: I really should give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) first.
  Mr. Smith: The Minister said that the Government were in the business of devolving power. However, the Bill centralises power, in the hands of either a mayor or a leader with a cabinet. I accept that some local authorities may want that system, but others prefer the status quo. If the Government really are in the business of devolving power, those local authorities should have the opportunity to develop a system that reflects the problems and ambitions of their local community.
  Ms Armstrong: I think that my hon. Friend has not recognised that many councils are already changing, not because we say so, but because they know that the present system simply cannot meet people's needs. If my hon. Friends will bear with me until I am further into my speech, I will develop those arguments.
  We will not force councils down one route. The options available to them are far more extensive than anything for the past 150 years. I remind the House that the current system was introduced when the only people who went into local government belonged to the squirearchy—the people who owned land. [Interruption.] Friends of Conservative Members, obviously. Committee systems were set up for people to come together every now and again to agree matters—not very many—for their area. That is the basic system, and it is the only legal system that can be used today.
  Three broad types of executive are set out in the Bill—mayor and cabinet, leader and cabinet, mayor and council manager. There is, however, considerable scope for
  208
  diversity within those options to meet local circumstances. Local councils will, for the first time for more than 150 years, be able to develop different structures that reflect the different local circumstances. The options allow great variation within each framework, even though many have failed to recognise that.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I hate to have to disagree with the conclusion to which my right hon. Friend is coming on the Bill, but is it not a fact that the Joint Committee, on which I served, expressed the view that an improved status quo should be offered within the Bill? That would not be the status quo exactly as it is now, but a fourth option—an improved status quo.
  Ms Armstrong: Amendments have been made to the Bill, and they reflect the ideas that came from the Joint Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to express those ideas in Committee. We are prepared to consider other ways of doing things. I want to be responsive to the points that my hon. Friend is making, but I also want to enable councils to ensure that they can conduct their business in ways that deal with the issues that face them today—the issues involved in being a community leader—in a way that frequently has simply not been their role in the past. That is much more important today than previously.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Ms Armstrong: I am trying to deal with the previous intervention.
  Hon. Members: Ooh.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: She has lost her cliché.
  Ms Armstrong: I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so graciously. I want to ask her one simple question. All the systems that she has outlined will require tough scrutiny and, as she knows, scrutiny committees are not always met with unalloyed appreciation when they express their views. What measures in the Bill will guarantee that a scrutiny committee will be given sufficient resources to deal with the real possibility of corruption and distortion of honesty in relation to council matters, and will be independent of the people who are working for the leader and the tiny group around him or her?
  Ms Armstrong: I agree that scrutiny is ever more important—and that that is one of the problems with the status quo. There is no opportunity within the status quo legitimately to pursue scrutiny. That is one of the reasons why we say that there needs to be a change. As my hon. Friend may already know, we as a party have already made it absolutely clear that no whip will be allowed on scrutiny committees. We are discussing and working with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and other officers to ensure that they are content that they will have the appropriate mechanisms to support scrutiny properly.

  209
  They are discussing with us the nature of the guidance and so on that will go alongside the Bill to secure exactly what my hon. Friend asks for.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: I have to make some progress with my speech. I shall be more than happy to give way in a moment or two.
  The Bill makes it clear that local people will decide the form of the executive, but our reforms are not simply about mayors and cabinets. The executive is only one half of the new executive arrangements. The other half—overview and scrutiny—is equally important. Indeed, I have said consistently that when setting up a new constitution, councils should consider overview and scrutiny first, because without effective overview and scrutiny, any new executive arrangements simply will not work. It is also clear that the representative role of councillors will become much more important. Councillors will spend more time bringing the views of local people and stakeholders to bear on the development and implementation of the council's policy, either through the overview and scrutiny committees or in full council meetings.
  It has been said that those councillors will be second class. I reject that. The role is different, but it is no less important than that of any member of the executive. The present committee system offers no opportunity for the routine scrutiny of decisions, nor for regular and systematic examination of their implementation. No one can defend that.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I assure my right hon. Friend that when I was a member of Birmingham city council, I took extremely seriously the scrutiny of policy—as I do in this place. As a member of the council, I was able to do so because I had access to officers.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the need for community leaders. Surely, the real impediment to true community leadership is interference from Government.
  Ms Armstrong: That is why the Bill includes proposals to give local government far more freedom to develop matters—that is what the well-being power is all about.
  I am aware that my hon. Friend, as the chair of a council committee, made sure that she followed up policies and policy development. That was not the point that I was making. My point is that it is the responsibility of the council to do that, and to do so in public so that the public are involved and can ensure that questions are asked and that there is accountability. That is the key to these changes—many people have not yet realised that.
  It is clear that the representative role of councillors will become much more important. Councillors will spend more time bringing the views of local people and stakeholders to bear on the development and implementation of the council's policies, either through the overview and scrutiny committees or in council meetings.
  210
  Some people have asked why the Bill does not insist that executives meet in public. The executive is not a committee; individual members will be given the right to take decisions. Indeed, at present many decisions are delegated to officers. A formal event, such as a public meeting, does not make an arrangement transparent or accountable. If we are honest, we all know what really happens. Frequently, a political group meets to debate the options and to take decisions; often, there are not even minutes of the meeting. If minutes are taken, they are certainly not made public. The meetings are not open or accountable. The committee then formally takes a decision, often without even revealing which options were considered. That is what happens at present; it is not open and transparent.
  It is right that members of an executive should have the opportunity to think. Decisions will be published—as will reasons and background papers. In the draft guidance, we have already stated that
  significant decisions should not be a surprise to those whom they affect.
  Too many councils have rushed into interim arrangements that have not taken into account the points made in the draft guidance.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I agree with the Minister that decisions made in caucus—whatever the political party—do not serve the public well. They are not open and transparent to the public. However, how on earth will private meetings of executives—in closed session—help the participation of the public? How are the public to know about the debate and the decisions? The executives will merely present them with a fait accompli. How will the Bill result in greater participation, transparency or openness?
  Ms Armstrong: As I have already said, the executive is not a committee. Decisions will be published, and will be published quickly; the options that have been considered will be published; and the minutes that lead to the decisions and the way in which the decisions are taken will be published. All that will be open to scrutiny. Therefore, decisions will be accountable in a way that decisions taken at the moment are simply not accountable. I urge my hon. Friends to consider how people take decisions and take time to think. If an individual takes a decision, it is very difficult to legislate for that decision to be taken in public.
  Dr. Tony Wright: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. However, if people come to believe that there is more secrecy under the new arrangements than under the old arrangements, the whole intent of the Bill, which is to revitalise local democracy, will be undermined from the start. Surely the Bill's drafting must ensure that that does not happen.
  Ms Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am trying to describe the real problems that there are with the argument that one obtains openness by formally taking decisions in public. I do not believe that that guarantees openness or accountability. We want to ensure that all the options considered are in the open and that the way in which they are considered and the advice given on them receive proper scrutiny. After all, we are well used to such a system in this Chamber, and our proposal will lead to

  211
  improvements in the quality of decision making in local government and to the way in which such decisions are held accountable.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Is not one of the key points that we should consider the ability of people who may be interested in a decision to have an influence on that decision before it is a made? If an executive meets in private, how can anyone have an influence on a decision before it is made? At present, under the system that involves party political groups, people know that decisions are being made or are being considered, so they have an opportunity to try to influence them.
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend obviously did not hear or understand what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We are trying to hold a debate, but Conservative Members are not used to that.
  In the draft guidance, we say that significant decisions should not be a surprise to those whom they may affect, and there is much more in the guidance on that point. It explains how executives will consult on, and work through, options before they take a decision. Some authorities—and members of them are present today—take careful pre-scrutiny positions so that their scrutiny committees are involved before a decision is made. Some of those decisions will be taken in public. However, some emergency decisions are taken by an officer without people receiving any prior knowledge. Such decisions do not receive scrutiny and they are not accountable. In future, emergency decisions will be taken by an executive, and they may need to be taken quickly on the day that a problem arises. In those circumstances, it would be difficult and might threaten the safety of children or other people if executives were not able to take decisions without having to give the three-days' notice that is in the current arrangements. The aim is to achieve more open and accountable decision making. I hope that the ideas of colleagues and others will enable us to include a process in the Bill that people are convinced is more open and will allow proper decision making.
  Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I urge all councils and councillors to recognise that the new system is part of a new culture of openness, accountability and closer working relationships with the public, and I hope that they will introduce ways of working that express that culture and which are not bound up with traditional methods.
  Mr. Llew Smith: As I understand it, the Bill does not require the executive even to publish the agenda. If it does not, how can people outside the executive—other councillors and the general public—know what policies are being discussed and what options are available?
  Ms Armstrong: That is precisely why I say that there should be a new culture. On some occasions, it would be absolutely right and possible to publish an agenda, but if, for example, a child abuse case required a quick decision, there would be no opportunity to publish an agenda. Hon. Members say that we can deal with such situations now, but we are seeking to ensure that elected members make
  212
  those decisions, whereas in the past they have been almost exclusively delegated to officers. Such a shift requires new rules. If councils are working within that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the right hon. Lady is seeking to answer points made by her colleagues, but she should be addressing the Chair, not turning her back on me.
  Ms Armstrong: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I usually talk only to the Chair, but sometimes I feel that I am being rude to those behind me.
  I am seeking to make sure that hon. Members know that we aim to introduce a new culture, but we are also trying to find ways to ensure that there is proper, effective decision making. It is clear that Opposition Members do not want proper, effective decision making; they are simply looking for ways to have a go at local government.
  I move now to part III, which introduces the new ethical framework. That is an integral part of our plans to bring new life to local democracy. Effective democratic government is dependent on the bond of trust between the community and those who represent them, whether in local, regional or central Government. Restoring and strengthening that bond is vital. No unethical behaviour is acceptable. In the few cases where it does occur, we need to make sure that there is a suitable framework for investigating and punishing any wrongdoing. Part III establishes such a framework.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned that the mechanism that the Minister is setting up will engender the possibility of more corruption. Part of her answer to that point is the scrutiny committee, which she says should not be whipped. If, however, she has read the evidence given to the Select Committee by the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, she will be aware of the pressure of patronage—cronyism. How can she answer that point?
  Ms Armstrong: Every system, as we know, is open to corruption. We intend to make sure that there are methods of dealing with wrong-doing, by making processes as open and accountable as possible, in a way that they are not at the moment. We hope that the Bill will ensure that anybody who is interested in coming into public service for corrupt means thinks that it is not worth trying to do so. I believe that the provisions in part III will help us to do that.
  Those provisions establish a framework, the principal components of which are: statutory codes of conduct to which all members of local authorities must sign up; standards committees within councils to promote and maintain high standards of conduct; and an independent mechanism for the investigation of allegations of misconduct. In England, the latter function will be the role of a new body, the Standards Board; and in Wales, the Commission for Local Administration in Wales will take on the task. There will also be a separate tribunal mechanism with the power to impose suitable penalties, ranging from censure to suspension from standing as a councillor for up to five years. Alongside those arrangements, the Bill includes provision for the repeal of surcharging. That is in line with the recommendations of the Nolan committee and, more recently, the Joint Committee that considered the draft Bill.

  213
  The welfare services provisions in clauses 86 and 87 are only a small part of the Bill, but they are vital to many people in Great Britain. They are designed to improve the quality and diversity of support services by introducing a new holistic planning and grant-making system at local level. That means that vulnerable people will be able to receive the support they need to live independently in the community, and it gives local authorities an important community leadership role in the planning and provision of services in partnership with others.
  We shall table an amendment in Committee to facilitate joint working through a one-off transfer of data at the point of change to the new system. That will ensure that vulnerable people continue to receive the vital services they need during the changeover period, and beyond.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Armstrong: On this point?
  Mr. Bercow: Yes—it is a most important point. The right hon. Lady rightly refers to standards committees, and I am sure that she is familiar with the provisions of clause 49. Will the regulations governing the size and composition of those committees be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?
  Ms Armstrong: That is not the point to which I was speaking, but never mind. I am sure that that will be an issue of debate in Committee—
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: She does not know!
  Ms Armstrong: We have not yet finished the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we worked co-operatively on the previous legislation; on many occasions when pressure was exerted in Committee to change provisions in the Bill, we agreed to do so. I do not want to preclude the possibility of doing that with this Bill. Perhaps he likes to work in a confrontational way, but I prefer to work, as far as possible, in a co-operative way—as he knows from his experience on previous legislation.
  The Government also intend to introduce an amendment to the Bill that will enable local authorities to respond better to the needs of the national child care strategy. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), submitted an outline of the amendment in a parliamentary answer given today. Local authorities cannot pass on any of the costs of the child care that they provide to parents who receive the working families tax credit. We will continue to provide free child care where children are in need, but we want the child care tax credit within the WFTC to help families with their child care costs. Therefore, the amendment will allow local authorities to charge other parents receiving WFTC a proportion of their child care costs.
  Clause 91 amends section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986—more infamously known as section 28. The Government are committed to its repeal and will table amendments to achieve that. It would be fair to say that the debate so far on this issue has generated more heat
  214
  than light, so before Opposition Members attempt to raise the temperature again, let me set out clearly the limits and deficiencies of the legislation.
  Contrary to popular belief, section 2A does not apply to schools and, therefore, has no effect on what is taught in the classroom. That was clearly recognised by the previous Government and was spelled out in guidance that they issued in 1994. It does, however, inhibit local authorities from addressing the legitimate needs of a particular section of their communities. The Government believe that there is no place for such discriminatory legislation on the statute book.
  Local authorities should be free to address the needs of the gay community in exactly the same way as they address the needs of other groups, and it should be for authorities—properly accountable to local people—to decide what action they need to take to improve the quality of life of all sections of their community. That simple principle is at the heart of the Bill. I make no apologies for it, and none for telling the House that we will table amendments to the Bill to repeal section 2A of the 1986 Act.
  In response to an earlier intervention, I can say that there are considerable doubts whether section 2A is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Clause 91, inserted in the other place, amends but also reaffirms the provisions of section 2A. By extension, the amendment makes it doubtful that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She said that the measure did not affect schools, but section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 states that a local authority shall not
  promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
  Does the right hon. Lady want local authorities to spend money on that?
  Ms Armstrong: That Act was overtaken by a subsequent Education Act, which put the teaching of sex education in the hands of governors, in consultation with parents. The previous Government issued guidance which made that clear. The guidance stated that section 28 could not apply in schools.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendments that the Government are to introduce on the matter. On the issue of law making, however, my right hon. Friend should publish the advice that she was given. I find the Bill neutral. The previous Act may be contrary to human rights, but the Bill is not. When the Human Rights Bill went through another place, the Lord Chancellor said that there would be a burden on Government to explain why it was not possible, unusually, to make a statement of human rights compliance.
  It should also be borne in mind that, since the case of Pepper v. Hart, what is said in the Chamber can be considered by the Law Lords. Unless the fact of human rights compliance is explicitly stated on the Floor of the House or in the explanatory memorandum, which is silent

  215
  on the matter, there could be confusion rather than clarity. Will my right hon. Friend therefore publish the advice that she received?
  Ms Armstrong: I have made it clear that we believe that there are considerable doubts whether section 2A is compatible. It is our responsibility to say that we are certain that a Bill is compatible. We are not certain; there are considerable doubts. I believe that the comments on the Bill have been published, as the advice was given by lawyers to the organisation known as Justice. My hon. Friend says that the Bill may be compatible, but because it amends section 2A that may bring its compatibility into doubt.
  As we move into the 21st century, we also move towards a new era of local government and local partnership, with councils working together—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister claimed that the Local Government Act 1988, which includes section 28, was superseded by another Act. However, I believed that we were considering section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, which was superseded by the 1988 Act. The 1988 Act should therefore prevail. However, is the Minister suggesting that the European convention on human rights will render the House powerless to protect children and to uphold the protection that parents want enshrined in law?
  Ms Armstrong: Section 28 is not about protecting children. The Government have made their position clear on the responsibilities of sex and relationship education. The Education Act 1994 places the responsibility for that clearly in the hands of governors in consultation with parents. We affirm that.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that he would publish guidance, which clearly outlines the way in which governors should deal with sex and relationship education. Teaching and work with children have nothing to do with section 28. Conservative Members should bear that in mind when they vehemently oppose abolishing section 28. They are not trying to protect children. I wonder what they are trying to do if not to promote prejudice and bigotry in this country.
  Mr. Mackinlay: If it is not possible to get the Bill through Parliament in the form that my right hon. Friend and I would like, perhaps because of decisions in the other place, we will face the dilemma of whether to enact a Bill that does not comply with the European convention on human rights. That would be misunderstood around the world, because the Bill also covers mayors, elections and so on. It would be perverse if, to correct stupid law making under previous Governments and poor advice from the Lord Chancellor, we ultimately produced an Act which stated that it contravened human rights legislation. That is bonkers.
  Ms Armstrong: That is not a matter for me. I am not in charge of the House's decisions. I believe that the House will make the Bill compatible with the European convention on human rights. I hope that Opposition Members and Members in another place will take note.
  As we move into the 21st century, we are also moving towards a new era of local government and local partnership, with councils working together with other organisations and local people to improve the quality of
  216
  life in their local communities. Many local authorities already have a vision of their future; the Bill should give them the means to realise it.
  As I explained earlier, the version of the Bill that has been brought to this House from another place is not yet in the form that the Government would like. We shall propose changes when we progress to the next stage. I repeat that we want the Bill to be compatible with human rights legislation.
  The Bill is far from being a centralising measure. We intend it to return local government to the heart of local communities. It grants new powers and their attendant responsibilities to councils and the local people whom they serve. The Bill should receive a Second Reading.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Local Government Bill [Lords] because it is a centralising measure which will have the effect of undermining local democracy, because it will put pressure on local councils to introduce structures which may not suit local needs and circumstances, which will tend to encourage and facilitate a culture of secrecy and lack of consultation, engender corruption, diminish the role of ordinary councillors, encourage the growth of a class of professional local politicians with large salaries, pensions and other fringe benefits, and place officers in a position of potential conflict of interest, because the arrangements in the Bill for the conduct of local referenda in respect of elected mayors are inadequate, because the new power to promote economic, social and environmental well-being, while welcome in principle, is insufficiently defined and overly subject to ministerial interference, because the powers being taken relating to the frequency of elections are too centralising in their nature, and because, although containing welcome provisions relating to the protection of school children from the promotion of homosexuality in schools and from bullying, and the conduct of local councillors and officers, it fails to provide for open, accountable and empowered local government with councils adopting structures that best suit local needs, including modernised and streamlined versions of the committee system".
  I regret the Deputy Prime Minister's absence, although, having heard the genuine concerns expressed from both sides of the House, I can understand why he chose today to be absent. I understand that he is on important business, but I trust that the Minister will pass on my greetings and say that we have missed his inimitable contribution to the debate on Second Reading of another significant Bill.
  The Minister made a torrent of extravagant claims. I have never heard so much jargon on a single issue. She said that the Bill will revitalise local democracy, put local people at the centre and bring a new democratic settlement for local communities and talked of a democratic, dynamic and fair solution, of empowering people to tackle 21st century problems and so on. Those aspirations are universally shared, but largely irrelevant to the subject at hand and most unlikely to be delivered by the Bill.
  We welcome aspects such as the introduction of standards committees, the abolition of surcharging and the extension of councils' responsibilities, but we regret that the Minister appeared to rule out the Lords amendment to allow councils to keep the fourth option—the status quo. The Bill is a hotch-potch and the consideration of it has been a shambles throughout. We have seen more of that today. Proposals aimed at setting in concrete the shape and form of local government for decades should be thought through in minute detail, experimented with, piloted properly in the real world and tempered to reflect the views

  217
  of practitioners, but these have been cobbled together to such an extent that the Lords passed 438 amendments—one for every five and a half lines. It is no good her saying that we have not finished the Bill because, as it will play a role in shaping democracy in this country, it should have been thought through and experimented with in the first place.
  Mr. John McDonnell: The last major reform of the structure of local government was the abolition of the Greater London council. Can the hon. Gentleman describe the temperate way in which pilot schemes were introduced by the Conservatives when that was suggested?
  Mr. Norman: The whole House had sufficient experience of the GLC in operation, so there was no need to experiment with abolition.
  Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: No. I want to make progress, but I shall take interventions later.
  In short, the Bill is another ill-thought-through collection of proposals that are widely seen as unsatisfactory on both sides of the House. That is apparent today. At its heart, it reflects a fundamentally flawed thought: the Government's belief that imposing detailed structures and processes from on high will solve the problems of local government. It will not, because the problem is not one of process and structure, but one of substance—what local councils are free to do, what controls and restrictions central Government impose on them and how they are financed.
  Instead of addressing those issues, the Bill represents more centralisation. Worse than that, it will reinforce the dominance of political parties and narrow cliques, encourage secrecy and deter the participation of the able volunteer councillor. Conservative Members recognise that local government has become over-centralised, but when Labour came to power many councillors on all sides looked forward to a different approach. The Deputy Prime Minister himself said that local authorities
  should be liberated from the fetters of Whitehall and the stupid restrictions of the Treasury that inhibit growth and destroy jobs…
  No doubt he still hopes to be released from the stupid restrictions of the Treasury, as seen in the Budget.
  Today, those same councillors are bitterly disappointed because the Government are the most centralising ever. Far from liberating local government, Labour is imposing an ever tightening straitjacket on local democracy. Jeremy Beecham, the Labour chairman of the Local Government Association, summed that up when he warned of
  the strange death of local democracy…
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman implies that he agrees with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. If so, which Treasury restrictions do the Conservatives propose to remove?
  Mr. Norman: I rarely find an opportunity to agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. Again, I am sorry that he is absent, and cannot hear me do so. The Conservatives have already said that we would like capping to be removed from local authorities: that is shared ground.
  218
  The Bill compounds the problem that we already have. It is a straitjacket that centralises power not just within the state, but within councils. Councils will be denied the right to choose alternative, more open ways of working.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Although it is fairly obvious that I disagree with substantial parts of the Bill, I am somewhat confused by the statement that previous Governments wanted—and, indeed, the present Opposition want—to liberate local authorities, and return more powers to them. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many of the 200 Acts that altered the powers of local authorities during those previous 18 years gave more powers to authorities or liberated them?
  Mr. Norman: I have made clear our belief that local government has become too centralised. We have a substantial agenda for decentralisation; it is not a matter for today's debate, but I am very willing to take the hon. Gentleman through it on another occasion. No doubt the opportunity will arise.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) to have a look at the best value legislation that has been passed. It is the most centralising and forceful legislation that has ever been imposed on local government in any field.
  Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend has great experience of these matters, and makes his point powerfully.
  The effect of cabinet government will be to vest power in local political parties, especially when one party is dominant. More than ever, a narrow clique of party politicians in caucus will be able to make all the major executive decisions. No longer will the committee structure provide a role for individual councillors and minority parties, and safeguard the participation of all councillors.
  It is not only Conservative Members who believe that there is already a problem to be solved.
  Some of our Councils are quite frankly very badly run…The Party is usually controlled by a small clique and they have very poor relationships with the community which they serve.
  Those are the words of the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
  That brings me to the question of secrecy.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: I want to make some progress.
  It is one of the great achievements of the last 40 years that local government in the United Kingdom has been open government. It was Margaret Thatcher who, in 1960, forced councils to open all meetings to the press and the public, and it was a Conservative Government who passed the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, which enables the public to obtain local council papers three days before meetings. It is a Labour Government who are now bringing back secrecy, and closing the doors to the public.
  Andrew Ecclestone, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, has said:
  we are now finding a Labour Government removing the rights Mrs. Thatcher gave us.

  219
  It was the Prime Minister who said:
  The first right of a citizen in a mature democracy should be the right of information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much Government activity.
  Instead, cabinet government as prescribed in the Bill will mean that executive decisions are made in private and that leading councillors will no longer be accountable for their views. There will be no pre-scrutiny and ordinary citizens will not be able to lobby councillors ahead of time because they will not know what is coming up on the agenda. Both points were well made by Labour Members.
  The Bill will mean that full minutes will no longer be available for scrutiny and that papers and agendas will no longer be available in advance. Several Labour Members have made that point. It is not just a question of introducing a new culture, as the Minister said. Such waffle is risible in response to the genuine concerns of experienced Members on both sides of the House. Proper safeguards should be in place, not just in the guidance, but in the Bill, otherwise, for many councils, standards of openness will step back 40 years.
  Dr. Whitehead: Has not the hon. Gentleman read the Bill where it states that the council meeting continues to be the supreme body in relation to policy decisions in local authorities? Does he not understand that the scrutiny extends to decisions that may be taken, as opposed to decisions that have been taken? His points about it being impossible to scrutinise a decision before it is passed appear to have no substance.
  Mr. Norman: I have to wonder whether it is the hon. Gentleman who has not read the Bill. It contains no provision for proper pre-scrutiny or for ordinary citizens to know what is coming up in council meetings and discuss things with councillors ahead of time. There is no provision to ensure that people are held properly accountable and that minutes are fully published.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: I want to make some progress.
  Without improved safeguards, cabinet government conducted in secrecy will reduce accountability, concentrate power and increase the scope for corruption.
  If the Minister will not listen to us, why does she not listen to the concerns of Labour councillors and the local press throughout the country? Why does she not listen to the Birmingham Labour councillor who said:
  decisions made behind locked doors…is exactly how Hitler started and it is a very dangerous precedent for a modern city like Birmingham?
  Why does the Minister not listen to the Hull Daily Mail? Again, it is a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here, but doubtless she will let him know. It said:
  A cloak of secrecy could descend on important council decision making in Hull.
  There are many other such instances. Far from revitalising local government and decreasing secrecy and concentration of power, the Bill will achieve the opposite. It will encourage high salaries, professional politicians and party apparatchiks but discourage the apolitical volunteer. It will create two classes of councillor: the executive and the rest;
  220
  the political insider and the volunteer outsider. In short, it is a Bill that centralises. It vests power in local parties, encourages secrecy and deters participation.
  Mr. Campbell: May I give the hon. Gentleman an example? Labour-dominated Blyth council in my constituency operates the cabinet system. All the minutes are free for the public, councillors who are not sitting on the cabinet and the press. Cabinet meetings are totally open to anyone who wants to sit there and listen; so are the council and all the scrutiny committees. If that is not openness, what is?
  Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. With proper safeguards on openness, publication of agendas and pre-scrutiny, the system can be made to work.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps we should use the example of Hammersmith and Fulham council, where the leader made it clear that the Labour group had decisions given to it by leaders of the group. Decisions were made in the Labour group. They were put through on the executive and rammed through the scrutiny committee. That is not openness.
  Mr. Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Such safeguards are not adequately built into the Bill. It centralises, does nothing to address the real problems of decentralisation in local government and vests powers in local parties and political cliques.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: I will not.
  The Bill encourages secrecy and deters participation. Then, tacked on to its end, there is the abolition of section 28.
  Let me be clear: Conservative Members recognise the need to maintain an attitude of tolerance in our local councils and schools and to maintain a culture of respect for all, no matter what their background, life style or sexual preference. However, section 28 has to be seen against the background of a widespread desire to promote family values and the need to educate all our children on the importance of good parenting in our society. The debate in another place highlighted the fact that those concerns are shared across the whole political spectrum. Church leaders—from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Cardinal Winning and the Chief Rabbi—business men and politicians of all parties have expressed those concerns.
  The Government's dogged determination to persevere reflects a dog in the manger attitude and a determination not to listen but to put political correctness over the fears of parents and community leaders. It matters not whether governors of schools have the ultimate right to determine what is taught, concerned parents and council tax payers simply fail to see why taxpayers' money and resources should be used to promote any particular minority life style. That is the issue, and that is what section 28 is about. We regret that the Minister has said that the Government are yet again simply not prepared to listen.

  221
  The strength of British local government has been its flexibility, openness, ability to adapt to the requirements of different communities, and encouragement of voluntary participation by men and women of ability. I therefore hope that, in her reply, the Minister will answer very fully the questions that were not answered in the opening speech.
  How will the Bill, in practice, protect against the concentration of power in the hands of narrow cliques of party-selected politicians? How will it prevent a cloud of secrecy descending on local council decisions? How will it help accountability? Why does it not provide for pre-scrutiny before decisions are taken?
  How will the Bill's provisions be paid for, given that the Local Government Association has already estimated that they will cost £150 million? What will it do to bring back to participation in local government ordinary people seeking to dedicate their spare time to local communities? When will the Government start to live up to their promise of less centralisation and reverse the tide of red tape and regulation on house building, planning and how councils spend their money? What can be done to give communities once again a real sense of ownership of their neighbourhoods and the power to shape and determine their future?
  The Government have failed to live up to their promises. That is why I urge hon. Members to vote for the reasoned amendment.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I think that every Labour Member—and, I hope, every Opposition Member—recognises that the Government's aims to provide more efficient and better local government and particularly to promote greater understanding of what local government is doing among people, and more intelligent participation and involvement in it, are laudable and something to which everyone can subscribe.
  The Minister very generously gave way in her speech. I can seldom remember a Minister speaking on Second Reading who has been so prepared to engage in debate and to take on board hon. Members' concerns. She and her Department deserve great credit for that generosity, which indicates the openness with which she will approach the overall subject. However, her generosity allowed grave concern on one matter to be revealed very clearly on both sides of the House.
  Under the Bill's provisions, people will have less knowledge about what is going on in local government, less access to information and less involvement in local government. That cannot be, and quite clearly is not, what the Government want. I hope that, during scrutiny in the House, the Government will recognise that the Bill works against the grain of what they are seeking to achieve. The Minister knows the Bill only too well, so there is no need to rehearse all the areas that reinforce that point.
  Although the full council will be in public—as has been said—cabinet and cabinet bodies will not be required under clause 21 to meet in public, and will have to publish decisions only after they are made. Mayors also will be outside the scope of the Local Government (Access to
  222
  Information) Act 1985. Similarly, executives will not have to meet in public and cannot be required to do so by the full council—an extraordinary provision. Also, they will have to publish only after decisions have been made.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said in a good intervention, those provisions do not prevent good practice by individual councils. However, the point of legislation is that it sets a benchmark for what has to be done. Many councils will not follow the lead of his council's good, open practice. Many will follow the lead of the Bill, and say that they can operate in private. In many ways, that makes for easier and faster decision making and the avoidance of problems for councillors. The temptation will be enormous, and the Bill—as it is drafted at the moment—will give full rein to those seeking secrecy.
  Executives will be able to decide for themselves, which means that the present duties on councils to take decisions in public may change. The duties were introduced in the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960—proposed, amazingly, by Baroness Thatcher when she was a Member of Parliament—which gave a great deal of openness to local government. It is a great pity that when she became Prime Minister, she forgot the democratic and open instinct that led her to introduce, as a private Member's Bill, a good piece of legislation. All credit to her as a Back-Bench Member; I wish that she had continued in that way when she was Prime Minister.
  The public will lose their right to involvement and participation in decisions before they are made. That very popular former Member of this House, Robin Squire, introduced a Bill which became the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. It is important to remember that those are rights that the public have enjoyed to call bodies to account and to get access to information. The Bill will bypass those rights, which will not exist unless we can amend it, as we ought to.
  The Freedom of Information Bill—which we debated at great length and not entirely happily last week—applies to local authorities, but sadly does not help much in this respect. Under the Bill, information can be withheld if, in the authority's reasonable opinion, disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. That is a powerful inhibition to open government and the right of people to know what is going on. The implication is that the Freedom of Information Bill gives legal weight to an authority's opinion in a way that is remarkable and extremely regrettable. It will create a new cloak of secrecy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has said.
  The Bill in its present form is deficient and will lead to more closed, less well-informed and less informative local government, but all is not lost. It is up to this House to make changes. Cabinets and executives can meet in public, and should be made to do so by amendments to the Bill; that is, unless there is confidential or exempt material that cannot be disclosed. That has always been the case. That provision should be put in the Bill. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will listen to the debate and recognise that there is great concern inside and outside this House. We want open local government, and if the Bill said that cabinets and executives had to meet in public, that would be a big step. Similarly, reports,

  223
  the factual information on which decisions are based, options and recommendations should be made public before information is exempt.
  Ms Armstrong: It is in the Bill.
  Mr. Fisher: I suspect that the Minister knows the Bill better than I do, but I cannot see any strengthening of openness provisions.
  What I am asking for can and must be achieved. We cannot let the Bill pass from this Chamber in its closed state. If we can include provisions for the open local government that we need for the next generation, we shall have done something good.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who has made a valuable contribution to our deliberations in the past few weeks, not least in his valiant efforts on freedom of information. I am pleased that he continued that theme in his speech on this Bill. I agree with every word that he uttered.
  We are in a unique and, I suspect, somewhat bizarre situation. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) has made it clear that he is deeply concerned about many aspects of the Bill. Judging from the interventions from several of his hon. Friends, I suspect that he was speaking on behalf of all of them. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—and every Labour Back Bencher who has intervened—highlighted concerns about various aspects of the Bill. Like all my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have many reservations about the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] So keen are my hon. Friends on the importance of local government that they are out campaigning. Every hon. Member who has spoken, including the Minister, voiced deep concerns about various aspects of the Bill. She said—I think that I quote her correctly—that the Bill is not in the form that the Government wish to see it in.
  We are in a difficult position, because we have to decide whether we want to give the Bill a Second Reading. I should make it clear at the outset that, while I have deep concerns about a number of aspects of the Bill, I shall vote for a Second Reading in the hope—I suspect that many others share this hope—that we shall be able to make several amendments during the Bill's later stages.
  Above all, I hope that the amended Bill will help to bridge the growing gulf between politicians and the people whom they represent. Sadly, people often no longer trust politicians. They certainly do not join political parties. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more members than all three major political parties put together. Although there are some notable exceptions, that gulf is as true in local government as in other tiers of government. The turnout for local government elections is testimony to that problem. People value the services provided by local government, but they do not believe that councillors have enough power to do much about them. I very much hope that the Bill will play a part in reconnecting the people to the politicians who seek to represent them.
  We have considerable sympathy with various provisions in the Bill and support them fully. The proposed new powers of well-being, the proposed ethical arrangements and the replacement of surcharging—the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells acknowledged that
  224
  point—are sensible moves in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree on the plans, held up by a decision in another place, to repeal section 28, because the Liberal Democrats support those plans. We also support the arrangements to enable the giving of powers to area committees.
  However, like every hon. Member who has spoken, we have several areas of considerable concern, not least the number of new powers being given to the Secretary of State, particularly his ability to limit significantly the scope of the new well-being powers. We are particularly concerned about the excessive prescription of matters that are best left to local determination. If the proposals for new structures of local government are not amended, they will concentrate too much power in the hands of a few individuals. Despite what the Minister says, they will create divisions between two ranks of councillor and, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has said, will reverse the recent huge strides in opening up local government decision-making processes.
  When the Bill hit the headlines, all the talk was about mayors and cabinets. The Government were embarrassed by some old Labour councils such as Doncaster and began to find that other Labour heartland councils, such as Liverpool, Sheffield and Islington, were being taken over by the Liberal Democrats. They were desperately keen to find a new, streamlined look for some of their councils.
  The public want local councils with the power to make decisions about issues of concern to local people. They are not interested in the fancy wrapping of the council, they just want to know that it is able to get on and make the necessary decisions and has the cash to back them up. People know that, at the moment, their local council has neither the power nor the cash to make a real difference. The bulk of cash for local government comes from Whitehall. Central Government are calling the shots.
  I welcome the last-minute conversion of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells to a belief in freeing up local government, but I hope that he acknowledges that the previous Conservative Government stripped away many local government powers. The sad truth is that the Labour Government have continued that trend. Councillors no longer have room for manoeuvre, because ever more decisions are pre-empted by diktat from Whitehall. Ever more local government funding comes as specific grants. Councils get the cash only if they agree to spend it in the way that the Government tell them. We have also seen the massive introduction of a bidding process for specific grants, which takes up a great deal of officers' time. More often than not, they are disappointed. Research figures show that only one third of all bids made for specific funds are successful. That means that two thirds of the bids are unsuccessful. All that officer and member time is wasted.
  The target-setting process is a further example of that centralisation by a Labour Government. Target after target is being imposed on local government. Target-setting can have value and improve the management process, but it is getting ludicrously out of hand. The ultimate in the ludicrous situation that we have reached is that, having imposed targets on local government, central Government throw them in the dustbin. Anyone wanting evidence of that need only look at the written answer that I received from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), on 2 December last year to a question about targets. She said:

  225
  Details of any targets agreed with local government are not held centrally—[Official Report, 2 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 273W.]
  The implication is that the Government do not even know what targets they have set for local government. If Whitehall is known to pull all the strings, people will not bother to vote for the puppets. We must free local government if people are to regain an interest and involvement in local government.
  Maria Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his party's policy is to raise more finance locally instead of the Government handing over money to local government from the centre? Is he suggesting that that should be done through the council tax?
  Mr. Foster: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is yes. It is Liberal Democrat policy to rearrange local government finance so that a greater proportion of the money spent locally is raised locally. At the moment, some 80 per cent. of the money spent locally comes from Government funds. That is wrong and we need to reduce the amount of money raised through income tax and increase the amount raised through local taxation. That is a clearly stated party policy—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is excited by it, I will happily ensure that he receives a copy.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is Liberal Democrat policy to put a penny on income tax and a penny on local government taxes?
  Mr. Foster: I do not wish to delay the House for too long, but the hon. Gentleman confuses two separate issues. The Liberal Democrats believed that the Chancellor was wrong to reduce the level of income tax, because that money would have been better spent on improving public services such as education, health and support for pensions. The hon. Gentleman disagreed with us and voted with the Chancellor. The issue of the funding of local government is separate. Local government funding should be arranged so that more of the money that is spent locally is raised locally. The quid pro quo is a reduction in the amount of money raised through central taxation.
  Dr. Whitehead: Is there not a contradiction between the Liberal Democrats' demand that the Government do not cut taxes but increase public spending, which mostly goes through local government, and his idea that local government should be responsible for raising its funds and should not receive grants from the Government?
  Mr. Foster: I suspect that we are straying a long way from the Bill, but if the hon. Gentleman wants the full text of our policy, I would be happy to send it to him. We make it easy for the hon. Gentleman because we suggest that money should be collected locally through a form of local income tax, not through the council tax arrangements.
  The most important part of the Bill is not part II, which has been the subject of most controversy, but part I, which gives additional powers to local government in respect of the so-called powers of well-being. We have long thought that local government should be given a power of general competence. In other words, local councils would be able
  226
  to do all those things that they felt were in the interests of local people, except for some things that were specifically prohibited. In part I, the Government have gone a long way in that direction and we welcome that. However, we are concerned that the Bill will still give the Secretary of State significant ability to limit those arrangements. We are also concerned that the Bill contains no mechanism to allow local councils to raise funds to pay for those activities that they develop within the new power. I hope that we will debate those issues further in Committee.
  I also hope that the Minister will acknowledge that arising from that power is the ability to produce community strategies and plans, which is also contained in part I. She will be aware that local government has to produce many different plans. In some cases, local authorities have to produce as many as 40 different plans, including economic development plans, civil defence plans, air quality management plans, youth justice plans, community safety plans—the list goes on. We hope that, in Committee, it will be possible to table amendments to ensure that, when a local council develops a community plan under part I, it will be able to integrate within that plan many of the other plans. The Minister is aware that, to achieve that, we would need to change the power to a duty, and I am delighted that she acknowledged that the Government intend to table amendments to that effect.
  I hope also that the Minister will be willing to accept amendments that deal with the thorny issue of quangos. As we try to achieve joined-up government at local and regional level, it is vital that we find more effective ways to get local government and the various quangos to work together. That is missing in the current arrangements and is not referred to in the Bill.
  Part II has been the most controversial. It is true that many councils need to streamline their decision making. Many councils have already made radical changes without legislation forcing them to do so, but the Government now want to force on all councils one of only three models. We recognise that those three models are more flexible than many people have given them credit for, but—despite the Minister's protestations—any one of the models could lead to the creation of two ranks of councillor. They could also concentrate power in the hands of too few people. All councillors should be able to represent the views of their communities equally, and we do not want to see standard-class councillors and first-class councillors.
  Pilots of the models have been carried out, and the evidence in some cases shows disillusionment among the back-bench councillors. It is therefore important to recognise the pressure for a fourth option or a locally determined option. With good will on both sides, it would be possible to develop such an option in Committee, based on Baroness Hamwee's amendment in the other place. That amendment sought to provide a locally determined option that is nevertheless based on several key principles, including the vital importance of scrutiny, accountability, openness, transparency and efficiency. I hope that we will have the opportunity to develop that issue in Committee.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in Wales, we have the ideal method of developing local options, because the National Assembly could develop a set of options that took into account the unique circumstances of Welsh local government?
  Mr. Foster: I agree entirely, and several amendments will be needed in respect of the arrangements for Wales.

  227
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central rightly raised another concern about the executive models in part II. Liberal Democrats and others have worked hard in local authorities throughout the country to move them out of the dark ages. We have fought for meetings to be held in public, for the public's right to speak or to present petitions and for papers to be available to all councillors and the public in advance of meetings. The Bill's provision to allow executives the option—I accept that some will choose not to take advantage of it—to meet in secret would take us back to those dark ages and is a recipe for concealment and corruption.
  Open access to all papers in advance of meetings is crucial. How will other councillors, the public and partner organisations know that they need to lobby executive members if they do not know in advance what will be discussed and when? Publishing decisions after the event is not adequate.
  Parts III, IV and V are much less controversial than parts I and II. We would like to see changes to those parts and we shall introduce amendments in Committee. Part V involves the vital issue of section 28. I wish to make it absolutely clear on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are opposed to the section. We welcome the new guidance that is being proposed by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, but we believe that section 28 must be repealed. We shall give our support to any measures that the Government feel should be taken to ensure that that is done.
  Much in the Bill needs to be amended to give real powers, including fund-raising powers, to local government. Local government should be given real choices and be subject to less prescription to ensure that there is no return to the dark ages of decisions being taken in secret. We must ensure that the work of all councillors is equally valued. Above all, we must set local councils free so that they can truly serve and meet the needs of local people. As I have said, it is with some difficulty, but in the hope that, with amendments, the Bill can move us in that direction, that we shall support Second Reading.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench Members' speeches.
  6.11 pm
  Ms Julie Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I think that we all recognise the huge contribution that local authorities have made to the community, and the proud tradition of many authorities. In recognising the need for change and revitalisation, it is important also to recognise the tremendous good work that the authorities have done in their present form.
  The Cardiff local authority started street lighting services. At one time, it had its own electricity company. It introduced a trolley service and bus services. All those vital services are an important part of our lives. Local authorities have provided community leadership, and I welcome the extended powers in the Bill that will enable them to continue to do so.
  228
  As my right hon. Friend Minister for Local Government and the Regions said when opening the debate, the Bill applies to England and Wales. There are separate clauses for Wales that specify that the National Assembly for Wales has the powers of the Secretary of State in England.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Lady think that the council tax payers of Cardiff are getting the best possible value in paying £58,500 to the leader of that council?
  Ms Morgan: Probably not. The Assembly has considered the issue and has given the leader of the local authority a deadline to reduce the allowances. I agree with its recommendations.
  The relationship between the Assembly and local government in Wales is unique, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned earlier in an intervention. During the devolution campaign, the referendum and the vote last May, one of the big fears expressed by local authorities, councillors and supporters of local authority government was that devolution would take powers up from local authorities rather than bringing them down from Westminster. It was therefore built into the devolution settlement that the Assembly would work with local government and would not take work from it. The Government of Wales Act 1998 specified that a partnership council should be established. That council has been set up and it is meeting regularly. Local government in Wales is already working with the Assembly through the partnership council to develop Assembly statutory guidance on part II.
  There is a unique situation in Wales because of the creation of the Assembly and the fact that local government is bound to be closer to people's lives on a day-to-day basis than the Assembly and central Government. We have an opportunity to show our confidence in local government and to work as much as possible via local authorities. The function of central Government in Wales is not to take over the functions of local government. It is significant that a substantial amount of the extra education money in Wales has gone to local authorities and not direct to schools. Direct provision is not seen as feasible in Wales and it is not being attempted. The situation is different in Wales, and we must accept that, with devolution, there will be different solutions in different parts of the country.
  In principle, the Welsh Local Government Association accepts the case for a separation of powers with the creation of an executive that will be separate from the council. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, councils are experimenting, and 12 councils are doing so in Wales. Another seven have plans to do so. There seems to be no interest among the councils in having directly elected mayors. I do not know whether that feeling is reflected by the public. Most authorities are thinking of a cabinet model. The Cardiff local authority has a cabinet of seven and an executive of 20. I do not know whether that is unique.
  Cabinet and executive models throw up problems over the role of non-executive councillors. There is a danger that a divide will be created, which might be made worse by the payment proposals of some authorities. It is difficult to see how back-bench councillors will take part in policy making. Scrutiny is vital and that process gives

  229
  a tremendous role to councillors, but it is important for every councillor to have an opportunity to participate in policy making. That may be possible via the scrutiny role, and it needs to be spelt out to local councillors that that might happen.
  Ms Armstrong: The overall policy of the council is the responsibility of the whole council and not of the executive. The executive's role is to implement, and to take decisions that are required to implement the overall policy.
  Ms Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information.
  There has been much criticism about the plethora of committees and sub-committees that have characterised local government. I served as a councillor for 12 years and I spent a lot of time on various sub-committees, committees and working groups. I suppose that many of the individuals and groups involved spent an inordinate amount of time sitting in committee. However, many of them made important decisions. They co-opted people who had experience of receiving the council's services. I initiated a child care strategy and a local authority nursery via those committees, which may not feature in the future structure. At a recent women's conference that I attended in Wales, representatives of all four political parties regretted the loss of those committees and groups. They felt that they provided an opportunity to learn, and opportunities, particularly for women, to become involved in local government on first becoming councillors.
  There is a lack of women's representation. Women are not very well represented in this place, but in local government there is a huge problem. Local government will never really be credible until it is more representative of the public that it serves, and that relates particularly to women. I hope that, in the consultation period and the processes that may arise as a result of the Bill, there will be opportunities to address this issue.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has recently produced a report entitled "Democratic Deficit 2000", which highlights the under-representation of women in local government. It asked whether there would be any women mayors and how many women would be in the cabinets. In my own local authority of Cardiff, three of the seven cabinet members are women. There are 17 men and one woman in the executive, and four men and one woman chair the five scrutiny committees. Although 32 per cent. of Cardiff's councillors are women, most are not in positions of power. Women account for only 24 per cent. of councillors in Wales. It is important that the Bill does not reinforce women's absence from decision-making positions.
  I hope that the consultation process, and the Bill itself, will encourage councillors to ask themselves why so few women are involved. Will the models adopted by the Bill make it easier for women to participate? What will councils do to make participation easier? I welcome the Bill's recommendation for carers' allowances, as there is no doubt that the lack of arrangements for people with caring responsibilities is one of the reasons why women have not been fully involved in local politics.
  230
  Clearly, the ultimate power of scrutiny and control of councils and councillors resides with the electorate. I hope that some of the changes in the Bill to make elections more frequent will help make local government more relevant to people's lives. There is no doubt that the abysmal turnout in local elections shows that something must be done about local government.
  I hope that the Bill will revitalise local government. Ultimately, the electorate will let us know how they feel about the standard of councils.
  6.22 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), whose enthusiasm for, and experience in, local government shone through her contribution. It was interesting to hear her description of the links that have been made between the Welsh Assembly and existing local government in Wales.
  As always, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who was mercifully brief, unlike some of his colleagues—but they are not present this afternoon. It was especially interesting to hear the thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I hope that the Minister took careful note of the points that he made.
  We heard a great deal from the Minister about the Government's enthusiasm for local government and its autonomy. However, the contributions made by hon. Members of all parties show that not everyone is certain that the Bill is the best illustration of that enthusiasm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said, local government is important to people and communities. It is important to communities because it is a vital strand of the democratic process, because its decisions are closest to the people whom they affect, and because it delivers services that are important to everyone—literally, from cradle to grave.
  Local government is also important because when it is efficient, accountable, transparent and truly autonomous, it can play a role in limiting big, central Government. However, despite its importance, electoral turnouts show that people are apathetic towards local government, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North noted.
  Like their predecessors over many decades, the Government want to counter that apathy, and the Bill and other measures are the means that they have chosen to achieve that. In the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions press notice of 26 November last year, Ministers stated that the Bill was part of the Government's agenda to
  revitalise local democracy and modernise public services.
  The Minister used a similar phrase earlier this afternoon. The press notice also advanced the hope that the provisions in the Bill would make
  councils more efficient, transparent and accountable.
  There is some way to go before that is achieved. Keith Lucas and Richards point to part of the reason for that in their "History of Local Government in the Twentieth Century", when they state:
  At no stage of English history has any Government held a consistent and logical policy on the range of limits of municipal services. Local government was not evolved to provide a

  231
  co-ordinated system of administration for a logically defined range of services; it emerged, piecemeal, in answer to a succession of separate needs and demands.
  Everyone interested in local government would agree with that analysis. It has been the task of successive Governments to try to put the deficiency right, but they have all had to start with an unsatisfactory patchwork. There has been no Napoleonic tendency in this country.
  However, people value the services provided by local government. A MORI poll conducted for the Local Government Association in spring 1999 found that although people believe that local government services are important to their lives, they are unclear about who is responsible for which services, and who should be held accountable for what.
  For example, the survey showed that people understood that street sweeping, refuse collection and—interestingly enough—the library service were provided at local level, but that they were vague about other provision such as education and social services. That is partly because a succession of central Governments—not just this one and their predecessor—have regarded local government as the vehicle for their own initiatives. Circular 10/65, the Housing Finance Act 1972 and the Rates Act 1984 come to mind in that regard.
  This Government came to power full of the good intentions expressed in their 1997 election manifesto, which stated:
  Local decision making should be less constrained by central government and also more accountable to local people.
  From the contributions that we have heard so far from hon. Members of all parties, I think that we would all agree with that.
  However, what is the reality, as opposed to what some people might call the Bill's pious intentions? Does the Bill tackle the real reasons for public apathy towards local government and all its works? Does it grasp the opportunity of its own existence?
  The Bill's proposals must first be set against the context created by the Government. The hon. Member for Bath mentioned some of the relevant points. For example, in 1999–2000, local councils must produce no fewer than 26 "Plans"—with a capital "P"—outlining their response to Government-set priorities. They are to produce 124 Audit Commission performance indicators, and 43 quality protects indicators for children's social services. In addition, the Department of Health has produced 48 performance indicators, covering the whole range of public services.
  The time taken by local authorities on such work can be imagined, but the use to which all the information would be put is less easily grasped—although the hon. Member for Bath has told us that it is often destined for the dustbin. I hope that he is not right, but it is hard to see how a Government elected on the promise that local decision making
  should be less constrained by central government
  can justify the degree of central control that the Bill will impose.
  Mrs. Ellman: Am I correct in believing that the right hon. Lady at one time advocated the total removal of responsibility for education from local authorities? Is she still of that opinion? Would she like the Bill to include provision to achieve that removal?
  Mrs. Shephard: I believe, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently does, that money is well handled at
  232
  local level by schools. I do not remember the hon. Lady challenging the right hon. Gentleman on that point when he made his Budget statement.
  As the hon. Member for Bath said, the work of local government has been overlapped, if not undermined, by the sheer number of quangos and executive agencies. At present, there are 6,500 quangos—the number is rising—and 238 executive agencies. There are also 708 executive non-departmental bodies.
  Moreover, the Government's rush to constitutional reform has further blurred the accountability of local government. The plans for the governance of London illustrate the point. London has 32 boroughs and the Corporation of London. The mayor and the Greater London Authority will be superimposed on the local government system. Some of its members will represent constituencies of 500,000; others will have Londonwide responsibilities. In addition, the people of London will of course continue to vote for Westminster Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament. They will also have the services of the London regional development agency, the Government office for London, the police authority, a fire and emergency planning authority and a culture and arts commission.
  However, what the people of London will not know—the Bill will not help them—is where to turn when there is a hole in the road. That is the simple test of accountability, without which local government will continue to be regarded with scepticism and apathy. No amount of electoral gimmicks or quick fixes will deal with the basic problems of local government, not all of which are of this Government's making. The legacy is of long standing. However, the Government undertook to solve problems that the Bill not only does not solve, but exacerbates.
  I wish to deal briefly with the proposals for the new management structures. Do they address the problem of accountability? Do they make for greater transparency? Will they create more interest in local government? Do they demonstrate the Government's stated intention in their manifesto to make local government more accountable to local people? The Bill fails those important tests. It is a mockery that a Bill claiming to make local government more accountable to local people denies local people the choice of retaining the management structures they already have if that is what they prefer. How can Ministers, aware of their manifesto commitment, maintain that the only acceptable executive arrangements are those which they have devised in Whitehall, rather than those devised by local people? Why will they not have real confidence, and allow accountable elected local people to propose their own executive arrangements which, in their view and in the view of those whom they represent, are workable in their areas?
  I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said on this point. She seems to think that a committee system is, by definition, outdated. "Outdated" is her stock epithet. How sure is she that in a county council with a cabinet and executive system all the skills, knowledge and expertise of, say, 80 members are used to the full? I accept that in a smaller council, it may be easier to ensure the involvement of everybody, because everybody will have great knowledge of a small area. However, to exclude a large number of councillors in a large county is a waste of human potential.
  The Government view, as stated in their press notice of 26 November, is clear. They want

  233
  to create dynamic local government that listens to what people really want—how they want to be governed and how they want their services to be delivered.
  However, people will not be empowered by the Bill to say how they want to be governed unless their view happens to coincide with what the Government decree.
  The Minister said in support of her cause that many local authorities have introduced the new arrangements ahead of legislation. She must know, but perhaps will not say, that as local authorities know that they will be obliged to do so, they might as well get on with it. Compliance under the cosh is not a cause for self-congratulation on the part of those holding the cosh. Although some cabinet and leader arrangements are working well and democratically, there are some awkward contrasts regarding transparency and fairness.
  I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who is no longer in his place, cite the good example of his local council. In Norfolk, the Conservative-controlled Breckland district council, with its balanced cabinet of four Conservative, three Labour and two Independent members, makes an interesting contrast with the Lib-Lab-controlled Norfolk county council. Seven of its nine cabinet members are Labour and two are Liberal, and eight members represent urban wards. The Conservative opposition, of course, was not invited to take part.
  Sadly, Norfolk is not exceptional. According to the House of Commons Library figures, taken from an article in The Independent, in more than 60 per cent. of councils with a cabinet system, only the ruling political party is represented, and more decisions are taken in private. Such points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and I hope that the Minister will take careful note of them. She has clarified the Government's position on these matters, and I expect them to be further explored in Committee.
  I cannot believe that the Minister intends to leave openness in large areas of decision making to the discretion of the new executives and remove the duties on local authorities to take decisions in public. Notwithstanding the Minister's clarification, the Bill produces the curious anomaly that local councils cannot choose the mechanisms by which they take decisions, but can choose to take them in secret. That seems a curious set of priorities and is difficult to square with the Government's avowed intention to create effective, democratic government which, as the DETR press notice says:
  relies on the bond of trust between the people and those who represent them…
  Let us see the Bill demonstrate that intent.
  The Minister will have noted the misgivings expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Of course there is agreement on other aspects of the Bill, but the problems of local government are fundamental and of long standing. Sadly, unless the Bill is greatly amended, it represents a wasted opportunity.
  6.36 pm
  Maria Eagle: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in the debate and to follow the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). I am glad that so many women are speaking in the debate. Those of us who have been
  234
  excluded in one way or another from central Government over the years—not for too much longer, I hope—have often found a place in local authorities. I do not speak of myself in this instance—I have never been a councillor.
  I should like to concentrate on part II on governance arrangements, as many right hon. and hon. Members have also done. The city of Liverpool, a part of which I have the honour to represent, has had a long-standing problem of inadequate civic leadership. That is why I am interested in part II. Like many fellow citizens, I have had a long-standing interest in trying to put this right. My memory of politics in Liverpool goes back about 30 years, and I do not recall having any other opportunity to try to get things right. It is very important that local authorities, cities and other administrative areas with problems now get this right.
  Liverpool has had 30 years of missed opportunities and poor civic leadership—my remarks are not aimed at any one political party, as they have all had a go in that time—but the result is that Liverpool, one of our greatest cities, has been unable to fulfil its potential. I hope that the Bill will assist in enabling Liverpool, which is moving into the 21st century with hope and ambition, to fulfil its potential at last, and to become what it should be—a great modern city.
  The ideas in the Bill have been seized on in Liverpool. Many right hon. and hon. Members may think of Liverpool as a backward-looking place, but in fact it is very forward looking. There has been a major debate in Liverpool for the past two years about how to improve and modernise local government to ensure that the city can fulfil its potential.
  The document "Local Leadership, Local Choice" was published in March last year. Since then, a debate has raged about how the ideas that it contains can be adopted to make Liverpool a better place. The Liverpool democracy commission, which was established in March 1999, finished its work in July 1999. It is a unique commission. I do not know of any other city or local authority area setting up an independent commission to consider how to improve governance. It was chaired by a well-respected local business man, James Ross of Littlewoods, and its membership included local parliamentarians of all parties, academics, business people, Church leaders and media figures.
  The commission took oral and written evidence from anyone who cared to present it, including local organisations, individuals and those who had been involved in governance, local and national. It held meetings and consultations. Debates were held across various branches of the media—radio and local television—and it also commissioned polling; so I can safely say that we know very well what people in Liverpool think about what they have.
  The commission made some recommendations, but in a sense they are not the important thing. What was revealing was the generalised will among all political parties, all types of business people and all organisations to see change. The conclusions were interesting. Only 2 per cent. of people polled thought that the council was doing a good job. Some of us who have been in Liverpool and represented it in various ways for many years thought that 2 per cent. was quite a high figure. Sixty-nine per cent. were willing to say that they were dissatisfied.

  235
  It was also apparent that the council was unable to represent the city to the outside world. In the modern era, that is increasingly necessary to improve the city and to bring inward investment and new people and jobs to the city. Local and civic governors need to be able to represent themselves to the outside world. Only 15 per cent. of people asked thought that the city council was either good or excellent at doing that; 75 per cent. thought that it was not.
  One of the other major issues about which people are concerned is value for money in local government. Only 8 per cent. of people thought that the council gave value for money. Again, some of us were surprised at how high that figure was—certainly judging by my surgeries. I accept that the 8 per cent. probably never come to see me. Also, 90 per cent. of those asked could not identify even one of their local councillors. That is a damning indictment of the existing system. If those councillors had a defined role and were able to carry it out, in a way that local people could understand or tap into, more people would certainly be able to identify them.
  The system is not good for councillors either. Evidence was given to the commission that many felt excluded, bewildered, unable to do a good job or not sure what the job that they were supposed to be doing was. One, Councillor Bostock, said:
  I did four years on the council and it did my head in.
  Mercifully for him, he is no longer a councillor, but when someone voluntarily puts in four years of their time and effort and that is the outcome, it reflects something wrong with the system. So perhaps it is no wonder that the average turnout in Liverpool wards is now below 25 per cent. in local elections. It is no wonder that in some wards in the city the turnout is as low as 10 per cent. It is no wonder that in the north end of the city in the Melrose by-election within the past two years, the turnout fell to 6 per cent. That cannot be good for local democracy. It requires a change.
  Something needs to be done—perhaps a mayor is the answer. That debate was raging two years ago in Liverpool and it still rages. There is already speculation about who the candidates might be. I shall not add to that speculation except to say that the Liverpool Labour party, for one, will have an excellent local candidate.
  The poll conducted by the Liverpool democracy commission also asked people whether they would like to have a mayor, and 63 per cent. of those asked said that they would. Only 20 per cent. were unsure and 16 per cent. were against. There is a great will to change what we have. All types of people and stakeholders in Liverpool are dissatisfied with the present arrangements.
  However, we must make sure that the new arrangements are better. That has come through in the debate this afternoon. There has to be a hard separation between the executive and scrutiny functions. Any of the models in the Bill can provide that, but the Government need to make very sure that that is what happens when the new structures are adopted.
  I want to use the example of Liverpool to show what can go wrong. While the Liverpool democracy commission was doing its work between March and July 1999, the city council, now controlled by the Liberal Democrats, sprang into action and decided that it would pre-empt the commission's findings and move straight to some new structures. They had just taken control and they
  236
  wanted to make a mark, which is fair enough. They established a cabinet with a leader, all the members of which were from one party. They established scrutiny committees led by back benchers and area committees based more or less on a ward or a small cluster of wards, which theoretically enabled local people to deal with local issues and become more involved.
  However, even though a massive debate was going on in Liverpool at the time, the county council consulted no one about precisely what arrangements it intended to establish. The result is a mess. Whether it is a deliberately contrived mess or has become a mess because the flaws of the system adopted have been exploited by the ruling group, I shall leave the electorate to decide on 4 May.
  I shall use one illustration from my constituency of the consequences of the new system. The Liberal Democrat-run council has just announced the closure of Alderwood primary school in Speke. There were undoubtedly problems of poor teaching and a lack of grip by the governors and the local education authority, which meant that there were justifiable concerns about standards, but the council announced the closure to a local newspaper before it even told parents, governors or children. The story was telephoned through to the reporter by the Liberal Democrat chairman of the lifelong learning committee—the scrutiny committee. In other words, the chair of the scrutiny committee announced the council's policy to the local newspaper. What confidence can parents have that that scrutiny committee will organise proper scrutiny of a decision that he has announced?
  That thought occurred to colleagues in the Labour group so they put that question to the leader of the council. They asked:
  Will the Leader of the Council state how the Chair of the Lifelong Learning Select Committee is meant to have any credibility in performing scrutiny of the Executive when he is quoted as announcing the administration's policies to the press?
  Good question; and the answer was:
  He has obviously taken lessons from the Labour Party. Oh Dear!
  That was not an adequate answer from the leader of the council.
  The closure was then designated by the executive as a ward issue, which in the new structure means that, despite the fact that a citywide review of surplus primary places is being conducted—of which the closure should surely be a part because there are surplus places in Speke—the decision can be called in to be scrutinised only by the local ward councillors, who all happen to be Liberal Democrat. They are certainly not Labour. A manipulation has taken place that prevented the Labour opposition from calling in the decision for scrutiny, even though the scrutiny would have been led by the man who announced the decision. The decision to close the school has been ratified through the council's rubber-stamp procedure within a week of its being announced, using a process designed to deal with non-controversial issues. The closure of a school is never non-controversial, certainly not for children, parents and governors.
  The parents are extremely angry but it is not until tomorrow, after the decision has effectively been made, that the first consultation meeting will take place with those parents. Now, I am not a cynical person, but I think that the decision has already been made—so do the parents. That is not effective local democracy but an abuse of local democracy. I hope that the Government, in taking

  237
  powers to regulate, as they propose in the Bill, will take steps to prevent such Liberal Democrat manipulation in Liverpool and make sure that the executive and scrutiny functions of local councils are well and truly separated. Unless they do that, local people will not have confidence in the new arrangements.
  The Bill offers a way forward, but I urge the Government to ensure that the arrangements that are established satisfy its principles, rather than the ambitions of local groups.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. David Curry: May I make a suggestion to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who has just left the Chamber? Too often, she makes herself the worst advocate of a reasonable case. Instead of using simple English to explain her intentions, she uses an Orwellian jargon that replaces meaning with slogans. That does not work; it would be better for all of us if she stated directly what she was trying to achieve. We could then understand the good points and disagree with the bad points.
  The Minister tried to make a case for change. However, she failed to demonstrate that a new structure was necessary to remedy problems in local government. The new structure will stand as much chance of success or failure as the old one. Structures are not always at the heart of a problem—it is the way people make them work. She failed to show that the existing structures—in the hands of people of efficiency and good will—could not deliver her results just as well as new structures. People who were not efficient, or who did not have good will, would make just as much of a mess under the new structures as they would have done under the old ones.
  How should we judge the Bill? We need sensible criteria. Does it promote competent, accountable, accessible local government, with a sustainable and reasonable balance between what central Government require and the independence of local councillors? Such a balance must he achieved. We all know that the Government have requirements and that local government aspires to greater independence. Sensible government will find a way in which those two forces can come to an arrangement.
  It would be helpful if we had a clear idea of the Government's view of that relationship. However, their view is disguised by their curious placatory rhetoric and the use of words such as "modernisation". Modernisation is described as though it were a nirvana that we could achieve. It has become a Government mantra, but the word is devoid of any intrinsic meaning.
  Will the Bill help in meeting those criteria? The straws in the wind are not good. In the Budget, the number of specific grants increased again. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment told local councils that they had to use that money for the purposes that he specified—irrespective of the principles of hypothecation. However, now there is a review of local government finance. Perhaps that will tell us a little bit about which way the Government are going.
  From one of the new Labour think tanks—the new Labour forum, I think—we hear that there is a flirtation with the idea of abolishing local education authorities. That is all part of the front line first project.
  238
  In The Guardian, Sir Jeremy Beecham—who seems to have been under-rewarded in comparison with some of local government's lesser Labour luminaries—stated that the danger of front line first was that
  it masks a real shift of power away from local government and back to control by Whitehall. We could, unless we are careful, be witnessing the strange death of local democracy…the fact is that "frontline first" and the general move toward more ring-fencing of resources are pushing relentlessly in the direction of greater central control.
  The latest edition of Local Government Chronicle—I am paid to write a column for it, so I declare an interest—states:
  Downing Street, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health are all expressing interest in radical options to channel funds directly to services without the involvement of local government—so-called "frontline first" funding.
  Ideas include giving funds directly to the country's 25,000 schools, and handing care of the elderly to health authorities.
  Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisers believe attacking councils is a vote winner. There is strong and persistent spin coming from Downing Street that Mr Blair wants results and sees local government as bureaucracy standing in the way.
  It is not difficult to see why a case will have to be made to convince local government that the Bill is supposed to be for, rather than against, it.
  The central problem is that of prescription by central Government. All parties are to blame for that. If it helps hon. Members, I shall say "mea culpa"—as a Local Government Minister, I played my part in that process. We have seen prescription of the means of service delivery and of methods of assessment and testing—with an emphasis on outcomes. There has been a move from compulsory competitive tendering to best value. Those are not opposites, but a continuum—the use of different methods to achieve the same outcome. The prescription is the same.
  There has been a move from universal and crude capping to the use of specific and much more severe forms—if the Government choose to exercise the powers that they have taken. There has been widespread creation of inspectors—the new commissars of local government. Many local councillors are now more preoccupied with passing the test with the inspectors than the test with the electors. Under the prescription that is so prevalent, perhaps the inspectorate is in danger of taking over from the electorate.
  The Bill has contradictory aspects. There is a credit side. The general power—used sensibly, in the hands of reasonable people—will be of benefit to the community and will enable people to enlarge the partnership that is at the heart of local regeneration. Obviously, the attempt to bring order to ethical standards is important. If we can sort out and clarify the allowances system so that it is transparent and there is common agreement as to what is reasonable, we shall have done local government a service.
  However, there is a debit side. The first element of that is the prescription of structures, and the wholesale condemnation of the existing arrangements. It was interesting that the Minister said that she was not an ideologue, but that the present system was insupportable. If that is not an ideological statement, what is? The present system is dismissed, without finding out whether it can be changed or reformed.
  An amendment to make that reform possible was tabled in the other place. We hear that moves are afoot to introduce a famous fourth way—I suppose that will be better than the third way. It will be interesting to see

  239
  whether a way can be found to give the present system an internal rejuvenation, and whether the Government will be receptive to that. It would be a pity if there were only three choices on the menu.
  Another element on the debit side is the curious methodology for referendums. I do not like referendums, especially those with a 5 per cent. threshold and no floor for the number of participants. A 5 per cent. threshold is pretty dismal. However, if the electorate are not sufficiently responsive to the need for change, if that need does not well up in their breast, the Government will take power to cause it to well up by requiring a local referendum. However, at that level a referendum would be a tool of coercion—as the Government are well aware.
  The Bill contains ambiguities—for example, on the possibility of more frequent elections. In the original Green Paper, the Government referred to the imposition of annual elections—presumably, they did not want councillors to sleep easy in their beds at night, because they would have to keep looking over their shoulders at the electors. The Government retain the power to impose elections by order, although the method is not specified in the Bill.
  If the Government really do not want councillors to sleep easy—if they really want to introduce an instrument that, they hope, will threaten the monolithic majorities in certain areas—there is an obvious answer. They should introduce proportional representation in local government. That would do the trick—whether we like it or not. That would deliver the result far more effectively than the Government's clumsy proposals.
  There could be ambiguity in the relationship between directly elected mayors—if we take that route—and directly elected service chiefs. That is possible under the Bill. I cannot imagine a greater recipe for incoherence than to have people with separate mandates pursuing an allegedly common policy. I cannot understand how that would deliver joined-up government—one of the preoccupations of the Labour Administration.
  As others have said, it is difficult to imagine the role of councillors in scrutiny mode. All parties have problems attracting candidates to local government. If we are honest, we must admit that we all scratch around to find candidates for certain wards. We all win seats in uncontested wards where we have difficulty in putting up candidates. If I tried to persuade someone to stand as a councillor by saying, "Come on Fred, stand for the council—you'll enjoy being a scrutineer", rather than by saying, "You're going to run the council", I should not be greeted with the spontaneous enthusiasm that I normally expect when I ask people to do something on behalf of the party. If we divide the process up between the deciders—those on the inside track, backed up by the officers—and the scrutineers, who will service the scrutineers? There would be a real difficulty.
  There is one aspect of the Bill that I am inclined to support even though I realise that I may not be wholly on-message. I am sympathetic to the idea of directly elected mayors. London was a damn silly place to start; having an elected mayor in London who will enjoy fewer powers than any directly elected mayor elsewhere was a pretty silly way to test the concept. I do not think that I will feel a great deal better governed when I wake up on 5 May, whoever has won the election and however I have resolved my personal difficulty about whom to vote for
  240
  as my second option. I rejoice only in knowing that the Prime Minister probably faces a greater difficulty deciding whom he will vote for as his second choice.
  Perhaps, at last, we have a chance to reverse the tide of centralisation that is symbolised by the number of leaders of councils who are now in this place. I can see several sitting on the Labour Benches, and there are no doubt some on the Opposition Benches, too; they have migrated to this place. However, the day that people migrate from this place to local government because they think that that is where real power lies, we will know that we have at last brought about a mechanism that can challenge the complacency and centralising tendencies of Government. On the whole, that would be a good thing, and I am anxious that we should achieve it.
  However, the political parties will all receive a nasty shock. People who stand for the post of mayor will not just seek a party mandate; they will want a much wider appeal that goes beyond their party. They will all be off-message, as has been demonstrated by events recently in London. Because they will be held responsible for all services, even the ones that they do not control closely, their necessary tendency will be to seek more power so as to bring reality into line with perception. That will involve interesting chemistry. They could seek more power over education. Policing is another obvious example. The man or the lady seeking to be a tough mayor will want to be able to control the police.
  The process might be inconvenient, but it is a lot more persuasive than the Government's regional agenda, which is dying on its feet. Its pale ghost—a Banquo's ghost—will appear tonight in the form of the proposal for the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. Elected mayors could turn out to be the sorcerer's apprentice for that legislation. Once they are unleashed, the Government will find it awfully difficult to put them back in their box. That is why they are a rather good idea.
  There will be many unanswered questions. How will an elected mayor relate to elected councillors, and what will their relative powers be? Are we moving towards a gubernatorial system in relation to service inspectors and the role of the mayor? For once, this is an experiment that is worth carrying out.
  The Bill offers some possibilities. We can improve it in Committee, and I hope that the Minister does not approach that with the attitude that a light is behind her and that she can stonewall all the questions that are asked. With the majority at her disposal, she will be perfectly able to do that. Instead, I hope that she realises that we all want local government to work, and that in the past, all parties have not delivered to local government the conditions in which it can thrive as it should if we are true believers in representative democracy. As we are in the House, we should at least believe in that.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) rather more than I did that of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who opened the debate for the Opposition. He spent 20 minutes trying to tell us that the Tory party was the defender of local government democracy, but it gave us the poll tax, rate capping and, for those of us who were in local government in the 1980s, year after year of cuts in powers

  241
  and spending. When we consider the disillusionment in local government, we must remember that a key issue is that of powers. If people do not believe that local government is capable of delivering anything or if those in local government are not able to deliver what they want, that will be a source of much disillusionment.
  I want to concentrate my comments on those parts of the Bill that deal with structures. However, much in it is welcome. In particular, I welcome the changes on functions and the ability to promote economic, social and environmental well-being that appear in part I. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that that will be a duty and not just an enabling power. The abolition of the surcharge is long overdue and I was glad to hear her show in her opening remarks the same strong commitment that she has shown on many occasions in debates on the subject of the repeal of section 28. I welcome the fact that she insisted that that would happen.
  I have no difficulty with the idea that we should consider the possibility of structural change in local government. The key questions are what form that change will take and who will decide how it is carried out. To what degree will decisions be made at a national, as opposed to a local, level?
  Irrespective of whether there have been experiments in some local authorities, the Bill proposes something very new and different. It proposes the complete separation of the executive function from the scrutiny function. Councillors will have executive powers that they will exercise personally, and that is a completely new concept. If I have understood clause 11(7) correctly, it appears that a range of people with executive powers might be appointed, rather than elected, to the new positions. We are moving to something that is untried and untested in our political system. We must recognise that in the proposals for the executive functions.
  Some of the proposals are based on arguments about the failings of the committee system in local government. Sometimes, I have felt that that has been turned into the argument that local government has failed consistently for years. I have seen many of the faults of the committee system and I have spent many unhappy hours with sub-committees of sub-committees and gone through all the processes and time that it takes to do something that appears to be relatively simple. However, let us consider what local government achieved 20 years ago. Innovations for equal opportunities took place in local government, not central Government, and the Greater London council introduced a policing committee. That idea was attacked then on the ground that local authorities in London should have nothing to do with the police, but it is now being implemented.
  Local authorities did much innovative work on economic redevelopment and on the relationship between the regeneration of estates and economic development. That all happened in local government, and it involved much more innovation than many central Government Departments can claim to have introduced over the past 20 years. I wonder why we need to be so prescriptive in the proposals. Why must we insist on a separate executive and why is it not possible to consider alternative models? I do not argue that change should not be made or that we should not adapt to changing circumstances.
  242
  Many questions have been asked about the mechanisms involved in decision making and the role of the scrutiny committees. In many local authorities—it is not true in all; it depends on their political composition—the system is likely to be based on a one-party cabinet and a scrutiny committee that is subject to the rules on political balance. Therefore the scrutiny committee will be made up of a majority of members from the majority party on the council and the cabinet will be made up entirely of members of the majority party. How will the scrutiny functions operate and what will be the role of an opposition councillor on such a committee? I suspect that the scrutiny function might involve rather more political polarisation than often happens at the moment in the committee structures of local government.
  Some hon. Members have discussed the possibility of there being two types of councillor. I have no illusions about all councillors having equal influence over events, because anybody who has been on a council knows that that is not true. I spent 17 years on a local authority, as a back bencher, as a committee chairman, in opposition and as leader of the council, so I have seen it from all aspects, and I have no illusions about the different influences of those positions and the power relationships between them. At the end of the day, however, in each position I, like any other member of the council, had one vote in any of the council's significant policy decisions.
  If we are to have councillors whose primary role is as a member of a scrutiny committee, there is an important question about the resources for those committees, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Resources are not mentioned in the Bill. We know that the effectiveness of a Select Committee in the House depends on its members and, in particular, on their personalities. Those of us who have served on Select Committees recognise that they are seriously hampered by a lack of resources to do their work and the small number of people who work directly for them.
  What will be the situation of local authority scrutiny committees when we move away from the experimental arrangements that have been set up in some places and completely separate the executive function from the scrutiny function? Who will service the scrutiny committees? Will a council officer be able to give advice to the executive and then go to the scrutiny committee and suggest how it might question the executive? That is not realistic.
  Will working for the scrutiny committee be an attractive job for a local government officer? Will a junior officer go to the committee and say, "By the way, you really ought to question what the housing department has been doing and what it has suggested to the executive"? We need to examine how we can provide scrutiny committees with independent resources and people to work directly for them, rather than being dependent on others for their jobs and careers so that they will not want to upset someone when doing their work for the committee.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and there are many dilemmas to face in how we go about making changes without increasing costs. We need closely to consider the scrutiny role and, in particular, the committees' powers to call witnesses and demand that they answer questions correctly. We need to be clear about those responsibilities.
  Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend makes the critical point that the powers of the scrutiny committees need to be spelt out. Why will they not be able to initiate or propose policies in certain circumstances? The support that they receive will be critical to their effectiveness.
  There has been much discussion about how members of scrutiny committees will function, but little discussion about the effect of the structural changes on local government officers and how they will work in relation to the executive and the scrutiny committees. We need to give that some thought because if we are to make these changes, we want to make them work. We want the scrutiny committees to have teeth and to be able to operate sensibly and efficiently; otherwise, they will become second-class structures and be seen as repositories for people who are not considered fit to be in the executive. If that happens, the system will start to fail.
  The other issue that was raised earlier, on which I want briefly to comment, is secrecy and private meetings of the executive. That is a recipe for creating suspicion. We do not expect Cabinet meetings in Downing street to take place in public, but I should think that during several Governments' time in office, many decisions taken in private in the Cabinet have been regretted when the public reaction has become apparent.
  We must tell councils to have executive meetings in public and to make agenda papers available in advance. It is not good enough to put that in guidance, because some people will totally ignore it. If we do not do that, we will contribute to poorer decision making. People should know in advance what will be discussed, and members of the executive will be alerted to matters that are likely to create a problem. It will also make it easier for the executive to change its mind. It is easier for us all to change our minds before we have announced our decision and put it into practice than to do so afterwards. I therefore hope that we will consider transparency and openness, and recognise that there is a significant difference between providing transparency after a decision has been made and providing it before it has been made.
  We have discussed the problems that might arise and what would happen if there were an emergency. Most councils have provisions in their standing orders to make decisions in an emergency; that is not an insoluble problem. We all recognise that certain issues on the agenda, particularly to do with individuals, must be dealt with in private. Transparency is even more important when individuals, rather than groups, hold executive power.
  Although I have concentrated on concerns about the Bill, the number and scale of amendments needed to make it work, to make the system open and to ensure that the scrutiny committees have the power and support that they need are not that great. I hope that we will consider those details, because I am sure that we can improve the Bill so that it will deliver what we all want—a better and more efficient system of local government.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), whose 17 years of experience in local government shone through in his speech. I disagree with him about many matters, and I am
  244
  sure that I shall continue to do so, but he made sensible points. I particularly liked his remarks about secrecy in the cabinet system being a recipe for suspicion because that is one of the points that I shall address.
  My experience of local government is a great deal more limited than that of the hon. Gentleman. I was an opposition councillor in Hammersmith and Fulham, and so I am conscious of the need for change. Many decisions were made in closed caucus by the Labour leadership; nevertheless, I had the opportunity in committees to hold those leaders to account, which was valuable.
  This is a large Bill, and in the limited time that I have I shall concentrate on two issues: cabinet secrecy and section 28, which has attracted so many headlines. The first problem about the secrecy of local government cabinets is that they will not be subject to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, so statutory openness has been lost, with all that it brings with it. The second is that cabinets will inevitably tend to be single-party bodies, so the openness of cross-party discussion will be lost. Openness will be retrospective under new arrangements, so there will be scrutiny of decisions that have already been made, as has been said. In the present system, information must be made available three days before meetings.
  Councillors who are not cabinet members—especially, and mostly, councillors who are members of opposition parties—will be excluded from the decision-making process. Allegedly, back-bench councillors will be able to spend
  more time representing their communities—
  as the explanatory notes put it; however, the Conservative leader of Blaby district council pours scorn on the idea that they will have anything to do.
  As the House knows, under the current committee system, all important council decisions have to be taken at meetings of the full council or its committees, and they are subject to the 1985 Act. Therefore, meetings are open to the public and the media, although, of course, exempt information can be discussed and decided in private session. Under the Bill, cabinets will not be required to meet in public, but must publish decisions after they have been taken. Furthermore, under clause 21,
  Regulations…may make provision for or in connection with preventing the whole or part of any record or document containing prescribed information from being made available to members of the public.
  In other words, the Bill explicitly leaves open the possibility of blanket restrictions being imposed on access to information. Decisions of directly elected mayors or individual cabinet members will not be subject to the provisions of the 1985 Act, even though a record of decisions made must be published after they have been taken. My local district council, Blaby, is actively taking steps to avoid problems.
  All that sits ill with comments made previously by the Prime Minister and other Labour Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) mentioned that, in 1996, the Prime Minister said:
  The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information.
  In March 1996, he said:
  We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity and make government information available to the public, unless there are good reasons not to do so.

  245
  That rings hollow after last week's debate on the Freedom of Information Bill and sits ill with the arrangements on local government cabinet secrecy.
  I shall give a few examples of how secretive cabinet meetings are already creeping into the processes of local government. In Sedgefield district council, which, the House will not be surprised to learn, is Labour-controlled, independent councillor Tony Moore remarked:
  without the press or public allowed in to listen to the debate of councillors, these secret meetings will leave us open to…abuse of power.
  That is a reasonable comment, quoted in The Northern Echo. In Labour-controlled Lambeth borough council, the chairman of an organisation called Streatham Forward says that
  To the present leadership of Lambeth council
  openness "is an alien concept." That valuable newspaper, the Highbury and Islington Express, attacked the secret council meeting held in Liberal Democrat-controlled Islington borough council, lambasting
  eight politicians wanting to decide our future in secret.
  A report about Labour-controlled Newcastle upon Tyne metropolitan borough council in The Independent stated:
  Ten councillors sit in single-party Cabinet meetings closed to the public. Afterwards the council issues a list of recommendations to a further committee, which although held in public, has been accused of "rubber-stamping" Cabinet decisions.
  Those comments, many made by members of the Labour party, express a legitimate concern. We, too, should voice that concern, because local government should be transparent.
  Blaby district council is Conservative-controlled. In a six-month experiment, it has already moved halfway to a cabinet system. However, the seven cabinet members make recommendations to the policy and resources committee—they do not make policy. The biggest concern is about the extra cost: the independent committee that recommends allowance rates has increased allowances by £100,000, which is a lot for a relatively small district council. It has also recommended that every councillor should have a laptop, which might be sensible, but it will certainly be expensive. In Leicestershire county council, the cost of allowances has now more than doubled.
  The big problem in Blaby is that councillors who are not part of the cabinet are left out of decision making, even though attempts are being made to keep them informed through a members' information system. Under the Bill, the only committee work done will be that of scrutiny committees, which will only consider decisions after they have been made. Among all councillors of all parties in Blaby, there is no desire for the change set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Waterson: Given his experience in Hammersmith and Fulham, is my hon. Friend aware that, under the new cabinet system there, more than 600 decisions have been made, only one of which has so far been reversed by the scrutiny process? Does he care to comment?
  Mr. Robathan: I was not privy to those details, but I did know that there has been much criticism expressed in the area of the secrecy surrounding the new cabinet system. All members of good intent would regret that.
  246
  The section 28 debate is bizarre—it strikes me as strange that anyone should believe that public money should be spent promoting homosexuality as an alternative life style. I should like to correct what was stated earlier by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who has now left the Chamber. The right hon. Lady said that the issue has nothing to do with schools. Section 28 is an amendment made by the Local Government Act 1988 to the Local Government Act 1986, It states that "A local authority"—not a school or a teacher—
  shall not…intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
  nor shall it
  promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
  Like the majority of people in this country, I find it strange that anyone should think that public money should be spent on such purposes.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: First, will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to promote homosexuality—is that not a contradiction in terms? Secondly…secondly—I have forgotten what my second point is. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Robathan: Knowing the hon. Lady, I am sure that it was an important point. However, she made one sensible point, and I, too, would have thought that it is difficult to promote homosexuality. However, a report in The Times today, states that Berkshire health authority has issued a pamphlet called "Connect"—a gay newsletter aimed at children and young people of 11 years and older that teaches them how to cruise for sex. The hon. Lady might recall from the time when we were young that, sometimes, being told about such things makes them interesting and encourages one to go out and see what is what. I do not suggest that either she or I ever did so, but I believe that that is how homosexuality might be promoted.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has my hon. Friend noticed the way in which the argument has changed over the past few months? A few months ago, we were told that section 28 had to be repealed because it stood in the way of teachers legitimately and properly dealing with homophobic bullying. Now, we are told that it does not apply in schools. The Government cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hearing the Prime Minister last Wednesday was astonishing. The debate is not about tolerance; it is about whether or not public money should be spent promoting homosexuality in schools and elsewhere.
  Dr. Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I am sorry, but no—I have given way twice and, as the hon. Lady knows, we are subject to a time limit.
  Some say that section 28 has been quite ineffective, citing in evidence the absence of prosecutions under the provision. However, I suggest that its effect has been achieved through the message—the statement—encapsulated in it and the consequent deterrent effect that that has had. Local authorities have not felt minded to

  247
  push "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", but, apparently, the publisher of that book promises to reprint it if section 28 is repealed. I have seen the book: it was pretty shocking in the 1980s, but, regrettably, it is less shocking now, because we are inured to such stuff. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that, if the provision is repealed, many publications that promote homosexuality will be produced.
  The issue has become the star turn of the Bill, even though it is only one small part of it, so it is curious how out of touch with popular feeling the Government are. As a parent of two young children, I am against the repeal of section 28. A Gallup poll showed that a large majority of the British public are in favour of maintaining section 28. The Prime Minister should spend more time listening to his constituents in Sedgefield, where 71 per cent. of those polled stated that they want to keep the law as it is.
  I am not a Roman Catholic, but I shall quote Cardinal Winning, because his words are reasonable and measured. He said:
  The current debate is not about homophobia, or discrimination, or intolerance. It is about education. It is perfectly natural that parents should be concerned that their children will be exposed to material that they do not consider either appropriate or advisable. Our politicians are imposing a values-free policy of political correctness on children, parents and society in general.
  I well remember Cardinal Winning criticising the previous Conservative Government. Labour politicians should listen carefully to what he says, whether they are practising Catholics or not. He makes a good point.
  The Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, stated:
  Section 28 is the logical outworking of putting the family at the heart of a stable society. It is, of course, discriminatory. Yet the setting of all values is a form of choice and discrimination in favour of certain moral principles.
  Muslims, Sikhs and others have all criticised the Government's moves to repeal section 28. Dr. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, who speaks a lot of sense, put it well when he said that repealing section 28 threatens to undermine a moral code shared by the world's great religions. Perhaps he overstates the case, but it is an important marker, which Labour Members should consider carefully.
  The Government have given the matter such priority because they have bought a wider gay agenda. They have bought the aggressive single-issue pressure group lobbying to which we have all been subjected. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is about to jump up and tell us about all the lobbying to which he has been subjected.
  The Government apparently intend to publish a code of practice for employers to discourage discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, which will mean that gay partners get the same rights to health care, travel benefits and relocation allowances as married couples. There is also, apparently, a case for the law to be changed to allow gay partners to register as next of kin and thereby to qualify for inheritance tax relief.
  To most people in the country, outside the Westminster village, that is nonsense. It is not intolerant of them to say that. I am not intolerant of all homosexuals. I do not think that homosexuality is an equivalent life style, but I am not intolerant of homosexuals. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is largely up to them.
  However, the proposal is an unwise move by the Government, which I shall certainly oppose. To most voters, especially Labour voters who are concerned about
  248
  the real issues that face them in areas which may not be as prosperous as the area that I represent—this was well expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)—it is extraordinary that the Government should give such priority to this one politically correct issue. I believe that that is because it is being driven by the single-issue aggressive campaigning homosexual lobby. I wonder what Labour Members' voters will think, in the local elections and come the general election, as well.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: I look forward to the Government introducing their proposals to repeal section 28 in Committee, and I look forward to the removal of the amendments that were introduced in another place. I hope that that will happen soon.
  No one should be in any doubt about the purpose of section 28. It was introduced not to protect, but to discriminate and to hurt. Its presence on the statute book directly or indirectly creates a climate of confusion, fear, intolerance and hatred. That climate still pervades the classroom, despite changes to the legislation in the 1990s—not directly, because of the Education Act 1994, but indirectly.
  Let there be no doubt that the purpose of keeping section 28 is to maintain discrimination, to continue hurting, and to inflame prejudice. We heard some of that prejudice from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
  If there has been a consistent theme justifying the actions of those who oppose the repeal of section 28, it is the claim that there is no evidence to support its abolition. I shall focus on evidence.
  The House knows that I was sacked from the Conservative Front Bench because I opposed the party's decision to force its Members through the Lobby to keep section 28. I shall say more about those events in a moment. In the weeks that followed, I received an enormous quantity of letters, more than 95 per cent. of which supported my stand.
  As so much of the debate has focused on family values, let me begin by quoting from a family—a mother—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blaby finds a letter from a mother funny. I think that it is rather important. She writes:
  My son is gay and has lived his life being bullied at school. His life has been an absolute misery.
  I, like most of the nation, cringed at the very thought of homosexuality (not knowing my son was gay.) I have recently found out and am so ashamed that I have been so ignorant of all the facts, believing that this was a life choice and not understanding that there is no choice in this matter—that it is purely a fact of nature.
  I now have to live with the fact that my ignorance has been a factor in how my son now feels about himself. He spends most of his time in a depressed and suicidal state.
  And yes, I do blame myself for this because he has been conditioned by myself to believe there is only one way to live and that is to marry someone of the opposite sex.
  The letter continues:
  If children could go to their teachers and tell them why they are being bullied and it could be discussed in an open way, I'm sure that by the time they reach adulthood they would not feel ashamed and disgusted about themselves.
  This matter has touched me in a way I couldn't have imagined. I can't do much to help my son. I can't change the way people think. I can't educate people or make them understand what it can do to a young person—how society can make them want to commit suicide.
  But you and people like you can.

  249
  [Interruption.] It is a great shame that four of the greater exponents of keeping section 28 on the statute book are not even interested in listening to that lady's letter—the mother who has had the responsibility of bringing up that child.
  We have a choice today. The House will have to decide how we respond to that mother's letter. Do we listen or do we ignore her, her son and their family? If we ignore them, what does that say about our so-called family values? After all, families are not just about structures. They are about relationships and they are about love.
  I regret the fact that so much of the debate has degenerated into an almost warlike atmosphere. It is presented as some kind of cultural war. Efforts to persuade people to adopt greater tolerance and understanding of those who are gay have been caricatured as a battle to defend family values. Somehow we have arrived at the ludicrous position in which arguing the case to end discrimination is seen as attacking the role of the family and family values in our society.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. That caricature is misleading and grossly misrepresents the real argument. Somehow, being against discrimination is equated with being against the family. That is utter nonsense, utterly wrong and utterly misleading.
  I find it difficult to understand why anyone should not logically want equal treatment for all our citizens. There is something very unpleasant about the way in which the argument about section 28 has evolved. Of course, discrimination has too long played a role in the history of our society. Likewise, we have long debated the meaning of equality.
  Today, the rhetorical equation of civil rights with special rights—or as the hon. Member for Blaby called it, a special agenda—has dominated much of the debate. The tension between equality and individual freedom to discriminate fuels much of the discussion of section 28.
  Regrettably, we live in a society that still fosters a system of sexual apartheid. Just as apartheid in pre-1994 South Africa denied black people full citizenship, so our laws deny that same full citizenship to those who are gay. As the mother's letter that I read earlier said so poignantly, it is all to easy to fail our children because of our bigotry, to think that it does not matter, or even to justify the discrimination because we think that it is about special rights, not civil rights.
  In Britain we still have an age of consent that is not equal. We expect those of our citizens who are gay to fight in our wars, to defend our country and perhaps even to sacrifice their lives, yet only recently have we begun to realise that they, too, should have rights in the armed forces which may ask them to lay down their lives.
  Much has been distorted in the argument about so-called pretend families. It is claimed that lesbians and gay men do not have families, only pretend families. We tell them that they are second best, if that.
  However, we tend to consider the matter only from the perspective of adults. What about the children? As a trustee of Childline, which has counselled nearly 1 million children in 12 years, I have listened to children for a long time. I shall quote a letter from a mother, whom we shall call Kate. She said:
  250
  My son David is 7-years old and already he is bullied at school for having gay parents. When he started school at 5 he thought there was no difference between having gay parents and straight parents. Not any more.

  We have been staggered at the levels of homophobia in schools.

  Hug a friend of the same gender and you are gay.

  Use a smaller girl's knife at lunchtime and you are gay.

  It's not all aimed at him.

  It is just a term of abuse. Like nigger used to be when society sanctioned racial prejudice, like Section 28 sanctions homophobia.

  The school knows about this kind of abuse, but feels unable to challenge it because of Section 28.

  Kate says that David is all right because he has the support of loving parents and they have had the support of others, but what about the children in David's class who might be gay? The letter continues:
  How do you think these children are going to feel about their sexuality when it has been an officially sanctioned term of abuse throughout their childhood?
  Section 28 contributes to a climate that sets some people apart from the rest of society. Yet Conservative Members present arguments that all too easily blame lesbian and gay people for setting themselves apart. However, the House is beginning to realise, as we realised with race apartheid, that sexual apartheid is wrong. It is just as cruel, and it arouses the same feeling of injustice, and the same pain and suffering. It is divisive.
  Much of the debate has been about misunderstanding. The climate in which misunderstanding operates easily becomes one of fear, prejudice, intolerance and even hate. It would be wrong to suggest that all those who oppose the repeal of section 28 wilfully wish to mislead the public. However, some do. They distort the facts and present misleading arguments. Their conclusions are underpinned by appalling prejudice.
  Let us consider a Conservative party press release, which was issued by the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. It states:
  The Conservative party is quite clear. We believe that no public money should be spent promoting homosexuality. Public money should be used to raise educational standards.
  Of course money should be spent on raising educational standards. However, resources need to be used to tackle bullying. Homophobic bullying is a serious problem in our schools. The Conservative party press release continues:
  Bullying is wrong. We do not believe that section 28 provides any legal impediment to teachers to tackle bullying.
  The Tories claim that bullying must be stopped, but would not provide money to tackle that problem in schools.
  The row over section 28 led to my sacking from the Conservative Front Bench. I had no idea that the Government intended to repeal section 28 until the Queen's Speech last November. As soon as I knew, I consulted every headteacher in every school in my constituency. Every secondary school headteacher wanted the law repealed. They gave example after example of homophobia. They said that, despite the fact that the law had changed, the climate meant that section 28 hung like a sword of Damocles over teachers' heads.
  I tried to explain that to the Conservative Chief Whip. He was not very interested. I said that a party that wanted to listen to Britain should listen. However, he said that, when it came to section 28, the Conservative party was not listening. In three minutes, a meeting of members of

  251
  the shadow Cabinet decided, after taking no evidence from any interested party—social workers, teachers, the British Medical Association or children's charities—that section 28 constituted a good opportunity to promote their so-called family values. They ignored the sort of letters that they received from people whose families genuinely suffer.
  The university of London produced some evidence. It polled teachers in 307 schools. The research concluded:
  Although the direct legal effect of Section 28 on school policies is minimal, the existence of the legislation sends a clear signal that there may be something dangerous or wrong about addressing the needs of gay pupils.
  This is an unnecessary, damaging and confusing message for teachers which adversely affects the lives of the young people with whom they work.
  We must all regret that none of that is reflected in Conservative party propaganda, statements or briefings.
  A briefing note that the Tories prepared on 27 March this year stated:
  Key point. Parents want the comfort of knowing that homosexuality cannot be promoted in schools at public expense, and that their children are protected.
  How misleading—the Tories know that section 28 does not apply directly in schools. Their legislation provided for that. School governors have the responsibility for sex education. Yet the attempt to mislead the public continued, even by the Leader of the Opposition. In Prime Minister's questions, he challenged the Prime Minister to back down and asked him what people had to do to get him to back off politically correct nonsense.
  The Prime Minister will not back off because the Labour party will do what is right, not what is expedient to exploit people's fears and prejudices. A teacher wrote a letter, which stated:
  I was asked to interview a young 15-year old boy who had not attended formal education for two years. It soon transpired that his failure to attend school had been due to vicious homophobic bullying.
  This resulted in a severe breakdown and admission to a psychiatric unit.
  He also told me that had been self-abusing and showed me his scars. Both his arms are covered by a huge series of scars from knife cutting.
  Another teacher wrote about an appalling case. He said:
  When I was at school, there was a swing park next to Airdrie hospital, and next to this there was a set of public toilets.
  The one painful memory I have is that a young man was beaten to death in those toilets late one night.
  His face had been kicked and booted so badly that his face was no longer recognisable as a face.
  I do remember how everyone at school was laughing about it because the general idea was that he was gay and therefore his death was a good thing.
  The fact that he suffered an inhumane death…was irrelevant.
  I know of young kids who have been beaten up at school because they were perceived to be gay, and the school did nothing about it.
  A young man called Darren committed suicide last year because he could no longer go on suffering the beatings and the abuse.
  His teachers knew all about it, but because of Section 28 felt obliged to ignore it.
  Section 28 drove him to suicide.
  How many other young children has it driven to suicide, or suffered brutally…?
  252
  We will never know, but it cannot be denied that such a situation is immoral and unfair.
  A few years ago, Neil Kinnock, the former leader of this party said:
  Section 28 is crude in its concept. Slanderous in its drafting. Vicious in its purpose.
  It is vicious. It should go.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. David Amess: The Bill is bad and dishonest. Anyone who had any doubts should have been here this afternoon to listen to the Minister of State's introduction. It was appalling. She convinced no one, least of all members of her party. I do not wish to be unkind to her but she has had a bad week. I listened to her on the radio when she talked about what she described as "best value". After her big build up, the interviewer asked what was new about the idea. She had no answer. The interviewer described value for money in local government as simple common sense.
  At the weekend, the right hon. Lady described the dome as a remarkable building. It is remarkable that it was ever built—I suppose that my party had a hand in that. However, it is a different matter to go on radio and claim that it constitutes a remarkable example of fine British architecture.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): It is.
  Mr. Amess: I am sorry to disagree with the Under-Secretary, but I do not believe that the dome is a remarkable building, and the majority of British people are not proud of it.
  The Bill is a bad measure. The Government tabled more than 300 amendments to it in another place. Most of them did not tackle the substantive points. This afternoon, the Minister showed that she had not mastered the arguments.
  The Bill is dishonest. The 1997 Labour party general election manifesto states:
  Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government…
  Well, yes. Also, it should be
  more accountable to local people.
  Yes. The manifesto goes on:
  We will place on councils a new duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area.
  However, there was no rider to say that there would be no money for any of that, as the way in which Lord Dixon-Smith tried to amend the Bill shows. It also says:
  They should work in partnership with local people, local business and local voluntary organisations.
  I want to share with the House the fact that none of that has happened in my town, Southend, where this dreadful experiment went ahead. Under no circumstances have the local people been consulted about the nonsense that has gone on. It adds:
  They will have the powers necessary to develop these partnerships. To ensure greater accountability, a proportion of councillors in each locality will be elected annually.
  The Minister of State kept firing her guns at Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, who were saying nothing, and completely ignored Labour Back Benchers, although she knew only too well that they were deeply unhappy with

  253
  the Bill. Hardly any Labour Member has supported this shambles of a Bill this afternoon—everyone seems to oppose it—or perhaps they are terribly busy. The Government have had months to sort it out, yet we again find shabby legislation before the House.
  I pay tribute to Friends of the Earth, Charter 88 and the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Under normal circumstances, they would be close to the Labour party but, judging by the brief that has been sent to me, they are very unhappy with the Bill. Although one or two hon. Members smiled earlier, it was Baroness Thatcher who in 1960 introduced a private Member's Bill to allow council meetings to be open to the press and the public. The Conservative party should be proud of that. When we were in office for our 18 years, we also passed legislation to allow the public access to key council papers three days before meetings.
  Everything in the Bill is dishonest and rubbish is talked about it. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions seemed to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when he talked about modernisation. What the devil is this modernisation about? I shall tell the House. It is about the Labour party stifling any debate, just as it wants to stifle its own Back Benchers. The Bill is not about openness and transparency—that is an absolute travesty of what has happened in Southend.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) talked about her Liberal council. I shall talk about my Labour and Liberal council and we shall see how open and transparent it is. What the Bill suggests is nonsense. The public will not know what is being discussed at local authority cabinet meetings, apart from seeing a brief summary of decisions made after the meeting. Time after time, Labour Back Benchers tried to intervene on the Minister of State to make that point. Whether she could not be moved from her brief or did not understand the point I do not know, but I thought that she would have had a tangible argument to meet it.
  The Bill will strip the British people and local newspapers of their right to observe how councils make decisions and how individual councillors vote. A year ago in Southend, for whatever reason, it was decided to opt for cabinet-style government. It has been a total disaster. What has gone on in Southend is a disgrace and I want to touch on many issues. I asked for a report on what the new system has meant in Southend and most councillors of all parties think that it is
  undemocratic that a small Cabinet of 8 make all the decisions and…the other 31…
  are turned scrutineer. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to earlier. It is a waste of time being a scrutineer councillor. They have no power whatever.
  What have the daft Government done in Southend? We all nodded and said that it is difficult to get people to stand for the council so we are to have another 13 scrutineers. We shall have more councillors, but fewer people will be involved in the democratic process. What a complete waste of their time. Although the Southend cabinet meets in public, the decisions are taken at its private briefing with officers. Like many hon. Members,
  254
  I have been a councillor, though to be honest I did not much enjoy being a councillor in Redbridge. I prefer being a Member of Parliament. However, I got a feel for the way things work. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) or the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said that parties met in private under the old committee system and the press did not get to hear what went on. That is not the case. Councillors could be whipped to any end in a private meeting on a three-line Whip, many things were leaked to the media and there was close scrutiny of decisions before they reached the committee stage.
  I am also advised by the Southend councillors that morale is low among those on all sides who are not in the cabinet. They are very bitter about being excluded and people will become totally disenchanted in the long term, but that is what this rotten Labour party is all about: fewer and fewer people voting and fewer and fewer people getting involved in the democratic process, but Ministers have the nerve to come to the Dispatch Box to pretend that they are propagating openness and transparency. There is nothing open and transparent about this dreadful Government.
  The cabinet system encourages decisions to be taken first and public debate to take place afterwards, which is odd.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Rubbish.
  Mr. Amess: The hon. Lady should come to Southend to talk to Labour councillors. Let them try to convince her that it is no good taking decisions privately and arguing about them afterwards, when it is too late. The scrutiny committee has few powers and must refer matters back for reconsideration.
  I have always been against officer-led local authorities, but the proposal plays into officers' hands as it is all about taking control away from democratically elected representatives. That is part of a hidden agenda for the long run to drive potential councillors out of local government and to shift their powers to regional assemblies, which we shall discuss later.
  I also want to refer to the payment of councillors. In our local newspaper, the Evening Echo, I read:
  Southend's council leader could be set for a 100 per cent increase in allowances under new recommendations revealed today.
  That has gone down like a lead balloon locally. Executive councillors could be paid £10,000 to £12,000, but I cannot see too many people giving up full-time jobs for such a salary. If the Bill becomes law, I shall be very worried about the way in which local government is going.
  I want to share another matter with the House. Local people have been kept in the dark about important issues such as assisted area status because of this ridiculous cabinet system. What has gone on is a disgrace. At one point, Southend applied for objective 2 status under the fisheries strand arrangements. There was no consultation. Two wards in my area, Leigh and Chalkwell, were moved to the urban strand. There was no openness and no transparency. The one ward that I represent, Westborough, was taken out rather than being switched to the urban strand. Therefore no ward in my constituency qualifies, as a direct result of a lack of openness. On Friday, I shall raise on the Floor of the House a variety of disgraceful developments in connection with social services which I believe have been kept secret.

  255
  Then there is the nonsense involving our roads. Our poor businesses are struggling to make a living; now we find that, to try to get the traffic flowing, the barking mad council has arranged for us to have bus lanes all along the A13, and gridlock along the Al27. Because of the secrecy of the cabinet system, local traders knew nothing of what was happening. Unfortunately, the Liberal-Labour-controlled Essex county council dropped a scheme that would have given us a decent road to the north of the town. At present, that is costing Southend dear.
  Owing to the secrecy, the planning system is a disgrace. We never hear about houses in multiple occupation until it is too late. There have been many instances of masts being put on top of buildings; a number of my constituents are worried about the health hazards, but because of this secrecy, we hear nothing.
  I am proud to represent a very Christian society in Southend, but what has gone on in regard to asylum seekers is an absolute disgrace. There are now more than 2,000 in the area that I represent. Given the strength of feeling, it is disgraceful that the matter has been handled in complete secrecy. Now that it is out of control, however, the council is taking legal action against the boroughs of Hackney, Redbridge and other areas.
  This is a bad Bill. It is a dishonest Bill, and, unfortunately, it is a Bill that is absolutely typical of this dreadful Government.
  8.2 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Bill is about reviving local government and local democracy after a Tory onslaught that continued for 18 years. It is difficult to take seriously any comments made by the Opposition, given that they were part of that onslaught, and given that we heard again this evening—in reply to a question from me to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—that they still intended to abolish local education authorities. The Tory track record in local government is about destruction, and the Tory promise for the future is about further destruction and running down.
  The Bill is about revitalising local government, but it is also about preparing local government for change—change that will be very important if local government and local democracy are to lead developments in the new century by ensuring that local authorities work as effectively as possible, and by leading local communities.
  The Government have already recognised the importance of local authorities as providers of local services, either directly or indirectly. The replacement of compulsory competitive tendering by best value is a welcome indication of that. But the Government have also recognised the importance of leadership and innovation at local level. I welcome the new powers giving local authorities a duty to promote social, economic and environmental well-being.
  Nevertheless, I ask my hon. Friends to recognise that local government also has a proud record of innovation and creativity. During the 1980s, it was local government that pioneered major changes for the benefit of the community, against a background of Tory Government hostility to local government, both generally and specifically.
  256
  In the early 1980s, when I was leader of Lancashire county council, I was involved with not just my local authority but county councils in areas such as the west midlands, West Yorkshire and Merseyside. Despairing of the Tory Government's inaction and their uncaring attitude to rising unemployment and the destruction of our local economies, the local authority sector worked with private enterprise to set up local enterprise boards, the precursors of regional development agencies.
  The most spectacular achievement of Lancashire Enterprises was the saving of Leyland Trucks when it collapsed in the early 1990s. Lancashire Enterprises, the Labour authority-controlled local economic development company, worked with the private sector to preserve truck making in Lancashire, which continues to this day. We did that through judicious investment, rather than grant or subsidy. Moreover, we preserved thousands of jobs—the jobs of workers at Leyland Trucks, and of workers in the hundreds of feeder companies operating not just in Lancashire but throughout the north-west. That is an example of what could be done by the local government initiatives set up in the early 1980s. They showed that manufacturing could be saved by local authorities working with the private sector, although the Government of the time opposed what was happening.
  I can give other examples of my experiences in Lancashire local government during those years, showing what local authority initiative can do. Lancashire country council, working with Greenpeace, pressed for a public inquiry into the proposed nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield, because we did not accept the statistics given to us by British Nuclear Fuels. We were not successful in that regard, but we were successful in securing new legislation: from that day on, European environmental law became United Kingdom environmental law. I believe that the sad events of recent months fully vindicate the stand that we took in calling for an inquiry into Sellafield all those years ago.
  I could give many more instances of Lancashire's innovation against the background of a Government who did not care, did not listen and tried to impede. I am sure that many other Members can give examples from their own experience. I emphasise that all those initiatives, and many more, were taken under a Government who wanted to impede us. I welcome the powers in the Bill to encourage local authorities to take a leadership role, to work with the private and voluntary sectors, and to show the way forward for the community. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether those powers are sufficient to give the new leadership role the strength that it deserves.
  Although the Bill gives wider powers to local authorities, there appear to be no proposals to look again at the legislation imposed by the Conservatives restricting local authorities' interests in companies. That is an extremely important issue. If local authorities are to play a full part in regeneration and if there is to be accountability for public money that is spent, it is essential for legislation relating to authorities' interests in companies to be revisited, and for authorities to be given stronger powers.
  I ask for that in general terms, and also specifically. We should consider how local authorities can play their part in urban regeneration and, in particular, in the activities of the urban regeneration companies proposed in the Rogers report on urban renaissance. One such company already

  257
  operates in Liverpool. I want that project to be fully supported, but I also want the local authority to have sufficient powers in regard to that company, and other regeneration companies, to ensure public responsibility and accountability for the money that is spent.
  I ask the Minister to consider whether local authorities will, through the Bill, be properly equipped to take on that leadership role and to tackle financial issues. If they are to take on real leadership, show the way forward and innovate, they will need access to funding that is flexible. Although I accept that there are cases where specific grants to local authorities are justified, it is wrong for the vast majority of central Government funding to local government to be prescribed.
  In the past, local government has innovated against the odds. This Government want local government to innovate, but, to do that, it must have legal powers and the financial flexibility to be able to identify the funds to allow it to pioneer a new way forward.
  During the debate, much has been said about the new structures. It is much easier to say what is wrong with existing structures than to find new ones that will solve all problems. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed. It is important that local authorities move forward with all members feeling that they are part of one authority. It is important that there is access to relevant information. It would be wrong if there were unnecessary divisions within councils, so I add my voice to those of hon. Members who have asked for another look at some of the detail of how the structures may go forward.
  There is provision in the Bill for directly elected mayors where local people feel that they are appropriate. Given the new structures and the emphasis on new powers of community leadership in local government, there is a role for a directly elected mayor, provided that the people of the area want one. A directly elected mayor could bring new focus, direction and confidence to local authorities, but it is essential that the powers given to directly elected mayors are sufficient to make a difference and are exercised for the benefit of all the people of the area.
  The Bill presents new challenges. It tries to revitalise local government, which was almost decimated by the Conservatives over all those years, but it also offers a new way forward. That new way brings opportunities, but also new challenges.
  I ask the Minister to recognise the great achievements of local government in the past and in the present. I ask the Government to maintain their support for local democracy through directly elected local government, and I ask local authorities to grasp the opportunities that are offered.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. Like many other hon. Members, I cut my teeth in local government, both as an officer working for a local authority and, later, as a county councillor. Therefore, having worked on both sides of the local government fence, as it were, I appreciate, and pay tribute to, the hard work that officers and councillors in particular undertake voluntarily, working for local democracy, local governance and continuing devolution in Wales.
  258
  Wales is in a unique position with regard to the Bill because it has universal unitary authorities, the National Assembly and the Partnership Council: again, a unique way of working involving the structure at both parliamentary and local government level. I hope that, because of the interest in Wales in what is happening in local government and in the Bill, there will be good representation from Wales on discussions of the Bill in Committee.
  In the White Papers in both England and Wales, the Government set out four main planks for modernisation; I hesitate to use that word after some criticism has been made of it, but let us accept it for the moment. The four main planks were: the introduction of the executive style of decision making; new standards of conduct for officers and members; the introduction of community planning; and the introduction of best value.
  Best value has had a hesitant start in Wales. The beacon council schemes had to be put back a year because of the plethora of bureaucracy, papers and difficulties. Local government has sometimes been asked to respond and to change perhaps a little too quickly after the recent shake-up of local government structures in Wales, but the Bill sets out the rest of the changes. I was pleased in particular to hear the Minister's comments on community planning. She confirmed that the intention is to place a duty on local authorities to bring in community planning and made positive comments about that.
  That duty is important. It is not in the Bill as amended. It is a pity that the Government did not use the other place to table their amendment, so that we could see what they meant by that. Nevertheless, the intention has been made clear and confirmed today. Therefore, I look forward to seeing the Government amendment to introduce the duty on community planning. [Interruption.] Excellent; the Minister has returned to her place. She is just in time. I bring to her attention what is perhaps an oversight in the Bill.
  I take it that, if community planning is to be a duty in Wales, clause 4 will be amended. Therefore, it will have to be brought within the ambit of clause 92, which gives powers to the National Assembly to make regulations and so forth. Otherwise, community planning in Wales will be run by regulations from the Department in England. That cannot be right. We need to look carefully at the matter and to tidy up that provision.
  On the whole, so far, what we have seen from the Government on local government is strong rhetoric about hearing local voices and enabling local decision makers, but weakness on practical methods of achieving that. The only way to involve local communities is to involve them at the earliest part of service delivery planning, so that they look at the options, are part of the vision of the future, and debate the different ways forward. That extends to businesses and voluntary and community groups.
  Executive structures on their own are no guarantee of greater local accountability. Indeed, they could tend to isolate councillors one step further from local people, and we must avoid that. Therefore, one of the key modernising requirements—that word again, I am afraid—must be to move local government from its tendency towards oppositional decision making to a more collaborative and consensual process.
  I appreciate that that is what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill, but, without that key requirement, its other welcome measures could tend to strengthen, or

  259
  even to fossilise, current ways of doing things. The replacement of one set of, as it tends to be, slightly older men by one individual who is also likely to be a man, will not bring about the changes.
  Reference was made to the report by the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on the number of women in local authorities. I regret that a local authority in Wales, Ynys Môn, or Isle of Anglesey county council, has the lowest number of women—just 8 per cent. of its members are women. My own local authority only just creeps above that: four of its 44 members are women, about 9 per cent. That has been unchanged for eight years; there has been no improvement in the amount of women represented in Ceredigion in the past eight years.
  We must change that. The key way forward is to modernise our councillor profile. Community planning is an important step along that way. It can open up local government and encourage more balanced and informed participation.
  How do we achieve that? One of the ways is to change the way in which we elect councillors. The encouragement towards annual elections is to be welcomed—I know that not everyone in Wales agrees with me on that. We have little experience of elections by thirds, although the old Rhondda district council did elect by thirds.
  In the Representation of the People Act 2000, the Government introduced a rolling electoral register. That is welcome, but more important than all those changes—it is singularly lacking in the Bill—is the need to move towards proportional representation in local elections. That would be the single most important influence for change in local government. An amendment to the Bill to allow the National Assembly for Wales to experiment and to introduce PR would be a tremendously powerful tool for change.
  I know that the Government have experimented with the way in which the May elections in England will happen. There are different days and ways of polling. The London elections will take place over several days. Those changes are all welcome. We look forward to the detailed reports on how they have worked. However, Plaid Cymru has long supported the single transferable vote, and we see no reason why it should not apply at local authority level.
  My comments on the Government's proposals on the executive are perhaps not so warm. I welcome the Bill as amended in the other place. We should be seeking not to impose new structures on local government, but to establish best practice and to encourage local authorities to adopt it. Although I accept that the three new executive structures—potentially with a fourth or more—are flexible, that in itself does not greatly recommend them. We should be moving towards a system that allows local people to choose the local structure that suits them best.
  In Wales, about 19 of the local authorities are either introducing a shadow system or experimenting with one. I think that Flintshire and Powys have said that they want to keep a "new look" committee structure. I do not know whether Blaenau Gwent has joined those authorities in that, but it may well have done. However, I feel very strongly that the National Assembly for Wales should decide what systems of local authority should operate in Wales, and that the decision should be an example of devolution and subsidiarity—to use a now rather old-fashioned word—at work. As the hon. Member for
  260
  Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) who has left the Chamber said earlier, it is an excellent opportunity for the Government to put into action their new-found appreciation—announced in The Observer, on Sunday—of the lessons of devolution.
  Elected mayors are a case in point on those lessons. The idea of elected mayors is quite popular in some of the larger cities in England—
  Ms Armstrong: And with the public.
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, I appreciate that. However, I do not think that the same is true in Wales. We could have elected mayors in Wales, and it might make sense to have one in places such as Cardiff or Swansea. Wales may also soon have a third city—although I should not make a pitch on behalf of Wrexham or even Aberystwyth. However, I do not detect a real groundswell of support for elected mayors in Wales. Indeed, I think that mayors are now very much off the agenda in Wales, thanks in no small degree to the antics of Cardiff's Lord Mayor. The antics were precisely what people feared might happen with elected mayors—individuals taking power for themselves, riding roughshod over others' opinions, feathering their own nests and generally ignoring events in the local community.
  Mr. Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman, in summary, perhaps agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that he was "not a fan" of directly elected mayors?
  Mr. Thomas: I agree that I am not a fan of directly elected mayors, but I am prepared to allow local people to have a say in whether they want to have directly elected mayors.
  Last May, in its press release on the new Lord Mayor, Cardiff city council said:
  Under the new set-up, the process for installing the Lord Mayor took less than three minutes instead of the usual two hours, there was no civic lunch and the Lord Mayor drove himself home instead of having a chauffeur-driven car, saving Council Taxpayers thousands of pounds.
  I do not know what mileage allowance Cardiff councillors receive, but that journey home has cost Cardiff's council tax payers a great deal.
  My concern about the new executive structures is that they do not seem to offer a real way of dealing with a failing system. If a mayor or a "new look" cabinet is failing, how can local people deal with that failure, get rid of the mayor or cabinet and install a different system?
  Plaid Cymru supports the principle of separation of the executive. Implementation of such a principle would only make explicit what already happens in most authorities.
  Ms Armstrong: It is in the Bill.
  Mr. Thomas: We feel that it should be done by encouragement of best practice and not by compulsion, and that the National Assembly should be the body to decide on the matter. I should like to see what the National Assembly and local government in Wales could come up with by using a voluntary framework and after real consultation with their communities, the voluntary community sector and businesses in Wales.

  261
  I acknowledge that de facto executive structures already exist. I have a very small footnote in the history of local government in Wales, as I was the first appointed political assistant—under whatever Act it was—in Wales. I have spent three years in party caucuses and party groups, behind the closed doors. I know how they work and have written up their minutes. Undoubtedly, the Bill's one real failure is that it does not deal with the need for access to information. I have been there behind the closed doors, and I know what it is like. Unfortunately, on that matter, as Labour Members have said, the Bill is a retrograde step.
  It is not good enough for the onus to rest on local authorities to open up their cabinets to scrutiny. It may well be that the National Assembly will establish more stringent regulations in Wales than apply in England—although many English Members may not appreciate that. Nevertheless, the principle that should apply is that the public should have access to information—precisely as they do under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985—unless that information relates to personnel matters or commercial decisions.
  I think that the Minister put up a bit of smokescreen about matters such as emergency decisions, but those should be removed from legislation. In the absence of political balance in cabinets—I do not think that, practically, we can assist in achieving that balance in cabinets—we have to have public scrutiny and accountability. The best form of public scrutiny and accountability is not a scrutiny committee, but access to the information on which decisions are made.
  I pay tribute to those councillors in Wales who are now opening their cabinet structures to the public. There might be a slight Plaid Cymru balance in this, but I should like to name some of the councils involved. One can watch the meetings of Gwynedd county council's cabinet, for example, live on the internet. One can see it all happening on the internet. [Interruption.] It is live on the internet. Hon. Members should tune in and have a look at it, but they should choose the English-language feed, because the Welsh one might be slightly misleading.
  Ms Armstrong: Does that mean that, in those areas, Plaid Cymru has stopped having group meetings first to take the decisions?
  Mr. Thomas: Of course it does not. However, the decisions are taken openly, in cabinet. I do not think that the Labour party has stopped having group meetings. The day that political parties stop having group meetings will probably be the day that the cabinet structure is also no longer used.
  Recently, Caerphilly opened its cabinet meetings to the public. My own authority, Ceredigion, under pressure from the opposition Plaid Cymru members, has just opened up to the public its cabinet meetings.
  It is essential that the Bill is amended to give the public access to the documents on which decisions are taken, so that they can determine for themselves why the decisions were taken. We should not be going backwards. The 1985 Act has worked very well. It is valued by businesses, community groups and individuals. They are able to see
  262
  the agenda and papers beforehand, information can be provided, and the people can lobby. Often, at the end of that process, better decisions are reached.
  An important aspect of public access to information is that it allows us to make better decisions. Openness breeds a culture of consultation and accountability, but secrecy breeds arrogance and contempt for the electorate. We have recently seen some examples of that.
  Local government in Wales has an honourable tradition. It has introduced uniform secondary education, helped to establish the health service and widened provision of leisure facilities and libraries. Now, it is leading on sustainable development in Wales. Much in the Bill will continue that tradition. However, there are some serious sticking points in the Bill—on executive structures, access to information, community planning and proportional representation—which I hope will be fully dealt with in Committee.
  Plaid Cymru will certainly support the Bill on Second Reading, so that it can be considered in Committee and, I hope, knocked into even better shape.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that the Government were committed to devolving powers, and that there was a need for people to have more control over their lives and more influence over decision makers. We all accept that. However, the Bill will not achieve that.
  The Minister may respond to my scepticism about the Government's commitment to devolving powers by repeating her earlier remarks that that commitment is shown by the fact that we now have a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament. However, some argued at the time of the referendum—and continue to argue—that a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament had little to do with devolution, but much to do with going down the road of nationalism and separatism. Almost 12 months on, I see no reason to depart from that view.
  In Wales, there is almost total disillusionment with that so-called act of devolved power. The people of Wales cannot see that they have any more influence over the decision makers because they now have an institution based in Cardiff. We were told that, with the Assembly, we would put powers back into local authorities. One of the ways in which that was to be done—we were told that this was the main reason for a Welsh Assembly—was by making a bonfire of the quangos. Almost 12 months on, that bonfire has not happened—indeed, it has been a damp squib. Most people knew at the time that that was a cheap publicity stunt to try to persuade people to vote for a Welsh Assembly. The quangos have not been scrapped, and are very much intact. Local authority powers have not been increased.
  One of the ways of maintaining the powers of local authorities would be to support the amendments in another place, which would give authorities the opportunity of having a mayor, a leader and a cabinet but would also give them the opportunity to continue with the committee system if they believed that that system was more relevant to their community and more able to respond to its problems.
  The Bill is not about devolving power. I cannot see the logic of a Government who are seemingly committed to devolution, but are also centralising power in the hands

  263
  of mayors, leaders and cabinets. That is not acceptable to me, or to my local authority. The role of councillors who are not in one of those bodies will be almost non-existent.
  The Government may say that they are setting up scrutiny committees and that councillors will have a positive role, not just in scrutinising decisions that have been taken, but in developing ideas which then become the policy of the local authority. However, from talking to local authority members, it is my view that those committees could be worthless, and that the role of local authorities then would be minimal.
  Local authorities should have the opportunity to continue with the committee system if that is what they want. If they think that a mayor or a leader with an elected cabinet would reflect the aspirations, or respond to the problems, of their communities more than a committee system, so be it. I have no argument with that. However, we should not take away the option of a committee system.
  If we are going to have a mayor, or a leader with a cabinet, the system should be far more open and democratic than is proposed by the Bill. The Government could legislate so that all cabinet meetings remained open to the public and to all councillors. The present system—of leaving that decision to the executive—is unsatisfactory.
  The agenda and the background papers should have to be made public in advance of the meetings. Every step in the decision-making process should be documented and made public. The decision of the proper officer of an executive to make an item exempt could be appealable. The officer's advice to the executive should be made public prior to the meeting.
  We should extend the period of availability of papers relied on by councillors before taking decisions. Public reports and background papers should be made available five working days in advance by the council and by the executive. All public reports produced by the council or executive should list background papers, and councils should publish all public reports and background papers on a web site—if there is one—seven working days in advance of any meeting, and the executive should have to do the same.
  The Minister may respond by saying that, in the guidance notes for the Bill, all these things are possible. However, I do not want them just to be possible; I want them to be compulsory. We will always have rogue authorities who pick the worst system to defend their unacceptable ways of operating. We must consider making compulsory those things that are optional under the Bill.
  Decisions should not be left to individual councils. Mayors and individual politicians will wield considerable powers in their own right, as their decisions will not have to be ratified by the executive or the council. That adds to concern about the arrangements. Vital decisions about housing, education, social services, the closure of facilities or the contracting out of services may be taken in far greater secrecy.
  The Campaign for Freedom of Information has made a number of points on the Bill. It says:
  Mayors are likely to be responsible for many decisions, which they will effectively take on their own. Individual "cabinet members" may also be given similar powers, and officials will be responsible for taking a wider range of decisions. As these decisions will not be taken at "meetings" the 1985 Act cannot directly apply.
  264
  However, the Bill should be amended so that the public is given equivalent rights to see papers before decisions. That is reports, recommendations and background papers should be open to the public unless they contain exempt information.
  The Bill should also be amended to require a short period of delay (a week has been suggested) before executive decisions can be implemented, with powers for non-executive councillors or a scrutiny committee.
  The Bill includes measures to improve ethical standards. But if decisions are taken in private, by the executives and individual politicians, there will be less scrutiny of whether councillors' private and financial interests are properly declared, and less oversight of the award of contracts and of appointments to outside bodies.
  Removing the requirement to publish agendas and papers in advance of decisions could encourage legal advice to politicians, and it will be harder for the monitoring officer to fulfil his/her responsibilities to ensure decision making is legal and ethical.
  The amendments made in the Lords to approve the present committee structure should be accepted. They would maximise opportunities for councillors and electors in every local authority area to have a say on decisions that may affect their community.
  The previous Government passed approximately 200 Acts that altered the role and powers of local authorities, almost always taking powers away. If the Government are committed to devolving power to local authorities, they should start by reversing many of the measures in those 200 Acts. They should also quickly scrap the private finance initiative, which gives private companies the right to build, own and, in many instances, run services.
  Many things can be done to give local authorities a greater role in the running of our communities. Giving them a bigger role in job creation, as happens in countries such as Germany, would help people to relate to local authorities, because they would see that they had some relevance to their communities. It is naive to believe that setting up a cabinet system or introducing mayors will result in people suddenly coming out in droves to vote in local authority elections. People will vote in elections if they see that they are relevant to their community. We should focus on policies that are decided by local authorities rather than constitutional or structural issues.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Having served as a councillor in the London borough of Hounslow for about a year before I translated to this place, I have some modest qualification, but none as extensive as those of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). I shall study his detailed recommendations.
  I shall concentrate on clause 91, the proposed repeal of section 28 and the whole business of homosexuality and teaching in schools, principally because it is a matter of grave concern to people throughout the country. The Government are obsessed with homosexuality and race. The Bill is not the only measure in which we are faced with the issue. The Government's caving in to the European Court of Human Rights and admitting homosexuals to the armed forces also affects my constituency. Even as we are debating the Bill, the other place is debating the age of consent. The Government wish to impose on the other place a requirement to reduce the age of consent to 16, notwithstanding the clear warning issued by the Waterhouse report on the abuse of young people in north Wales.

  265
  This Bill and the Learning and Skills Bill show that the Government are in a shambles on sex education in schools. They face not just both ways, but all ways. The Home Office has published a document called "Supporting Families". The Home Secretary is keen to encourage us all to believe that marriage presents the best framework within which to bring up young people. I think that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment also holds that view. As the Bill before the Lords today shows, the Government want not just to appeal to middle England through "Supporting Families", but, through other measures, to square the circle with the minority groups that the Labour party is always in the business of seeking to appease.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) sought repeatedly to dismiss as prejudiced those of us who disagree with him.
  Ms Armstrong: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Howarth: It is fine for the right hon. Lady to say "Hear, hear"; dismissing one's opponents as prejudiced is very simple, but it does no credit to her or her party. There is a legitimate view on the other side of the argument. I wonder whether she says "Hear, hear" to my support for the Bishop of Lichfield, whom I was pleased to call a friend when I was the Member of Parliament for Cannock and Burntwood. He referred to the stabilising benchmark of section 28, but I suppose that in the right hon. Lady's terminology, he is prejudiced too.
  Parents are writing to all of us in droves about the issue.
  Mr. Swayne: The Minister thinks that they are all prejudiced.
  Mr. Howarth: Of course, in the Minister's view they are all prejudiced. She will know that many correspondents explain that they are not homophobic, but they do not believe that normal heterosexual marriage can be put on the same moral basis as two men or two women living together. That is what nearly all of them said, and many of them are teachers—I believe that the Minister herself used to be a teacher.
  Some of my hon. Friends from England may not be aware that in Scotland the issue is dominating the debate. The Daily Record, which is not known as a Conservative newspaper, reported on 19 January "2:1 against gay lessons". Some 66 per cent. of those surveyed wanted to keep section 28, which shows what the people of Scotland want. An anonymous Labour Member was quoted in the Daily Record yesterday as saying:
  The problem is that someone decided that they were going to make the abolition of section 28 a crusade.
  We have lost the support of a large section of the electorate and we have lost the support of Scotland's leading Catholic cleric.
  That, of course, is Cardinal Winning, who has done a magnificent job of articulating our concerns in Scotland.
  The country is up in arms and the Government have no solution. They will remove clause 117 from the Learning and Skills Bill, which was amended by Baroness Young in the other place. They will try to reinsert into this Bill the repeal of section 28 which they were prevented from doing in the other place. We are in limbo. Meanwhile,
  266
  the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has published some guidelines that have been roundly criticised by those who do not believe that they represent a proper instruction to our young people.
  The Government say that section 28 does not prevent homosexuality from being taught and promoted in schools. In that case, why do they wish to repeal it? Why is it necessary for the Government to engage in that confrontation with two thirds of the nation? There is an inconsistency, because originally the Government told us that they wished to repeal it to prevent bullying. Now they tell us that it is because it does not prevent homosexuality from being promoted in schools anyway.
  We are all against bullying in schools, of any description or on any grounds. To suggest that anyone is interested in protecting section 28 to allow bullying is unworthy of Ministers and the Government. They know that the chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, has made it clear that it is nonsense to suggest that section 28 stops schools tackling the issue of bullying. Indeed, Mr. David Hart said at one stage:
  The Government needs to be very clear why it is going down this road. Section 28 has not caused difficulties but has constituted a protection which by and large has been welcomed.
  It is possible that he has changed his mind since then.
  The hon. Member for Witney said that schools in his constituency have expressed concern that section 28 stands between them and stamping out bullying, but that has not been my experience in my constituency. I suggest that many of my hon. Friends would agree.
  Parents do not wish to see the flood of pornographic material, for that is what some of it is, which was coming into our schools previously. Parents' view of how the matter should be treated is summed up in a publication that is produced by the Christian Institute and makes the case for extending section 28. It states:
  Civilised societies have always restrained sexual activity. Until comparatively recently, social control strongly promoted marriage. Homosexual proselytism seeks to reverse this and to manipulate young people into seeing homosexuality as an acceptable and morally right lifestyle.
  That is what people in this country overwhelmingly object to. They are not intolerant of what people do in their own homes, but they believe that certain standards in our society should be maintained.
  Section 28 was enacted in 1988, when I was a Member of Parliament. As Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education has said:
  Before Section 28 came into force we were getting considerable numbers of parents complaining to us about the promotion of homosexuality in schools. After Section 28 it almost disappeared as an issue. If Section 28 were to be repealed it's almost certain that the promotion of homosexuality would become a huge bone of contention between parents and schools.
  We do not need to be assured by Ministers that that will not happen because their assurances will be worthless. That is because already material is coming into the public domain. The draft guidance of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is out for consultation. Paragraph 6.1 states:
  Elements of sex and relationship education are also provided by a range of people in the wider community including health professionals, social workers, youth workers, peer educators and visitors.
  There we see it. There is no section 28 control in respect of health promotion, and a flood of material is coming in under that guise.

  267
  I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to a document that has been published by Camden and Islington community health services NHS trust, which is entitled "Colours of the Rainbow". It contains some pretty disgraceful stuff, and I urge the hon. Lady to read it. It is not something that might be available in the event of section 28 being repealed. It is available now because there is no control over the material that health authorities can put out.
  We have a key stage 1 lesson, the purpose of which is to
  consider one explanation of a family.
  It is intended for five to seven-year-olds. It ends by saying:
  Finish by making the point that different people live together as a family and what is important is that they love and care for each other.
  Those are laudable objectives. However, the document is seeking to promote homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. Many of us object to that.
  There is another example of an attempt to equate homosexuality with normality. We are told that research has found that
  about 50 per cent. of women and men have experienced a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.
  There is the extraordinary claim that
  nearly 40 per cent. of all men had sex with another man at some point in their lives.
  This material is trying to assert that somehow homosexuality is perfectly normal and that children should regard it as being on a par with normality and a normal heterosexual relationship.
  The publication refers to resources and to the "Playbook for kids about sex" by Joanie Blank and Marcia Quackenbush, published by Sheba Feminist Publishers in 1982. For the assistance of the House, I have a copy of the playbook. I shall not explain some of what it covers, but one passage reads:
  When grown-ups choose someone to be one of their sexual partners, they sometimes choose a person of the same sex and they sometimes choose a person of the other sex. Some big words are sometimes used to name people by the sex partners they choose.
  We then have mention of heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual, as if they are all equally compatible. Many of us would argue that that is not the case.
  The biscuit is taken by the health promotion service in Avon in a publication entitled "A Practical Guide to Challenging Homophobia in Schools". Here we have "Roles for the 'Race' Game". That wholly contradicts the Prime Minister's understanding when he went to the Ayr by-election and found ghastly posters stating that there was no question of role play taking place in the schools in that area. In fact, it is happening today, and I have the evidence. Children as young as 12 are being encouraged to be
  a female sex industry worker—
  whatever that is—
  a Chinese bisexual 15 year old Young Man,
  a transvestite cabaret artist, a Black Disabled Lesbian who is a wheelchair user and a nun.
  It beggars belief to think that public money is being used to promote that.
  268
  Hon. Members may laugh, but the most disgusting literature of all is the "Gay Sex Now" booklet produced in Glasgow. I gather that £50,000 of public money was used to produce a booklet that children as young as 12 are seeing. I invite the Minister to have a look at it.
  Members of the House of Lords, led by Baroness Young and the Bishop of Winchester, and Mr. Brian Souter and some other public-spirited people are the only ones who want to protect our children by standing in the way of the Government's ambition, for which the Bill is the chosen vehicle.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Neil Turner: We have just had 15 minutes of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) speaking about a Bill that introduces new proposals for local government. He did not mention local government once.
  I welcome the Bill, which represents the second phase of necessary change to local government. I have no ideological bias, but I have more than 20 years' experience as a councillor.
  I especially welcome the new structures in part II. The structures that existed for most of my time in local government seemed to work reasonably well. We had to do some tinkering around the edges occasionally and create a few new sub-committees to deal with the bits and pieces. However, our chief executive once told me that our council had 75 officer working groups. On investigation, they all seemed necessary, reasonable and forward looking, but it was clear that there was no democratic overview of those groups. Members had no control over them and could make no input to them.
  When the working groups' reports went to committee, they received no proper scrutiny because departmental input was partial in any given area, and no one was willing to take control to push items through. The working groups considered matters such as drug action teams and services for the elderly and for young people, which cut across several departments and committees. The absence of proper scrutiny, democratic control and direction was a result of the old committee structure in that council. There was a clear need to examine alternatives.
  Another major factor confirming my view that we needed to look at our organisation was my experience with best value. Twelve months ago, before I was somewhat unexpectedly catapulted into the House, I chaired the best value review panel in Wigan council. The panel was busy setting up ways to introduce best value in that local authority, and was studying the challenge process that involves the four Cs—compete, compare, consult and challenge. The panel was designed to look at those elements of the council that we wanted to review.
  It quickly became clear that the intensiveness of the process was being hindered because councillors did not have time to engage in that process and conduct their normal committee work. We had to find ways to free up time and give people more chance to do all the work demanded of them.
  It has been said that many of the Bill's proposals are too rigid. That is not my experience. Earlier this year, I attended the Labour party local government conference. I ran a workshop on the new structures, and it was attended by councillors from metropolitan, district,

  269
  unitary and county councils. Those councils were under all sorts of control—some were overwhelmingly controlled by the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, others were under no specific party control, and still others had only one or two Labour councillors.
  That diversity of experience was very useful. When we started talking about how to implement the new structures proposed in the Bill—and the cabinet structure in particular—it was amazing to discover the immense diversity of approaches that people were adopting. I say amazing, but it should not be all that surprising. Under the present system, no council has the same committee structure as its neighbour. The structures have evolved because of the history of those councils, the personalities involved and, more important, the way in which they want to serve the needs of their communities. Just as the committee structures have evolved, so, too, will the new cabinet structures.
  There must be scrutiny not only of what the cabinet has done but of what it will be doing. In my authority, policy development groups are part of the scrutiny process. Other councils take a different line. However, nothing in the Bill will prevent pre-scrutiny from taking place. If there is to be proper scrutiny, it is essential that it takes place before, as well as after, policy is decided.
  I welcome part I, and particularly clause 2, which deals with the need to promote the environmental and social well-being of communities. Clause 5 is vital in that respect: if the community leadership role of councils and councillors is to be exercised properly, unnecessary restraints must be freed up. Clause 5 will allow that to happen.
  We must ensure that partnerships are developed to the full. To be real partnerships, developed with the private sector and voluntary groups, both sides must bring something to the table. There is no room for aspirations alone—there must be the cash to back up those aspirations.
  When she replies to the debate, will the Minister tell us whether clause 3(2) excludes the possibility of councils making reasonable charges for the services that they provide? Will it prevent them from applying for additional funds through supplementary credit approvals?
  I am aware that other people want to speak, so I will finish on this point, Mr. Deputy Mayor.
  Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend thinks that he is back in local government.
  Mr. Turner: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not quite got used to my new role. I apologise.
  Part III deals with standards. Local government is remarkably sleaze-free—we have a lot of hard taskmasters and scrutineers in the form of the general public. I think that most councillors welcome such public scrutiny. The independent scrutiny committee will provide additional reassurance that allegations will receive independent consideration.
  When considering local government, we must recognise that people both inside and outside councils make vexatious and politically motivated allegations
  270
  against councillors. When the scrutiny committee considers such allegations, they should lance those boils quickly and cleanly. I hope that if the committee believes that vexatious and politically motivated allegations have been made, its members will be able to name the people responsible to ensure that in future those people will think twice and ensure that any allegations have a real foundation.
  9.4 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The speeches of Conservative Members deteriorated rapidly after the excellent and constructive contribution by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) accused the Government and Labour Members of being obsessed with sex and race. I had no intention of speaking about section 28 because we are dealing with a complex Bill about local government, but it is interesting that both he and the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) chose to spend the whole of their speeches discussing the one aspect of the Bill that relates to sex. It is they who are obsessed, not Labour Members.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: All that I was seeking to point out was that I am receiving a huge number of letters on the subject, as I suspect that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members are. The Bill is one of two measures that deal with the issue, which is of live concern to people now.
  Dr. Jones: I respond to those constituents who write to me, and they are not writing in droves, even though I have a high profile in the local press on the issue. I receive many letters from people who take the opposite view, including two correspondents who are senior members of the Church. They support the repeal of section 28.
  Both the hon. Member for Aldershot and the hon. Member for Blaby make it clear that they regard any relationship involving homosexual people as "pretend" and not at all valid. At least the hon. Member for Blaby had the honesty to admit that he advocated discrimination against such people. Discrimination is, of course, why the legislation as it is constituted is probably not in accordance with the European convention on human rights. The sooner we change it so that it does comply, the better.
  The material that was quoted by the hon. Members for Aldershot and for Blaby was an insult to the good sense of school governors, who, in consultation with parents, have the last say in decisions on policy involving sex and relationships education. There is plenty of inappropriate heterosexual material that people could quote, but I note that Conservative Members do not suggest that there should be a clause that prevents the promotion of heterosexuality. That would be just as ridiculous as section 28, which I hope will be abolished. It is inappropriate and unnecessary in the real-life situation in schools today.
  I want to spend most of my time talking about the local government provisions in the Bill and reforms to local democracy. No one would disagree with the Government's intention to bring new life to local democracy. We all realise that that is sorely needed. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and I am pleased that things are not quite so dire in Birmingham as in Liverpool. It shows that there is a great variety of activity around the country.

  271
  Voting in local elections has fallen off, and there is less interest, although in last year's local government elections there was a 55 per cent. turnout in one of my wards, due to strong campaigning. If we are to revitalise local democracy, we must address two fundamental issues. First, local government must be more accountable to the electorate. Secondly, we need a surplus of competent people who want to take an active role and serve as local councillors. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon admitted that in his area there is great difficulty in persuading people to come forward to take on that role. That is certainly the case in Birmingham. There is often little competition for candidates. Whatever structures are in place, if people do not want to come forward and take on the role of councillor, local government will not be healthy.
  I shall talk about greater accountability first. Over the years, there has been so much centralisation of decision making that it is well known that many of the decisions taken by local government are dependent on approval or finance from central Government. That is the main reason why people are less interested in taking part in local elections—either as voters or as candidates.
  It is difficult to decide who is really responsible for councils' decisions. For example, in Birmingham, there is much controversy over proposals to close old people's homes. The local authority was forced to take that route because the homes need refurbishment and modernisation to bring them up to standard, and the money is not available. Who is really taking that decision? Is it local government or central Government who hold the purse strings? When councillors are unable to take the decisions that they know their electorate want, they blame central Government. Unless we put that right, all the tinkering with the structure of the system will come to nothing.
  In the housing Green Paper, the Government propose new powers for local authorities to raise capital on their housing assets. In his statement to the House, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted that there was discrimination against council housing. However—as with many measures that seem to be moving in the right direction—there are so many strings attached that those additional powers will be given only to councils prepared to jump through the hoops imposed on them from the centre.
  That is not what local electorates want. It is not what council tenants want. By all means let us give them a vote on changing their landlord, but there should be a level playing field for the options. Tenants should not have to opt for another landlord because that is the only way to raise the finance for the modernisation and improvement of their homes. I hope that the Government will deal with that point.
  I agree with several of the points made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). It is wrong that such a high proportion of local government finance is centrally controlled—that is true of the Government grant and of the business rate. Until the introduction of the poll tax, things were moving in the other direction: about 60 per cent. of local government finance was raised locally.
  However, the figure went into reverse as a result of the introduction of the council tax. The Tory Government wanted to keep council tax low to try to make it acceptable after the poll tax fiasco, so they increased VAT to subsidise it. We should start to move back again—to
  272
  make local government accountable because it raises most of its finance locally. We need to do that over a long period, because we cannot make sudden changes.
  If the Government are serious about local democracy, they should think long and hard about that matter. Perhaps it could be addressed in the local government finance review Green Paper. In the short term, perhaps the council tax could be made more progressive; in that way, councils would be allowed to raise more money.
  As I pointed out, it is not only structures that are important in encouraging more people to participate. However, they do have a role. I share some of the concerns expressed by other hon. Members that the distinction between executive and back-bench council members could mean that there was a small number of high-profile, perhaps well-paid members, while the others were seen as second-class, with no real opportunity to influence decision making.
  Most people who want to enter politics—whether nationally or locally—do so because they want to bring about changes and improvements; they do not want to be glorified social workers. Taking into account the concerns of their electorate is a role for elected members, but they need to be able to translate those concerns into action at a political level so that policy changes are made to address them. That motivates people to get involved in politics, and I have grave doubts about whether the proposed model will enable the majority of elected members to take part in policy development.
  Many Members have suggested ways in which the system might be improved, but time is short and I do not have the time to go into them. However, it is important that we do not have central control. To return to the point about local accountability, surely the Government should impose on local government the responsibility to review its procedures and to consult the electorate—there may also be the opportunity to hold referendums—but final decisions should be taken locally, not imposed centrally.
  I do not accept the idea that the committee structure does not provide opportunities for scrutiny. As the chair of a major committee and as a back bencher, I took my scrutiny role seriously. I also had access to the most senior council officers. Under the separation that is proposed, will back-bench members have the same access to the chief executive and to the directors of housing and social services?
  It is interesting that we recently held a meeting between Birmingham Members of Parliament and the new director of social services for the city. I asked her to whom she felt accountable as director. She immediately said, "The leader of the council," then reluctantly added, "And the deputy leader." The executive member for social services did not get a look in.
  We all know from our experience of local government that a tremendous amount of patronage can exist within it. I urge the Government to consider mechanisms that will reduce patronage and provide genuine opportunities for back-bench members to participate in decision-making processes. If necessary, they should consider retaining the committee structure.
  Where I suggest that there is an important role for an overarching scrutiny committee is in budget setting. There is no doubt that the most important decisions made in local government are those taken at the annual meetings that allocate the budget for different services. I am not

  273
  satisfied with the way in which the system operates at present, because it is based on patronage and depends on which service is in favour rather than on who has made an effective case for more spending and has shown that a service is operating efficiently. If the chair of each committee, executive members and executive officers had to present their case to a scrutiny committee that considered all the different services and took an overview, we might have sensible decisions at the end of what should be an important process.
  Time is short, so I will conclude. It has been widely suggested that there is public support for elected mayors. If the concept of an elected mayor is distinguished from a leader who is given tremendous powers by means of an internal election in which patronage can be a factor, I suggest that an elected mayor is preferable. At least that person will be directly accountable to the people.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: Like other hon. Members, I have served in local government. I was in it for 20 years as an officer or as an elected member. For most of that time—this is not a party political point because it applies to all parties—local government and councillors were denigrated. Their powers were restricted, whole structures were abolished and resources were curtailed. I welcome the debate and the Government's objective of reinvigorating local government and giving it strength, new powers, new resources and a range of structures and new methods of organisation and working that demonstrate the vital role of local democracy.
  The overall objective of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber is to make every local councillor, every officer and every resident who gets involved in local government feel that they have contributed to something worth while. We were all brought up in the tradition of the Webbs and others who argued that local government comprises two roles—one is to involve and educate people in democracy and to provide them with a voice at a local level, and the other is to provide them with an opportunity to determine what local services should be provided effectively. Local government should not simply be an agent of central Government, but should mediate in the delivery of services to meet local needs.
  We should judge the Bill by how well it will enable local government to fulfil those two traditional roles. It could achieve that, but if we are not careful it could be a lost opportunity because it is too timid. The main thrust of our local government reform should be to provide effective local services that are responsive to local needs, not only at a cost that local people are willing to pay but on a basis that they determine. The key question must be how we empower people to determine the future of their communities and how they are governed locally.
  I welcome the new powers, which are part of the campaign for a general power of competence that we have waged for nearly 15 years. However, I am concerned about clauses 3 and 4, which take back power to the Secretary of State. I hope that in Committee we will be able to define the light touch that the Secretary of State will be limited to using in exercising those powers.
  274
  If we give local authorities new powers, we should give them appropriate vehicles for using them—which includes the reform of local authority companies—and a new resource base. The discussion about the restoration of the business rate has gone on for too long. We need urgent action to restore some control over the local business rate and enhance the resources on which local authorities can draw to implement the new powers.
  The new powers will give local authorities the opportunity to introduce community plans. That is an extended power for which they have long argued, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has said that she will introduce that as a new duty. To make sure that the community planning process is implemented successfully, we need also to consider what duties are placed on other agencies to participate in that process. For example, the local health authority and the police, among others, need to have a duty to participate.
  In the other place, there was an attempt to extend the duty placed on local authorities to include promotion of equal opportunities. The Minister who responded to that debate said that that would be part of the overall review of the Race Relations Act 1976, and I understand that approach. However, recent events have given us a sense of urgency about giving local authorities the duty to promote equal opportunities.
  I say that because of the debate about asylum seekers—and I am not making a party political point. This morning I met constituents who had been the subject of a racial attack within a week of leaflets about supposedly bogus asylum seekers being distributed for a by-election in my constituency. That attack was a direct result of the climate that has been whipped up. It behoves us all in central and local government to promote equal opportunities, and that is why we should, in this Bill, reconsider the proposal to place that duty on local authorities.
  On structures, we have had lengthy discussions about mayors, cabinets, leaders and managers, but I note, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) pointed out, that the Bill contains the opportunity to have directly elected individual cabinet posts. We need more clarity on that point, because it has not been debated in detail in the other place or in Committee.
  Throughout the debate, the question has been raised of why we are giving local authorities and communities the opportunity to change their structures in only these restricted ways. Why are we not allowing them wider opportunities for discussion about different options? If this is about local democracy, why are we forcing the proposals on them?
  It is as though we were installing the parliamentary system into local government, with secret decision making, scrutiny usually fairly feeble and exercised only after the decision is made, and individuals frequently whipped to vote against their own principled positions. I understand that assurances have been given that most local authority votes will not be whipped: I look forward to that lesson being learned and applied in the House of Commons. To restrict options to near-parliamentary models undermines the general thrust of the Bill, which is about liberating local communities.
  The Bill is also timid in not considering the revision of local government structures. In my area, I want to re-establish the urban district council and deconstruct the

  275
  monolith of London borough councils that was erected in the 1960s. The Bill does not enable a decision to be made locally to achieve that. I accept that, under the Bill, local committees can be established, but that has more to do with decentralisation than with devolution of decision making.
  We should allow local authorities to experiment with smaller units of local government that can, if necessary, form consortiums to provide services that are best organised across more than one district. As long as the service is provided to an acceptable quality and at a cost of which central Government approve, such proposals should not be debarred from the local decision-making process. We should take a far more thoroughly democratic approach to energise local decision making by drawing on local people's loyalties, traditions and sense of place.
  Access to information is critical. Whatever the structure, policy making and accountability can be successful only if information about policy making is easily accessible and widely available as of right. Many reservations have been expressed by hon. Members this evening and by people outside the House, including editors of local newspapers, about the fact that the proposals will restrict access to information.
  I should welcome the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the implications of the changes that we have made to the Freedom of Information Bill, and whether those counterbalance our concerns about lack of access to information in local government. The Standing Committee should address the whole issue of secrecy in connection with the modernisation of democratic government in this country, and whether the right to information should be about more than issues of fact, as we discussed last week, and should also cover issues of policy.
  I should like to raise one issue of participation that has not been mentioned so far. The Bill is designed to increase participation in local government, but 1980s legislation denied many local authority workers the right to participate. It is not merely a question of being elected to one's local authority; it extends to a local authority worker above a certain salary not being able to participate in local campaigns in his or her community—not being allowed to campaign against a local health facility closure, to write to the local press, or to make a speech to a community group that could be regarded as political. It was said in the other place that the Bill would help to tackle that issue through codes of practice and guidance, but I should prefer that the Bill explicitly abolished restrictions on politically restricted posts, which undermine certain individuals' civil liberties.
  On the question of electoral participation, I can understand the argument for annual elections. To be honest, it is a matter of indifference to me as a seasoned—not to say inveterate—canvasser. However, there will not be annual elections for directly elected mayors, so I urge consideration of some right of recall, if only through a petition of the electorate or a vote of confidence in the whole council. Otherwise, people will be unable to get rid of mayors who, even though they might have not have committed a criminal offence, have sustained some dishonour or become the subject of public opprobrium. Overall, however, the Bill offers opportunities to enhance local government.
  276
  Almost as an aside, I should like to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) made an excellent speech this evening, in which he revealed the homophobic nature of those who have been campaigning in support of section 28. I welcome the opportunity offered by the Bill to put that anachronistic provision behind us.
  I welcome the Bill for the things for which it stands. It offers the chance to rehabilitate local government and to re-establish local democracy. However, when change comes, it should be as a result of demand that is locally driven. Let us not, in the name of local democracy, deny the local voice.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: This has been an excellent debate, with many contributions from all parts of the House by people who know what they are talking about. A great deal of good will was exhibited towards local government. We all share common goals—to improve the standing of local government, to improve voter participation, to attract even better candidates to local government elections, and to make the system work better.
  The problem is that the Bill will not achieve those goals. It is as though the Bill were a metaphor for the Government. First, it is inept and confused, and I am referring not just to the Minister's speech. There were 400-odd amendments in the House of Lords. There was the debacle of section 28 being taken out, and now it is to be put back in again. What the Minister in the Lords, Lord Whitty, described as the central part of the Bill was ripped out in the other place.
  We heard the wonderful concession by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in her opening speech that the Bill was not yet finished. It is a kind of Spanish hotel Bill: some rooms are finished, some have the roof missing, and one or two were finished but have fallen down in the meantime—that is how we shall have to view it.
  No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister distanced himself, although even by his standards he went a little far by travelling to Japan. At least when we do not understand what the Deputy Prime Minister is saying, we understand what he means, which is quite different from the case of the right hon. Lady, who spoke the kind of modernising gobbledegook that we have all come to know and love.
  Another reason why the Bill is a metaphor for the Government is that it says one thing and does another. It mentions modernisation, improving local democracy and revitalising local government, but it will do nothing of the sort. It is a centralising measure which exhibits yet again the control freakery that is at the heart of the Government.
  Both Ministers must realise that the heart of the issue is compulsion. We in the Opposition do not argue that Cabinet systems are invariably wrong or inappropriate. They may suit certain circumstances on the basis of certain models, but they should not be forced on local government by central Government.
  The third reason why the Bill is a metaphor for the Government is that it is so clearly out of touch with ordinary people and local government. It fails the Kilfoyle test. It shows graphically, as has the entire debate,

  277
  the fault line between old Labour and new Labour. It ignores Labour heartlands in local government. It is a slap in the face for local democracy.
  If Ministers really believed—this is the acid test—in all the virtues and merits of the cabinet or executive system, why cannot they allow local councils and communities to make up their own mind on that matter? That is at the heart of the debate, and that is why the Bill is a wasted opportunity.
  The Minister began by saying that the Bill was a firm step forward. That is true, because it led straight into an abyss of the Minister's own making. She achieved the rare feat of creating near unanimity in all parts of the House—sadly, against what she was saying. She spoke about crude and universal capping, omitting the fact that the Government have continued capping, in an even more refined form. She spoke about best value, leaving aside the fact that some authorities will face 179 separate performance indicators.
  The Minister left to one side the problem of specific grants and the ways in which Government impose their own agenda on local government. She went to enormous trouble to demonise what she described as the red tape town hall committee culture, as though it were some obscure drug-taking bunch of freaks who practised in dark corners. It is wrong of her to demonise the committee system in that way. She must realise, even from her rather limited perspective, that things have moved on. We are not considering committee meetings for their own sake, but streamlined and modernised committee systems. The Minister presented the whole grisly lexicon of new Labour and local government: modernisation, new culture, dynamic, inclusive, empowerment, holistic, transparent, 21st century problems.
  The Minister lauded the new power that part I grants local authorities and it is right to say that local authorities have welcomed it. We also broadly welcome it. However, the Minister omitted to say that Lord Whitty made it clear that the new power would not be accompanied by new money. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), who spoke from great experience on local government matters, made a point about that. Local government cannot raise money for the power. Lord Whitty confirmed that in a written exchange with Lord Dixon-Smith.
  It is tragic that the Minister has told us yet again that the status quo cannot be an option. That flies in the face of all the advice that she has received, and all the debates and decisions in the House of Lords. She is wholly dogmatic about the matter. I do not understand the reason for that apart from the sketchiness of her grasp of local government history. She talked about the squirearchy who used to run local government. Surely she realises that we have moved on from 100 years ago, and that the committee structure, like everything else, has changed and adapted.
  The Minister mentioned directly elected mayors, but we know that the Deputy Prime Minister is "not a fan", as he put it, of them. The Minister also commented on the welfare provisions, which we broadly welcome. However, as with so much of the Bill, many details will have to be tackled through amendments.
  On section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, or clause 91, I can only express our regret at the Government's bizarre determination to repeal section 28.
  278
  The first manifestation of their intention to do that was a tawdry example of gesture politics even from this Government. They accused those who opposed repeal of being a small minority of homophobes. However, the Government are the small minority. No one outside the House understands why many more hours will be spent debating that proposal when there are so many more pressing matters to debate.
  The Government initially said that section 28 prevented teachers from dealing with bullying and that it caused problems in schools. When all else failed, the Government fell back on the lawyers. We are told that section 28 is either contrary to the European convention on human rights or that it does not apply to schools. That will be news to many teachers, lobbying groups for the gay community and others who believed that it applied. As recently as January, the Prime Minister was convinced that section 28 applied to schools. I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, she will identify the wording in clause 91 that makes it incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an eloquent contribution. He said that the Bill would give full reign to secrecy in local government. We agree with him.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) expressed his party's support for our position on structure. We look forward to Liberal Democrat support in Committee. The hon. Gentleman also considered the fourth option at length. I agree with his comments on that.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) spoke knowledgeably about the local government system in Wales. I agree with her comments on the role of women and that of back-bench councillors in Wales and elsewhere.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) spoke from considerable experience. She asked whether the Bill tackled the real reasons for public apathy towards local government. She referred to the problem of best value and its imposition on many local councils. She talked about the "hole in the road" test: do people know who they should contact about a hole in the road in their street? There is a hole in the road in the shape of Government thinking—a black hole. She was right to raise the cabinet system in Norfolk and described the Bill as a wasted opportunity.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) told us about the travails of local government in Liverpool. It must be mildly depressing, to put it at its lowest, for a local councillor to be told that only 2 per cent. of his electorate think that he is doing a good job. She also told the story of disgraceful manipulation by the Liberal Democrats, but I am afraid that she missed the point: that sort of behaviour is precisely what the Bill can and will promote.
  In a gem of a speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke from massive experience and expertise. He rightly criticised the Government's obsession with structures, referred to the spin from No. 10 and made extremely interesting remarks on elected mayors and the conduct of referendums. All in all, he made a significant contribution. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) stuck up for the committee system despite its failures, of which he has experience, and told us his real concerns about the executive-scrutiny split, which many others share.

  279
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) also drew attention to problems of cabinet secrecy and discussed clause 91 and the so-called section 28 issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made penetrating remarks about the proposals and, not least, the activities of Southend council. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) also spoke from considerable experience of local government and expressed coded concerns about unnecessary divisions in councils.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) spoke at length about the situation in Wales and touched on the danger of isolating councillors from local people. Good contributions were made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who again expressed scepticism about the Government's commitment to devolution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who spoke knowledgeably and sensibly about the proposals to abolish section 28. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) referred to the dangers in the Bill, though hoping that the Secretary of State will apply some of the powers with a light touch makes the latter the eternal optimist—the Government will not listen.
  Why will the Government not listen to Sir Jeremy Beecham of the Local Government Association, who talks of
  witnessing the strange death of local democracy…?
  Why will they not listen to the Society of Editors, which talks of councils
  reducing the flow of information to the public and the media as a result of reforms…
  and of some councils being "secretive and defensive"? Why will they not listen to the National Union of Journalists, which talks of
  cabinets or executives, meeting behind closed doors, which are now being imposed will deny basic access to local democracy…?
  Why will the Government not listen to the concerns of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which says
  if being "executive" means delving into operational management then the clock will have been put back several years, and the promises of modernisation will turn to dust.?
  Why will they not listen to the Local Government Information Unit, Charter 88 and the Campaign for Freedom of Information, none of which are obvious branches of the Conservative party? Why will they not listen to Mr. Ecclestone of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, who says that
  we are now finding a Labour government removing the rights Mrs Thatcher gave us…?
  Why will they take no notice of the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government and the views of so many Labour Back Benchers who have expressed deep concerns about the Bill and its central provisions, today and on other occasions?
  The Minister of State carried no one with her, not even her hon. Friends, and the proposals do not have a friend in the world, yet the Government are determined to force them through if necessary. We shall oppose them, and we shall not be alone. They like to talk a lot about open government, but prefer it to be practised behind closed doors. I commend our amendment to the House.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The Bill is part of a long-term radical change for local government—a change that is, I believe, essential if local government is to fulfil its responsibilities to local people in the future, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said, its potential. This is not change for change's sake; it is happening because the present Government, unlike the last, believe in local government. We believe in local democracy, and we want to strengthen it, to raise standards of local services, and to give people a real say in what their councils are doing.
  After 18 years of denigration from the Conservative party, local government in its present form simply cannot deliver effectively to local people. Fundamental change is needed. Our previous legislation, together with this Bill, will tackle all the key areas that must be tackled if councils are to work better. Best value and beacon councils are driving up standards of public service; the power of well-being underlines the overarching responsibility for improving the quality of life of local people. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) that we have already said we are prepared to use section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of new well-being powers. We shall discuss that in the finance Green Paper.
  The community planning provisions emphasise the potential of local authorities as strategic leaders. The new constitutions will allow better, more effective, quicker decision making and the Bill will build into the structure of local government an important and detailed mechanism for the effective scrutiny of that decision making. We will also institute a robust ethical framework to ensure that councils are not only above reproach, but seen to be above reproach.
  A number of Conservative Members questioned whether the case for change had been made. The case for change is obvious. I want to make three points in particular, on the first two of which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). The first relates to the need to involve local people to redress the democratic deficit. We should start from the point that we cannot claim a mandate in local government if only 10 per cent. of people—and, we have heard, 6 per cent. in parts of Liverpool—are voting for their local councillors. We need to strengthen local government: that is the first main objective.
  Mr. Curry: If the Minister has set a figure that validates a mandate, will she tell us what figure would be required in a referendum to validate a decision to change the structure of local government?
  Ms Hughes: I have not set a figure for a mandate, but when we are talking about very low turnouts for a local council election, we must question whether local people are really engaged.
  Secondly, we must improve standards of public service. In doing so, we must ask ourselves whether the present variation in council standards is acceptable. The top 25 per cent. of councils are excellent, and they are certainly not Tory councils. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman),

  281
  the top 25 per cent. have demonstrated innovation and real delivery of good services to local people, but we must take seriously the difference between them and other councils.
  The third issue is the current system. We heard a considerable defence of that system today, and also considerable criticism of what some Members see as the potential for less transparency in the new arrangements. Let us take a moment to consider what the current system involves. Under the current system, reports are taken to committee. Who decides the agenda of that committee meeting? It is the chair of the committee, in consultation with officers. There is no accountability. No one knows what has been left off the agenda. No one knows what is not included in reports: for example, options that have been considered, but discarded. Different party groups meet before committees and decide their position.
  The reports do the rounds; the same report goes to committee after committee. All that time, committee chairs are meeting through the day and evening with officers and selected members, making decisions. Where is the scrutiny in that system? Where is the access for the public and the press? It is a bureaucratic, slow and unresponsive system that is opaque and inflexible. I defy anyone to say that any modern organisation starting from scratch would organise itself in that way.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), argued that executives should be made to meet in public. That fails to recognise the real world and what is happening under the current committee system.
  The meeting of the executive will not be a committee because executives will be individually, not collectively, responsible. If executives met in public, it would not challenge the integrity of our proposals. However, where executives have decided to meet in public, this is what is happening. They have a pre-meeting in private, which is not minuted, or divulged to the public. The public meeting then takes place in a short time. The minutes that come out of it are equally short. It is a way of closing access to information by the public. Members who argue for public executive meetings on the ground of secrecy are not taking into account what will happen. They have lost the plot. The real mechanism for openness in the arrangements is scrutiny.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions talked about those measures. Hon. Members are right: structure of itself will not deliver all that we seek to achieve. Culture and the way that structure is used is equally important. The views of Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends seem to suggest that they do not trust local councillors to embrace a change of culture and to be more open with their electorate.
  Nothing in the structure inhibits openness; quite the opposite. Everything in the structure requires openness. It requires scrutiny in public for the first time, calling executive members to answer questions in public, calling residents—local people—to give their views or to be members of scrutiny committees, and calling expert witnesses to comment on executive policy and decisions.
  282
  Effective scrutiny is crucial, but I wonder why hon. Members who have made points of dissent ably tonight and on many other occasions believe that, when local authority councillors get the hang of scrutiny, they will not be able to deliver the challenge to the executive as effectively as some hon. Members in the Chamber.
  Mr. Waterson: May I explain? That is not the point. The point is why the Minister will not trust people to choose between that system and the system that they are probably operating perfectly well at the moment?
  Ms Hughes: I do not think that that is very good at all. The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The system at the moment is not working very well. Most particularly—it is one of the telling points—the current system is not working effectively from the point of view of local people, who cannot find out what is going on. They cannot get access. If Opposition Members think that reading the average minutes of a committee meeting tells anyone anything about the real decisions that are being made behind closed doors in local councils, they are more naive than I thought.
  Mr. Curry: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hughes: No; I must progress. I am terribly sorry, but I have to make some points on scrutiny to Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said that there would be no pre-scrutiny of executive decisions. That is a travesty. The Bill makes it clear that, at any time, any member of an overview and scrutiny committee, including co-opted members, can demand that an executive member or officer appear, put any item on the scrutiny committee's agenda and call executive members to account to explain precisely not only what they are doing, but what they are planning to do.
  Overview and scrutiny committees can initiate policy. They can make recommendations either to the executive or to the full council. The Bill makes it quite clear that they can look not only into the business of the executive, but into any council matter and even matters that are not the direct function of the council.
  Mr. Norman: Will the hon. Lady explain in what sense that is pre-scrutiny, please?
  Ms Hughes: The provision will enable scrutiny committees to raise issues and to discuss with executive members their intentions before they have taken decisions. It will therefore enable them to consider an issue before the process leading to a decision has even started. It is through scrutiny, area committees and full council that there will be important and challenging roles for non-executive members.
  Mr. Curry: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hughes: No. I am sorry, but I must go on.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garston made some good points about how current legislation fails to deliver

  283
  proper scrutiny. However, that is why we need the new legislation to make scrutiny really work.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that scrutiny committees are important and need to be given teeth to hold the executive to account. What we cannot do—it is surprising that the request is made when we are also hearing calls not to constrain councils—is to tell them how they will deploy resources on scrutiny committees. However, we shall strongly recommend in our guidance that councillors consider separate officer support and that scrutiny committees are properly resourced.
  The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said that the debate on section 28 is not about tolerance. He is right—it is about prejudice. Let us set the record straight. Section 28 bites on the actions of local authorities. It does not apply to schools, although many teachers and governors have thought that it does. Independent research has revealed that. I am glad that the penny on that has finally dropped for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).
  Let us be clear that that legislation singles out homosexual people for differential treatment and forces local authorities to discriminate against them. It is blatantly divisive and stigmatising, and it feeds the attitudes, and leads to the experiences, that were so poignantly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward).
  Today, we saw some of the contortions that Conservative Members attempt in trying to portray themselves as new friends to local government. They talk about "A New Approach to Local Government: Bringing Common Sense to Your Local Council", but the problem is that they have a credibility gap. They introduced the poll tax, but they ditched it. They introduced compulsory competitive tendering, but they ditched it. They introduced capping, but they ditched that. Only 27 per cent. of councillors today are Tories. They say that they want a healthy mix, but the numbers of women and ethnic minority councillors are pitiful.
  The Government present the best future for local government. We are investing in the local services that hard-working families need. Real improvement in the quality of life and in local public services needs dynamic responsible councils, and the Bill will deliver that.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 342.

  Division No. 160]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Clappison, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Nigel

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  284

  Fallon, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Flight, Howard

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Norman, Archie

  Fraser, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Prior, David

  Gray, James

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ruffley, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Syms, Robert

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Townend, John

  Key, Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Walter, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waterson, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Lidington, David

  Wilshire, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allan, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Blackman, Liz

  Ashton, Joe

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Battle, John

  Brake, Tom

  Beard, Nigel

  Breed, Colin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Browne, Desmond

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Burden, Richard

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Burgon, Colin

  285

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gardiner, Barry

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chidgey, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Edwards, Huw

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Laxton, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foulkes, George

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  286

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rendel, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lock, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McAllion, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Steve

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ruane, Chris

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Singh, Marsha

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Maxton, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mitchell, Austin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moore, Michael

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

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

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Oaten, Mark

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Öpik, Lembit

  Truswell, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pendry, Tom

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Plaskitt, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pond, Chris

  Watts, David

  Pope, Greg

  Webb, Steve

  Pound, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rammell, Bill

  Willis, Phil

  Rapson, Syd

  Winnick, David

  287

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wood, Mike

  Woodward, Shaun

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, James

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Standing Committee on Regional Affairs may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Question agreed to.

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

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  WELFARE REFORM AND PENSIONS
  That the Report by the Secretary of State for Social Security under section 82 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, stating the changes in the law which the Secretary of State is proposing in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill by way of amendments to the Child Support Acts 1991 and 1995, the amount of the expenditure which the Secretary of State proposes to incur and the purposes for which he proposes to incur it (HC 270), which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
  SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
  That the draft Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 57) on the Promoting Independence: Prevention Grant for 2000/2001 (HC 338), which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 56) on the Promoting Independence: Partnership Grant for 2000/2001 (HC 337), which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 58) on the Promoting Independence: Carers Grant for 2000/2001 (HC 339), which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Question agreed to.

Standing Committee on Regional Affairs
[Relevant document: The unnumbered Paper from the Leader of the House, entitled "Regional Standing Committee".]
10.30 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 117 shall be repealed, and that the following Standing Order shall be made:
117.—(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which shall consider any matter relating to regional affairs in England which may be referred to it.
(2) The Committee shall consist of thirteen Members representing English constituencies nominated by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

(a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and

(b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(3) Any Member of the House representing an English constituency, though not nominated to the Committee, may take part in its proceedings, but may not make any Motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the Committee may make a Motion as specified in paragraph (10) below.
(4) The quorum of the Committee shall be three.
(5) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) shall not apply to the Committee; except that the proviso to that paragraph shall apply to any sitting at Westminster.
(6) A Motion may be made in the House by a Minister of the Crown to specify (or to vary) any or all of the following:

(a) the matter or matters to be referred to the Committee;

(b) the period to be allotted to proceedings on such matters;

(c) when and where (within England) the Committee shall meet;

(d) the hours for the commencement and conclusion of any sitting;

(e) any days when the Committee shall meet at Westminster at Ten o'clock;

and such Motion may be moved at any time; and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(7) Where any order made under paragraph (6) above makes no provision for the period to be allotted to the proceedings on any matter or matters which have been referred to the Committee for consideration at a particular sitting, those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion no later than three hours after their commencement.
(8) At the commencement of business at any sitting of the Committee, the Chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown, being Members of the House, to make statements on any matter or matters referred to the Committee for consideration at that sitting, and may then permit members of the Committee to ask questions thereon.
(9) No question on a statement by a Minister of the Crown shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement, except that the Chairman may, at his discretion, allow such questions to be taken for a further period not exceeding half an hour.
(10) The Committee shall, following any such statements and questions, consider each matter referred to it on a motion 'That the Committee has considered the matter'; the Chairman shall put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on each matter at the time, or after the period, specified in accordance with
290
paragraph (6) or paragraph (7) of this Order, and the Committee shall thereupon report to the House that it has considered the matter or matters without any further Question being put.
(11) Any period allocated to the consideration of any matter or matters shall include any time spent on statements by Ministers of the Crown and questions thereon, except when otherwise provided by any Order of the House made in accordance with paragraph (6) above.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the House that Madam Speaker has selected amendments (a) and (b), which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and his right hon. and hon. Friends. There will be a joint debate on the main motion and the two amendments. Decisions on the amendments will be taken when the debate ends.
Mrs. Beckett: I propose to be brief in moving the motion because the proposal that it enshrines is perfectly straightforward and simple and because the procedure that it suggests is already extremely familiar to the House. The Standing Orders already contain provision for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, to debate primarily matters that are of concern to Members who sit for English constituencies. The Standing Order was decided and placed on, so to speak, the statute book of the House in the context of previous moves—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are not staying for the debate to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly.
Mrs. Beckett: The Standing Order was decided in the context of previous moves to introduce devolution for Scotland and Wales. It means that the House has already debated and decided the issue of principle.
The Standing Order ceased to be used after 1979 but it has never been removed from the statute book of the House. In consequence, it remains part of our potential procedures. However, since it was carried, many of our procedures have changed. That is why the motion brings the Standing Order up to date, as I see it, using today's procedures. I hope that this will make the Standing Order both more flexible and more useful to the House.
It will be apparent already to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the model that has been used is that of the European Scrutiny Committee. The Government believe that that is an effective model both in informing Members and in calling Ministers to account.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will explain something to me. Many of us believe, certainly in terms of regional affairs debates, that there is an argument for bringing in civil servants, in a Select Committee mode, and taking evidence from them. At a regional level, they are critically important in the taking of decisions under the new structures that we have set up. When my right hon. Friend was considering these matters and the tabling of the motion, did she consider a procedure whereby that would be possible?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I did, and I accept my hon. Friend's point. It is a matter that the House may consider again in future. That is a point that I intended to make at the end

291
of my remarks. However, it seemed to me that the important thing was to create or to revive a potential forum for debates for Members who sit for English constituencies, and to do so in a framework in which the priority would be for Members to have a capacity for statements to be made by Ministers and for questions to be put to them. It seemed also that that was the model of the European Scrutiny Committee. My hon. Friend will know that it is widely valued across the House as a model that works effectively.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee looking at matters concerning the environment and transport also has an involvement in regional affairs. How will the new Committee and the Select Committee work together?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is part of the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs does indeed have the capacity to which my hon. Friend refers. To that extent, there is less of a gap in the House's capacity to look at issues such as that of regional civil servants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is an expert, and is well aware that the Select Committee shadows the entire work of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is not possible for it to specialise in matters that have a regional context and edge, and it is possible only for members of the Select Committee to take part in its debates. That seemed to me the most powerful argument in favour of us using afresh a Standing Order which—I remind the House—has already been agreed by the House. The proposed Committee will be the only forum available to all hon. Members who represent English constituencies, and it will be available only to those hon. Members.
There is also the thought that, as in the European Scrutiny Committees, the presence of a relatively small core membership could lead to the build-up of expertise in regional matters. That, too, would be valuable to the House.
Mr. Owen Paterson: I am a member of European Standing Committee A, and regularly attend other Standing Committees on European matters. It is obvious to me that the right hon. Lady does not attend those meetings often. I can tell the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that civil servants are present at those meetings, and that they spend their time frantically scribbling notes to Ministers who cannot answer questions because they have mugged up on the issue at hand only half an hour before the sitting.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he cannot have been listening to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington asked. He asked about taking evidence from civil servants, and that is not the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I accept the Leader of the House's point that all hon. Members with English constituencies will be able to speak at sittings of
292
the Committee, but only 13 will be allowed to vote. Does the right hon. Lady not see a difficulty, in that the tiny core of Committee members—we do not know from what regions they will be drawn—will not be able to vote in a way that allows them to represent the interests of all the regions of the country?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. and learned Gentleman may not have scrutinised the Standing Order as closely as he might have. It is not envisaged that the Committee will take the sort of decisions to which he refers. The Committee will give hon. Members with English constituencies an opportunity to scrutinise issues that are of concern to them.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, before I took one or two interventions, the Standing Order includes provision for ministerial statements to be made to the Committee, and that such statements can be followed by questions, when that is thought to be helpful and for the guidance of the Committee. Hon. Members of all parties will recognise that there is nothing like knowing that questions will be faced, in the House or in Committee, to concentrate ministerial attention on an issue. I repeat that all hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate matters that might be referred to the Committee.
The indicators from the regional development agencies highlight some of the subjects that are likely to be discussed in the proposed forum. Those subjects include economic development, social regeneration, employment and sustainable development skills. All those matters arouse particular concerns among hon. Members who represent English seats, and the forum will allow the matters to be aired in more detail than would be possible in other circumstances. Although there is a core membership of the Committee, Members representing any English seat will be entitled to attend and participate.
There are, of course, alternatives, such as the sittings in Westminster Hall, which provide a fresh opportunity for scrutiny. There is no doubt that that provides a potential forum for debates that highlight the affairs of the English regions. It is not solely a forum for Members who represent English constituencies. It is an experimental forum, but it was intended from the outset to provide more time for the discussion of Select Committee reports and specialist debates on, say, foreign affairs. It would be to lose some of the opportunities provided by the forum in Westminster Hall were we to seek to dominate that by matters that arose solely in the context of English constituencies.
Mr. James Gray: I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Lady is saying. I know that we will have some time to discuss the merits and demerits of the proposal in the hours ahead. In the meantime, will the right hon. Lady say whether the proposal comes from the Procedure Committee, which must presumably have looked at it, or from the so-called Modernisation Committee? If not, what is its provenance?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware of its provenance. I made it plain in my earlier remarks that the proposal has come from the Government. It was aired in the Modernisation Committee, because it was thought to be a matter that might find common ground on both sides of the House. Given that much concern has been expressed across the House about the insufficient

293
opportunities for debates for those who represent English constituencies, and only English constituencies, the Government thought that Conservative Members as well as Labour Members might appreciate the opportunity for those debates to be extended.
We shall shortly have the opportunity to test whether Conservative Members meant anything that they said about wanting opportunities for debate specifically for Members representing English constituencies, or whether they simply wanted to complain about the lack of those opportunities—all mouth and no delivery, to coin a phrase.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I believe that the right hon. Lady said earlier that ministerial statements would be made to this Standing Committee. Were such statements made in the 1970s, when the Committee was previously in existence? Is it not right and proper that ministerial statements should be made in the House, and not to a limited Standing Committee?
Mrs. Beckett: No, that was not the procedure when the Committee was first set up. That is one of the reasons why we are moving an amendment to the existing Standing Order, which is thought to be somewhat inflexible. At that time, the House did not have the kind of procedures that it has today. The House did not have anything like the number of Committees that it has today. The House did not operate in forums in which it was possible or likely that Ministers would make statements. We do all those things in the proceedings of the House today. As I understand it, those procedures have developed because the House, as a whole, thought that they offered additional and more varied opportunities for scrutiny.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend rightly said that the proposal was aired in the Modernisation Committee. Would it not be true to say that one of the reservations that the Modernisation Committee had about launching the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs was that hon. Members, myself included, did not want to launch it at the same time as Westminster Hall? We wanted to allow that to get established before launching this Standing Committee, which is exactly what the Government have done.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. There were those who felt that it was not a good idea to launch two experiments, as they saw it, at the same time. Others, as it transpired, saw the proposal as some kind of pro-European plot. So it became apparent that it was not necessarily all that likely that the proposal would command common ground.
Let me return to the point that perhaps was behind the intervention from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). When it became clear that there would not necessarily be all-party support for a move along these lines, I withdrew it from the Modernisation Committee because it is an all-party Committee which seeks to proceed by consensus. I made it plain at that point that, because this was a decision that the House had already
294
made, the Government might seek to move forward on the proposal in another context, and that is precisely what we are doing tonight.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I will, but after that I propose to end my remarks, which I had already almost concluded.
Mr. McLoughlin: The right hon. Lady says that statements could be made to the Committee. What will be the mechanism for notifying Members of what the statements will be on? What kind of notice will she give Members that a statement is to be made?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, especially in view of the honourable position that he holds in the House, is more than well aware of how such procedures work. It is intended that they should proceed by discussion across the House in the ordinary way. We would give as much notice as we reasonably could of issues that could be aired.
The reason for having a core membership is not merely so that members can build up a wide expertise in regional affairs rather than just in a particular region but so that they can begin to form views about what issues have not yet been aired. Should the House decide to set up such a Committee, I hope that that is something on which there would rapidly develop common ground. That is the way in which many of our affairs work and it is something—
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman knows that I would readily give way to him, but I am about to conclude my remarks. I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily about a straightforward and simple proposal. I propose—
Mr. Bercow: In one sentence
Mrs. Beckett: Oh, all right, in one sentence.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. What is the rationale behind the first part of subsection (9) of the proposed standing order?
Mrs. Beckett: Without finding paragraph (9) immediately, I should simply say that the whole idea behind the proposal is to create an additional forum for the House. I do not intend to search for subsection (9) now.
The Government recognise that, in the aftermath of devolution to Scotland and Wales, which is an issue that has been debated extensively in the House and has long been decided, there is a call for a forum specifically for Members who sit for English constituencies. The Government recognise the validity of such a call. Or perhaps I should say that the Government thought that they recognised the validity of such a call, but we shall judge tonight whether that call was valid or was in fact merely an excuse for people to complain.

295
The Government are perfectly prepared to extend the opportunities available to those Members who sit for English constituencies to air specific concerns that arise in their constituencies and to make that forum one that can provide not merely for debate but for extended scrutiny of Ministers, and the opportunity to seek ministerial statements and to question Ministers on those statements. We believe that such a forum will add usefully to the procedures of the House and to the opportunities available to Members to hold the Government to account. Conservative Members continually complain that they lack sufficient of those opportunities. We should judge whether they really mean it by how they vote tonight.
10.34 pm
Sir George Young: The good news about the motion before the House tonight is that the Government have at last recognised that post-devolution there are some unresolved questions relating to England. The Leader of the House confirmed that in her remarks. The bad news is that the Government have come up with the wrong answer. I want to explain why the proposal before us is, first, inconsistent with the Government's manifesto commitments for devolution in England; secondly, an inadequate response to the so-called West Lothian question; and, thirdly, one that cuts across the work of existing institutions of the House, especially the Select Committees and the recently established Westminster Hall.
The proposal for this new Standing Committee has not been put to the House with the approval of the Select Committees on Modernisation or on Procedure—the preferred way of changing how the House works—but comes from the Government.
A year ago, the Modernisation Committee reflected on this proposition, which had been put to it by the Leader of the House. After discussion, the Government decided—rightly—not to pursue it, so we heard no more for nearly a year. The week before last, in a great hurry, the proposition was taken off its dusty shelf by the Government, following some adverse press coverage of the Government's lack of progress in setting up regional assemblies.
The proposal appeared on the Order Paper shortly after the Prime Minister gave a speech on Britishness on 28 March. His speech generated some adverse comment:
PM rules out home rule for the regions…the move will be seen as a bruising rebuff to regions such as the North East and North West.
That was in the Daily Mail on 29 March. [Interruption.] I thought that the Daily Mail was most important to the present Labour party.
How about The Times? On 29 March, it stated:
Blair back-pedals on regional assemblies … Tony Blair rebuffed John Prescott's demands for the creation of regional assemblies in England yesterday.
On the next day—30 March—the Leader of the House announced the initiative at business questions. That is the background.
The motion is not a considered response by the House as to how its procedures might be improved. It does not fit into a coherent philosophy of devolution; it is a political gesture, made by the Government to head off criticism of yet another of their ill-considered constitutional changes.
Helen Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman is twisting history somewhat. He should
296
acknowledge the arguments that were primarily about the fact that the House was trying to achieve a consensus on the establishment, in Westminster Hall, of a Chamber in which such issues could be debated—as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has just pointed out. That is why the proposal was made.
Sir George Young: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady sustained her initial accusation that I had twisted history. However, she was able to insert her interpretation of events into my speech. I hope that she can catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There are three reasons for my view that this proposal is not the best way forward. First, the new Committee would sit uneasily with other institutions of the House, especially the Select Committees and Westminster Hall. Since 1978—the last time that the Standing Committee met—there have been major changes in the operation both of the Government and of the House, which dramatically weaken the case for the Standing Committee.
We have a major Department—the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—which has responsibility for English regional affairs. That Department is shadowed by an active and effective Select Committee—as one would expect of a Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
The DETR annual report for 1999 on regional responsibility lists the Department's achievements in 1998 as follows: Royal Assent for the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998; the establishment of eight RDAs on 14 December; and the appointment of the chairmen, members and chief executives of the RDAs. The work in progress included the further development of RDAs; encouraging the development of voluntary regional chambers in each region; contributing to the development of the new assisted areas map; and improving relationships with Government offices.
That major Department of State has responsibility for regional affairs. Within it, there is a Minister with responsibility for the English regions—I am delighted that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, is in the Chamber tonight. There is also an Under-Secretary with responsibility for the regions, namely the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes).
The House monitors the Government and holds them to account on regional matters through a Select Committee. That is exactly what the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has been doing. It produced reports on regional air services on 25 July 1998, regional Eurostar services on 26 January 1999 and regional development agencies on 25 May 1999. It must remain the principal means of monitoring the Government on regional affairs.
We also have other departmental Select Committees that cover other subjects. For example, if the House wanted to examine agriculture in the south-west, fishing in the north-west or the motor industry in the north-east, those subjects come under other Select Committees. The proposal for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs risks short-circuiting the existing Select Committees, assuming, of course, that the House could find Members

297
to take an active part on it, given the difficulty that confronts many Committees in maintaining a quorum and a good turnout.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman has missed a crucial point. Any Member of the House of the Commons—not only members of the Select Committee—will under this proposal be able to ask detailed questions of Ministers and secure answers. He simply does not understand that point, but it is why the change is so important.
Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman considers the way the agenda is constructed, he will find that the Government, not the Committee members, will set it. I shall refer shortly to Westminster Hall, which is an appropriate forum for some of these issues.
Mr. Garnier: I wish to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). All sorts of Members representing English constituencies may be able to go to the Committee, question Ministers and make speeches, but, whatever the views expressed by those attending, the Government will be able to pack the vote. They will have the majority on the Committee.
Sir George Young: Indeed, and the majority will reflect not the balance within England, but that within the United Kingdom as a whole. I shall discuss the relevant amendment shortly
Dr. Stephen Ladyman Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet)rose—
Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
Sir George Young: I want to make a bit of progress, and then I shall give way.
The agenda of the Standing Committee, unlike that of a Select Committee, will be dominated by the Government and not by its members. The House may have considered paragraph (6) of the motion. The matters referred to the Committee, the period for discussion and the location and the duration of the discussion will all be decided by the Government. The normal powers available to a Select Committee will not be available to the Standing Committee, which is further evidence of the Government's ability to talk the language of devolution, but to retain central control.
The House is familiar with the debate about Westminster Hall. One of the concerns about establishing a forum that did not meet in the Chamber but that potentially had a large membership was that it might shift the centre of gravity away from the Chamber and take Members out of it. The jury is out on that issue because Westminster Hall is still an experiment. However, a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs must accentuate that risk.
Dr. Ladyman: I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to give way before he moved too far away from his remarks on Select Committees. Does he not accept that those of us who sit on the Environment, Transport and Regional
298
Affairs Committee are not able to proselytise on behalf of our own regions? The advantage of the Standing Committee is that we shall be able to represent our regional interests on it.
Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what has just been said, he would have found out that he will not have that freedom. He can proselytise on any subject only if the Government decide that it is a subject that the Committee can discuss. The whole terms of trade are weighted in favour of the Government, not the House.
Mr. Leigh: On the point that the voting in the Committee will reflect party strength in the United Kingdom as a whole and not just England, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the project may be considered by some to be an embryo—if an inadequate one—for an English Parliament? If that is so, does he accept that it is a rare case where an early abortion of the project would be a great kindness?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has used rather violent language. We should not make progress with the Standing Committee for the reasons that I have set out, and its membership is one of them. If the proposal is being sold to English Members as an English solution of some sort, the Committee should reflect the balance in the House of Members from England and not the United Kingdom. I shall say a word shortly about the amendment that addresses that problem.
The Procedure Committee suggested that the Grand Committees should be suspended while we wait to see what happens with Westminster Hall. Its Chairman may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If his Committee wanted the existing Grand Committees to be suspended, it is difficult to see that it would want a new one to be established.
Westminster Hall already provides opportunities for debates on English regional matters, answered by Ministers. Subjects for debate included, on 16 January, shipbuilding on the Clyde; on 14 March, housing in Norfolk; on 21 March, housing in Hampshire; on 22 March, NHS provision in Oxfordshire and the economy of the east midlands; on 29 March, the Diamond Synchrotron and science in the north west; and, on 4 April, prospects for shipbuilding and related industries on the River Tyne. All those subjects are chosen by Members of the House and the Speaker, not by the Government.
Mrs. Beckett: I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that although as a member of the Modernisation Committee, which recommended the experiment in Westminster Hall, he rightly and honourably voted for that proposal, the vast bulk of the Members sitting behind him voted against it, and now apparently will vote against this one. Where does that leave their claim to want a forum for English Members?
Sir George Young: The proposal for Westminster Hall came to the House from the Modernisation Committee, which approved it. This proposal has not come from the Modernisation Committee with the approval of a Committee of the House; it has come directly from the Government.
As I said earlier, my first reason for believing that this proposal is not the best way forward is that it does not make sense within our rules and procedures. Last May,

299
the Procedure Committee published an excellent report entitled "The Procedural Consequences of Devolution". This proposition was not one of its proposals, nor indeed did it feature in the Government's response.
That brings me to my second reason. The motion in no way responds to the imbalance created by devolution. The House should tonight be implementing the Procedure Committee's unanimous recommendation that Madam Speaker should identify Bills that apply only to one part of the UK. That would begin to be a coherent response to the English question, as it would open up the way to a new procedure for English or English and Welsh Bills.
"The Procedural Consequences of Devolution", which we debated on 21 October, contained key paragraphs—23 to 27—which responded to the current inequity that affects English MPs and our constituents better than the proposal before the House. Paragraph 25 began:
However, the current Standing Orders do not deal satisfactorily with legislation relating exclusively to England, Northern Ireland or Scotland … No provision at all is made for Bills relating exclusively to England.
The next paragraph took the argument a stage further. It said:
The main point of principle to be considered is whether it is appropriate to retain special procedures for Bills relating exclusively to one of the constituent countries of the UK, as currently apply to Bills relating exclusively to Scotland or Wales. On balance, we believe it is.
That led the Committee to its recommendation in paragraph 27, which said:
We recommend that the provision allowing the Speaker to certify Bills as relating exclusively to Scotland be transferred to a new Standing Order and adapted so that the Speaker may certify that a Bill relates exclusively to one of the constituent parts of the UK.
That was the unanimous view of a Committee consisting of nine Labour MPs, three Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. That is what we should be debating this evening.
That recommendation was rejected by the Government, who in their response asserted:
If…it were possible to identify some bills as relating exclusively to England, it is not clear what benefit this would have for the House.
The whole debate on the West Lothian question had gone straight over their head. It is not that they disagreed with the solution; they had not even seen the problem. The unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee would pave the way for the solution proposed by my party to the West Lothian question, and if the Government had tabled that as a motion today, they would have had our support.
The Standing Order would not allow the Committee to deal with Second Readings. The Procedure Committee also recommended that the Standing Order be lifted which requires Standing Committees to reflect party strength, so that the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs could reflect party strength in the constituent part of the UK. Again, the Government have not accepted that. The Government's proposal will perpetuate the inequity rather than solve it. An amendment has been tabled which would require the balance in the Committee to reflect the position in England rather than that in the UK. That strikes me as an amendment worth supporting if we are to have the Committee, but we do not believe that the Committee is the right answer to the post-devolution issues that concern many hon. Members.
300
My third and last reason is that the proposition does not even fit the Government's agenda. Here we are, approaching the end of this Parliament, and the sad epitaph to the bold claims about regional devolution that we heard from Labour Members a few years ago is this Standing Committee. Elected regional assemblies have disappeared and, as a sop, we are to have a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. The commitment to hold referendums on regional assemblies has gone the same way as the commitment to hold a referendum on electoral change.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to deal with the question of Scotland and Wales—especially Scotland and the West Lothian question—it is necessary to adjust the Standing Orders to ensure that those who will otherwise vote twice are not allowed to do so?
Sir George Young: That was indeed the logic of the unanimous recommendation of the Procedure Committee that was put to the House last year.
At the general election, the Labour party pledged
legislation to allow the people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want directly elected regional government.
The Home Secretary has also promised that
devolution to Scotland and Wales, to Greater London and to the English regions, greater responsibility to local authorities, far better accountability for quangos, will decentralise and devolve power across Britain and give people a say where one is denied today.
Regional government was intended to break up Britain and create a Europe of the regions. As Labour argued before the election:
The regional chambers would become each region's voice in Europe and would co-ordinate regional bids for EU funding.
Despite that initial enthusiasm, Labour's attitude appears to have cooled. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions recently described regional government as a "diversion", claiming that few of her north-east constituents were interested. That was reported in The Guardian on 4 August.
It appears that the motion we are debating is all that remains of the Government's bold pledge to devolve power to the regions. As is so often the case with the Labour Government, they are all mouth and no delivery. We do not support the idea of regional assemblies, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) will explain why. They would be wasteful and bureaucratic and they do not attract significant support in the country. In my part of the country, when people talk of Wessex, they mean Sophie and Edward, not a regional assembly.
What Labour Members really want is elected regional assemblies, especially in the north-east, to which decision making is devolved from Westminster. However, the motion pulls in the opposite direction. The Campaign for Yorkshire's background paper states:
The Campaign for Yorkshire is not asking for yet another body, but looking for the RDA to be made into an elected assembly.
The Local Government Association's letter about the proposal states:
though we welcome greater scrutiny of RDAs by Parliament, the Association favours increased scrutiny by the region itself. If the RDAs are to be a genuine step towards increased decision making in the English regions, the Committee must recognise that RDAs should ultimately be accountable to regional interests themselves.

301
The motion is yet another example of the Government thrashing around in a constitutional vacuum, starting a reform that they have no idea how to finish, responding to some bad press with an ill-thought-through response. We do not believe that it should be supported and I invite my hon. Friends to register their opposition in the Lobby.
10.54 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph (2), leave out "thirteen" and insert "twenty-four".
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (b), in paragraph (2)(a), leave out "composition of the House" and insert—
"party representation of Members of the House sitting for English constituencies".
Mr. Tyler: The motion is a curious proposition and, as has been made clear by hon. Members on both sides, its paternity is odd. The Standing Committee on Regional Affairs has been in abeyance for 20 years and we do not appear to have managed too badly without it.
Already, inquiries have been made of the Leader of the House about the function that this child is to perform. What is its purpose? Government Members have already suggested that a body with some of the characteristics of a Select Committee would be more appropriate than a Standing Committee; but, as the Chairman of the appropriate Committee has also already pointed out, to set up such a Committee would entail duplication. Already there is doubt about the purpose of the exercise.
I hope that all hon. Members have taken the trouble to read the Order Paper and the amendments. The House is now debating a series of amendments starting, obviously, with amendment (a). We will then debate amendment (b). I hope that later we will have an opportunity to consider some of the other issues.
I have some sympathy with the point of view of the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: With due respect, I have hardly started. I know that it was said of Mr. Gladstone that he was an old man in a hurry, but will the hon. Gentleman please be a little bit patient? I wish to be as brief as possible, as others want to speak, so I do not intend to take a lot of interventions.
As the Conservative spokesman made clear, the aspirations of many parts of the country, including my own, for some form of real devolution are to be denied this evening with a sop—a stopgap. I know that that will cause disappointment in all parts of the House. It looks as though old Labour has produced a knee-jerk response to those aspirations. As it has burned its fingers in Cardiff, Edinburgh and now London, real devolution is being put on the back burner and we are to be fobbed off with yet another Committee—a puppet Committee with a built-in Government majority.
302
I do not believe that that is what people want. The Prime Minister promised, not just at the general election but more recently, that we would have more accountable regional government. This is not regional government. It does not even bring regional administration under the control of the House or any other elected body. For that reason, we must study the proposition carefully. It may be just a modest improvement. If so, perhaps it has some merit, but it is certainly not what it is cracked up to be by the Leader of the House or anyone else.
Amendment (a) would expand the core membership of the Committee so that at least a sufficient number of members would not only attend meetings, but vote there, to give the Committee a more effective role in scrutinising Government policy and practice at regional level. Our suggestion is that the number should be 24.
More important still, it would be a constitutional absurdity if the calculation of the Committee membership by party were based on representation in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and even London. We therefore suggest in our second amendment that party representation should reflect party balance in England, if that is to be the agenda for the Committee. It would be totally illogical for those who represent Scottish constituencies effectively to determine representation on the Committee. The Government have clearly made a ludicrous blunder.
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman suggests that a ludicrous blunder has been committed, I should inform him that it has been calculated not by me, but by the relevant authorities, that his proposal would mean an extra seat for the Conservatives and one fewer for the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Tyler: I have no problem with that. The argument of simple party advantage is ludicrous. I well recall the Labour protest when the Conservatives in the previous Parliament insisted on putting English Members on the Scottish Grand Committee. That was ludicrous then, and the proposal now is ludicrous. I hope that we will see no double standards from Labour Members who objected at that time.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
Mr. Tyler: No, I will not.
The motion reflects a subtle but extremely important difference in the way in which the Committee is to be managed, compared with 25 years ago: a Minister of the Crown will take all the major initiatives in deciding what comes before the Committee, where it meets, when it meets and so on. In our view, that is inappropriate. If the Committee is to be an effective organ of scrutiny that will make the Government accountable, the Chair of the Committee should have that role, and he or she should be an Opposition Member. Surely that is the right approach. I hope that hon. Members will re-examine the motion.
The proposal's greatest defect is the lack of a timetable. It is as though the Committee is intended to act for ever and a day as a substitute for effective regional scrutiny of the regional administration of national government. That is why we have proposed a sunset clause. Although Standing Orders cease at the end of every Parliament and

303
the motion will therefore be effective for only a short time, I hope that the Government will not pretend that it is a permanent solution to the democratic deficit in the regions of England.
The motion is not a substitute for effective regional government. Anyone who claims it is such a substitute misunderstands the Government's proposition completely.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed Chairman of the Committee. Does he believe that the Chairman should be plucked from the Speaker's Panel or appointed in some other, unspecified way?
Mr. Tyler: If we are considering a Standing Committee, the Chair must be a member of the Speaker's Panel. It includes Opposition Members, so that is not a major problem. If the initiative, the agenda, the timing, the location and the business are in the hands of the Government rather than the Chair and the Committee, the Committee will not be an effective organ of scrutiny for all Back Benchers and all parties.
I represent Cornwall, which we do not regard as part of England, but I am prepared to make an exception for the purpose of our discussion. My constituents are entitled to know that the Committee will be an effective scrutineer of regional and local government.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: No, I want to complete my remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I spoke in the Chamber at 1.10 this morning; I do not believe that anyone wants to hear me speak at length this evening.
Mr. Bercow: We want Tyler.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman can have Wat Tyler if he likes.
Hon. Members on the Treasury Bench want to buy off parts of England that have a perfectly reasonable aspiration in the aftermath of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—we hope that devolved government will resume in due course in Northern Ireland. The motion is simply a stopgap and must be treated as such. It may have short-term merits, but only if it is greatly improved by our amendments.
11.2 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have listened to the hon. Member for Truro—
Mr. Tyler: North Cornwall.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am obviously thinking of the previous Parliament.
I tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman early in his speech because in his opening sentence, he suggested that things had worked perfectly well without the Committee for which we have pressed. I remind him that his part of the world is applying for objective 1 status. That suggests that there are major problems in Cornwall. Twenty years of Thatcherism and all that that entailed have left a legacy that the hon. Gentleman does not enjoy. He should
304
therefore have been at the forefront of those who required the Government to table the motion that has been presented this evening.
I welcome the motion. We have asked for it for 20 years; we have finally got it. In 1979, when I was first elected, the first debates in which I participated were about regional affairs. We had to argue with the Government through the usual channels for those debates. They were repeatedly refused. We asked for the establishment of a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs immediately after the election in 1979. Our request was refused. Over the following year and every year, the issue was repeatedly raised in Labour party conferences up and down the country and in trade union conferences. If the truth be known, Tory Back Benchers wanted a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs just as much as we did. I am looking at one now—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). In the early 1980s he attended meetings of the textile group of Members of Parliament to ask for such a Committee to be established.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hesitate to counter what the hon. Gentleman says, but it would be appropriate to quote chapter and verse, such as a date and a relevant Hansard column. Although I participated in the Committee under the old Standing Order, which I much prefer to the Standing Order that we are debating, it is wrong to introduce the motion as we are still involved in the Westminster Hall experiment. We should see whether it succeeds. I have the honour to chair Westminster Hall and I must tell the House that I am trying to create some atmosphere and make it work.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is a weather vane. Clearly he has completely changed his position over the past 20 years.
Mr. Winterton: Rubbish.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I remember those occasions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) must not shout across the Chamber.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those matters were discussed by the Paper and Board Federation because we were concerned about the impact of energy prices on the paper and board industry. We argued that we needed a mechanism in the House of Commons whereby we could debate such issues intensely with Ministers, but that was not provided. In the 1980s, we repeatedly made requests through the usual channels for a structure to be set up, but we never got what we wanted. This time we have got it, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that.
Let me tell the House why the Committee will work. Many of my hon. Friends may not have had the opportunity or have needed to attend European Standing Committees. They are perhaps the best in terms of holding Ministers to account.
Mr. Paterson: Oh come on!
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Oh yes, those Committees are excellent as they sort out the good Ministers from

305
the bad. In the previous Parliament, I was leading in Committee for the Opposition and a Minister said, "Do you realise, Dale, that I had to get up at 4 o'clock this morning to prepare for this because I do not want to muck it up? When I go before the Committee, I want to be sure that I have done my homework." They provide the only mechanism that I have seen in the House of Commons that subjects Ministers to persistent questioning on issues of which they often have little notice. Ministers are held fully to account, which is why I want this structure to be created.
Ministers will have to be fully briefed and able to reply if they are to appear before the Committee on issues that relate directly to our constituencies. The danger is that they will look inadequate if they do not answer detailed questions. Nothing keeps Ministers on their toes more than the need to impress a Committee, particularly when they are live on the box.
Mr. James Paice: Although I do not agree, let us accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the effectiveness of European Standing Committees. Is not there a significant difference here because the European Scrutiny Committee, not the Government, decides whether an issue is appropriate for debate? In the new Standing Committee, issues will be debated at the behest of Ministers. If they do not want to be interrogated in the way that he describes, they can purposely avoid that by not putting certain issues down for consideration.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Within the structure that we are establishing, it is inconceivable that Ministers would be able to find some way of avoiding giving detailed answers to questions about the northern region or the north-west region. The Government will announce the business of the Committee for a particular day, for a particular region and probably for a particular Department. It could be Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, northern region, Department of Trade and Industry, north-west region, lottery matters covered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, south-west region, or whatever.
I presume that when those items go on to the agenda, Members—if they are inclined to do what I intend to do—will give Ministers notice in detail of the questions that they mean to ask, so that there is no excuse for those Ministers to give half-baked answers. Then, during the questioning session that will open the proceedings, they will ask their questions, receive live answers and follow them up, as can be done under the European Committee structure that we have already established. Members can ask supplementaries repeatedly, and press Ministers into a corner in order to exploit fully the issues that they are raising.
Mr. Pike: I am sure my hon. Friend does not believe for a moment that, once the Committee has been established, Conservative Members will not press weekly at business questions for issues to be debated in it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am absolutely sure that they will. Every Thursday afternoon they will ask for items to be discussed in the Committee. Having begun by meeting
306
perhaps once a week or once every two weeks, the Committee may well meet two or three times a week, depending on the nature and scale of demand from members of all parties. The Tories, if they are wise, will be just like us, and use the new structure to hold Ministers to account. I think that they are mad to reject it.
Dr. Ladyman: Let me ask my hon. Friend a question to which I genuinely do not know the answer. What would stop an individual Member tabling a parliamentary question asking the Government when they intended to debate a particular subject in the Committee, and what would stop the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee making recommendations to the Government, if it so wished? Whether the Government accepted them would be another matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Everything that my hon. Friend has said is possible, and I am sure that Conservative Members will find ways of ensuring that it is possible. They will exploit the system in exactly the same way. There must be Conservative Members who know in their hearts that this is the very structure that they want in order to secure regional accountability.
Mr. Bercow: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the scope for taxing interrogation, can he explain why, in paragraph (9) of the proposed standing order, the period for ministerial statements is unlimited, but the period for questioning of those ministerial statements is strictly limited? There is an incompatibility there.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The procedure has worked perfectly well under the European scrutiny arrangements; and these are early days. It may well be that, in the end, most of the proceedings in the Committee are dominated by questions. We may well find that in a year's time, or in two years' time—depending on the scale of the great success of this procedural change—Members want more time in which to ask questions. I will be in the Lobby with the Tories if they want to table a motion to that effect: I have no problem at all with it, and nor have my colleagues on the Front Bench.
Mrs. Beckett: Having now found paragraph (9), which I must admit was not present in my memory, I can assist my hon. Friend, and respond to the concern raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
The whole point of the procedure, which is modelled on that of the European Scrutiny Committee, is to prevent Ministers from monopolising the Committee by making overlong statements, but to allow the Chairman the facility to extend the period of questioning should the Chairman conclude that the Committee has not had sufficient opportunity to press a Minister. That is what happens in the European Scrutiny Committee, and that is the reason for our proposing this procedure.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a very sensible response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). He should go away and consider the whole procedure again. He is one of the Members who will be able to use it, because, as we know, he is a questioner. He, along with some of his

307
hon. Friends, will be able to exploit the procedure—and I hope that they will, because we all want Ministers to be held to account.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman talks about persistent and demanding scrutiny of Ministers. Has he seen the official record of the recent meeting of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, where Lord Sainsbury was reduced to a quivering jelly by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure, then, that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to many similar occasions with other Ministers, if he gets his way. We accept that. Indeed, Ministers accept it.
I draw attention to one or two issues that I should like to raise in the Committee. It is not only about the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It will cover other Departments.
Mrs. Dunwoody: What concerns me is not that we should follow the European Standing Committee—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where my hon. Friend was very good.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I enjoyed it. It was an interesting and useful sitting because we could keep a Minister there for more than an hour, forcing him to answer questions. One thing worries me. Given the number of English Members who would have the right to come along and to question the Minister, rightly, how long would each one get to put trenchant and important questions? How many answers would they receive?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: During a sitting of European Standing Committee B that dealt with agricultural matters, my hon. Friend always seemed to secure answers to the repeated questions that she asked; it was particularly the case on European matters. She was very able to do so. I do not see any problem arising. Anyhow, it is not as if the Committee will meet only once. As I say, it may meet regularly every week on a number of occasions. I hope that it does. I hope that Members take advantage of it.
Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman should listen to his colleague, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She makes the very good point about the one hour available on European Standing Committees. The most that I have ever achieved is three questions to a Minister, interspersed with other questions from other Members.
If the hon. Gentleman had been at the Select Committee on Agriculture this morning and heard his colleague, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), going on and on and on and on at Baroness Hayman, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he would have seen what persistent questioning means. A Select Committee is a far more effective format for grilling an ineffective Minister than a Standing Committee, as we see with the European model.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are splitting hairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not."] I am sorry. I think that we are.
308
The Committees provide adequate opportunity for Members to question Ministers. It might be true that, in the proceedings this morning, the Minister was pressed, but there is one advantage that Standing Committees do have; I suppose it applies to Select Committees, too. If they are very clever, a group of Back Benchers will get together and ambush a Minister. That is the real art.
I saw that happen once. It was during a very well attended sitting—I am sure that the hon. Member for Macclesfield will remember the day. Mr. Oppenheim was the Minister. He was answering questions during the run-up to Maastricht. There was a big sitting in Committee Room 12. The proceedings had to be transferred to that Room because so many people wanted to speak. Does the hon. Gentleman remember the ambush? Did it work? It did. That is why the new procedure will work. [HON. MEMBERS: "It did not work."] It did. You got the ambush in. I was there. I witnessed it. We sat back and said nothing. Your people did the job against your own Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could not be referring to my people because my people are not in the Chamber.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should never have made that remark. The people of the hon. Member for Macclesfield ambushed his own Minister and it worked very well.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall. I like these exchanges.
Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the 13 core Members should reflect the political make-up of the English regions, or of the whole House of Commons?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not given the matter a thought. I am leaving that to Liberal Democrat Members, who have tabled an amendment on it. I shall look to my Whips for a bit of guidance on how I should vote on it, because it is not the issue that is concerning me. I am interested in the principle.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman will have to vote soon on our amendment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am going to ask my Whips which way to vote—I am very honest about that. When I am ignorant about something, they invariably give me very good guidance.
When the new regional structure and the north-west regional development agency—in the north-west of England—were established, there was much argument about whether Cumbria should be covered by it. Many of us wanted to be included in the northern region. I do not want to re-open old arguments, but the reality is that there was a very heated discussion. Although that structure is now working quite well, at that time we believed that we were not being listened to. If we had had in place the structure proposed in the motion, what a field day I would have had. Ministers would have been pilloried in that Committee and driven into a corner, to reveal the true

309
reasons why the decision had been taken. That is only one example of a situation in which I believe that the proposed structure would have operated better.
A decision was then taken, at a regional level, without the intervention of Ministers, on where the regional development agency's offices in Cumbria were to be located. It was small matter for people in Westminster, but it was very important for us in Cumbria. I wanted the offices in Cockermouth, but the agency wanted them in Penrith. The agency won, but why? It won because there was no accountability and no process by which I could influence events. When I tried to influence events in informal proceedings, it turned out to be a complete and total waste of time. I want a structure whereby I can hold a Minister to account on a decision of that nature because I am elected and I am accountable, just as every other hon. Member is. We have to find a way of ensuring that our voices are heard and that we can question Ministers on those issues.
Mr. Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that anything is possible, and he mentioned the definition of "regions". Surely that issue really is at the heart of the proposal and the factor determining whether the emperor has any clothes at all. Do regions as defined by central Government exist other than as part of the diseased mind of a bureaucratic and centralised Government? Does he agree that the fundamental issue in the debate is the possibility of identifying regions that are based on real community identities?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Stephen Day: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the debate on which region Cumbria should be in, and I remember the debate well. However, surely he does not believe for a minute that that issue—which was a great one for him—matters at all to his constituents. They do not recognise the north-west as an entity—it does not exist. They recognise their own county and city, and those are what make them what they are. They also recognise the fact that they are English. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. We are talking about rights for English Members to represent their constituents here in this House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those who are taking administrative decisions within the county of Cumbria recognise the north-west regional authority as the entity that is responsible for the region's future. There is no problem about that—we accept the north-west as an administrative entity. However, the hon. Gentleman is raising issues that we are not addressing in this debate.
There is an argument about the impact of the strength of the pound. [Interruption.] At Question Time, I have heard Tory Members and Labour Members, including me, repeatedly asking questions about the impact of sterling's high value on industry in the regions, particularly in the north of England and in Scotland. I think that it is perfectly reasonable that we should have a structure whereby we are able to bring in even Treasury Ministers, so that we can ask them questions and to justify their policy on the current value of the pound in relation to the
310
euro. I should like to see Treasury Ministers put under pressure by answering questions on those issues. Hands up any hon. Member who does not agree with me. Surely they would all want to ask Treasury Ministers these highly important questions.
Mr. Paterson: Where does it say in the motion that the Committee will have the power to call anyone? The Government will decide who goes before the Committee. That is the critical difference between a Select Committee and the way in which the proposed Committee will be constituted. There is no power whatever—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the hon. Gentleman asks on the Floor of the House for a debate on his part of the country on a matter relating to the currency, he requests or requires the attendance of a particular Minister to make a statement to that Committee.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Last week, the Scottish Grand Committee heard a statement on the Budget and debated the strength of the pound and its impact on the Scottish economy. In spite of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a member of that Committee, we had no Treasury Minister replying to us.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman; he should have exercised his influence. There is a special Committee for Members to exercise influence over a Labour Government, and we have provided them with the opportunities to do so.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman says that, during business questions Back-Bench Members ask the Leader of the House for debates. I am an assiduous attender of business questions, and the Leader of the House says time and again, "This would be a subject for Westminster Hall." Surely what the hon. Gentleman is asking for is already served by the Select Committees and by Westminster Hall.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is one option; we are now offering another way to secure such a debate. The incidence of the hon. Gentleman's success should now double.
Mr. Evans: Twice zero is zero.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get it in the end.
I am worried about the disparity between property prices in the north and the south. The people in the south have a huge advantage over my constituents. A terraced house in London costs £500,000 to £1 million. A terraced house in my constituency might cost between £20,000 and £40,000. When there is property price inflation, the people in the south benefit, yet it is my constituents in the north of England who are putting their backs into the use of equipment and machinery and generating the wealth that keeps the country working.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to discuss these matters when the Committee is set up, but he will not dwell on property prices.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The powerhouse of the nation is to be found in the industrial areas in terms of generating

311
wealth. I am worried about the disparities that arise when the product of that wealth does not go to those people. I want to see Ministers questioned on these matters, and this proposal is exactly the structure in which that can be done.
I am not a member of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. I am on two Committees—I cannot take on any more work in that sense. However, when the issue of property prices in the north of England arises on the agenda of the Regional Affairs Committee, I will turn up, along with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), to question Ministers on these matters. I will see the hon. Gentleman there.
11.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief. It is always most entertaining to listen to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I was looking at him closely as he addressed the House and I do not think for a moment that he believed half of what he was saying, but he made a good case and I am sure that he pleased his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench.
I shall vote against the motion, because it has not been properly thought out. I shall not cover the same ground as my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who said that the measure was a sop to Labour's comments before the general election and in their early days in government about establishing regional government subject to referendums throughout the United Kingdom. My only observation on that is that the cost of government under this Administration has increased by £1 billion. That takes account of devolved government in Scotland and the huge cost of the Parliament building, as well, no doubt, as the Assembly building in Cardiff, which the First Secretary of Wales has fortunately put a stop to, albeit only for the time being.
If the Leader of the House wanted to pursue the idea of a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, I am saddened that she did not resurrect the old Standing Order No. 117, which gave Members from the various parts of the United Kingdom an opportunity on a proper equal basis to participate in open debate about matters relating to their area. I took part in debates on more than one occasion. The hon. Member for Workington was seeking historically to put words into my mouth. Of course I was concerned about the north-west of the United Kingdom, but I did not ask for such a procedure to be set up. I have always believed that we can have proper debates on the Floor of the House of Commons, as we have done on many occasions on so-called regional affairs, ranging widely over all matters of concern to a particular area.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time and I was not, but is not one reason why the Standing Committee under the old Standing Order No. 117 died that it had no core membership that could drive it on and ensure that the pace of business was maintained? Are not the Government right to introduce a core membership in the new Standing Order to ensure that that defect does not recur?
Mr. Winterton: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, not only because I have heard him speak fervently and
312
with great knowledge many times, not just about his constituency, but about the whole of his area of the United Kingdom. However, I do not agree with him. The proposals that we are debating provide for a core membership, but I suspect that it will be a controlled core membership that will reflect the party in government. I am inclined to support the views expressed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, who wanted a wider membership of the Committee, increasing it from 13 to 24, and a Chairman from the Opposition parties. I have the honour to serve on the Chairmen's Panel and Madam Speaker normally appoints two Chairmen to a Standing Committee, one from the Government party and one from the Opposition party, to ensure a balance. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall—and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) who is a leading member of the Chairmen's Panel and who is in his place—will know, once a Chairman is appointed, he or she does not take part in any further progress on a Bill. In the case of a close balance in the House, such dual appointments mean that one party is not disadvantaged in relation to the other.
Mr. Cash: In reference to this matter, does my hon. Friend agree with the proposition made by the Liaison Committee recently that the Whips should be precluded from exercising influence on the core membership? For that matter, why not have free votes in the Committee, if we are to have one at all?
Mr. Winterton: I shall come on to that point, if my hon. Friend will wait a moment, because I wish to return to the question posed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). Core membership is a disadvantage because core members would not necessarily know much about the subject of any particular debate. For example, the hon. Member for Workington, coming as he does from Cumbria, would not know much about what was going on in south Manchester or north Cheshire. Indeed, I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister because he now knows where the Poynton bypass and the Manchester airport east and west link roads are located. Whenever I ask him a question, he thinks that it will be about that issue. My message for the hon. Gentleman is that if one perseveres in the Chamber, one can get one's point across and make the representations that he appears to believe can be made only in a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.
There would be an inequality in the activities of such a Committee, and a core membership would not be to the advantage of the Committee or the debate. As the Leader of the House will know, any Member from the region in question who wished to participate in the Standing Committee under the old Standing Order No. 117 system could do so, attending on an equal basis. Those Committees did not have a core membership who could attend and vote every time. Under the new proposals, some Members would be able to attend, speak and ask questions, but they would have no vote. The Committee would have little authority. I regret that, because if we are to have another Committee it should have purpose and authority. The proposed new Committee would have no standing at all.
Mr. Bercow: Was not it also fanciful for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to

313
envisage quivering Ministers being dragged before the Committee, when in truth—as he would readily see if he studied paragraph (6) of the proposed new Standing Order—it is Ministers who will call the shots?
Mr. Winterton: I would have hoped that the Leader of the House might have clarified that point.
Mrs. Beckett: If either hon. Gentleman looked back at the original Standing Order, they would see that those provisions precisely mirror the Standing Order that already exists.
Mr. Winterton: With the amendments that are proposed, I am not sure that the structure proposed by the Leader of the House will work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned the splendid report from the Liaison Committee, which is the Committee of Select Committee Chairmen. Those experienced and authoritative hon. Members are concerned with holding the Government of the day to account, and about how hon. Members are appointed to Select Committees. Those appointments should not be done by the comfortable mechanism of the usual channels—I have had experience of tame hon. Members being appointed to Select Committees, as the Leader of the House knows.
Appointments to Select Committees should be made by a special committee of the Liaison Committee. That would improve the House's integrity. Those appointed would be committed to the subjects in which the Committees specialise and could add their experience.
Mr. John McWilliam: I am Chairman of the Selection Committee and a member of the Speaker's Panel, and I am having trouble with the hon. Gentleman's contribution on both counts. As for the latter, it does not matter to which party a Standing Committee Chairman belongs, as all Chairmen do the job objectively. Hon. Members of all parties have felt the rough of my tongue, and that of the hon. Gentleman.
The Selection Committee works in a straightforward manner. There are no nuances or nonsenses—at least, not since I have been its Chairman, although I understand that the hon. Gentleman had a rough time in that post under a previous Government. I do not understand what he is talking about.
Mr. Winterton: I have the highest regard for my colleague on the Chairmen's Panel, who is also an additional Deputy Speaker for Westminster Hall sittings. In no way am I impugning his chairmanship of the Selection Committee when I say, however, that influences have been brought to bear—and even rules created—in the past, of which the House knew nothing. In that way, the reappointment or otherwise of hon. Members to Select Committees was influenced—but I do not want to go over all that again.
The excellent Liaison Committee report was compiled under the splendid Chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It picks up a number of matters that have been dealt with by the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour to Chair.
314
I do not want to talk about how the House debates Government expenditure, although the Government's reply on such matters was disappointing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) talked about the Procedure Committee report on the procedural consequences of devolution. I want to be as brief as possible, so I shall not cover the ground that he covered in his excellent opening presentation. The all-party Committee put forward ways of recognising what has happened to Wales and Scotland since devolution. After a great deal of mature consideration and evidence-taking, we did not recommend a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.
Mr. Evans: Post-devolution, the Scots have their Parliament and the Welsh have their Assembly. Both bodies are directly elected. If we are to have this sop of a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, is there any logical reason why the core membership should not reflect the political make-up of those representing English constituencies, rather than including the other regions of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Winterton: Again, I am bound to refer to amendment (b), tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which was selected. It seeks to leave out "composition of the House" in line 10, and insert
party representation of Members of the House sitting for English constituencies …
My view, which I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire to put forward on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, is that we are sympathetic to the amendment. If there is a Division, I hope, as he indicated, that we will vote for it. It is the right move if we are to be fair to England. Incidentally, I have not, overtly or tacitly, promoted an English Parliament, because I am a strong Unionist who believes in the union of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I am hoping against hope that the damage done by devolution will not be irretrievable, and that there is a real purpose for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: If we accept amendment (b), should we not, by logical extension, apply that principle to the regional Select Committees of Scotland and Wales? Is there any prospect, therefore, that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will be relieved of the need to attend the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. Winterton: I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) find it neither inconvenient nor burdensome to attend the meetings of these valuable Committees which play a vital part in the integrity of the United Kingdom, and truly reflect in this House the needs of all those countries comprising the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot imagine a Scottish Committee being a burden to anyone.
Mr. Winterton: I know that you do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nor would you even have dreamt of it. I was merely responding to the views expressed by my hon.

315
Friend the Member for New Forest, West, who implied that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham found their attendance and involvement with those Committees somewhat inconvenient and burdensome. I do not believe that they are and repeat that they are a vital part of the function of the House in maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Leigh: The analogy between the Select Committee and this proposed Committee is not a correct one. A Select Committee is there to hold the Executive to account and to study the subject. The proposed Committee is about righting an imbalance following devolution. Therefore, it is absurd that the proposed Committee should have a membership drawn from the entire United Kingdom. A Select Committee is quite different; it could be argued that we should all sit on the Scottish Affairs Committee if we wanted to, but this is different. That is why the proposed Committee is a logical absurdity.
Mr. Winterton: I do not support what is proposed on the Order Paper tonight and has been promoted by the Leader of the House. I come back to the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. The Procedure Committee, comprising as it does a majority of Labour Members, with two Liberal Democrats and three Conservatives, made proposals after proper mature thought, consideration and evidence taking that dealt as adequately as we could at this time with the procedural consequences of devolution.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is it not right to observe that even during this debate, an hon. Member who represents a Scottish seat has, as is right, contributed to a debate that is solely related to English matters? He has now left his place. I was somewhat hesitant to make that point, given Mr. Deputy Speaker's intervention.
Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend highlights the fact that you are an overlord of this Chamber this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you come from north of Hadrian's wall. I can only say that I am delighted to see you in the Chair and you are ensuring that we have a meaningful, positive and robust debate tonight.
Will the Minister who replies consider some of the observations that have been made from the Conservative Benches and the two amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats and selected for debate? I believe that they make a better balance. Will the Leader of the House say whether she thinks that the extension of the House in Westminster Hall is not also an appropriate forum for meaningful debate on regional matters? Of course, there was an important debate the other day in Westminster Hall on the Diamond Synchrotron, which is highly controversial. Any hon. Member from the north-west could attend on an equal basis.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Or from anywhere else.
Mr. Winterton: Or from anywhere else, as my hon. Friend says. Does the Leader of the House not believe that that forum is ideal for the sort of debate that is to be transferred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs? I am sure that she has said so in various debates that we have had on modernisation.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I accept that there may be occasions when Westminster Hall might be thought to be
316
a suitable forum, assuming that the experiment continues. I do not rule it out, especially perhaps for matters that by their nature transcend more than one region. However, I would be reluctant to see Westminster Hall dominated by such debates, which I fear could happen if it were the sole forum. I am certain that, should such debates draw a large participation from Members representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies—there is no reason why they should not, as the forum is open to all Members of the House—we would not have addressed in any way the need for a forum for hon. Members who sit for English constituencies. It may be that Conservative Members have decided that they no longer feel that that is a matter of concern; I believe that it is.
Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that constructive intervention. It is important that the House properly explores the motion that the Government have put on the Order Paper to amend substantially Standing Order No. 117. But will she give me, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and other Conservative Members an assurance that she will take seriously our concerns? Last autumn, we debated the Procedure Committee's recommendation relating to the procedural consequences of devolution, taken with other matters that have subsequently arisen in respect of a further report from the Procedure Committee about how we debate financial matters and estimates in the House, together with the far-reaching recommendations to shift the balance of the Liaison Committee. If she indicates that she will take those matters seriously, I shall be slightly more sympathetic to the motion.
Mrs. Beckett: I always take seriously recommendations such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred—he listed a series of reports and recommendations—although that does not mean that we can accept all of them.
It is possible that my remarks did not include a point that I had intended to make—perhaps because I took 10 interventions. I had intended to say that I do not suggest that our proposals are set in stone nor that, over time, the House might not agree on ways to amend and improve them. I merely point out that they seem to be a worthwhile first shot.
Mr. Winterton: Again, I am grateful to the Leader of the House. However, I hope that, when her hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office replies to the debate, he will take on board and respond not only to many of the matters that have been legitimately and properly raised, but to some of the severe reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire.
Under paragraph (6)(c), a Minister of the Crown can specify
when and where (within England) the Committee shall meet.
Can the right hon. Lady really be serious about that provision? Committees already find it difficult to obtain, or maintain, a quorum, and the proposed Committee could take a large number of people away from the House—because the motion states that it can meet away from the House—when other important business is taking place here. Bearing those points in mind, will she pay some attention to my serious concern—shared by other

317
Chairmen of Select Committees—as to the inability of Committees to maintain a quorum when we are doing important business on behalf of the House?
It was premature to table the motion. The right hon. Lady said that the Modernisation Committee had not pursued the matter a year ago because of the Westminster Hall experiment. Although I make no bones about the fact that I am trying to make that experiment a success, it is none the less an experiment. We do not know whether it will survive. Do we need a further experiment that might complicate the way that the House is run and hinder Members in undertaking all the jobs that they want to do on behalf of the House, the country and their constituents?
The matter is serious. It did not receive adequate thought before the motion was tabled for debate tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and other hon. Members have done us a service in raising important issues that cause us concern.
11.58 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome what is perhaps a timid and faltering step towards the scrutiny of our regional government.
We should realise that we already have regional government. Planning conferences have been set up. There are regional development agencies and the Government offices. Regional chambers are being developed, although their role is somewhat ambiguous. They are supposed to exercise scrutiny, but most of their members are substantial providers in the regions. However regional government has been established, we need to provide for effective scrutiny of it. The measure is not ideal, but it is a first step, so we should welcome it.
It has been suggested that there could be a clash with the work of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. There need be no clash. That Select Committee has a work load that is probably impossible. In the past two months, the Committee has met three times a week. It oversees a huge number of non-governmental organisations, but we are not able to scrutinise them all. There are more than 30 that we have still not examined in this Parliament. Members have referred a huge list of topics to us for our consideration and the members of the Committee want to consider them. Its work load is substantial.
The Select Committee considered regional development agencies when the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 went through the House, and we examined them again last year. We should re-examine them, but it is difficult to envisage how the Committee could scrutinise each of the agencies in the English regions. That is an almost impossible task for us to perform. Two issues are involved. The first is the way in which the agencies are developing nationally and the other is the regional policies that each pursues. It is high time that we found a way to scrutinise them. Ideally, that would be done by Members of Parliament from the relevant regions, and this proposal is a small step in that direction.
The House should grasp this opportunity. It amazes me that the Opposition are likely to vote against more scrutiny in Parliament; that is crazy. I also find it odd that they are worried about voting. How many votes have they
318
won so far in this Parliament? It is not their voting power that is significant. I should have thought that they would want to extract guarantees through the usual channels so that they could at least have some say on the debates to be held and on when they are held. However, they are demanding the right to vote and, presumably, to lose regularly, and it does not matter whether they lose on the basis of the votes of English Members or of those from the United Kingdom as a whole—they will still lose.
Liberal Members have asked who will chair the Committee. As I understand it, if the Chairman is a member of the Chairman's Panel, he will vote according to precedent. He would not exercise judgment in the party political sense. What will happen if someone chairing the Committee behaves as if he were the Chairman of a Select Committee? My experience in the previous Parliament as the Chairman of a Select Committee with a majority of Members from other parties is that, in many ways, the Chairman is constrained by the Committee's members. I do not think that worrying greatly about who chairs the new Committee is the crucial issue. I advise the Conservative party to get stuck into scrutiny. It should certainly get stuck into scrutiny of regional affairs and it should use the usual channels to ensure that it receives a fair amount of the time available for debate.
I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in listing all the subjects that I would like to be scrutinised in the north-west. It is a long and substantial list, and the sooner that we get to it, the better.
I am reluctant to speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but I give one assurance to the House for us both because we jointly chair the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The new procedure will not in any way curtail or intimidate the activities of that Committee.
We should now move forward, accepting that the proposal is very limited. We should grasp the opportunity and demand that the Committee is used vigorously in the next few months. The Government could undertake that there will be at least one meeting in each of the English regions before July. We could then assess whether the Committee's powers were adequate or whether we needed to demand further powers.
12.4 am
Mr. Stephen Day: I am saddened by the way in which many Labour Members will unquestioningly support any proposal that seeks to remove the power of scrutiny from this Chamber. They will send that power anywhere, provided that the Chamber is not seen to be the place where the Government are held to account. However well intentioned their views on this matter may be, they are failing their constituents and themselves; by following the Government's lead on a range of constitutional issues, they are slowly consigning Parliament and themselves to eventual oblivion.
My constituents send me to this Chamber to hold the Government to account, and that is the prime job that every Member of the House is sent here to do. The Select Committee procedures are effective, and we should concentrate on those in seeking to modernise and improve the House, rather than usurp or seek to replicate powers that already exist and are effectively used by those Committees.

319
The whole question of regionalism is abject nonsense. The regions exist only in the minds of the politically correct and the political elite; they do not exist in the minds of my electors in Cheadle. They know not what the north-west is, and I suspect that they care less.
Mrs. Louise Ellman rose—
Mr. Day: I shall give way in a moment.
Despite the fact that my electors have been part of Greater Manchester since 1974, they still vociferously defend their Cheshire identity. I heard a Liberal Democrat Member—I cannot remember which one—say from a sedentary position that we must have smaller units that people identify with. I am amazed that that hon. Member does not know that those units exist: they are counties and cities. They are where the English identity rests and what it is all about.
If hon. Members are concerned about making up any deficit in our role, as English Members of Parliament, of serving our constituents, they should redress the political deficit that England has suffered since the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were set up. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I very much believe in the union of the United Kingdom. I know that the Government do not because the constitutional changes that they have introduced have greatly damaged the long-term survival of what I know as my country—the United Kingdom.
Although I accept that the Scottish people wanted their own Parliament—I do not accept that the Welsh wanted their Assembly, but they got it—that should not have gone ahead without thought being given to how to redress the problems caused for England. If we are to save the United Kingdom, the issue of English rights must be addressed. It will not be solved by setting up a nonsense Committee, which in effect will remove power from where it should be and from where we should be seen to be acting on behalf of constituents—this Chamber.
Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. Surely the whole purpose of the proposed Committee is simply to lend parliamentary legitimacy to regionalism, to give credence to the idea that we suffer from under-government and need more government and to underscore the notion of a bloated European Union chessboard on which this country is nothing but an insignificant pawn.
Mr. Day: My hon. Friend is right. Regionalism makes sense only within the concept of a European federal state of regions, and I reject that concept. I am wholeheartedly happy to be part of the European Union and to enjoy the benefits of friendship and trade, but I do not want a European super-state to be created. Nor do I want the rights of the House of Commons to control and question the Government of the United Kingdom to be removed to any significant extent to any so-called region, for that would undermine the whole concept of the United Kingdom to which I am wedded, and the whole reason for the existence of Parliament.
Serious issues lie at the heart of the Government's proposals. If hon. Members want to know what the people of this country think about where they come from and who they are, they should speak not to people who are involved
320
in politics or to members of their own party, but to their own people, the people whom they represent, and to people who are active in industry. Incidentally, industry in my area is not desperate for a regional assembly in the north-west, nor are my electors: when I mention the prospect of such an assembly to them, they are horrified at the thought of yet another tier of politicians, who might be even worse than I am. That is the way in which the public regard the body politic: they want fewer politicians, not more.
Tonight, I shall, with great enthusiasm, vote against this ridiculous proposal.
12.12 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not attempt to follow that performance by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who appears to be arguing in favour of home rule for Cheshire and against regional or even national government. Do his constituents not shop or go to the theatre in Manchester? Do they not use the facilities of the whole region? Do they not go to Trafford Park to shop? Do they not think regionally in any way? The hon. Gentleman appears to be curiously insulated from reality.
Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to learn that many of my constituents shop as far afield as London. It does not mean that they want to be part of Greater London.
Mr. Mitchell: It might make more sense if, on their way down, they stopped at Meadowhall, where things are much cheaper.
The debate should not be prolonged unnecessarily. All I want to do is sincerely welcome the proposals laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In my view, the Committee should have been re-established years ago, before devolution took place. Devolution is not necessarily a spur to the action, but it adds to the arguments in its favour. It is right that we should have the power to discuss regional issues in our own way and in our own format. With or without devolution, we need such a forum.
Like it or not, we are all regionalists now. Life is lived more widely than the small constituency, village, town or even city. Manchester was once a powerful, but narrow, focal point; now, with modern transport such as the motor car, it is a focus for the entire region. Development must be handled on a regional basis. What Scotland now has creates competition for development and public spending—a competition in which the English regions need to be able to have their say and put their case if they are to compete effectively with Scotland.
Let us take the civilised parts of the country: the northern region is foremost among those demanding regional devolution. I have no doubt that regional devolution would be carried in a referendum in the north-east, and polls reveal that there is also demand in the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside.
Mr. Day indicated dissent.
Mr. Mitchell: If there is no demand for some form of regional devolution, why have those three regions already created their own regional assemblies? Demand is stirring, rising and becoming more important.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mitchell: No, I shall not give way for now.
The position taken by the two Opposition parties is extraordinary. I should have thought that the Liberals wanted devolution all round, but they are quibbling about a minute step towards that. I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) does not want devolution. He wants home rule for Cornwall—an even smaller unit. Just as the Liberals reacted to the problems of home rule in Ireland by calling for home rule all round, so they should logically react to devolution to Scotland and Wales by calling for devolution all round.
Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that home rule means rule at home, not here in the House of Commons? Devolution means delegation of responsibilities to the people who will be affected by those decisions.
Mr. Mitchell: Does the Liberal party not want that? Does it not want regional devolution? Why is it quibbling about this small step on the way?
I intend to turn now to the Conservatives, so let us hear something of their views.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that a poll taken throughout the United Kingdom for The Scotsman less than three weeks ago, which particularly addressed the question of devolution in the regions, showed that there had been a marked decline—10 percentage points—in support for regional devolution within England since the last general election? How does that square with his statement that there is massive demand in the regions?
Mr. Mitchell: The demand is emerging in the three northernmost regions: true north—the real Britain, in my view. The hon. Gentleman should study the poll in The Economist in March last year, which showed a demand for regional government in all those regions. He should also examine the surveys carried out for the Kilbrandon commission in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which showed a stronger degree of regional feeling, a stronger sense of deprivation, a stronger feeling of isolation from London and a feeling that there was a lack of concern in London about their issues in the three northern regions than in Scotland.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mitchell: Once is enough.
The Conservatives' position on devolution is confused. They argued against it in the case of Scotland, then they accepted it. They are engaging in the same process of arguing against advances. That is conservatism as defined by Woodrow Wilson—do nothing and ask your grandmother.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The reason for accepting devolution in Scotland is that we accept that that is what the Scottish electorate wanted. The problem that the hon. Gentleman must face when he deals with regions such as the north-east is that devolution may be desired by some
322
people in certain parts of those regions, but, 20 miles outside a town like Newcastle, the prospect of being governed from Newcastle and dominated by the urban centre is completely rejected.
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is merely quibbling. There are differences in Scotland about where the country should be governed from. There are some who do not like government from Edinburgh. Every region must have a centre—a focal point—and it is easy enough to define one in most of the regions of this country. I am referring particularly to the three northern regions, where regional feeling is strongest.
The Tory party opposes devolution and then accepts it, just as it will eventually accept regional devolution in England. The party is staggering around for a response to devolution to Scotland. One response proposed by a substantial body of Conservatives is that there should be a Parliament for England. It is a fairly asinine idea, so it is not surprising that it comes from the Opposition, but that would effectively be like an elephant in a cuckoo's nest.
What we want is regional devolution, with elected regional assemblies and regional government in those areas that want it. It is possible to move towards devolution as Spain has done, on the basis of variable geometry, with regions taking the powers that they want to establish those regions and governing themselves in their own way.
The three regions of the north would almost certainly want devolution and the maximum powers. My view is that what Scotland has, we want in Yorkshire and Humberside and in the other two northern regions. It is only fair that we should have it. We are in a competitive situation. Life is increasingly lived on a regional basis. Those regions have severe economic problems. By any measurement of the strength of the regional economies, whether in terms of unemployment, average wages or gross domestic product per capita, the three regions are behind the rest of the country.
There was an interesting survey in the Financial Times yesterday about our competitive disadvantage. In the knowledge-based sector, all three regions lagged behind the rest of the country and Scotland, which has the power to handle its affairs. When such deficiencies exist, it is important to mobilise the synergy of democratic involvement to fight them.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: How does the motion grant the Regional Committee the means to resolve the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers? The hon. Gentleman's comments are off the subject; they are about other matters. It would be helpful if he tackled the motion.
Mr. Mitchell: I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but the issues that I have raised could and should be discussed in the Regional Committee established on the basis of the motion. Why are Yorkshire and Humberside and the whole northern region disadvantaged? That is a prime subject for discussion.

323
What can be done about it? I want to go further than the motion—I want elected regional assemblies. The motion is a step on the way.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Like the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Mitchell: Yes. Why should the English regions not have a similar Committee? I support any step along the way, and I am in favour of the ultimate solution of devolved regions with elected regional assemblies.
I do not want to prolong my remarks, or make an angry speech. However, it is incredible that the Opposition are so intent on looking a gift horse in the mouth. The motion establishes an important forum in which we can discuss issues that are important in the regions. We do not currently do that. We can hold Ministers to account by means of that forum, and impress on them the importance of regional issues. Let us accept it with gibbering gratitude.
12.22 am
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Long before Standing Orders or the United Kingdom existed, there was a Parliament for England, which was sited on this spot. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pushes that point aside. The Parliament was a body corporate; anything that happened in the north-east, the north-west, the south-east or the west midlands affected us all. The House and taxation are the means whereby funds are sent and transferred to tackle grievances and anxieties. When the hon. Gentleman fights for money for Grimsby, I have an interest because it may be at the expense or to the disadvantage of my area. Money for Grimsby may also benefit my area if it opens up shipping lanes and so on.
We are considering what happens in this ancient Chamber; we are considering this England. Everything that happens here touches every hon. Member who represents England. When we became a United Kingdom, the body corporate reached out. That means that what harms another area harms me. Parliament should therefore act as judge and arbitrator; that was the theory.
The constitution has been broken down in the past three years. A motion has been tabled in the name of the Leader of the House—it proposes a new Standing Order. Standing Orders form the constitution of the House. It may seem a trite observation that is easy to dismiss, but we regulate our business through Standing Orders. They are determined not by general elections, but by Parliament as a body. To make our system work and to understand why it works, we seek agreement. When we have profoundly different beliefs and views about the conduct of the world outside, the way in which we treat each other is governed through Standing Orders. The conventions of the House are administered accordingly and Standing Orders are developed.
The motion is different—there is no attempt to tackle anxieties. I felt sorry for the Leader of the House because she has never appeared so nervous. She has never been so badly informed. She did not know the meaning of paragraph (9) and was unable to refer in detail to the purpose of the Committee or what is behind it. Is it a new substitute for regional government? Of course it cannot be within the terms of the Standing Order, as the hon.
324
Member for Great Grimsby so ably showed with his interpretation of where he wants it to go. However, we are dealing not with where he wants it to go, but with the matter before us. That will bind the conduct of the House.
On devolution, how does one meet the imbalance with Scotland? Everything that the Government have done has been tentative. There have been advances here and reverses there, but the truth is that this is the Parliament of England as well as of the United Kingdom and every English Member sits in it. There is no need to divide ourselves on the issue; we can sit and talk here. I have heard a lot of guff about callings to account. We know what determines the business of the House and of the country—a majority vote. That is why one is always sensitive about Standing Orders. However, I cannot remember such a near total abrogation of due process.
There has been no consultation, as was pointed out by the Procedure Committee. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, huffs, but he is brand new in the House, having served for no more than three years. [Interruption.] I understand that he has in fact served for seven; forgive me. We are continuing the debate about how we do our business and the proposal has been plonked on us. We are being told that a majority will operate tonight on a three-line Whip—[Interruption.] Oh, it is a two-line Whip. Now we have it.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that the proposal has been plonked before the House without consultation. I first put a proposal before the Modernisation Committee almost a year ago.
Mr. Evans: It was rejected.
Mrs. Beckett: The Modernisation Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is not a member, did not reject the proposal. It became clear that a consensus was unlikely. I respected that and withdrew the proposal from that forum, recognising that that was not the right way to proceed. However, I made it plain to the Committee that the Government reserved the right to bring it back before the House for judgment in the proper way. In that sense, those words have been before the House for anyone to comment on and for any observations to be made for about a year. It is not right for the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to say that there has been no consultation and that the proposal has been introduced out of the blue.
Mr. Shepherd: I am saying that we saw no detail in the Modernisation Committee, as the right hon. Lady well knows. We never had a proposed Standing Order before us. We were told about a concept, along the lines of that raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, which was our fear. For the first time, we are confronted with a peripatetic House that presumably may journey to any part of England. [Interruption.] That is what it says in the Standing Order. What will that do? We were elected to sit and argue in Parliament—[Interruption.]
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Read it!
Mr. Shepherd: Labour Members have not bothered to read the Standing Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has manifestly failed to do so.

325
There has been much discussion of regional development agencies and chambers of commerce, but the proposal is not a substitute for the West Lothian question, the Scottish question or the English question. Nor is it about Parliament; it deals with the management of how English Members discuss the business of England. The membership of the Committee will be based on membership of the United Kingdom Parliament rather than of an English Parliament. We know what happened in the past and we should not forget it. A Committee was set up in the 1970s to try to perform that function and I understand that a couple of votes were lost there. It was never heard of again because Labour had an uncertain majority, which may be the case after the next election. The proposal amounts to a temporary expedient to provide today's answer to the West Lothian question, but it is not a substantial answer.
That returns us to the fact that the proposal has been imposed by the Leader of the House. Being Leader of the House means more than just being a member of the Labour Cabinet, or of the Cabinet of the governing party; it means reaching out beyond the interests of the Government. As all Members who have been here for any time know, the right hon. Lady represents the House. That is slightly different from being a Labour partisan—or, as I should say in deference to the right hon. Lady, a new Labour Cabinet Minister. In a sense, she represents us all.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady when she interrupts to explain things better, because we need such explanations; but she is now taking all the wider dimensions represented by all sides back to the Cabinet table. She makes representations on our behalf, but she is not doing so on this occasion; she is saying that she must bring the matter back to the House and that she must be the engine for the mobilisation of what we are now told is a two-line Whip. [Interruption.] I have just been informed across the Floor that it is a two-line Whip. Previously, I was happy to accept that it was a three-line Whip.
In any event, on a Whip, the Government with the largest majority for a very long time—the largest majority for a century, I believe—are forcing through a measure that is not necessary in terms of the business of the House. It should be rejected on that basis alone. Moreover, it does not meet the criteria specified by the three Labour speakers for it to provide a substitute for regional government.
The population of the west midlands is 5.1 million, that of Scotland is 4.9 million, and we have skewed our constitution in a way that forces us to determine that the great bulk of the money comes from England. The transfer payments are made, yet there can be no proper discussion on the basis of the old body corporate—where what affects you affects me—and the Treasury must make the balancing judgment about the needs of us all, as a body corporate—as an England united, or, formerly, a United Kingdom united.
I believe that the proposal should be rejected until there has been better consideration of the issues.
12.32 am
Mr. Derek Foster: In most ways I am exceedingly glad to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have
326
immense respect. I am sad not to be able to agree with him tonight. In fact, I felt that in his peroration he was advancing the strongest possible argument for setting up the Committee—and that is just the kind of issue that I would like to discuss in the Committee itself.
I wholly welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the sense that I welcome the fact that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This is only a small step for Parliament. I am reminded of an observation by one of the great managing directors of General Motors, who said, "If the pace of change outside the organisation exceeds the pace of change inside it, the end is nigh." As I listened to the debate tonight, I reflected on how difficult it is to change anything in this place. How many words have been wasted on what is really a very small step indeed?
Of course we can quibble about whether the Committee has the right powers, and whether it has been set up in the right way. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that the objective of all of us was to proceed by consensus, and of course it is; but if there is no consensus, can we not proceed at all? Is it not possible for us to change anything without a full consensus?
I applaud my right hon. Friend for taking this initiative. I am among those who, for the last 15 years or so, have pleaded for it, often through the usual channels. We talk of "all mouth and no delivery"; I spent 10 years being all delivery and no mouth. But when I was Opposition Chief Whip, we as a shadow Cabinet pressed the Government to set up this Committee again, although we made no progress whatever. We asked for that because, as English Members, we felt that there were not enough ways in which we could advance the argument for our regions.
I want regional government. I am a committed devolver and decentraliser, despite the problems that my party is having with Scotland, Wales and London. That has not diminished my enthusiasm for devolving and decentralising. I see the proposal as a small step on the road to regional government.
Power has gone to regions. Whether Opposition Members recognise it or not, Government offices and regional development agencies are spending huge amounts of money. Those powerful civil servants and appointees are not accountable to anyone in the regions. That is what the clamour is for.
Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: Just a moment.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) said that there was no demand for regional government. Oddly enough, in the north-east the chamber of commerce and the CBI are clamouring for regional government because they see the need to control both the government of the north-east and the regional development agency.
I do not want to prolong the debate. I would have preferred not to speak, except that I wanted to welcome the Leader of the House's initiative. We will press for the Committee to grow organically. We want it to have more powers. I should like the Chairman to have the power to determine a private notice question, which can come from an individual Member. I do not like the idea of Ministers wholly determining the agenda and the procedures, but I welcome the proposal. We can make it work, make it grow and make it into a positive idea.
12.37 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: It has been an interesting, but extraordinary debate, which we should not have had at this time of the night. It is interesting that it has been sidelined to this late hour.
Conservative Members have touched on the nature of what England is about. Last week, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) suspected that the change in timing reflected the fact that regionalism was not a priority for the Government. Why have we not held the debate in prime time, or is it the latest chapter in the sorry tale of the Deputy Prime Minister's flagship regional policy?
The Deputy Prime Minister's regional policy was only recently panned in a report from the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit. It said that a
proliferation of initiatives by individual Whitehall departments had created a "very substantial bureaucratic burden for those on the ground…Too much time is spent negotiating the system rather than delivering."
That resulted in the parachuting in of Lord Falconer to take the reins from the Deputy Prime Minister under the guise of regional co-ordination units.
Regionalism has led to much criticism among regional development agencies themselves. Then there has been a distinct cooling-off of the Government's commitment to regional assemblies. Now, as has been shown tonight, the situation is completely confused by the proposal to set up yet another Committee. It is a classic example of, "If in doubt, set up a Committee." It attempts to paper over the severe cracks in regional policy and the Government's back tracking fast from regional government assemblies—much to the annoyance of many regionalophile Labour Members—by offering them an inadequate sop in the form of yet another talking-shop committee.
The proposal is little short of a panic, knee-jerk, rearguard action to try to address the substantial imbalance inflicted on the way in which we govern the UK and hold our institutions accountable after devolution to Scotland and Wales, which has created a Frankenstein of fragmenting nationalism, as always leaving England short changed, having paid most of the bills. On that, the proposal again patently fails. It is, regardless, not proposed that the Committee should deal with real legislation.
Is it not odd that the Leader of the House has today proposed establishing the Committee, although the proposal did not come from the Modernisation Committee or the Procedure Committee and was not a manifesto commitment?
The right hon. Lady gave a pitiful performance, leaving us completely confused about what the Committee should do. She failed dismally to deal with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the Committee's interaction with the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. She failed to tell us what the Committee would actually do. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on the Committee's provenance, she said that the matter had been "aired" in the Modernisation Committee. If it has been aired in the Modernisation Committee, it left that Committee in a very damp condition.
328
The right hon. Lady has yet again made excuses for the Government's sidelining of the convention to make ministerial statements in this Chamber. She had no idea at all of the effect of paragraph (9) of the proposed standing order on ministerial statements.
The proposal is a rather desperate measure that has come out of the blue. It is a desperate throw back—back 22 years, to be precise—to a Committee that last sat in 1978. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, time has moved on, and that Committee has been replaced by the Select Committee system. In that system, hon. Members are able to call for witnesses and evidence on any manner of subject that could even loosely be said to be relevant to the regions.
The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee itself has discussed numerous subjects, ranging from town and country parks, regional development agencies, housing and planning, the integrated transport White Paper and the future of United Kingdom shipping, to name only a few. All those matters have been dealt with by that Select Committee using the current Committee structure.
We understand that the regional Standing Committee would expect to draw on the experience of Select Committee members, such as those on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. Will the regional Committee rank over that Select Committee? Will it make Select Committees redundant?
The Committee's structure is wrong. It fails singularly to address the issue of the English deficit. It is supposed to be a Standing Committee on English regional affairs, yet its composition of 13 members is to reflect the composition of the whole House, to include Scottish, Welsh and Ulster Members. Surely that will only compound the unfairness by which English Members are now excluded from speaking and voting on many policy and expenditure matters north and west of the borders, whereas Scottish and Welsh Members have lost no power to speak and vote on matters affecting exclusively England. The Committee will simply further institutionalise that injustice.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, the Committee is 22 years out of date also because of the innovation of the Westminster Hall experiment—about which we have heard so much today. Westminster Hall enables all hon. Members not only to raise issues affecting their particular region, all the regions or no region, but to have a Minister attend and reply to the debate on those issues. Regardless of whether we believe that the experiment is working, that is supposed to be the principle behind it.
In the past month, I myself have participated in three debates in Westminster Hall—on housing in London, the economy of the east midlands and the effect on regeneration of banking closures in Norfolk. Interestingly, all those debates were replied to by DETR Ministers.
Is not the proposal a threat to the Westminster Hall system, and does it not present a prospect of serious overlap? We shall have yet more talk, but yet less delivery.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton: I shall not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

329
The motion includes a procedure for matters to be put by a Minister before the House for approval, but it does not include a formal mechanism for the Committee to contribute to that process. It is not clear in the motion whether the Committee should have an informal input into that process, or whether such matters will be decided through the usual channels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, the proposals limit Ministers' talking or scrutiny time to just one hour. It took the Leader of the House over an hour to work out what the clause meant. Under the terms of the clause, she would have been out of time.
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Standing Order, he will see that it has a number of sections. The hon. Member for Buckingham hoped to catch me out on the terms of paragraph (9). He did so—I freely concede it. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to make such a meal of it. I am perfectly aware of what the Standing Order means.
Mr. Loughton: We may have touched a raw nerve, but it did not take an hour and a quarter to remember. It was easy to look at the Order Paper and refer to the top of page 1436 to see what it meant. The matter is not clear, because the whole ethos and purpose of the Committee is wholly confused. It is confused in the Government's mind, and it is not clear to other hon. Members, who are being confronted with it out of the blue this evening.
The proposals for the Standing Committee pose more questions than they attempt to answer. I have asked how the Committee relates to the Select Committee structure, and whether it will usurp their role. How does the Committee relate to Westminster Hall? Is it an admission that the second Chamber has failed? We are not entirely sure what the Liberal Democrats are trying to achieve, but we have some sympathy with their second amendment, which would restrict Committee Members to English Members only. Surely we should support that.
Is this proposal a genuine attempt to attack the culture of cronyism that riddles regional development agencies and regional assemblies and the political affiliations of RDA board members? Will the Committee introduce new mechanisms of accountability for vetting appointments to those boards? Will the Committee vet the RDA annual reports? What will its role be in the relationships between the RDAs and the regional assemblies? Are these assemblies now a dead project? They were referred to by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions as purely a "diversion", but are they now dead? Perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us.
It is inevitable that if the Committee is to work under those structures, it will take considerable powers away from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Has anyone told the right hon. Gentleman? Did anyone mention it to him before he went off to Japan?
Will the Committee have any influence on the way in which RDA money is spent? Which regions should get the biggest hand-outs from central Government? Will the Committee further blur the lines of democratic accountability? Will the Committee promote the artificial
330
regional identity that we have seen? Is the Committee simply a further mechanism for softening up an England of the regions, fit for a European federation of the regions?
What will the Committee do to help repair the yawning north-south divide—revealed yet again by today's report by the International Chamber of Commerce—where London and the south-east are performing well, on a par with the most dynamic economies in the world, but where Wales, the north-east of England, Yorkshire and the Humber area are no more competitive than Hungary or Chile?
The Standing Committee on Regional Affairs is a bad resurrection. A Government who are always crowing about modernisation are now desperately harking back 22 years to cobble together a feeble remedy to problems that are of their own making. The proposal does nothing to restrain the Frankenstein of devolution that has been created in Scotland and Wales, and it does nothing to address the English imbalance. It adds insult to injury by diluting English influence on the English regions when we have diminishing influence on Scottish and Welsh affairs. The proposal does nothing to add accountability or coherence to the Government's creation of artificial regional structures.
Above all, the proposal is yet another insult to the integrity of this House of Commons and to this Chamber, where all Members have equal rights to voice their concerns for their constituencies, their regions, all the regions or the whole United Kingdom—an interesting concept about which we hear little from the Government today.
The proposal is an anachronism; another new Labour invertebrate that talks much and delivers little. It dilutes ministerial accountability yet further. It is a throwback that should be thrown back. It is a thoroughly bad idea, and we shall be voting against it.
12.50 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): At the least, we have had a lively, interesting and stimulating debate. A range of views have been expressed, with no consensus apparent. We have had an opportunity to discuss at great length an issue that has concerned many of my hon. Friends for many years. If the enthusiasm, activity and tension that have been evident in the Chamber tonight go forward to the new regional Committee—if the House agrees—it will be a good Committee to serve on.
Hon. Members will be only too well aware of the recent pressures on parliamentary time on the Floor of the House, and the effect this pressure has had on our working hours. In the present Session we have sat
on numerous occasions
after 10.30 pm. A number of factors have contributed to this. The major one is that the Government have a very large legislative programme.—[Official Report, 9 June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 165.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"] The House might be amused to hear that those words are quoted from the debate in June 1975. Nothing has changed since then. As was said back in 1975 and again in the House tonight, our proposals are very modest. They are the single step that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) talked about.
We want to revive Standing Order No. 117. Perhaps in the longer term that small step can be a move forward to develop and deliver our policies on the regions.

331
[HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] Conservative Members shout "Never." They have demanded an opportunity to hold Ministers to account, but they do not want to do so in Westminster Hall; they want to do so here on the Floor of the House, as the hon. Members for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) have said. The Conservatives have learned nothing from their period in opposition. They know that that is not possible.
We are keen to take forward our legislative proposals and to give hon. Members opportunities to raise issues for debate in Westminster Hall, in the Select Committees and now in the new Regional Affairs Committee, but Conservative Members do not want those opportunities. They complain, but they have no real solutions. There has been a lot of whingeing and a lot of talk about how they want to represent their people and their neighbourhoods, but the Conservatives are interested in doing that only on the Floor of the House.
The shadow Leader of the House points his finger, but he well knows that time is at a premium. With this small step, we are trying to give hon. Members an opportunity to raise issues that affect people in their communities. That is an idea that rings bells with some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) talked about the importance of the European Scrutiny Committee and how it can be used to scrutinise Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, clearly told the House that there was no conflict of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke movingly about the focus on regional affairs and the need to do more and to respond to the voices from the north.
There have been some genuine, principled objections to our proposals and some objections of a more practical nature. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and his colleagues support the principle of the move forward in general terms, but they do not think that it goes far enough. They want a great deal more to be done. Their two amendments are practical suggestions that would make minor modifications.
Dr. Ladyman: Since my hon. Friend is dealing with practical concerns, can he assure me that he will use his influence to try to ensure that the core membership of the Committee is fairly distributed geographically across England? Some of us who represent deprived areas in the south-east wish to ensure that the voice of the south-east is clearly heard on the Committee.
Mr. Tipping: Much has been made of the Standing Orders tonight and my hon. Friend will see that paragraph (2) of the proposed Standing Order requires the Committee of Selection to take those points into account.
The point at issue with the Liberal Democrats is that they would like a larger core membership of 24, but there is not much difference between us. A smaller core membership of 13 would be efficient, and a larger Committee would lead to problems. The hon. Member for North Cornwall also mentioned amendment (b), but the Liberal Democrats' proposal would lead to a possible reduction in the number
332
of members that they would have on the Committee. It appears not to matter to them, but I am keen that other voices are heard in the regional Committee.
Mr. Evans: If Scots, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members are not allowed to sit and speak on that Committee, surely its political make-up should reflect the political make-up of the English Members, not the entire House of Commons. That is only logical.
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who has some eccentric opinions but pointed out that one of his eccentricities was that he sat on the Scottish Grand Committee, as an English MP.
The Liberal Democrats will know, because they study such matters closely, that the Standing Orders of the House are constantly reviewed. The difference between us is not great and we will come back and review the issue. It may even be, in the course of time, that we will move towards the Liberal Democrats' position, if the present system does not work.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) argued out of principle that we should not proceed with our proposals. He raised the English question and argued that our proposals did not solve the devolution deficit. I say bluntly that they are not designed to do so. Our small, modest proposals would give Back Benchers the opportunity to raise regional issues—real issues that affect their people and communities. Other Members mentioned an English Parliament, but he mentioned a special procedure whereby only English Members could discuss and vote on English matters. I have studied the matter carefully, but I cannot find one issue on which that situation would arise. It may arise in time as devolution develops, and we may have to revisit the issue.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the Minister is fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), he will agree that the matter has been considered in depth by the Procedure Committee and recommendations were made in its report, which was debated in the autumn. The matter is serious and the Committee, which has a majority of Labour Members, felt that the current system was wrong and that we should move towards the proposition that my right hon. Friend advocated.
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member makes a serious point. He raised it earlier in the debate and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House replied seriously to him. I repeat, if he can define and identify particular English issues, we would be interested in taking the discussion further. However, my right hon. Friend said that we might have to return to the matter. I strongly believe that devolution will affect how the House approaches its business. We need to be able to adapt and change. That is the British way, the parliamentary way: we have evolved and developed.
This is a small step forward. It is a chance to discuss real and important issues affecting our families, regions, people and neighbourhoods. I am astonished that the Opposition do not see the opportunities that the Committee will give them.
I conclude by noting that, regardless of what the Government do or propose in the way of putting Ministers on the line for questioning, the Opposition whinge. They ignore our offers and, perhaps most importantly, they bungle the chances that we give them.

333
I hope that my hon. Friends will back the Government tonight and support the way forward for all the regions of England.
Mr. Tyler: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: (b), in paragraph (2)(a), leave out "composition of the House" and insert—
"party representation of Members of the House sitting for English constituencies"—[Mr. Tyler.]
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 190.

Division No. 161]

[1.2 am

AYES

Amess, David

Harris, Dr Evan

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Harvey, Nick

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Heald, Oliver

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Baldly, Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Ballard, Jackie

Horam, John

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bercow, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Boswell, Tim

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Jenkin, Bernard

Brazier, Julian

Key, Robert

Breed, Colin

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Kirkwood, Archy

Browning, Mrs Angela

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Burstow, Paul

Leigh, Edward

Butterfill, John

Letwin, Oliver

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cash, William

Loughton, Tim

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Luff, Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Clappison, James

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Collins, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cran, James

Madel, Sir David

Curry, Rt Hon David

Moore, Michael

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Moss, Malcolm

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Nicholls, Patrick

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Norman, Archie

Day, Stephen

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Duncan, Alan

Page, Richard

Duncan Smith, Iain

Paice, James

Evans, Nigel

Paterson, Owen

Faber, David

Pickles, Eric

Fabricant, Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Fearn, Ronnie

Prior, David

Flight, Howard

Randall, John

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fox, Dr Liam

Robathan, Andrew

Fraser, Christopher

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gale, Roger

Ruffley, David

Garnier, Edward

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Sanders, Adrian

Gibb, Nick

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shepherd, Richard

Gray, James

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Green, Damian

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

Greenway, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Grieve, Dominic

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

Hammond, Philip

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hancock, Mike

Steen, Anthony

334

Stunell, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Swayne, Desmond

Waterson, Nigel

Syms, Robert

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Townend, John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tyler, Paul

Mr. Tom Brake and

Tyrie, Andrew

Mr. Don Foster.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Allen, Graham

Ennis, Jeff

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Etherington, Bill

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Atkins, Charlotte

Fisher, Mark

Banks, Tony

Flint, Caroline

Barnes, Harry

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Foulkes, George

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Fyfe, Maria

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Gardiner, Barry

Bennett, Andrew F

Gibson, Dr Ian

Benton, Joe

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Blackman, Liz

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Borrow, David

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hanson, David

Bradshaw, Ben

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Healey, John

Browne, Desmond

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Burden, Richard

Hepburn, Stephen

Burgon, Colin

Heppell, John

Butler, Mrs Christine

Hill, Keith

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hope, Phil

Cann, Jamie

Hoyle, Lindsay

Caplin, Ivor

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clapham, Michael

Hurst, Alan

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Illsley, Eric

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Jamieson, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jenkins, Brian

Clelland, David

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Colman, Tony

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cousins, Jim

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cox, Tom

Kemp, Fraser

Crausby, David

Khabra, Piara S

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Kidney, David

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Kilfoyle, Peter

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Dalyell, Tam

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Darvill, Keith

Lepper, David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Leslie, Christopher

Davidson, Ian

Levitt, Tom

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lock, David

Denham, John

Love, Andrew

Dismore, Andrew

McAllion, John

Dobbin, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Donohoe, Brian H

McCabe, Steve

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McDonnell, John

335

McFall, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Savidge, Malcolm

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Sawford, Phil

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shipley, Ms Debra

McNamara, Kevin

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McNulty, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mallaber, Judy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Spellar, John

Martlew, Eric

Squire, Ms Rachel

Maxton, John

Stevenson, George

Miller, Andrew

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mitchell, Austin

Stoate, Dr Howard

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stringer, Graham

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

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Norris, Dan

Temple-Morris, Peter

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Timms, Stephen

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Tipping, Paddy

Pendry, Tom

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Perham, Ms Linda

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pickthall, Colin

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pike, Peter L

Watts, David

Plaskitt, James

White, Brian

Pond, Chris

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pope, Greg

Wicks, Malcolm

Pound, Stephen

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Woodward, Shaun

Prosser, Gwyn

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Purchase, Ken

Rapson, Syd

Tellers for the Noes:

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Mr. Don Touhig and

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 130.

Division No. 162]

[1.13 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Allen, Graham

Cann, Jamie

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Caplin, Ivor

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Atkins, Charlotte

Chisholm, Malcolm

Banks, Tony

Clapham, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Benton, Joe

Clelland, David

Betts, Clive

Coaker, Vernon

Blackman, Liz

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blears, Ms Hazel

Colman, Tony

Connarty, Michael

Borrow, David

Cousins, Jim

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cox, Tom

Bradshaw, Ben

Crausby, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Browne, Desmond

Dalyell, Tam

Burden, Richard

Darvill, Keith

Burgon, Colin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Davidson, Ian

336

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

McNulty, Tony

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

MacShane, Denis

Mactaggart, Fiona

Dean, Mrs Janet

McWalter, Tony

Denham, John

Mallaber, Judy

Dismore, Andrew

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dobbin, Jim

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Donohoe, Brian H

Martlew, Eric

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Maxton, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Miller, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Mitchell, Austin

Ennis, Jeff

Moran, Ms Margaret

Etherington, Bill

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

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Fisher, Mark

Mountford, Kali

Flint, Caroline

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Foulkes, George

Norris, Dan

Fyfe, Maria

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Gardiner, Barry

Organ, Mrs Diana

Gibson, Dr Ian

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Perham, Ms Linda

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Pickthall, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pike, Peter L

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Plaskitt, James

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Pond, Chris

Hanson, David

Pope, Greg

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Pound, Stephen

Healey, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Prosser, Gwyn

Hepburn, Stephen

Purchase, Ken

Heppell, John

Rapson, Syd

Hill Keith

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Hood, Jimmy

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hope, Phil

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Savidge, Malcolm

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Humble, Mrs Joan

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Hurst, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Iddon, Dr Brian

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Illsley, Eric

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Jamieson, David

Jenkins, Brian

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Spellar, John

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Stevenson, George

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Keeble, Ms Sally

Stoate, Dr Howard

Kemp, Fraser

Stringer, Graham

Khabra, Piara S

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Kidney, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Kilfoyle, Peter

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Lepper, David

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Leslie, Christopher

Timms, Stephen

Levitt, Tom

Tipping, Paddy

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Lock, David

Watts, David

Love, Andrew

White, Brian

McAllion, John

Whitehead, Dr Alan

McAvoy, Thomas

Wicks, Malcolm

McCabe, Steve

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

McDonnell, John

Woodward, Shaun

McFall, John

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mackinlay, Andrew

Mr. Don Touhig and

McNamara, Kevin

Mr. Jim Dowd.

337

NOES

Amess, David

Kirkwood, Archy

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Baldry, Tony

Leigh, Edward

Ballard, Jackie

Letwin, Oliver

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Bercow, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Loughton, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Luff, Peter

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Brake, Tom

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Brazier, Julian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Breed, Colin

Madel, Sir David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Moore, Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Moss, Malcolm

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Nicholls, Patrick

Burstow, Paul

Norman, Archie

Butterfill, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Cash, William

Paterson, Owen

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Pickles, Eric

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Prior, David

Collins, Tim

Randall, John

Cran, James

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Rendel, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Robathan, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Ruffley, David

Day, Stephen

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Duncan, Alan

Sanders, Adrian

Duncan Smith, Iain

Sayeed, Jonathan

Evans, Nigel

Shepherd, Richard

Faber, David

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Fabricant, Michael

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

Fearn, Ronnie

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Flight, Howard

Spicer, Sir Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Spring, Richard

Foster, Don (Bath)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fox, Dr Liam

Steen, Anthony

Fraser, Christopher

Stunell, Andrew

Gale, Roger

Swayne, Desmond

Garnier, Edward

Syms, Robert

Gibb, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Gray, James

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Green, Damian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Greenway, John

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Grieve, Dominic

Townend, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Tredinnick, David

Hammond, Philip

Trend, Michael

Hancock, Mike

Tyler, Paul

Harris, Dr Evan

Tyrie, Andrew

Harvey, Nick

Walter, Robert

Heald, Oliver

Waterson, Nigel

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Whittingdale, John

Horam, John

Wilkinson, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Wilshire, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Jenkin, Bernard

Tellers for the Noes:

Key, Robert

Mr. Peter Atkinson and

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 117 shall be repealed, and that the following Standing Order shall be made:
117.—(1) There shall be a standing committee called the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which shall consider any matter relating to regional affairs in England which may be referred to it.
(2) The Committee shall consist of thirteen Members representing English constituencies nominated by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

(a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and

(b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(3) Any Member of the House representing an English constituency, though not nominated to the Committee, may take part in its proceedings, but may not make any Motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the Committee may make a Motion as specified in paragraph (10) below.
(4) The quorum of the Committee shall be three.
(5) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) shall not apply to the Committee; except that the proviso to that paragraph shall apply to any sitting at Westminster.
(6) A Motion may be made in the House by a Minister of the Crown to specify (or to vary) any or all of the following:

(a) the matter or matters to be referred to the Committee;

(b) the period to be allotted to proceedings on such matters;

(c) when and where (within England) the Committee shall meet;

(d) the hours for the commencement and conclusion of any sitting;

(e) any days when the Committee shall meet at Westminster at Ten o'clock;

and such Motion may be moved at any time; and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(7) Where any order made under paragraph (6) above makes no provision for the period to be allotted to the proceedings on any matter or matters which have been referred to the Committee for consideration at a particular sitting, those proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion no later than three hours after their commencement.
(8) At the commencement of business at any sitting of the Committee, the Chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown, being Members of the House, to make statements on any matter or matters referred to the Committee for consideration at that sitting, and may then permit members of the Committee to ask questions thereon.
(9) No question on a statement by a Minister of the Crown shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement, except that the Chairman may, at his discretion, allow such questions to be taken for a further period not exceeding half an hour.
(10) The Committee shall, following any such statements and questions, consider each matter referred to it on a motion 'That the Committee has considered the matter'; the Chairman shall put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on each matter at the time, or after the period, specified in accordance with paragraph (6) or paragraph (7) of this Order, and the Committee shall thereupon report to the House that it has considered the matter or matters without any further Question being put.
(11) Any period allocated to the consideration of any matter or matters shall include any time spent on statements by Ministers of the Crown and questions thereon, except when otherwise provided by any Order of the House made in accordance with paragraph (6) above.

PETITION

  Rights of the Child
  1.23 am
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I am delighted to present a petition from young constituents in Norwich who have drawn attention to an issue that is important to the Government and to the whole of Norwich and Norfolk.
  The petition has been signed by 1,792 people and it states:
  To the House of Commons,
  The Petition of the people in Norwich,
  Declares that Her Majesty's Government has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and is therefore committed to children's rights and therefore has a responsibility to do all it can to help end the exploitation of child labour in overseas countries.
  It is amazing that young people have such commitment.
  The petition continues:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should urge the secretary of state for International Development that all aid to countries such as Indonesia, India, Mali or Pakistan where child labour is known to be an extensive problem should have a reasonable percentage of the aid linked to a programme of education for child labourers.
  And the Petitioners remain.
  I commend the petition to the House and I am proud to present it on behalf of constituents in Norwich.
  To lie upon the Table.

Schools (Poor Behaviour)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
1.25 am
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Although the hour is late and many people are going home to bed, this is an important Adjournment debate because it touches on one of the most important issues affecting our schools and the Government's attempts to raise educational achievement.
I should start by declaring an interest as a member of the National Union of Teachers. Before I address the main topic of the debate, I want to set the context because it is important to realise that we have a Government who are committed to the education of our children and determined to put more money into our schools to raise achievement and to introduce policies that will improve standards. In particular, we can see the success that the numeracy and literacy strategies have had over the past two and a half years. They have started to have an impact on the quality of education that primary school children are receiving.
I praise our teaching profession. It is important that the debate sends out the message that we recognise the tremendous work done by the vast majority of our teachers, often in difficult circumstances. It is important to recognise that Ministers often acknowledge that. They are often criticised for not praising teachers but, when they do so, it is not reported as widely as when they sometimes say that there are challenges to be met. The majority of members of our teaching profession are doing an extremely good job.
The important point at the heart of the Government's policies is that they are tackling the social exclusion in many of our communities. They are prepared to take on social exclusion, and not to duck the issue.
In their agenda of raising achievement, the Government face the challenge of the disaffection of a sizeable number of young people which is evident in our classrooms. All hon. Members will have heard examples of that from our constituents. Poor behaviour includes shouting out in class, kicking out, fights that teachers are expected to break up, vandalism, intimidation of staff, increasing numbers of attacks of staff and serious verbal abuse that constantly challenges and undermines teachers and the school's authority. There is a basic refusal to co-operate.
It is important to recognise the difficulties and stress experienced by teachers who are trying to teach a group of children but who do not have the basic standard of behaviour or the teaching environment that we would want them to have. Unfortunately, when schools try to get the support of parents in dealing with poor behaviour, a small number of parents not only refuse to support the school but join in the undermining of its authority.
Recently, we have seen evidence of that from the National Association of Head Teachers, which pointed out that increasing numbers of parents challenge what is happening in schools. It is important to acknowledge that parents have a right to know what is happening and to ask questions but, where children and young people are challenging the school's authority, some parents support that. That is a crucial issue, because if we cannot address the poor behaviour and social disaffection in our schools, we will not prevent the massive exodus of pupils from many of our cities.

341
In my own city, Nottingham, as hard as some of our schools work, people flood out of the city to the suburbs, where they believe that they will find a better education for their children. However, it is not only an inner-city problem: in other areas, people try to avoid problem schools.
To illustrate the scale of the problem, I shall quote from "Young People", the social exclusion report published last week by policy action team 12. Each year, one in 16 young people—almost 40,000—leave school without qualifications; of those, 80 per cent. were not entered for examinations. In England and Wales, more than 30,000 children in year 11 truant for days or weeks at a time; in England, about 60,000 truant at least once a week. There are 1,500 permanent exclusions from primary schools and 11,500 from secondary schools each year; and, at any one time, more than 150,000 young people are out of school on fixed-term exclusions.
There has been a 400 per cent. increase in permanent exclusions from primary schools since 1990–91, although the rate has been stable since 1995. There has been a 350 per cent. increase in permanent exclusions from secondary schools since 1990–91, although, in the past year or so, there has been a small drop. Those massive figures reveal the scale of the challenge facing us.
The previous Government's answer and the reason for the huge rise was that everything should be left to the market—the market would deal with it through the mechanism of parental choice. In fact, schools pushed out children who caused problems and we witnessed the creation of sink schools and a two-tier education system. This Government will not tolerate that and we will not allow sink schools. We want the best for all pupils in all areas.
We cannot simply tell schools to stop excluding pupils. We have to establish a framework to support schools and teachers as they try to deal with the problems. If we are to raise standards, teachers must be able to teach in an effective learning environment, and pupils must be able to learn. We cannot allow a small minority to deprive the majority in the classroom of their entitlement to an education. Parents understand the problems that some individual pupils have, but their view is that those problems must not be dealt with at the expense of the minority of pupils and in a way that undermines the authority of teachers.
Effective head teachers, good management and good-quality staff are key factors, but so are better training and implementation of sound policies to tackle the problems. If fresh start initiatives, city academies and our efforts to raise the achievement of all pupils in all schools in all areas are to succeed, we have to meet the challenge head on. In addition to improving teachers' training in dealing with difficult situations, we have to increase the number of learning support units in schools.
We should not underestimate the extent of the problem. There are problems with a small number of pupils not only in the inner cities, but in almost all our schools. If we are serious about raising standards right across the ability range, learning support units must be available to every school, whether they are provided in the school or whether schools have a collaborative arrangement. Every school in the country needs access to a learning support unit.
342
Pupils who are persistently disruptive or violent and who simply refuse to co-operate need a learning support unit off-site, not as a dumping ground—that was the policy of the Conservatives, who were prepared to throw difficult pupils out and were not worried where they went—but as a unit where an alternative curriculum can be offered and individual counselling can take place, with the aim of re-integrating those young people back into mainstream education. The objective should be their return to ordinary classrooms when they have learned to act in a way that is consistent with effective learning.
If we set up a system of learning support units across the country, that would make a real difference not only to the education of the young people concerned, but to the morale of the teaching profession, who would see the Government acting to support teachers in their schools.
There is an issue for society as well as for Government. One of the main problems in our schools and in society is that there has been an erosion of respect for what I call legitimate authority, whether that is represented by a police officer or a teacher. As a Government, we need to consider how we can restore legitimate authority to schools, head teachers and teachers, so that we get back the respect that many of us remember from our school days. Our parents often told us about the respect that the school teacher enjoyed in the community.
All parents want and demand decent education for their children. If we can start to restore authority to the teaching profession, we will have done a great service to the country. We must do that by working with parents and local authorities. We must lay down what is acceptable and hold to it, even when the rules and standards of behaviour in a school are challenged.
It is up to us as a Government to send out a clear message to our teachers and schools that, where they are sensibly implementing standards of behaviour and codes of conduct in a school which are designed to create an effective learning environment and to provide teachers and schools with the authority that they need, the Government will support them. We must reiterate that to teachers.
When I was a deputy head teacher and we had to enforce the uniform code, there were parents who asked why their children should wear a uniform to school and challenged our authority to impose a uniform. We must support schools in such circumstances. If a school has determined with parents that a school uniform and certain codes of behaviour are required, that should be respected by those who attend the school. If we do not enforce that, it will undermine the authority of the teacher and the school, and their efforts to create a learning environment.
The Government are concerned about rights for individuals, and also about responsibilities. They have an agenda to raise achievement, to put more resources into schools and to modernise the comprehensive principle. If we ensure that we create in all our schools—rural, inner city or suburban—the learning environment that is essential to achievement by all our pupils, we will raise achievement right across the spectrum of ability.
What a radical, hugely satisfying achievement that would be: city schools to which people flocked and to which, because they were beacons of excellence in their communities, they wanted to send their children. Education would play a part in regenerating communities that have been neglected for so long. We face that

343
challenge. To meet it, we must recognise that teachers in many of our schools face genuine difficulties in tackling the challenging behaviour of some young people. If we support teachers, we can raise standards together.
1.40 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for his thoughtful speech. Despite the lateness of the hour, we always have higher quality debates when hon. Members bring the benefit of experience—as my hon. Friend does—to them, or when they represent their constituents' interests in the same hard-working, conscientious way as my hon. Friend.
We are determined to raise standards for all pupils. Children get only one chance at school, and they and their teachers have the right not to have that chance disrupted by other pupils' behaviour. I hope that the debate will send that clear message. I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's commendation of our teachers' excellent work, in sometimes difficult and challenging circumstances, with difficult children. I hope that our debate will also convey that clear message.
We have an overall strategy for tackling poor behaviour and preventing exclusion. It is backed up by generous amounts of funding. The key to avoiding disaffection and disruption is early intervention and prevention through multi-agency working and partnership with parents.
How are we helping to achieve that? The Government have provided nearly £500 million over three years through the "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" grant for preventive work. Funding in 2000–01 will be £140 million—that is 110 per cent. higher than in 1999–2000. The requirement to devolve the grant to secondary schools in 2000–01 will offer schools throughout the country a better way of tackling developing problems at their root. My hon. Friend rightly suggested that that was important.
The money will be supported by the "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" guidance, which was sent to schools and local education authorities last July. It is important to stress that the guidance is a joint publication between the Department of Health, the Home Office and the social exclusion unit. That emphasises, as my hon. Friend did, the need for a joined-up approach to poor behaviour in schools, and the realisation that such problems are often closely linked to wider problems in the home and in society. It is essential that different agencies, for example, social services departments and youth offending teams as well as local education authorities and schools, work together effectively to tackle the problems that affect a child.
Schools and teachers are not responsible for social exclusion, but they have to deal with its effects every day. That is why Government policy on crime reduction, community renewal and developing parental skills and responsibilities has a key role to play. My hon. Friend has contributed to that through his proposals on curfews.
Teachers need and deserve practical support. That is why the guidance includes case studies and examples of good practice in managing poor behaviour. It recommends a range of practical strategies that have been shown to work, including, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in-school learning support units for disruptive pupils, which have
344
been funded by the "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" grant. They provide separate, short-term teaching, which is tailored to the needs of difficult pupils while preventing disruption to normal classes and the need for exclusion. Research that the Department published last October shows that the units were successful in reducing exclusions and that they were also cost-effective.
The guidance also recommends innovative multi-agency pastoral support programmes. The pastoral support programme is a practical intervention to focus a school, together with support agencies, on early intervention for pupils at serious risk of permanent exclusion or criminal activity. It offers designated support when pupils have failed to respond to other interventions. The pupil should be set short-term targets broken down into fortnightly tasks and the PSP should be reviewed halfway through its agreed duration. That practical support is the background to our target to reduce exclusions and truancy.
The social exclusion unit report "Truancy and School Exclusion" sets targets to reduce truancy and exclusion by a third by 2002. We believe that our goal of raising standards is achievable only if children are in school and learning. However, that does not mean that exclusion can never be an option. We have never pretended that that is the case and recently confirmed that a head teacher can exclude a pupil for a serious offence—a violent incident, for example—without first needing to implement alternative strategies. As my hon. Friend said, head teachers must make the decisions about exclusions. There was no action or practical support under the previous Government and exclusions rose, but we are providing the support and the money for schools to be able to achieve that reduction.
Successive reports by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools have found that most schools are orderly and that violence is fortunately rare. Our teachers and school managers deserve congratulations on that. Certain schools face greater than average problems of indiscipline or bullying and their teachers need additional advice and support. I agree with my hon. Friend that such problems occur especially, although not exclusively, in deprived inner-city areas. We have recognised the wider problems facing teachers and pupils and are putting more resources than ever before into on-site units for disruptive pupils.
In addition, we are supporting more work-related learning for 14 and 15-year-olds to reduce disaffection. The Department has funded 36 work-related learning projects at key stage 4, and early evidence shows that unauthorised absence rates have been reduced from above average to below. At a project in Leicester, a student who attended 49 per cent. of year 8 attended 97 per cent. of an off-site placement in year 11. We are putting many more learning mentors in secondary schools so that pupils who need help will get it to overcome barriers to their individual learning. There are early indications of the success of that strategy. For example, a learning mentor at a school in Southwark is involved in counselling, running programmes to improve behaviour, running a sports leadership award scheme for disaffected pupils and working closely with parents.
Our aim in those strategies is to tackle the causes of the problem, not to transfer it from one school to another or out on to the streets, as the previous Government were willing to do. That is why we are funding the learning mentors as well as the additional learning support units

345
through the excellence in cities initiative. It currently operates in 24 local education authorities that form some of the most disadvantaged inner-city areas.
On 23 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced an expansion of the initiative to 21 new local education authorities from September and among the additional cities to be included are Nottingham, Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent and Hull. Aspects of the initiative will be piloted in primary schools in the existing inner-city areas. If our objective is early intervention, we should recognise that primary schools are affected as well.
Poor behaviour can also be a problem for other children. Bullying is a serious problem, and much of it goes unreported. It can seriously affect a child's emotional well-being and educational achievement. We attach a high priority to helping schools to prevent and combat bullying in all its forms, because there is no excuse for it. It is disruptive and intolerable, and should have no place in our schools. Since last September, schools have been required by law to have an anti-bullying policy. Further advice on bullying and harassment was contained in our "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" guidance.
We shall also shortly be launching a new anti-bullying initiative. We shall be updating and reissuing our anti-bullying pack for schools, and producing a video for them to use as a teaching resource to generate discussion of the problem. It will emphasise the simple but powerful message that pupils need not suffer in silence, but should speak out and let someone know. We may not be able to eliminate bullying completely, but everyone needs to work together to reduce and prevent it wherever possible. We should not allow the misery and disruption caused by bullying in our schools to go unchallenged; as my hon. Friend said, the stakes are too high in the context of our children's education and achievements.
We are also very concerned about the rate of unauthorised absence from school. My hon. Friend mentioned that as well. The 1999 Audit Commission report "Missing Out" showed very mixed approaches on the part of local education authorities to the tackling of truancy. Some performed very well, while others did less well. We need to respond to the challenge.
346
Schools themselves must actively discourage truancy, and they need support to be able to do that. Our guidance recommended that schools should report unauthorised absence to parents on the morning on which it occurs. That sometimes presents a practical challenge, but it has been shown to help in increasing attendance. We hope that the "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" money can be used for that purpose as well.
Following consultation on our "Tackling Truancy Together" strategy document last autumn, we recently announced that the level of fines for parents of truanting pupils would increase to level 4 of the national scale of penalties. That will, in particular, allow magistrates to require parents to attend court or risk arrest, and will give them more opportunity to emphasise the seriousness of the offence to parents. I agree with my hon. Friend that the community and parents have both a right to expect schools to deliver a high standard of education and a responsibility to ensure that children attend schools, and to support the policies implemented by them.
I do not minimise the task that teachers must perform in deciding on appropriate strategies for the management of pupils. I know my hon. Friend is aware of that, given his extensive experience in the teaching profession. Although the Department has provided detailed guidance, it is for heads and other teachers to apply it to the circumstances of their schools.
I agree with my hon. Friend that inexperienced teachers need training and help from more experienced teachers, although if experienced teachers occasionally experience difficulties they should not see that as a sign of personal failure. Initial teacher training should focus on issues of discipline, and how to tackle disaffection.
Because this is essentially a two-way process, my officials—with assistance from the National Children's Bureau, and other Government Departments—are currently involved in disseminating the key recommendations of "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" guidance, in order to give schools and teachers the practical support and assistance that will enable them to cope with the problems.
We can lead as a Government by setting the framework, but we cannot do everything that is needed. We can provide the resources that are important, but in the end it will be for schools and local partners across the country to work together to achieve the goal of higher standards for our young people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

National Lottery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Clelland]
10 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I welcome the opportunity to have this topical debate, because we will know the new lottery operators in a couple of months'time. I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will place both offers in the Library, so that we may judge them. I would like to thank David Price for his research, and Joe Hicks and Bryn Morgan of the Library for their assistance. I strongly commend their research paper, "The National Lottery", to all hon. Members.
It is not my intention to dwell on the respective merits of the two applicants—the holders, Camelot, and the challengers, the People's Lottery—although I will raise some concerns about Microsoft's involvement with the People's Lottery in due course. This is a debate about the future of the lottery, and I will raise the following issues: additionality; revenue-neutral definitions; the development of a national structure for the delivery of lottery terminals; the creation of a new national cause and the creation of a local community cause. I will also speak about sport—a favourite subject of mine.
Since the lottery came into being, there has been an ongoing discussion about additionality versus the arm's-length principle. I now believe that a new lottery Act should dispense with additionality. I will review some aspects of the additionality argument over the past four or five years. In the past two years, the new opportunities fund has brought additionality into question. Some people say that the fund breaches both the principle of additionality and the arm's-length principle.
Central to the debate is the ambiguity about what constitutes core expenditure and what is the Government's responsibility. The funding of cancer care, the provision of after-school facilities and information technology training are particular concerns. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argued that the new opportunities fund was in line with the principle of additionality. He said:
the money that is going to child care, out-of-hours school activities, information technology training for teachers and healthy living centres is entirely additional to any existing Exchequer expenditure—[Official Report, 19 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 679.]
In Committee on the National Lottery Bill, Lord Skidelsky, speaking for the Opposition, stated that
on-going public services should not depend on variable, voluntary contributions…Lottery money should not be diverted to pay for what is essential at the expense of what is merely desirable. The National Lottery should not come to be seen as a sort of painless extra tax for every spending programme the Government choose—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 36.]
In response, Lord McIntosh, in trying to define the principle of additionality, said:
2WH
Important as the principle of additionality is, I am afraid that there is no practical way in which it can be enshrined in legislation—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 43.]
That is one of the factors at the core of my argument.
Many people have raised concerns about additionality, and I will deal with one or two of them. Tessa Baring, member of the National Lottery Charities Board's UK committee, argued in Lottery Monitor magazine that many people in the voluntary sector feel dismayed by the creation of the new opportunities fund, which they consider to be breaching the principles of arm's length and additionality. She says:
not only can they actually fund Local Authorities, but their policy directions from Government dictate their programmes, some of which are seen to cover areas of Government responsibility like teacher-training and cancer treatment.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation paper in November 1998 outlining three initiatives. One initiative concerned cancer care and focused on four areas: prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment, and palliative care. The proposed initiative could encompass the provision of equipment, support services, respite care, joint palliative care posts and training, and would be delivered by the voluntary sector and the national health service in partnership. The projects funded by that initiative would be in addition to those currently planned by the Government. In reality, this is a catch-up exercise.
In March 1999, the Government published a summary of the responses, which showed great concerns about breach of the additionality principle. The Secretary of State resisted the key suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) in Committee that the cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care programme was a matter of core expenditure. Such issues are at the root of my concern.
This year, it was announced that the new opportunities fund would partner the Department for Education and Employment to fund new information and communication technology centres in such diverse places as football clubs, schools and community buildings. Government money will pay the capital costs of setting up the centres, and the fund will pay for training, outreach, marketing and software. Some consider such an example of the NOF teaming up directly with the Government, wedding together lottery and Treasury money to fund projects, to be inconsistent with additionality, as the term was originally understood.
When we discuss the future of the lottery, we should drop additionality from the political agenda. The Government should be allowed to bid for lottery money. Of course, if the requirement for additionality ended, the Treasury might try to hold on to all the receipts. I doubt whether that would be a good idea. Rather than being allowed free access, the Government should be able to apply for moneys within the current regulations. Perhaps we could consider a maximum percentage that they could receive.
I think that additionality ought to go, at least partly because of research that I have read on how lottery money is spent in other countries. Let me give a few examples. In Pennsylvania, 40 per cent. is used to help elderly citizens. The Wisconsin state lottery helps to fund property tax relief. The Delaware lottery goes towards funding a full range of state services. In Nebraska,

3WH
49.5 per cent. goes to the education innovation fund, 49.5 per cent. goes to the environmental trust fund, and 1 per cent. helps compulsive gamblers.
Florida's 1987 legislature ensured that 38 per cent. of state lottery proceeds went towards education, to support schools, community colleges, state universities, pre-school programmes and so on. In New York state, 38 per cent. funds school aid. In California, 34 per cent. goes towards special schools, higher education and kindergartens. That describes the situation only in the United States. State hospitals in New South Wales receive critical funding from the lottery. In Western Australia, money goes to public hospitals and public health services. Funds in British Columbia are earmarked for urgent health care priorities. The end of additionality would not mean huge changes; people would like the results.
The term "revenue-neutral" has confused me, although I have tried hard to find a definition of it. Perhaps it is an oxymoron. The Library's national lottery paper says:
Lottery Duty has been set at 12 per cent. Lottery Duty is intended to be revenue-neutral, making up for lost VAT on other retail sales. If spending is diverted to lottery tickets from products attracting high levels of duty (alcohol, tobacco etc.) then the Exchequer loses out. Conversely if spending is diverted from low-taxed items (confectionery, newspapers) or from planned savings, the Exchequer gains. As ticket sales have been higher than forecast, so has the amount raised from Lottery Duty.
I have tried to find out the amount of duty paid. For 1994–95, the figure was £143 million; for 1995–96, £626 million; for 1996–97, £567 million; for 1997–98, £662 million; and for 1998–99, £625 million. I have also tried to work out what those figures mean, and sought advice from consultants and librarians who were struggling, like me, to understand the situation better. I understand that the Government have taken tax not of 12 per cent. but—I take the figures from page 9 of the lottery paper—of 14.2 per cent., 13 per cent., 12.9 per cent., 12.9 per cent. and 12.8 per cent. in the past five years.
At a crude estimate, an extra £195 million has gone to the Treasury.
Perhaps the National Audit Office could define what revenue-neutral means with respect to lottery duties so that we can ensure that more money is put into causes. For instance, NESTA—the national endowment for science, technology and the arts—has a small trust at £15 million a year, and giving that cause another £195 million would be of great help to those fields. My gut feeling is that the figure is much higher than £195 million, and I would like a definition of the formula to be agreed so that ordinary mortals such as myself can understand and make a judgment about the matter. I think that that is probably enough about oxymorons.
There are currently 24,300 lottery terminals, but we should have a terminal in every community across the United Kingdom. We need to rethink the way in which the lottery is delivered, and we must hope that even Camelot, given its partnership with the Post Office, has sussed that out. As the Barclays bank debacle and the various debates in the House and in our communities have shown, post offices are the essential service wherever we live. Margaret Burke runs my local post office in
4WH
Rodmersham Green; she also runs a store, helps the village in many ways in addition to providing a service, and rarely has a day off. She is what I would call the salt of the earth and a pillar of the community. She is concerned, however, about the mooted changes to the post offices as we progress towards modernising the service. If we gave her a terminal, it could become the e-mail centre for the village, and the post office could combine with the local county primary school to be a little hub.
The lottery could be the beginning of the first national trunk road for digital services, if we approached it with a bit of imagination; and if we have not included that proposal in the tender document, we should retender. The lottery could transform our rural areas so that they become part of the smart economy, and I urge the Secretary of State to make plans to do that. If lottery terminals were used as hubs and sub-hubs for digital services as well as for the lottery, our economy would be transformed. I should add the cautious note that if that system was developed, Microsoft, a partner in the People's Lottery bid, should not be given an inbuilt advantage in providing the software packages.
I accidentally found the constituency spends of one or two hon. Members who are present. In Rossendale and Darwen, the spend on lottery tickets so far has been £28.5 million, yet that constituency has won only £2.5 million in awards. I notice that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is here; his constituents have spent £33.5 million on tickets, but his constituency has won only £4.7 million. In my constituency, we have spent £43.6 million, which is more than those constituencies have spent, but we have received only £1.3 million in return. People in two of my communities—one on the island and one close to Sittingbourne—may drop their cereal bowls when they hear of the new awards early on Thursday morning. Those three constituencies are not untypical, and the system is plainly unfair. I would urge the Minister to introduce a community fund whereby 20 per cent. of local receipts automatically goes back to the community.
If it is accepted that additionality has gone by the board, could we add infrastructure to the causes? Wherever I look, the infrastructure in our communities is lacking. In the community I take as my example, more than 1,850 houses are under construction, but when planning is given for a school building, it is never built, and instead we push in an extra classroom here and there. That is bad enough—but there is also the matter of the village field. For two years, the owners of the properties cater for that field, and then it is given over to the local authority and it very quickly becomes hard rock and impossible to play on. Within that planning infrastructure, there is no doctor's surgery and none is planned. We must examine our communities' infrastructure to see whether we can add something at a local level that might make a real difference.
At present, the United Kingdom sports cabinet comprises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, Tom Middlehurst on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It wants to reduce Sport England's proportion of the lottery and redistribute it to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

5WH
I checked the figures—courtesy of the Central Council of Physical Recreation—and currently the Exchequer's spend on sport in our four countries is £2.25 per head in Wales, £1.91 per head in Scotland, £1.66 per head in Northern Ireland and a mere 67p per head in England. Further changes to the current Sport England budget would severely embarrass the population of England. Sport has already lost because of the sixth cause of the new opportunities fund and if more funds are taken, England will lose again. I hope that my hon. Friend can dispel such rumours.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think again about additionality in a new lottery Act. It should be removed once and for all. Will she consider the revenue-neutral system and a definition of such from the National Audit Office, in case the Treasury has taken more money than it should? Lottery terminals are the key to my argument. If they could be placed in each community throughout the country, a national e-mail system could be in place for everyone, including the digitally disadvantaged. Finally, will my hon. Friend consider infrastructure and the community cause and end the uncertainty about Sport England? I do not ask for much.
10.16 am
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing the debate, which he introduced in a considered way. It is timely and useful. As someone who was on the Back Benches when the National Lottery etc. Bill was introduced and who also served on the Standing Committee that considered it, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view on additionality. At the time, I was working with the National Campaign for the Arts and tabling amendments to secure the principle of additionality. The hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to enshrine that in legislation. Well, with the support of the Government, we made a determined effort to do that with separate lines of accounting and clear statements that lottery money was to be additional to usual Government spending.
Members of the Labour party were especially vociferous in wishing the lottery money to be over and above the on-going Exchequer funding for Government responsibilities. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that additionality should be kicked off the political agenda. I do not suppose that that view is shared by his friends in the sporting world or in charities, the arts or heritage activities. The lottery was set up to fund those areas of life that would always be at the back of the Exchequer queue at the time of funding rounds. It would be difficult for activities such as the arts, sports and heritage to cut a convincing argument if they were in competition with health, education and other important social services.
The lottery was set up to fund those activities that would not otherwise have received funding. It has been phenomenally successful in bringing new money and new life to a range of activities that were previously short of funds. Recognition of that fact was missing from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The hon. Gentleman cited the cases of Nebraska, Delaware and Florida. What is the tax rate in those places? I suspect that it is much lower than it is here. The situation as regards the provision of public services is,
6WH
therefore, not the same. If the tax rate is much lower, the temptation to dig into the lottery to fund activities that would normally be considered the staple diet of Exchequer funding will be that much stronger.
I also suspect that if all the money that goes into the sport lottery fund—I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen on sport—were diverted to the national health service, it would be consumed in a matter of hours. It would make precious little difference to the NHS, but an immense difference to sport, which is a prime beneficiary of the national lottery.
I am not saying that the lottery is perfect; it is not, and there have been problems. There have been high-profile cases of lottery beneficiaries running into financial difficulties. There are the revenue requirements that have been stoked up by the substantial capital grants that have been awarded in some cases. I need not go into examples, although one well-known case that probably merits a mention is down the river at Greenwich. However, there are others. It is important that the lottery has regard to the revenue implications of capital grants.
There are continuing complaints about the bureaucracy and complexity of the application process. The Government have moved to simplify the situation a bit, but there is a long way to go before the procedure is made as user-friendly as we would like. It is a pity to see people in local communities who want to bid for lottery grants spending large sums on accountants and consultants. They do not like doing that, especially if their bids are unsuccessful.
The chances of making an unsuccessful bid have, of course, increased since the establishment of the new opportunities fund. However much we all support extra funding for health care, education and environmental projects, I must question whether the fund is the right way to provide that money. There is no escaping the fact that there have been winners and losers as a result of the establishment of the fund. The losers are the original good causes: charities, sport, the arts and heritage. They have noticed that, from the end of the year, when the Millennium Commission winds up, one third of lottery money will go to support projects that many people believe should be the responsibility of core Government funding.
Concerns have arisen recently as a result of the National Audit Office inquiry into the handling of some National Lottery Charities Board projects. There is a heavy responsibility on those who discharge lottery money to ensure that they do so in a clear, accountable and responsible way. I have no doubt that the board will have read the NAO report with great care and will take note of its recommendations.
It would be wrong to end without mentioning the campaign being waged for the lottery promotion company, with which the Minister will be familiar. That poses the issue of the alleged £3.7 billion in the national lottery distribution fund that is idle at any one time. It would be helpful if the Minister would restate the Government's position on that matter. As far as I can determine, the majority of funds are earmarked for existing projects, and therefore committed. Every week, a substantial cash flow enters the lottery system, and the amount sitting in the distribution fund has grown over time.

7WH
Once again, I emphasise that the national lottery has been an enormous success. Although the big projects such as the dome and the earth centre have grabbed the headlines, the lottery has had its greatest impact on society through thousands of small grants up and down the country, which have responded to local needs.
Another criticism of the Government would be their tendency to centralise the lottery and adopt a top-down approach, whereas the original vision of the Conservative Government was for a community-based approach, under which local communities proposed ideas and put in bids for lottery cash. I am concerned about the Government's dirigiste approach under which they—rather than local communities—decide where the money goes.
Anything helping to establish and support a cause as good as the Orpheus centre in my constituency—an arts centre set up by Richard Stilgoe, which is proving immensely beneficial to young people with disabilities and is becoming a national resource, revitalising and enlivening the arts in a therapeutic contextߞcan be no bad thing. Whoever wins the bid to run the lottery later this year, the key requirement is that the lottery continues to act as a power for good in our society.
10.27 am
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this timely debate. The lottery is now more than five years old and has had a tremendous impact on our national life. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) described it as an enormous success and I agree. For the first time, someone I know well won £500,000 on the lottery recently, and it has transformed his family's life. Our lottery has been one of the most successful in the world, with £7.4 billion already awarded to nearly 57,000 projects across the UK.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for East Surrey believes that we have been too dirigiste in our approach. I can assure him that that is not our intention. The Government set the framework for regulation of the lottery and distribution of the net proceeds, but we do not choose the operator or distribute lottery funds ourselves. Irrespective of whether there is a change of operator, we have done much to ensure that lottery funding is more effective, equitable and accessible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has a deep interest in the future of the lottery and has had some interesting ideas. I shall deal with each of them in turn, and with wider concerns. He referred to the new opportunities fund and said that the principle of additionality should be dropped and the Government should be allowed to bid for lottery money. He gave examples of what money is spent on around the world through other lotteries, and of what people would like money to be spent on. He is right. If we went into the street, stopped the first person that we saw and asked him what lottery funding should be spent on, I bet that he would say health and education first.
We remain committed to the principle that lottery money should add to, not substitute for, Government expenditure. We do not believe that the Government
8WH
should reduce public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery, or use lottery funds to substitute for obligations into which they have entered. The lottery will add value, allowing for projects that would otherwise not be possible. It funds specific time-limited projects. As with all lottery funding, the new opportunities fund supports only initiatives additional to those funded from taxation. It supports activities in health, education and environment beyond those funded by the taxpayer, in the same way as it does for arts, heritage and sport.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the projects of the new opportunities fund prove workable, sensible and desirable and take root, will the Government be willing to see them funded from taxation in future?
Janet Anderson: That is interesting, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and it may be helpful if I speak about the new opportunities fund.
We have made changes to lottery distribution. Lottery money is public money, freely given. The National Lottery Act 1998 reflects the public's view that lottery money should support what they feel is important. Before it, lottery proceeds were divided between arts, charities, heritage, the millennium and sport. The 1998 Act created a sixth good cause, the new opportunities fund, which has made great progress in channelling money to important and popular health, education and environmental initiatives.
From early next year—the date depends on the rate at which lottery money flows in—we expect the fund to receive one third of lottery proceeds, as it will receive the share formerly paid to the Millennium Commission.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend the Minister cheer on a bid led by Wealdstone football club—it is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), but many of its supporters live in mine—to regenerate the Prince Edward playing fields in the Stanmore area? The bid would facilitate a stadium with a capacity of 3,000, 14 artificial football pitches, and a range of other sporting facilities.
Janet Anderson: I note what my hon. Friend says. He knows that decisions on lottery applications are not for me, and I am sure that he and his neighbouring Members of Parliament are able to speak for themselves and for the project, which sounds worthy of serious consideration.
The other good causes will continue to receive their one-sixth share beyond 2001. Careful consideration is given to the views of the public in the allocation of money from the fund. There has been, and will continue to be, consultation on possible new initiatives. The Government remain committed to the principle of additionality, and lottery funds must be used to enhance current core spending, not replace it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey also asked whether national lottery duty was revenue-neutral, and mentioned oxymorons, an

9WH
interesting point which he first mentioned yesterday. He will know that the intention was always that the duty would be designed to be revenue-neutral, on the basis that it would replace revenue lost from other sources as a result of displaced expenditure. In other words, if people spend money on the lottery, they may be less likely to spend it on other things, and we did not want the Exchequer to suffer as a result. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about what should be done with revenue accrued to the Exchequer. I shall examine that point and write to him, and I thank him for making it.
My hon. Friend also mentioned post offices, and referred to a lady who runs a local post office in his constituency, Margaret Burke, whom he described as the salt of the earth. I represent a relatively rural constituency that contains many similar post offices, and my hon. Friend is right—they are an invaluable resource for local communities. Making the right decisions on this matter could mean the salvation of our rural post offices, because they can do so much.
Retail selection and where terminals are located is a matter not for the Government but for Camelot, under the terms of the licence granted by the former Director General of the National Lottery. Camelot's licence requires a minimum of 35,100 lottery terminals nationally, including both on-line and Instants only. Camelot is also required to employ clear minimum criteria for selection and deselection. Beyond that, responsibility for selecting and deselecting retail outlets lies with Camelot. As in the case of the Post Office, that may involve agents. I am not clear whether the Post Office imposes any additional or different conditions on its outlets, but I shall examine the matter and write to my hon. Friend. I agree that if we make the right decisions about the lottery and its role in the future of local post offices, that could transform our rural areas.
My hon. Friend also referred to disparities between spending and awards in some constituencies, referring to his, mine and that of the hon. Member for East Surrey. It was always intended that lottery funding should be distributed according to need. Nevertheless, anxieties have been expressed that some areas have not benefited as much as we would have liked from lottery funding. As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently commissioned some research into what had happened to former coalfield communities, because many hon. Members representing such areas felt that their communities had not been treated as favourably as they should have been. We hope to publish the results of that research shortly. I hope that that shows that we are always willing to reconsider such matters. My hon. Friend's idea of a community fund is good. The Government will be consulting on possible new initiatives in due course, and I invite him to submit that idea to us formally.
I note what my hon. Friend said about sport funding. I should point out that I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who has a long-standing engagement in Lancaster this morning, and who is responsible for the lottery. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I am not as knowledgeable on this matter as they expected. A direct comparison of expenditure on sport by country is difficult, as sport is structured differently from country to country. Comparisons of expenditure per capita are not necessarily meaningful.
10WH
As we start to plan for the next comprehensive spending review, it will be important for all sectors of sport to speak with one voice. Sport must be effective in articulating its needs, make the case for additional Exchequer funding in the future, and focus on how it can address the Government's priorities and objectives and provide added value. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently published the Government's sport strategy, which I hope will make clear the challenge faced by sport and recreation in this country, with Government support, and the important part that they play in the education and health of the nation.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: A key part of that strategy was the requirement for an audit of sporting facilities. Will my hon. Friend urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport to encourage Sport England to take special note of the lack of modern athletics facilities, modern tennis facilities or access to artificial turf pitches for football in my constituency?
Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. An audit is long overdue, and I am pleased that it was part of the strategy. Funding was recently secured for two small all-weather pitches in my constituency, which has made a huge difference to the local community by providing kids with somewhere to play. We must press ahead with the audit; I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will persuade Sport England to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey referred to the wider availability of lottery terminals, which relates to the point that he made about post offices. As a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, he will be anxious, as the Government are, that the digital revolution should not result in a society of information-rich and information-poor. That is one of the biggest challenges facing the Government, which I hope will be dealt with by the forthcoming White Paper.
On the new licence, the National Lottery Commission is responsible for ensuring that the lottery is run with due propriety and that the interests of players are protected. It is also responsible for choosing the next licence holder. The current operator, Camelot, was awarded a seven-year licence in 1994, which runs out in September 2001. The commission received two bids for the next licence, from Camelot and from the People's Lottery. Provided that the commission judges that bidders will protect players'interests and run the lottery properly, the licence will be awarded to the bidder most likely to raise the most money for the good causes. Possible additional contributions to the good causes from profits will be taken into account. The name of the preferred bidder will be announced by the end of June. I noted my hon. Friend's comments about one participant in one of those bids. However, we are pleased that there are two strong bidders, as healthy competition is in the interests of both players and the good causes.
The commission took measures to ensure a level playing field for those applying. Bidders are required to install new terminals from day one of the new licence. Yesterday, my hon. Friend and I had an interesting discussion about what might happen to the old

11WH
terminals. Camelot has been asked to make available information on its retail outlets to other bidders, and has agreed to co-operate with the new operator if there is a handover.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: What happened to the Government's commitment to introduce a not-for-profit lottery operator?
Janet Anderson: That has always been the Government's intention; if the hon. Gentleman will be patient, his question will be answered. He asked about the application and decision process.
Mr. Ainsworth: Is it still the Government's intention to introduce a not-for-profit lottery operator?
Janet Anderson: The Government always have been, and still are, committed to a not-for-profit lottery. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I turn to the application and decision process. Application processes can be discouragingly long and complicated for some applicants, especially small, voluntary organisations without access to professional, legal and business advice. The introduction of simpler application procedures is another way of ensuring an equitable spread of lottery money.
Our wish for the people's lottery was for changes by distributors to make application processes user-friendly. That was followed by changes in the National Lottery Act 1998, which included establishing the principle of cross-distributor working to make the application process more accessible. However, distributors agree that there is still more to be done; they are working with my Department to identify scope in application processes for further improvement and simplification. I hope soon to be able to report progress in that respect.
Our quality, efficiency and standards team—QUEST—is considering how the cost of making applications can be contained without compromising the demands of proper accountability in decisions on how to spend public money. QUEST will soon publish phase 1 of its report, which considers applications for grants up to £100,000.
The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned the national lottery distribution fund, which was the subject of recent press reports. To consider its balance in isolation makes no sense; it is rather like looking at one's bank balance without taking into account the cheques that have been written. Of the £3.5 billion currently in the fund, 94 per cent.—all but £200 million—has already been committed by distributing bodies; in other words, there has either been a firm agreement or an agreement in principle that the money will be handed over to a project. For example, my constituency was lucky enough to be allocated £2.7 million from the heritage lottery fund for the Ilex Mill project. The money has not yet been handed over because planning for the project has not been completed. However, it has been committed. The money will, rightly, be paid only if work is completed; it obviously cannot be spent twice.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am an enthusiastic supporter of a London bid for the Olympic games in 2012 or 2016,
12WH
whether it is through the NLDF, Sport England or another form of lottery funding. I ask my hon. Friend not to rule out the possibility of lottery funding being used to support such a bid.
Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend knows that the Government want lottery funding to be spent in the best way possible to enhance the quality of life of all our communities. He can take it from me that that will continue to be our policy.
While money remains in the NLDF, it earns tax-free interest, which goes to the good causes and not to Government. So far, that has produced an extra £800 million for the good causes; we receive regular details from distributing bodies on their future commitments. We are well aware of the true picture.
Distributing bodies expect to commit more than £2 billion in the next 12 months and the cash balance in the NLDF should fall in the medium term as more grant payments are made. I hope that the current and planned changes to the lottery, when taken together, will help to ensure at least four things. More money will be spent on people and activities, shifting the focus away from bricks and buildings. It will be easier for smaller and less wealthy organisations to benefit. Distributors will continue to contribute to reducing social and economic deprivation. All regions of the country, whether urban or rural, will have equal and easy access to funds.
The lottery has undoubtedly been enormously successful over the past five years and, as I have tried to illustrate this morning, it has played and will continue to play an ever increasing role in our cultural and sporting lives. Most importantly, the Government believe that through many of the reforms following the 1998 Act and through increased co-operation between the distributors, the lottery will continue to have a direct impact on some of the problems caused by social and economic inequality in the UK. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for introducing the debate this morning. It is timely to discuss the future of the lottery and I thank him for giving us that opportunity.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The Minister has concluded her speech. I must tell right hon. and hon. Members that there is a structure to Adjournment debates and it is not the practice to continue a debate after the Minister has replied to it. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was not present for the earlier part of the proceedings, I trust that he will not now try to continue the debate after the Minister has spoken.
10.52 am
Sitting suspended.

Bowel Cancer
11.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): After a lengthy and unexpected suspension, we come to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), on the diagnosis and care of bowel cancer.
Laura Moffatt: I have great pleasure in introducing the debate, particularly as it takes place in this special week, which is bowel cancer awareness week. The British are funny about mentioning bowels. As someone who was a nurse for 25 years, I have never had that problem—I spent most of my working life talking to people about their bowels. Therefore I am pleased to be able to do so legitimately today.
I shall run through the reasons why the debate is so important and give some facts and figures on bowel cancer in the United Kingdom. Bowel cancer is the third commonest cancer, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, and the second commonest cause of cancer death—after lung cancer. For men, it is the third commonest cancer after lung and prostate cancer.
Dr. Desmond Turner: In the context of the Government's target of preventing 100,000 deaths from cancer over the next few years, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an enormous opportunity to be seized with regard to bowel cancer, given that our current survival rates are so much poorer than the best in other countries, and that we do not have screening, apart from a pilot project that is under way?
Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that screening will become an important factor in reducing not only deaths from bowel cancer, but the misery of people going through the process. It will be important to the way in which we tackle bowel cancer. In 1997, 17,349 people died of bowel cancer and each year there are 34,000 new cases. The five-year survival rate is 37.9 per cent for men and 40.6 per cent for women, compared with around 60 per cent. in the United States of America—a statistic that highlights my hon. Friend's point. The majority of people affected are over 50, but bowel cancer can strike at a much earlier year. Despite its frequent occurrence, bowel cancer has had a low public profile—lower than that of other cancers. I hope that that is changing. I believe that a week such as this, in which awareness has been raised, will stimulate that change.
Yesterday, there was a superbly supported launch, hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), at which many speakers debated the issues surrounding cancer. Ten leading cancer charities came under one umbrella, led by Colon Cancer Concern, which has brought together the concerns of those charities to ensure that they all point in the right direction and give similar advice, to prevent confusion. What I found most heartening about that launch, which was attended by my hon. Friend the Minister and which was warmly welcomed by people involved in caring for those with cancer, was the fact that it was hosted by Ladbroke, the betting people. It seemed important that an organisation whose raison d'etre is often escapism, having fun and opting out of the nitty-gritty of life felt able to support bowel cancer week. I congratulate Ladbroke on that.
14WH
There is good news. Bowel cancer is one of the most preventable cancers and one of the more curable if caught early. We can reduce the risk of it through diet, which should be high in fruit, vegetables and fibre. I strongly support campaigns to introduce more fruit into children's school diets. I congratulate the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment on its recent report on school meals, which highlighted the importance of fruit in children's diet. Many hon. Members signed a recent early-day motion to ensure that fruit is made available to children as part of school meals. That is an important step in the encouragement of better eating.
The Early Cancer Research Campaign submitted research findings that explained and supported the protective properties of fibre. These are early findings, but they could also demonstrate that there is a protective link with aspirin. Approximately 10 per cent. of bowel cancers are genetic, but there is no genetic testing despite the fact that family history is becoming increasingly important. However, most sufferers unfortunately do not have a family history of bowel cancer, which is why screening is most important. Regular screening is recommended, especially for those who are at risk.
Professor Gordon McVie, the director-general of the Cancer Research Campaign, said:
£84 million of the NHS spend on bowel cancer treatment and diagnosis and the incalculable cost of human suffering could be saved each year if only people knew about prevention.
We are here precisely to prevent the pain and misery and, of course, to save national health service spending on cancer.
Diagnosis is key. I pay tribute to Lyn Faulds-Wood, who is fronting a national helpline that people may call to talk about their symptoms, so that they have an idea of whether they have something to be worried about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department of Health have supported the helpline, which is an important move.
I hope that I will not offend anyone in the Chamber if I outline a few important symptoms. Hon. Members and colleagues may read what I have said and this may strike a note with them. It is important to take notice of persistent changes to bowel movements. Frequent bowel action, a need to go to the toilet again and again and diarrhoea-like stools are important indicators that must be heeded. Piles, itching in the anal area and a sore anus must be taken seriously if they last for more than six weeks. Unexplained anaemia, a lump or mass in the abdomen and severe colicky pain are all important indicators.
Treatment is available. Surgery is the primary treatment and, if the disease is caught early enough, is often the only treatment that is needed. However, drugs play a part. I want to raise the subject of drugs with the Minister. There are concerns that some anti-bowel cancer drugs may not be being offered to all the patients who need them. In particular, the Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment—CERT—is concerned that there may still be some postcode prescribing, although it and I warmly welcome the ability of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence properly to evaluate drugs and make them available. I hope that we shall soon have good news about Taxol

15WH
and Taxitere. However, it appears that not enough bowel cancer sufferers are being offered treatment. It is important that that be done. There have been some enormous advances in cancer, especially since the appointment of the national cancer director and the setting up of NICE. It would be wrong for NICE to be used by the health authorities as an excuse for not providing drugs while awaiting a decision. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. CERT is looking for central funding for many of those drugs, to take away the fear that patients may not have access to them.
Bowel cancer is low profile, but I believe that, after this week, this debate and the launch of the helpline, that will change. I certainly hope so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has obtained the permission of the initiator of the debate, the Minister and myself to take part.
11.40 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on securing the debate, especially as it is national bowel cancer week and the 10 groups in the consortium are really raising the awareness of the issue. Men and women throughout the country will learn about the issue, which previously has been a quiet area. I have recently returned from the United States, where we visited cancer institutes as part of the investigation by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. We were made ultra-aware of how the Americans can do everything better than us—some of us have learned to live with that, but it is true in the case of their survival rates, which, at one year and five years, are greater than ours. They are just better at it, despite their problems with private insurance and so on. The Select Committee will pronounce on the situation. They can get about 90 per cent. recovery with early-stage detection of colorectal cancer, and that is simply not attained in this country.
There is agreement on both sides of the great pond that the decrease in incidence of bowel cancer—and there is a decrease—is due to increased screening practices and the removal of early-stage polyps from individuals who visit their doctor early. Mortality rates are also decreasing, and it is agreed that that is also due to decreasing trends in incidence rates and increasing survival rates. As my hon. Friend points out, 17,000 people still die every year and 32,000 people contract bowel cancer.
Detection at an early stage usually means surgery when polyps are removed. That prevents them becoming invasive, and that is imperative. However, there is great success with drugs such as Campto, as well as at later stages of the disease. Hopefully, with the good news that Taxotere has been approved, NICE will be looking at these drugs too, and the Government's plan to spread equality across the country in the availability of these drugs will penetrate into the colorectal drug scene as well. I congratulate the campaigning zeal of groups such as CancerBACUP, Cancer Link and CERT, and particularly within CERT the campaigning zeal of Hugh McKinney, who has kept us on our toes about drugs and that issue for some time.
16WH
I would like to say something about the risk factors. As my hon. Friend said, it is quite clear that there are genetic factors, family history problems and individual problems with those who have had irritable bowel syndrome for some time, which, in some cases, can be a preamble to some cancers. However, I should like to say a few words on the other risk factor—diet—to which my hon. Friend alluded. I have always known and been brought up to believe that in Scotland we have a terrible diet. There is no doubt that the bowel cancer rate is twice that in England. No doubt the Scottish Parliament will handle that in its own way. It is a diet that is short on vegetables and low in fibre, with delicacies such as fried Mars bars and chips. It has moved on to this year's model—Jaffa cakes and chips. The chips are advertised as coming from organic potatoes. That is all right, then; it will be thought that the incidence of bowel cancer syndrome will be less. I doubt that very much.
I am also pleased with Delia, Jamie and Nigel, who have taught a nation how to cook and got them interested in food and how to prepare it. I am much more impressed by local community groups—I should not say "more" because Delia and I support the same football team and I shall not be allowed to sit beside her. Nevertheless, I am impressed by local groups that teach young people about food and nutritional value. It is particularly impressive, when one visits schools, to see what used to be the domestic science classes—now food technology—in which young men and women discuss nutritional values and compete with each other to make the best delicacies. There is now a breakdown in genders, and both men and women make very good cooks, which is a real step forward, which is being encouraged.
I am also impressed by the research undertaken at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich at which the value of eating broccoli is being correlated with the decrease in the incidence of bowel cancer. Much exciting work is being undertaken at the genetic level, too. We, in the cancer field, are all imbued with such enthusiasm and excitement because we are learning so much more about its genetic basis and how to prevent other factors from moving it on to such deadly stages. During the past few years, the Government have taken some amazing initiatives in moving cancer up the agenda and I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that my hon. Friend the Minister was right to ask for more support for screening, that drugs be available throughout the country and that those who need such drugs will receive them. In the next two years, Britain's war against cancer will be at its most vigorous.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on securing such a timely debate in what is national bowel cancer week. I was delighted to attend its official launch yesterday, which was hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of both my hon. Friends, the organisations involved in yesterday's launch and the voluntary sector charities and patient groups, the professionals and those companies that have worked so hard with us. We rely on them to help us deliver the improvements that we must make.

17WH
If we are to make further steps forward in bowel cancer, it is clear that we must take action across the board on prevention, screening, early detection, high-quality treatment and care, palliative care and research. We have set clear targets for saving the lives of those suffering from cancer. During the next 10 years, we want to reduce the death rate by 20 per cent. for those under 75 years. That is an ambitious target, and whether we achieve it will depend on improvements in prevention as well as in treatment.
We can make large gains on the prevention side. Deaths from bowel cancer can be reduced by changes in people's life styles, such as improvements in diet, keeping active and, particularly, fruit and vegetable consumption. We are investing £750,000 from the public health development fund in a diet and cancer-reduction project. It will test approaches to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and produce a guide setting out best practice that we can replicate throughout the country. Five pilot sites for the project have been identified. It will be launched in July; we look forward to receiving the results. It is important that it provides to children and adults information not only on diet, but on how to improve access to certain foods. It is not much good knowing that we must increase our fruit and vegetable consumption if it takes three bus rides to reach the nearest shop that sells affordable fruit and vegetables. We must reduce not only the number of deaths from bowel cancer, but the inequalities.
This year's European week on cancer, which will be in October, will focus on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among children aged from five to 10 years, and their families. We will be providing funding to health promotion activities in respect of that initiative. However, we must go further, and I shall ask the new modernisation action team on prevention and inequalities to look at issues that surround diet and to examine what more can done to improve access to fruit and vegetables.
My hon. Friends mentioned awareness, which is extremely important. We know that colorectal cancer is one of our major cancer killers. Men and women who are diagnosed early, before it has spread to other parts of the body, have a good survival rate. However, we know that too many people ignore their symptoms, self-treat, or are too embarrassed to go to their doctor. I welcome the Cancer Research Campaign's appeal on breaking the taboo, and the work being carried out for national bowel cancer week to raise awareness and encourage people to discuss openly symptoms that they might otherwise have been too embarrassed to consider.
The problem is not simply about patients being aware of their symptoms. We must ensure that their symptoms are identified quickly, referred appropriately and treated speedily. That is why, from July, all patients whose symptoms could suggest bowel cancer and who are referred urgently by their general practitioners will be offered out-patient appointments within two weeks. Although bowel cancer is a common problem nationally, an individual GP is unlikely to see more than one or two cases a year. We therefore need to provide support for GPs so that they can distinguish between patients whose symptoms may be cancer and a larger number of patients who have similar symptoms arising from other causes.
18WH
We have been working with primary and secondary care groups, voluntary organisations and patient groups to develop cancer referral guidelines to help primary care teams identify patients who need to be urgently referred for specialist appointments. The guidelines will also help GPs to identify patients unlikely to have cancer, who can then be reassured and safely watched in primary care. Those guidelines are being sent to GPs, primary care groups, trusts and health authorities this week. They were launched on the internet at the end of March and will be widely available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley mentioned screening, and we are anxious to know the merits of introducing a national screening programme. Following advice from the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, the Government are piloting bowel cancer screening. The pilot will provide valuable information on the effectiveness, feasibility and public acceptability of screening for bowel cancer in an ordinary national health service setting rather than a specialist research environment. The pilot will run until 2002 and its results will provide the basis for a decision on the introduction of any national population screening on bowel cancer.
We want all cancer patients, wherever they live, to have access to the same high-quality services. Since 1997, we have invested significant extra resources on colorectal cancer to support the implementation of an evidence-based guidance programme. That has been enormously successful in improving early diagnosis and quality of treatment for patients. We are also investing nearly £200 million in cancer equipment to improve diagnosis and treatment services and cut delays. We will work closely with health authorities and hospitals to ensure that those additional resources are used for those in the greatest need.
Cancer patients also want certainty and choice about the care that they receive. We must ensure that we place patients at the centre of the process, so we shall invest £6 million over the next two years in a national project to improve the process of care for patients with suspected or diagnosed cancer. Nine cancer collaboratives centres have been based across the national health service to cover 14 million people, and have been selected to take part in a national programme to streamline every stage in the patient's journey, from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up care. The aim is to create a gold standard of care for cancer patients and to spread the new ideas across the NHS.
All the experts in the field—everyone who is part of the cancer journey—must work together to identify problems and bottlenecks, and to ensure that the patient is central to the process. It will mean the earliest possible appointments with specialists for patients whose GPs suspect that they have cancer, a speedy diagnostic process and, perhaps, attending one-stop clinics where all the diagnostic tests are carried out on the same day, thereby removing the need for repeated visits. It means obtaining results quickly, booking appointments so that patients know when and where they will be treated, and providing a choice of dates for the convenience of the patient. It means co-ordinating aspects of treatment to speed up the process. For example, a patient who requires radiotherapy following surgery should not experience delays between the various components of treatment. Having visited the cancer collaboratives

19WH
centre in Birmingham, I was impressed by the progress being made to improve support and treatment for patients.
My hon. Friends expressed concerns about the availability of drug treatments. I share their concerns about the postcode lottery, whereby certain drugs are available in one health authority and not others. The Government firmly believe that treatment should be based on people's ability to benefit, wherever they live. We are considering additional topics for appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence during the following year, and anti-cancer drugs are among them. Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director, is leading urgent discussions with NICE to decide on the order and level of priority. I take seriously the points made by my hon. Friends. The resources available to health authorities have increased—a 6.8 per cent. cash increase was announced in December, and, since the Budget, an extra £600 million has been allocated to health authorities for this financial year. Additional resources for drugs are being made available, and investment must be improved and increased in future.
Concerns have also been expressed about work force issues. We need better information for work force planning, more flexible training and development, and innovative solutions to some long-standing problems. Work force development is one of our priorities in terms of improving cancer services. Professor Mike Richards will be working closely with the profession to ensure that there are sufficient trained personnel in diagnosis, treatment and care, and that working practices are modernised to best effect.
20WH
High-quality research, in prevention and treatment, is a vital element in our cancer strategy. In 1998–99, the Government spent £5.5 million on research into colorectal cancer. Research included studies of how bowel cancer treatment and referral delays vary across services in the Yorkshire area, and what patient and service factors affect those variations. Other research included systematic collection and analysis of existing evidence on surgery and palliative chemotherapy for older people who have bowel cancer, the results of which are currently under review. It is important that we do not forget the importance of palliative care, which is an essential part of improving cancer services and support for patients.
Following the Downing street seminar last year, which was hosted by the Prime Minister, the cancer research funders forum was established with the main aim of ensuring that a co-ordinated approach to research funding is pursued wherever possible, in order to obtain the best results. My hon. Friends will be aware that a broad consultation and national debate will take place during the next three months, which will enable us to draw up a national plan in the summer. Discussion of cancer and bowel cancer issues will be part of that process. We have made it clear that cancer is one of our top priorities.
As my hon. Friends said, survival rates must be increased. We should not only consider what is happening elsewhere in the world but tackle inequalities in this country. We are making progress on colorectal cancer. Survival rates are improving, but we have a long way to go. My hon. Friends are right to be optimistic about the progress that we can make. We know that huge challenges lie ahead, but I believe that we can make a real difference in better prevention, awareness and treatment and swifter diagnosis, which will ultimatelty mean that we can save lives.

Connex South Central
12 noon
Mr. Tom Brake: I shall keep my comments reasonably brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) would like to make a short contribution.
The timing of this debate is fortunate. As the Minister will know, negotiations with Connex and Govia, the two competitors vying for the contract to run suburban train services in south London, are in full swing. I am sure that the Minister appreciates the irony of Govia, which is part-owned by the French state railway, SNCF, bidding to run train services in the United Kingdom. Indeed, he might like to comment on that and on the fact that the Vivendi group, which owns Connex, part-owns Govia—a bizarre state of affairs. The Minister and the Strategic Rail Authority will have to be especially vigilant in assessing the bids to ensure that they are truly competitive.
Connex has both an advantage and a disadvantage in the negotiations. As it now provides the train services involved, commuters have first-hand experience of the service that it provides. To discover their views, I conducted a rail survey in January, to which 145 commuters responded. The survey was conducted before Connex's services were reduced as a result of the industrial dispute. Several people who responded to the questionnaire contacted me shortly afterwards to say that their responses would have been significantly different had they received the questionnaire during the dispute.
Passengers perceive Connex's performance as poor. Three quarters of those surveyed said that their trains were late on arrival and, perhaps most damaging for Connex, more than half did not want its franchise to be extended. Connex might argue, with some justification, that such a self-selected sample is not representative and that the survey was not scientific. However, it is clear that it must significantly improve the quality of its service both before and after any franchise extension if it is to receive the support of a vocal minority of its customers.
The survey also revealed some worrying statistics for the Government. An overwhelming majority of respondents—68 per cent.—opposed Government plans for the partial privatisation of London Underground. The Minister might like to comment on that.
Although the survey provided useful feedback, it was completed in January and I wanted more up-to-date information from commuters before today's debate. In the past few months, I have received a significant number of letters informing me of commuters'views. I see that the Minister has a copy of the leaflet distributed at Wallington station yesterday, asking commuters travelling to London this morning to join me to share their impressions of train services and their hopes for the future. On my journey this morning, I was joined by no fewer than three Connex employees, too—the station manager for the stations in my constituency, her deputy and their commercial manager. I was met at Victoria by a further two Connex employees, including Geoff Harrison-Mee, the managing director. I had until now underestimated the power of the humble Adjournment debate.
22WH
I shall detail some of the points that my fellow commuters and others made. Some matters will require substantial investment. Others require a different attitude or better staff training. I welcome the fact that Connex has established a college of environment and transport, as it is clear that some problems are the result of a lack of training or awareness.
Another common theme is anxiety about communication. On Friday, I drove to one of my local stations, Carshalton, to find that my train had been cancelled. I spoke to the person in the ticket office, who advised me that a train that I could catch instead would leave shortly from Carshalton Beeches—a station on a different line. When I arrived there, I found that that train had been cancelled. The person in the ticket office told me that staff there were not informed about cancellations on other lines. It is hard to believe that employees of the same company, working in ticket offices just a mile apart, do not know about cancellations on other lines run by their company. That communication problem seems relatively easy to solve.
The electronic displays are definitely an improvement, which I welcome, but they must be supplemented by verbal communication so that when information about a train disappears from the display because it has been cancelled, as occasionally happens, passengers are told what has happened and why. At the moment, information about the train appears until the last moment and then disappears, to be replaced by information about the next train, which is due to arrive in 15 or 20 minutes'time. The display must provide real-time information. Connex is working on that—the sooner it manages to resolve the problem, the better.
I have received many complaints about late-running trains. This morning I raised with a commuter, Mr. Williamson, the unwillingness of train operating companies to pay compensation for delayed journeys and consequent loss. Mr. Williamson is a professional musician who has suffered consequential financial loss because of train delays. The train operator—not Connex in that instance—was not able to help. Reliability is also affected when trains run early. I have on several occasions arrived at the station dead on time to find the train that I was expecting to catch just pulling out of the station, 30 seconds early. Therefore reliability at both ends of the spectrum needs to be addressed.
Frequency is the major concern expressed in correspondence and is an area where results would have been significantly different had the survey been carried out a couple of weeks later. Since the drivers'overtime dispute, an adequate timetable has been replaced by a frustrating one. For commuters using stations such as Hackbridge, there are enormous gaps in the timetable at peak hours. In some cases, they have to switch to a slower line so that they can get a seat. I spoke a couple of days ago to someone who no longer commuted from Carshalton; he had had to change to Wallington, which is further away and involves a longer journey, because he wanted to guarantee getting a seat in the morning.
The cleanliness of trains is also frequently raised and the problem is all too visible. Trains are awash with fast-food packaging. One's feet stick to carriage floors because people have discarded their Coke cans, depositing the residue on the floor. I am afraid that those are the travelling conditions that people face daily.

23WH
What is the future according to Connex? It sets out its proposals in its document "20/20 Vision"; I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the content of that document. The future according to Govia is not yet ready for publication, which is disappointing as it will leave commuters—and Members of Parliament, for that matter—with little time in which to assess the viability of its bid. The Connex document contains many attractive propositions: immediate compensation of 50 per cent. of the ticket price if trains are delayed for more than 30 minutes and 100 per cent. if trains are delayed for more than an hour; replacement of the 600 slam-door carriages by 2003; and proposals to increase line capacity and speed up commuter trains. However, what the people who speak to me, and I as a commuter, want is an undertaking that services will improve. The mental leap required to imagine the service outlined in the document, compared with the present service, is too great.
Certain guarantees are needed. The first is that reliability, punctuality and cleanliness will improve and overcrowding decrease. Secondly, the service levels that customers enjoyed before the dispute will need to be restored. Thirdly, we will need a genuine metro-style service: one for which commuters can turn up and be reasonably certain that there will be another train in 10 or 15 minutes, so there is no mad rush to catch the next one on the timetable. Trains should not be bunched together. There is not much point in having four trains an hour if they arrive in pairs with a time delay of only five minutes between the two.
Fourthly, in the London borough of Sutton there is clearly a demand for more trains to run later on a Friday and Saturday night. At the moment, there is a desperate rush to catch the last train home when people have been out to see a show in central London or have been making good use of the facilities in Sutton town centre. We need a company with vision to deliver the services that we require.
Unless Connex and Govia can sign up to those four commitments, they will not be worthy of an extended franchise and the Secretary of State and the Strategic Rail Authority should reject their proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I offered Connex and Govia the opportunity to debate these issues in front of passengers and to a separate audience of businesses. I am pleased that both have accepted the invitation jointly, so passengers and businesses can directly compare the proposals on offer. My hon. Friend and I can assure Connex and Govia of a lively and well-informed audience at those meetings.
Rail privatisation was supposed to deliver rail services of quality with standards of customer care that were equal to those of the aviation industry. I am afraid that it has not done so. The franchise negotiations provide the last opportunity for train companies, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government to convince passengers that significant benefits will derive from the privatised railway industry. For the sake of millions of beleaguered commuters, I hope that they succeed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) obtained the permission of the initiator of the debate, the Minister and myself to participate.
12.11 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall be brief, but I wish to add a couple of points. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), to the Minister and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this timely and important debate.
As I listened to my hon. Friend describing his journey to London today, I wondered whether he was being protected or whether various Connex managers were being protected by him from many of their customers. Certainly, on the basis of the heated correspondence that I receive from my constituents, it is the management of Connex that needs protection. I am impressed by my hon. Friend's journey, and I look forward to experiencing a similar quality of service with the managing director and others on hand.
My hon. Friend has already described the glitzy presentation and vision that we have received from Connex, but we are still waiting for the more detailed vision of Govia to be published. From my personal experience and that of many of my constituents, since it secured its first franchise Connex has been long on promises but poor on performance and delivery. My constituents regularly experience cancellation of services, short-running trains, late-running trains and overcrowding. Only last year, Connex was fined substantially for running overcrowded trains. It is vital that the two companies competing for the franchise understand that my constituents do not want a regime of penalties: they want reliable services. My hon. Friend was right to set out the four tests that should be applied, among others, to the two bids.
I wish to dwell on two issues. One is about station maintenance and management. Over the past two years, I have experienced an appallingly unsatisfactory service from Connex regarding the upgrading and maintenance of two of the main stations Cheam—and Sutton—in myconstituency. After almost four years of to-ing, fro-ing and buck passing, we have at last seen work commence at Sutton station, which we hope will lead to a major improvement in accessibility for disabled people and improved facilities for the travelling public.
Understandably, local people faced considerable inconvenience as buildings around the station were knocked down. For months, hoardings were up but no action was taking place, despite senior management's claim that the project was on target for completion about now. In fact, the work will not be completed for many months to come.
Another project at Cheam station has not even started. On the up platform to London every day—and particularly on rainy days like today—a canopy, occupied by pigeons but with no glass or plastic in it, makes the experience of travelling to work sheer misery. I have received letter after letter promising me and my constituents that we will see much needed investment and that the canopy will be replaced—but it has not happened. Why not? My constituents do not understand how a company that cannot get some of the

25WH
basics right can seriously compete for another franchise. I hope that it will take that on board, and that the Minister will assure me that some of those concerns will be reflected back to Connex.
We have a franchise that is working at the moment, and we are in the bidding process. One would have thought that the company that is running the service would want to put on the best possible service to guarantee that it gets the franchise back again. This company, however, has adopted a novel tactic: it is running a worse service than hitherto. If, as a result, it loses the franchises, as many of my constituents feel that it should, what will happen in the interregnum when it is the caretaker for a service that it will pass on to another subsidiary of its parent company? Will Connex immediately pass it over? Will it continue to run the service and, as many of my constituents would see it, run it down still further? My constituents were promised that the service would get better through the franchising process, but it has got worse. I hope that the Minister will give us some words of assurance about that. Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to hearing the answers from both companies in due course.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the renewal of the Connex South Central franchise. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his assiduousness in collating and representing his constituents'concerns about these services. I welcome the news that Connex and Govia have agreed to debate such concerns with audiences of passengers and business people.
I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), especially about station maintenance and management, and intend to say a few words about the current worsening of the service provided by Connex as a result of a number of difficulties. I take a keen interest in this matter, both as the Minister with responsibility for transport in London and as the Member of Parliament for Streatham, whose three railway stations are served by Connex South Central trains. Indeed, the House will know how concerned I am about performance and service quality on the rail network. My mailbag shows all too well that passengers on Connex South Central services have first-hand experience of the frustrations caused by poor performance.
The latest performance figures rate Connex South Central in category C for overall performance, and the results of the first national passenger survey show that only 71 per cent. of Connex South Central's passengers were satisfied or very satisfied with their service. There is clearly considerable room for improvement. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam outlined his concerns about the current problems affecting Connex South Central's services. Over recent weeks, those services have been adversely affected by a dispute about working
26WH
hours that has led to some drivers refusing to work overtime and on rest days. Without overtime and rest-day working, Connex cannot deliver all the services in the advertised timetable. In order to mitigate the effects of the dispute, and to provide as much certainty to passengers as possible, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has agreed that Connex can operate an emergency timetable until the dispute is settled or the new drivers are fully trained.
Although the shadow SRA and I accept that the situation is not ideal, it is better for passengers to know in advance which services will run, so that they can plan their journeys and reduce delays to a minimum. The emergency timetable will not excuse Connex from its passengers charter commitments, under which it remains liable to compensate passengers for delayed or cancelled journeys.
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will be aware, the Connex South Central franchise was awarded in April 1996 to Connex Rail Ltd., a subsidiary of Vivendi SA, for a seven-year period that commenced on 26 May 1996. However, many considered those franchise contracts to be a potential obstacle to improvement. In view of that, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director last September, and asked him to deliver improvements through renegotiation of the franchise agreements.
When considering renegotiation requests, we ask the franchising director to give due weight to six commitments. First, he should consider current performance, customer services, innovation, investment and efficiency. Secondly, there must be new or earlier investment. Thirdly, better performance must be secured. Fourthly, there must be initiatives to promote integrated transport. Fifthly, we require a willingness to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services. Sixthly, value for the taxpayer must be obtained.
In November 1999, the franchising director announced that the Connex South Central franchise would be one of the first three to be considered for replacement. That franchise, the Great North Eastern Railway and the Chiltern franchises were chosen because they were thought to offer great potential for improvements and developments, which could be delivered in a relatively short time scale. On 14 March, the franchising director announced that Connex Rail and Govia, the current franchisee of Thameslink, had been shortlisted for negotiations for the Connex South Central franchise.
The franchising director will look for evidence that bidders are committed to a step-change improvement in service quality. In particular, he wants early achievement of high performance standards, including cleanliness of trains—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a point about that—as well as provision of information to passengers and demonstrable benefits to passengers throughout the door-to-door journey experience. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will expect the Govia and Connex bids to meet all necessary competitive criteria.
Mr. Brake: I am happy that the Minister has confirmed that the bids must be competitive, but could

27WH
he explain how the process will work? How will he ensure that Vivendi and Govia do not talk to each other behind the scenes?
Mr. Hill: That is the franchising director's task. We have total confidence that he will be aware of the links to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and we expect him to scrutinise the detail of the bids carefully. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
The franchising director has made it clear that proposals will need to be far more ambitious than Connex's initial submissions. Passengers will rightly look for signs that potential operators are serious about making improvements. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the contents of the proposals from Connex and Govia cannot be disclosed at the current stage of the franchise replacement process. However, we are determined that passengers should be given a say in their rail services. When considering proposals for franchise replacement, the franchising director will consult local authorities, passenger transport executives, rail users consultative committees, regional planning bodies and regional development agencies, among others. He will encourage rail users consultative committees to talk to a wide range of individuals and local groups, and conduct his own national passenger survey.
Anxiety has also been expressed about several weaknesses identified in current franchising agreements, which the franchising director will seek to rectify in the new contracts. He will try to strengthen requirements in several key respects: on performance, for example, there will be higher penalties and lower breach thresholds, with more robust operating plans for a consistently more reliable service.
Improvement is also needed to tackle overcrowding, which is a serious problem. There will be a new demand limit, which will reflect the capabilities of trains and infrastructure. It will be increased when capacity is increased as part of the replacement franchise agreement. There will also be regular surveys to show satisfaction ratings for each company, with penalties for those companies that fall below benchmark levels.
Passenger service requirements will be protected, and the present higher train mileage will be written into the replacement franchise agreement. The passengers charter will be revised every five years, with standards continually improving. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority will also aim to improve compensation for passengers. The new and improved passenger
28WH
performance measure will include all trains, every day. including weekends, with no allowances for void days, unlike the current passengers charter measurement.
Mr. Burstow: Can the Minr reassure us that there will no longer be an incentive to run short, and therefore overcrowded, trains so as to claim to have run a train?
Mr. Hill: We expect that phenomenon, with which I am familiar, to be avoided under the terms of the new franchise agreement.
The importance of safety cannot be overstressed. Franchisees will be under an obligation to produce plans continually to drive up standards and to develop transport integration. New rolling stock will need to include space for bicycles, which is always a matter of concern to Liberal Democrat Members.
The franchising director's objective is to replace the shorter franchises expiring by 2004 within about two years. However, it is important to remember that the franchising director is not committed to accepting Connex's proposal or any other. If an application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, expansion of network capacity, improvements for passengers and value for taxpayers'money. If applications fail to deliver those improvements, the franchising director may decide instead to allow the existing Connex South Central franchise to run its course until it expires in 2003. That would be the second-best solution, but it is preferable to agreeing to a new, longer franchise without having secured additional passenger benefits.
The franchising director has already shown that he is prepared to refuse an earlier bid from Connex for a franchise extension. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will recall that the Connex South Central franchise agreement incorporated a clause that gave Connex the option to bid for an extension of the franchise term from seven to 15 years, subject to the franchising director agreeing the terms of the extension with Connex and being satisfied that it represented value for money. In July 1998, the franchising director received and considered proposals from Connex. He concluded that they were not sufficient to justify extending the franchise and refused to extend it.
I trust that the hon. Gentlemen will be reassured that any decision on the replacement of the Connex South Central or any other franchise will be taken only after the most careful consideration of the benefits that replacement would bring, and after consultation with passengers and other interested parties. Only companies that guarantee better performance, more investment, expansion of network capacity, improvements for passengers and value for money for the taxpayer will succeed.

Manningham Mills
12.29 pm
Mr. Marsha Singh: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the regeneration of the magnificent, historic Manningham mills. It is a pleasure to have the debate under your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an equal pleasure that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) is the Minister who will respond to the debate. I assure him that if he gives me something today, the best wishes of my colleagues, my constituents and other citizens of Bradford will ensure that his career not only flies but soars. I am sure that he is far too sensible to fly too close to the sun if that happens, and will avoid the fate of Icarus.
The regeneration of Manningham mills is vital and urgent, because the fabric of the building is deteriorating day by day, and if nothing is done the point will come when the mills cannot be saved. Delay is a deadly enemy and may prove the mills'nemesis; I cannot stress that enough. We are near the point at which we will not be able to save the building, which would be a disaster not only for the mills but for Bradford and the pride of Bradford. It deserves to be, and must be, saved.
The mill was commissioned by Samuel Cunliffe Lister, Lord Masham, was built between 1871 and 1873 and is one of the most remarkable buildings not only in England, but in the world. The chimney is 249 ft high and dominates the Bradford skyline, as the mill once dominated Bradford's economic, social and political development. Its scale is immense, with 16 acres of floor space and a facade that is 1,050 ft long. I am not an expert on architecture, but I am informed that it is monumental, and that the style derives from the Italian renaissance, with an emphasis on proportion and symmetry, and has elements of the baroque that lend drama to the structure. Sounds wicked, innit?
The mill has a special historic significance to the Labour movement and the Labour party. In December 1890, Lister imposed wage cuts on his workers, which led to a bitter five-month strike. I want to quote a short account of the end of that strike, which will have a resonance for the modern Labour movement:
The strike was now gaining a stronger hold. By March 3rd the number of strikers totalled over 4,000 and production was brought to a standstill. On Thursday, March 26th, a procession through Bradford followed by a public meeting was attended by 20,000 people. Sympathy for the strikers was growing. A few days later, on Easter Monday, March 30th, crowds of similar numbers again gathered to protest.
The climax was near. It started on Sunday, April 12th, 1891. Drew approached Bradford's Chief Constable, the Mayor and the Town Clerk to advise them that the Bradford Trades Council had arranged for Ben Tillett, the leader of the London Docks Strike in 1889, to speak at St George's Hall. He requested permission to hold an overflow meeting on open space next to the Hall. The Watch Committee refused.
Nevertheless, the meetings went ahead. One of the speakers at the outdoor meeting was Haydn Saunders, a member of the Socialist League and a Walsall Councillor. He stood on a bench to address the crowd and was promptly arrested. He was taken to the police station and placed in the charge room but was not charged. It was apparent that the Watch Committee and the police were reluctant to have their actions discussed in court.
The following day, April 13th, things took a more serious turn. The Times carried this account of that Monday evening:
30WH
"As was feared, the disturbances which commenced yesterday afternoon became serious during the evening, so much so that throughout the whole of the night the town was one scene of disorder and uproar. The military had to be called out, and the Riot Act read by the Mayor, Mr E W Hammond."
So it was that, at 5 minutes past 9 o'clock that evening, 106 rank and file of the Durham Light Infantry arrived in the town centre from Bradford Moor, each having 40 rounds of ball cartridge.
They paraded the streets with bayonets drawn and charged the people in various directions. This proved ineffective and a baton charge by the police was deemed necessary. As a result of the evening's violence, many were injured and 10 men were arrested.
The strike began to change the course of the Labour movement. While it was going on, W. H. Drew was discussing with Fred Jowett and other colleagues how they could challenge the intervention of the police. Drew said:
Labour must take political action to gain control of the police force. It's the only way to protect the civil liberties of the working class and ensure a fair deal.
Although the strike failed, it was of immense significance: it led directly to the founding of the Independent Labour party on 13 January 1893. Among those present at the founding conference were George Bernard Shaw, Keir Hardie—the first socialist Member of Parliament—and Fred Jowett, who became a Minister in the 1924 Labour Government.
In addition to its historical impact on Bradford and the Labour movement, the mill's economic impact on Bradford was immense. At its height, it employed more than 7,000 workers. Many of Bradford's newer population started their working lives in the mill. They owe it a great debt. Sadly, the textile industry was hit by various recessions after the second world war and jobs were lost steadily.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has just said about this enormous landmark in Labour's history, once he has achieved his aim and that wonderful building is refurbished and brought back to life, could we have a plaque to commemorate the sterling work of those early pioneers of Labour's history, particularly in relation to the Manningham mill strike?
Mr. Singh: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will remember and perhaps propose at a later date. As I said, the textile industry was hit by various recessions and jobs were lost steadily. The recession of the 1980s hit the mill hard, and in 1997 Lister called in the administrators. Over the past two decades, various schemes have been proposed to rescue the mill and bring it back into use. Sadly, all the schemes have proved entirely worthless.
However, in 1996, local people formed the Manningham Mills Community Association, and through their efforts part of the mill has been rescued for community use. They also launched an intensive consultation exercise, and in October 1998, the community association launched its plan, entitled "Community Regeneration and Manningham Mills".
Things have moved on since then. In December 1999, a trust and a shadow board consisting of effective and able people were formed. I had the pleasure of chairing the meeting and launching that shadow board. It is hoped that the trust board will be formalised in

31WH
September. In addition, a business plan has been drawn up—which I have seen—that shows that the mill can become self-financing. Both the private and public sectors have shown considerable interest in using the mill. However, the real problem preventing that interest from being realised is the state of the building, which is in a rapid process of deterioration. A lot of essential work needs to be carried out to make the mill safe for use and to weatherproof it. Until that has been done, none of the interest expressed in using the mill will come to fruition.
My local paper had an editorial—it seems to have gone walkies for the time being—that emphasised the point that the mill is suffering from all kinds of dilapidation, and we must deal with that soon. The cost of making the mill weatherproof and safe for use is estimated at about £3.5 million. We have been negotiating with Yorkshire Forward, the local regional development agency, which has taken over the grant-making role and responsibility for such work from English Partnerships.
Yorkshire Forward has been cautious, but encouraging. I understand its caution, because £3.5 million is a large amount of public money. It wants either the council or the private sector to take ownership of the mill. It has yet to accept that the trust is the most appropriate body to take the mills forward. The council has been positive but does not want long-term ownership of the mills. I understand and support the council's position. It should have a facilitating and enabling role.
Making the mills viable would pose enormous problems for the council, which would have difficulty raising funds from other sources. That is precisely where the trust would be the more appropriate body. As for the private sector, no one has yet made a realistic proposal for the purchase of the mills. There has been, and is, a great deal of interest in making commercial use of the mills, but not in taking ownership and responsibility, on account of the amount of money and work needed simply to make them weatherproof and safe for use.
A private partner can be found, but the money is needed first. No one seems able to resolve that chicken and egg problem. We hope that the debate will help. The logjam needs to be broken, because it is leading to inordinate and damaging delay. Each day of delay leads to further deterioration. If it is decided later that the mills need to be saved, the cost will be even greater, because the time will soon come when it will not be physically, practically possible to save these magnificent mills.
No one denies that £3.5 million is a great deal of money. However, we ask for a hand up, not a handout. Perhaps it is a bit of a handout, but I stress again to my hon. Friend the Minister that it will be a hand up, and that if we are given the money we can save the mills. I make a pledge: given the interest already shown by the public and private sectors, the vigour of the trust board members and the sheer will and energy of the people of Bradford, if we are given the money we will make the mills financially viable. I ask my hon. Friend to break the logjam immediately. Let us stop the delay, and, literally, the rot, and get on with the task of regenerating Manningham mills.
32WH
We need a positive, proactive approach and we need to take decisions urgently. My plea today is even stronger because Bradford has lost its assisted area status. Therefore, a ministerial statement is even more important for the regeneration of the local economy in my constituency and in Bradford generally. Today's business plan shows that the regeneration of Manningham mills is commercially viable. We can make a success of it.
Regeneration of the mills would benefit the local community and my constituency, and would be a major step in Bradford's regeneration. It would be a clear signal that Bradford is moving forward economically and looking to the future. The city is bidding to be the European capital of culture in 2008—something that I warmly welcome and wholeheartedly support. The mills could become a major focus of cultural activity in the district. They are an architectural and cultural achievement, a monument that encapsulates the reason for Bradford's existence and reflects the historical changes there in the past 160 years.
The mills rank as one of the greatest achievements of Victorian industrial architecture, challenged perhaps only by the Albert docks in Liverpool. They are probably the finest textile mills that have ever been built. Although their roots are in the past, their biggest impact could yet be in the future. Will my hon. Friend the Minister help me to save the past and safeguard the future?
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) for raising the important issue of the regeneration of Manningham mills in Bradford. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues that he raised. I reassure him, as I do my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), whom, I am glad to see in the Chamber, that—notwithstanding my London links—nowhere could be closer to my heart than the great city of Bradford. We have already been reminded of the historic associations of outstanding Labour party figures from Bradford and London.
It is important that, when appropriate, we make best use of the marvellous buildings that form a key part of our industrial heritage. West Yorkshire—and Bradford in particular—has some fine examples of redundant mill buildings that have had new life breathed into them. Examples of successful conversions that readily spring to mind are Dean Clough mills in Halifax, Salts mill at Saltaire, the old wool merchant buildings in Little Germany near Bradford city centre and Carlisle mills in Manningham, which is a thriving business centre. I understand that, in another part of Bradford, at Little Horton, the old Douglas mill is being looked at in the context of the new deal for communities programme. More generally, Bradford's rich and diverse social and built environment is a key strength that can help to revitalise the district and bring back the prosperity of its Victorian heyday.
I am keenly aware of the history and grandeur of the Manningham mills grade II star listed mill complex and of its prominent location in the city. As it has dominated

33WH
and graced the skyline of Bradford for more than 125 years, I fully understand why the Manningham Mills Community Association wishes to protect and promote its use. I am also aware of the report and proposals for the use of the mills that the association published in March last year.
Although the community association's report paints a vivid picture of the massive challenge in successfully regenerating the complex, it is evident that the association is bringing significant local commitment and enthusiasm to the search for new uses for the mills that can sustain their life in the millennium. I am impressed by fact that the community achieved, via a 72-hour challenge in 1997, a complete voluntary makeover of the ground floor space of the south mill. The association is also active in ensuring that local people have a say in the plans to develop the mills and that the building is kept on the agenda for local policy makers and the media.
Although Manningham mills are an important focus of the local community, I am pleased that much good work is being done in the wider area around the mills by the Manningham and Girlington regeneration partnership. The partnership is currently delivering a seven-year scheme, which has attracted nearly £10 million from single regeneration budget funding to revitalise the area. The current financial year is the third year of the programme. It is expected to be matched by £12 million of public and private sector leverage. We welcome that level of financial input.
The programme will play a vital role in regenerating the area surrounding the mills. It has a challenging agenda, aiming to raise the level of education attained by the area's young people, which, in some cases, is less than half the national average, and to reduce by half the level of unemployment among young people, which is currently 30 per cent. Achieving those aims will be crucial to revitalising not only the Manningham area, but Bradford as a whole.
A key strength of the Manningham and Girlington regeneration partnership is the way in which it puts young people at the heart of the scheme and engages their active involvement. A youth partnership has been established; it has four places on the main partnership board and has real responsibilities for funding and programme management. Projects include community policing, help for young drug users, and new training and work experience opportunities for the young employed, including customised modern apprenticeship schemes in construction and health service occupations. I am sure that those projects and others like them will go a long way to tackle the problems facing the neighbourhood.
The Manningham mills complex is split into two distinct parts: the south mill and the north mill. The north mill has a variety of uses already and is not part of the current discussion. However, the south mill has been vacant for many years and various proposals have been made for its development, all of which have proved unsuccessful, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West pointed out.
Most proposals made for regenerating the south mill in the past have been instigated by the private sector. However, because of the complex's sheer size—38,000 sq m—and the extent of its dilapidation, the private sector has been unable to raise the necessary finance and
34WH
the proposals have failed. If local regeneration is to work, it is essential that the private sector is fully involved and committed as an active partner. Construction firms can target local people for training and jobs and, if the Manningham mills complex is to succeed, I would like to see a focus on local labour and supply chains. Banks, and agencies such as the Prince's Youth Business Trust, can help people with self-employment. Digging into the potential of the community brings out great entrepreneurial spirit, which can spark ideas to breathe new life into community facilities.
Perhaps one of the greatest impediments to regenerating the mill complex is the scale of the initial works required to arrest the deterioration of the property and to make it wind and watertight. Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency for Yorkshire and the Humber, and Bradford council have agreed that an attempt should be made to bring the complex into public ownership, to carry out works to arrest further deterioration and to create a development platform that could be offered on the market as a development opportunity. The necessary initial works—making the complex more attractive to the private sector—will require investment of about £3 million. By any measure, that is a substantial public investment.
To facilitate the process, the council would acquire the building from the administrator and carry out the necessary works to create the development of opportunity, with the assistance of 100 per cent. funding from Yorkshire Forward. The council and Yorkshire Forward have worked together for some time on the scheme. Various preliminary works have been completed, including a full structural survey of the buildings and a site investigation. A report has been completed outlining the works required, which include selective demolition to improve circulating space, new roofing to some of the better parts of the building, temporary roofing elsewhere, re-glazing and drainage repairs.
Mr. Singh: Most of what my hon. Friend says is true—the money is there—but the problem is that Bradford council does not want permanent, long-term ownership of the mills. We feel that the trust would be best placed to take over such ownership. That is a sticking point.
Mr. Hill: I assure my hon. Friend that I propose to talk about the trust in due course if I have time.
In tandem with essential work, Yorkshire Forward is co-ordinating a targeted marketing exercise to identify a developer or end user who would be prepared to formally commit to the continuing regeneration of the whole complex or a substantial part of it. Consultants hope to advertise in journals over the next month. Identifying a developer or end user must be an integral part of justifying major public investment. Putting £3 million into the complex, for it then to remain vacant and fall into disrepair again, would not provide the longterm sustainable future for the mills that we all want them to have. Also, testing the market's response would help to suggest any additional public funding that may be required to complete the complex's regeneration.

35WH
I am aware of the strong local feeling that the complex should not be allowed to deteriorate further; my hon. Friend expressed that eloquently. The concern is that regeneration should take place as soon as possible. However—very important—Yorkshire Forward has a public duty to ensure that it makes the most efficient and sustainable use of the public resources awarded to it. Alongside that, I understand that the recently launched Manningham Mills Trust, with which my hon. Friend is so closely involved, is finalising a business plan for regenerating the complex, albeit with the intention of calling on Yorkshire Forward to contribute the necessary funding for the plan. Yorkshire Forward has great respect for the trust and will give serious consideration to its proposals when they are finalised.
At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was pleased to receive Yorkshire Forward's regional economic strategy to bring about such regeneration over the next 10 years. In that context, Bradford is facing particular challenges and opportunities and Yorkshire Forward is working in partnership with the city council and the private sector to inject confidence and investment into the city centre. Development proposals include assisting with site assembly and infrastructure works associated with the redevelopment and expansion of the retail area, and assisting with the mixed-use redevelopment of the Little Germany area of the city centre through site and building purchase and assembly. A new company, the Little Germany Urban Village Company Ltd., has recently been set up with the assistance of Yorkshire
36WH
Forward to drive forward and oversee the regeneration of the area. Investing in the city centre and working closely with the single regeneration budget and other programmes is one way of ensuring that deprived local communities adjacent to the city, such as Manningham, have wider access to education and training initiatives.
In conclusion, I fully appreciate the issues raised by the regeneration of Manningham mills, in particular the need to harness the powerful presence of the mills, to find a committed developer and end user and—most important—to achieve all that by putting together a sustainable funding package. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are putting in place a range of policies to assist in the achievement of those aims as well as the economic recovery of the area.
The wider partnership in which the private sector is fully involved must be in the driving seat, with the aim of finding an acceptable and sustainable solution. I welcome the work that Yorkshire Forward, together with the city council, is carrying out to determine how that can best be achieved. The regional development agencies are already strengthening the power of the regions to become economic powerhouses in their own right. We need to get people off benefits and into work so that they can make a lasting contribution to their communities. We must constantly ensure that our programmes remain relevant to local needs and continue to create a real and lasting impact.
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising this important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Solicitor-General when he expects the Law Officers' Department's departmental report to be published. [118810]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that copies of the departmental report have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

  John Howes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reason Mr. John Howes of the Treasury Solicitor's staff visited the Law Society building on 2 December 1999; and with whom he had contact. [118288]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 2 December 1999, Mr. John Howes, a member of the Treasury Solicitor's staff, visited the Law Society's headquarters in Chancery Lane for the purpose of having lunch with an administrator in a client department, the Office of Fair Trading, on whose behalf he had conduct of a case. He had attended the High Court for an interlocutory hearing in that case with the administrator in the morning. In the afternoon he was to attend a meeting in the offices of the Office of Fair Trading in Chancery House, Chancery Lane. Mr. Howes had no other purpose in visiting the Law Society on that date.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what annual contribution Britain has made to aid for Sri Lanka since 1964. [117674]

  Clare Short
  Bilateral expenditure from the UK is given in the table. The UK also assists Sri Lanka through its contributions to multilateral organisations such as the World bank and the EC.

  Bilateral gross public expenditure on aid to Sri Lanka

  Year

  £000

  1964

  741

  1965

  287

  1966

  2,764

  1967

  4,492

  1968

  4,030

  1969

  4,543

  1970

  4,543

  1971

  5,974

  1972

  3,677

  1973

  2,092

  1974

  1,559

  1975

  2,711

  82W

  Bilateral gross public expenditure on aid to Sri Lanka

  Year

  £000

  1976

  5,455

  1977

  3,989

  1978

  8,318

  1979

  12,242

  1980

  31,492

  1981

  26,272

  1982

  33,287

  1983

  29,461

  1984

  26,203

  1985

  17,316

  1986

  15,981

  19871

  18,690

  1987–881

  23,181

  1988–89

  25,465

  1989–90

  17,362

  1990–91

  18,646

  1991–92

  12,450

  1992–93

  16,616

  1993–94

  12,875

  1994–95

  11,856

  1995–96

  15,181

  1996–97

  19,937

  1997–98

  11,553

  1998–99

  7,831

  1 Aid statistics have been presented on a financial year basis since 1992. In order to give complete coverage, figures for both calendar year 1987 and financial year 1987–88 have been included. The series cannot therefore be summed as this will involve double counting data for the final three quarters of 1997.

  Source:

  British Aid Statistics and Statistics on International Development

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in her Department for each financial year since 1992. [117468]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) has not purchased any works of art. The 13 works of art on display in DFID are on loan from the Government Art Collection, who are responsible for the upkeep of the items.

  In 1993–94 the Overseas Development Administration purchased two Howard Hodgkin limited edition lithographs at a total cost of £22,938, including framing and dealer's commission. These prints were purchased with the intention of presenting them to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to mark the opening of the new bank building in London. It was, however, subsequently agreed that these lithographs should be loaned to the Government Art Collection and they are at present on display in the DFID London office.

  Burma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her international colleagues concerning humanitarian aid to Burma via non-governmental organisations. [117608]

  Clare Short
  My Department is working to promote a more coherent and consistent approach by the international community. This issue is a central element of this Government's discussions with their international partners about policy towards Burma.
  83W
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made concerning the transmission of hydroelectric power produced in Karenni state to Rangoon. [117290]

  Clare Short
  My Department has made no representations on the issue of transmission of hydroelectric power in Burma.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent negotiations her Department has had with the State Peace and Development Council in Burma concerning the operations of non-governmental organisations in(a) Karenni state and (b) Shan state. [117289]

  Clare Short
  My Department has no dealings with the State Peace and Development Council. But the Government have urged that non-governmental organisations should be allowed unrestricted access within Burma.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the extent to which humanitarian aid has reached the minority tribes of Burma. [117287]

  Clare Short
  United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations report regularly on their activities. Projects implemented at community or village level, avoiding Burmese official channels, generally benefit the poor and disadvantaged, as is intended.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent humanitarian assistance her Department has given via non-governmental bodies in Burma. [117286]

  Clare Short
  The challenge for the international development community is to help poor people in Burma without helping the government that is largely responsible for keeping them poor. We are attempting to work with others to improve the livelihoods of poor and socially excluded people inside, and who have fled from, Burma; provide support to and build the capacity of civil society; reduce human rights abuses; and contribute to tackling serious threats to public health to poor people inside and adjacent to Burma. We shall publish a Country Strategy Paper shortly.

  Four projects are currently being implemented by NGOs financed from the Civil Society Challenge Fund, or the Joint Funding Scheme which it replaced:

  Population Services International

  Condom Social Marketing to improve reproductive health £498,197.

  To increase the availability of condoms. To increase the acceptability of condoms. To increased local capacity to prevent A I DS/HIV/STDs.

  World Vision

  Street and Working Children £451,224

  To improve the status and quality of life among children.

  World Vision

  Community based disability, prevention and rehabilitation £94,045

  To improve the well being, status and opportunities of disabled people within their own communities and at the national level.

  84W
  Health Unlimited

  A basic health care programme, Kachin State £250,000

  Establish a basic primary health care service that covers 100.000 people in that part of Burma controlled by the Kachin Independence Organisation.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many lawyers are employed by her Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117809]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not employ any lawyers to act on behalf of the Department. We buy in legal services from the Scottish Executive and Treasury Solicitors to meet our requirements.

  In the implementation of its overseas development assistance programme, DFID employs contract staff to provide legal advisory and executive functions to overseas governments. DFID currently employs eight lawyers on this basis as compared with 21 in 1995.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Utilities Bill
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2000,Official Report, column 839W, on the Utilities Bill, if the officials of his Department who met the Other Licensed Operators group on 15 February to discuss the Utilities Bill included secondees to his Department from commercial companies. [115770]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 March 2000]: A secondee from the law firm Simmons and Simmons was present at the OLO group meeting on 15 February. All secondees are covered by arrangements to avoid conflicts of interest.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the complete sites for car manufacturing at(a) Longbridge, (b) Dagenham and (c) Cowley are covered by the EU Objective 2 map. [118085]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: Most of the Longbridge site and all of the Dagenham site are included in the new Objective 2 European Structural Fund map. The Cowley site is not included in the map.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason Worcestershire has not been given Objective 2 status. [118699]

  Mr. Caborn
  Worcestershire did not meet the criteria set out in "The UK Government's proposals for new Objective 2 funding" (URN99/1021). Consequently only a few wards in the county have been included in the Objective 2 map. Those wards were included to make up contiguous areas of sufficient size, as required by the European Commission.

  Nissan Renault
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Nissan Renault about the location of the production line of the new Micra; and when he expects a decision on its location to be made. [117876]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are working closely with the company over their future investment plans for its Sunderland plant. We are committed to working with the company to build on its current position as the most productive plant in Europe and encourage its further development. Decisions on the timing and location of investment in new models are a commercial matter for the company.

  Shropshire—primary and secondary schools opened and closed since 1983

  Date of closure

  School

  Successor schools

  31 August 1983

  Nant Mawr Primary

  —

  31 August 1983

  Monkhopton CE Aided Primary

  —

  31 August 1984

  Richards Castle Count Primary

  —

  31 August 1984

  Morton CE Controlled Primary

  Pant Bryn Offa

  31 August 1984

  Porthywaen CE Controlled Primary

  31 August 1984

  Llanymynech CE Controlled Primary

  31 August 1984

  Marton CE Controlled Primary

  —

  31 August 1985

  Hook-a-Gate CE Primary

  —

  31 August 1985

  Chapel Lawn CE Controlled Primary

  —

  31 July 1987

  Apley Park Secondary

  —

  31 December 1987

  Teagues Bridge Junior School

  Teagues Bridge Primary School

  31 December 1987

  Teagues Bridge Infant School

  31 August 1988

  Coton Mount Infant School

  Greenfields

  31 August 1988

  Lancastrian County Primary School

  Martin Wilson

  31 August 1988

  St. Michael's Street County Primary School

  31 August 1988

  Acton Burnell Primary School

  —

  31 August 1988

  Ightfield C of E School

  —

  31 August 1988

  Fitzalan School

  The Marches

  31 August 1988

  Croeswylan-Oswestry School

  31 August 1989

  Lyneal C of E (Controlled) Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Stirchley Country Middle School

  Stirchley County Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Brookside Middle School

  Brookside County Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Hollinswood County Middle School

  Hollinswood Junior School

  31 August 1989

  Hollinswood First

  Hollinswood Infant School

  31 August 1989

  Brindleyford First

  Brindleyford Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Holmer Lake First

  Holmer Lake Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Randlay First

  Randley Primary School

  31 August 1989

  Stirchley First

  Stirchley Primary School

  31 August 1991

  Bayston Hill County Infant School

  Bayston Hill Longmeadows Primary

  31 August 1991

  Bayston Hill C of E Junior School

  31 August 1991

  Hopesay Parochial Primary School

  —

  31 August 1991

  St. Laurence's C of E Infant School

  St. Laurence's CE (VC) Primary

  31 August 1991

  Stockton Norton C of E Primary School

  —

  31 August 1992

  Ellerdine County Primary School

  —

  31 August 1992

  Rodington C of E Primary School

  —

  31 August 1992

  St. Peter's C of E Primary School (Wrockwardine)

  St. Peter's CE P Bratton

  31 August 1993

  Coreley C of E Primary School

  —

  31 August 1994

  The Down Primary School

  Brown Clee

  31 August 1994

  Ditton Priors C of E Primary School

  31 August 1994

  Burwarton C of E Primary School

  31 August 1994

  Berrington C of E Primary School

  —

  31 August 1994

  The John Hunt School

  The Sutherland

  31 August 1994

  The Manor School

  1 September 1996

  Ford C of E Primary School

  Trinity

  1 September 1996

  Wattlesborough C of E Primary School

  1 September 1996

  Yockleton C of E Primary School

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Shropshire)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by parliamentary constituency(a) the primary schools and (b) the secondary schools in Shropshire which (i) closed and (ii) opened in the periods (A) 1979 to 1997 and (B) since May 1997. [118527]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since 1983, the earliest year for which we have information available, the primary and secondary schools which have closed and opened in Shropshire (excluding special schools) are as listed. Some schools have closed to reopen as an amalgamated school; some have closed to facilitate a change in age range. It is not possible, from the data available, to provide this information by parliamentary constituencies.
  87W

  New schools opened

  Implementation date

  School name

  1 September 1988

  New Secondary School—following amalgamation of Croeswylan and Fitzalan Secondary Schools

  1 January 1989

  Radbrook County Primary

  1 September 1990

  New Primary School—following amalgamation of Ludlow St. Laurence Infant and Junior Schools

  1 September 1991

  Establish new VC primary school

  1 September 1992

  Establish new St. Peter's Bratton VC Primary School

  29 July 1994

  New primary school—following amalgamation of Yockleton and Wattleborough CE Primary School

  27 April 1998

  Redhill Primary School

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the proportion of the Standards Fund available for the year ending 31 March that will be claimed; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for under-claiming. [118236]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: The full Standards Fund claim by local education authorities for the year ending 31 March 2000 will not be known until later in the year. Authorities' final claims follow from audited, closed accounts for 1999–2000.

  Internet Services (Concessionary Pricing)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his Department's policy is on concessionary pricing for access for older people to computer training and internet services. [118396]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department for Education and Employment is committed to learning later in life and to widening access to ICT skills and the internet. We have provided £252 million through the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF) to set up Information, Communications Technologies (ICT) Learning Centres which will provide access to ICT including learning materials, the internet and e-mail. One of the key client groups for this initiative is older people and we currently have an early pilot project with Age Concern, Waltham Forest, London, which provides free ICT access and training to people over 50. The project also provides outreach for those who are housebound or in residential care homes.

  In addition, the Government are also about to launch the ICT for Employability Initiative which commits £25 million to providing 50,000 courses for people who are in receipt of benefits and have no recent ICT experience. We are also making £15 million available for a scheme—`Computers Within Reach'—to pilot arrangements for those who cannot afford new computers to acquire reconditioned computers. Older learners, including those on the recently launched New Deal 50-plus, who are eligible can receive support under these programmes.

  Schools (Volunteer Assistants)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for the vetting of volunteer assistants helping in schools. [118737]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Existing arrangements provide for volunteers working in schools who have regular contact with pupils to be checked against my Department's list of people who are barred from such employment (List 99)88W
  and schools must not use the services of anyone who is barred. If a volunteer working in a school will have substantial unsupervised access to pupils on a regular basis the school should also arrange a criminal record check on the person.

  There are no new proposals aimed specifically at volunteer assistants working in schools. However, officials in my Department are working closely with their counterparts in other Departments on a number of measures aimed at improving protection for children from unsuitable people. In particular, the implementation of the new arrangements for criminal record checks set out in Part V of the Police Act 1997, the provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1999, and the proposals in Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. Those measures will apply to volunteers who work with children as well as paid staff.

  Special Needs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the budget for 2000–01 for training teachers in special educational needs. [118556]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: Under the Standards Fund for 2000–01, the Department is supporting expenditure to a total of £26 million to provide in-service training in special educational needs. The Teacher Training Agency is also providing £21 million per year in support of in-service courses, and SEN is a priority within this. In addition, the School Improvement Grant for 2000–01 of £290.5 million can be used to support training teachers in special educational needs.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are being trained to provide for teaching children with special educational needs, broken down by area of specialism. [118557]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: All teachers, as part of their initial teacher training, are trained to deal with special educational needs and must meet the standards set in order to gain qualified teacher status. In addition, special educational needs feature in induction standards, which all teachers must meet at the end of their induction year in order to be able to teach.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average time given to SEN training in(a) PGCE and (b) BEd courses. [118558]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: This information is not collected centrally. In order to secure qualified teacher status (QTS), students must be able to demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs, know where to go to get help in order to give positive and targeted support and are familiar with

  89W
  the requirements of the Code of Practice on identification and assessment of SEN, including requirements with regard to the keeping of pupils' records.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure the viability of primary schools with small rolls. [118662]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The viability of a school may depend on a range of factors and differ according to the particular situation in the area. It is for the local education authority to plan the provision of places in order to maximise parental preference and ensure good-quality education cost-effectively. Local education authorities have freedom in the budgets they delegate to schools to recognise the additional unit costs of small schools. We are establishing a Small School Support Fund from September to enable small schools to pilot innovative approaches to joint working and other forms of collaboration, and funds are being made available over 1999–2001 to provide more administrative support staff in small schools. There is also a presumption against the closure of schools in rural areas, where access to alternative provision may be more difficult.

  Leeds LEA
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times his Department's officials have met headteachers in Leeds(a) since the publication of the Ofsted Inspection report on the local education authority and (b) since the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as consultants on future structures. [118547]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As part of its policy outreach function, DfEE's Standards and Effectiveness Unit (SEU) has an adviser with responsibility for maintaining contact with Leeds LEA. The Education Adviser meets headteachers in a range of circumstances, from one-to-one discussions to larger group meetings. In the period between the publication of Ofsted's report and the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers four such meetings took place, involving 12 headteachers. To date, since the appointment of PwC, 13 such meetings have taken place, involving 53 headteachers. In addition, following the publication of Ofsted's report, Professor Michael Barber, Head of SEU, and I met a larger group of Leeds heads—approximately 200 in number—to explain DfEE's objectives for Leeds and to hear their views. Subsequently, following PwC's appointment I met five heads on a school visit and Professor Barber has met a group of 45 heads—following up discussion at our earlier meeting.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times his Department's officials met PricewaterhouseCoopers staff since their appointment as consultants following the publication of the Ofsted report on Leeds LEA; and for what purpose. [118546]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  DfEE officials meet on a regular basis with individuals and groups from PricewaterhouseCoopers—including those currently involved in various ways in the Leeds consultancy—and 90W
  for a range of reasons. These include bidding for intervention consultancy; feedback on such bids; development of framework contracts for intervention work; the discussion of current consultancy loads; and availability for further work.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring procedures he will apply to ensure the objectivity of the work of the consultants appointed as a result of the Ofsted report on Leeds local education authority. [118545]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) are working to a brief agreed jointly by Leeds LEA and DfEE. PwC report progress against that brief fortnightly to a project steering group. The project steering group comprises DfEE officials and Leeds LEA officers and is chaired in rotation.

  Remploy 21
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has regarding(a) grant levels, (b) Government procurement policies and (c) employment service policies to support the new Remploy 21 proposals. [117604]

  Ms Hodge
  There are no plans to increase Remploy's grant at present. However, Remploy has received an additional £1.5 million, both this year and last, to modernise its factories and to improve progressions to mainstream employment, and a similar amount will be available in 2001–02.

  If Remploy wishes to ask for further money to support the implementation of Remploy 21 then I will consider its request.

  The Government cannot change their procurement policies, which comply with EC regulations. Remploy 21 is an internal plan for the strategic development of the Company. The Employment Service is working closely with Remploy to deliver the Remploy 21 strategy.

  Schools (Somerset and Yeovil)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many temporary classrooms there are in schools in(a) Somerset and (b) the Yeovil constituency; and if he will make a statement. [118640]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  While temporary classrooms perform a useful function in many schools, we are concerned about the length of time some units have been in use. That is why a substantial element of the latest round of the New Deal for Schools programme, which is being announced today, is being targeted at replacing with permanent accommodation those temporary classrooms which are in the poorest condition. Around £150 million is being allocated to support the removal of some 1,500 temporary classrooms.

  Local Authority Child Care
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government
  91W
  have to change legislation to enable local authorities to charge recipients of Working Families Tax Credit for the child care they provide. [118893]

  Ms Hodge
  Local authorities are currently unable to pass on any of the costs of the child care they provide to parents who receive Working Families Tax Credit or Disabled Person's Tax Credit. Some of these families have sufficient incomes but nevertheless have their child care provided free of charge. We will be introducing an amendment to the Local Government Bill which will allow local authorities to charge for the child care they provide, but will still require them to exempt parents of children in need.

DEFENCE

  Armoured Regiments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in re-roling an armoured regiment into a joint nuclear, biological and chemical weapons regiment; and if he will make a statement. [117490]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (JNBC) Regiment was established on 1 April 1999. It includes the majority of personnel from 1st Royal Tank Regiment who re-roled on return from Germany in summer 1999. However, one squadron and the Reconnaissance Troop from lst Royal Tank Regiment continue to provide the Armoured Demonstration Squadron element of the Combined Arms Training Centre at Warminster. The JNBC Regiment conducted a series of exercises towards the end of 1999 and declared that it had reached its Initial Operating Capability at the end of December.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in restructuring the armoured regiments; and if he will make a statement. [117488]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The new establishments have been agreed and the additional fourth squadrons will be formed by 2002.

  AS90 Regiment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the creation of the sixth AS90 regiment; and if he will make a statement. [117497]

  Regiment

  Trained strength

  UKTAP1 liability

  Location

  1 SG (Scots Guards)

  555

  620

  Ballykinler

  F COY SG (Scots Guards)

  120

  108

  London

  1 RS (Royal Scots)

  493

  620

  Colchester

  1 RHF (Royal Highland Fusiliers)

  626

  670

  Fallingbostel

  1 KOSB (Kings Own Scottish Borderers)

  563

  620

  Cyprus

  1 BW (Black Watch)

  516

  620

  Fort George

  1 HLDRS (The Highlanders)

  515

  667

  Catterick

  1 A&SH (Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders)

  608

  620

  Edinburgh

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  432

  511

  Fallingbostel

  1 The figures are for UK trained army personnel only, and exclude locally employed personnel, Royal Irish (Home Service) personnel, full time reserve service personnel, and Gurkhas.

  92W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: 19 Regiment Royal Artillery completed its conversion to AS90 by 19 November last year. It is currently in Colchester, with two batteries, and the current plan is that it will move to Larkhill in 2003–04 when two further batteries currently in Germany will bring the Regiment up to full strength.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Challenger II tanks are in Kosovo; and how many miles they have covered. [117485]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The UK has 16 Challenger II tanks deployed in Kosovo. Up to 26 March, they had covered some 3,631 kilometres since first deploying on 8 February this year.

  Infantry Battalions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the reconfiguring of infantry battalions to form a third mechanised brigade; and if he will make a statement. [117496]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The two infantry battalions equipped with Saxon vehicles will become part of 12 Mechanised Brigade in April this year, with the armoured infantry battalion joining in August this year.

  5 Airborne Brigade
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in converting the 5 Airborne Brigade into a mechanised brigade; and if he will make a statement. [117493]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The headquarters of 12 Mechanised Brigade was operational by the end of December 1999 and it has already taken its armoured regiment under command. The two battalions equipped with Saxon vehicles are joining the Brigade in April this year and the armoured infantry battalion joins in August this year.

  Scottish Regiments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) establishment strength, (b) actual strength and (c) bases of all Scottish regiments. [117666]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 April 2000]: The current UK trained strength, the establishment strength and location of each Scottish regiment, as at 1 March 2000, are shown in the table.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many refits the three Invincible Class carriers will have before they leave service; and if he will estimate the cost of each refit. [118266]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Ark Royal is currently undergoing refit at Rosyth. On current plans for the introduction of replacement carriers, there will be a further two refits of Invincible Class carriers.

  The cost of the refits will depend on the scope of work to be undertaken, for which planning work has only recently commenced. The refit of Ark Royal is due to complete in late 2001 at a planned cost of about £116 million, subject to any additional unforeseen work.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the operating cost of each of the Invincible Class carriers in each of the past three years. [118267]

  Mr. Spellar
  The operating costs of Invincible Class carriers, over the last three financial years, were in the order of:

  £ million

  HMS Invincible

  HMS Illustrious

  HMS Ark Royal

  1997–98

  46.9

  35.8

  3.8

  1998–99

  41.5

  42.4

  5.0

  1999–2000

  51.8

  37.5

  63.8

  Number of compulsory drugs test results (January 1995 to March 2000)

  RN

  Class of drug Army

  RAF

  A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  A

  B

  C

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  11

  118

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  15

  281

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1997

  0

  14

  0

  35

  483

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  3

  12

  0

  40

  401

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1999

  5

  28

  0

  107

  364

  14

  2

  8

  0

  20001

  4

  6

  0

  37

  100

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1 To date

  Note:

  It should be noted that some individuals have tested positive for more than one type of drug.

  Numbers of personnel subsequently administratively discharged

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  1995

  —

  104

  —

  1996

  —

  178

  —

  1997

  13

  426

  —

  1998

  13

  336

  1

  1999

  30

  255

  7

  20001

  9

  111

  1

  1 To date

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Welsh Committee Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much was spent in the last year for which figures are available on(a) the Welsh Grand Committee and (b) the Welsh Affairs Committee. [117821]
  94W
  These costs include manpower, fuel, port and harbour dues, maintenance and maintenance stores and, in the case of HMS Ark Royal, refit costs, but not the cost of the Air Group when embarked. HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious have each undergone extended docking/maintenance periods, which largely account for year on year variations. HMS Ark Royal was in a period of extended readiness prior to commencing her refit in May 1999.

  Random Drug Tests
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date random drug tests were introduced for service personnel; if he will set for out each regiment the number of positive test results for each major category of illegal drugs; how many(a) soldiers and (b) officers have been subjected to disciplinary action; and how many have been discharged from the services as a result. [117254]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: Random compulsory drug testing (CDT) was introduced fully in the Army on 2 May 1995, in the Naval Service on 1 April 1997 and in the RAF on 1 November 1998. The Services regard drug taking as a matter of the utmost seriousness and a positive test will, in most cases, lead to an administrative discharge from the Service. The table shows, by category of illegal drug, the number of positive drug test results, following a compulsory drug test, recorded by other ranks in each of the three Services. No officer has tested positive in any of the Services since CDT was introduced. The second table also records those who have been subsequently administratively discharged.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The costs of meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee at Westminster are not separately identified. In 1998–99 the Committee met once away from Westminster, at Aberaeron, in February 1999. Additional costs to the House of that meeting were £6,417.12.

  In respect of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Committee incurred the following costs during the financial year 1998–99:

  Costs incurred

  £

  Overseas visits

  12,646.22

  UK visits

  21,426.20

  Specialist Advisers' Fees and Expenses

  10,375.83

  Work commissioned, specialist publications, interpretation

  884.20

  Transcription of evidence

  26,224.24

  Witnesses' expenses

  802.79

  Total

  72,359.48

  95W
  Staff costs are not separately identified. Details of the work of the Committee may be found in the Sessional Return for 1998–998, HC 1.

  House Sittings
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the President of the Council how many times the House has sat after(a) 10.30 pm, (b) 11 pm and (c) midnight (i) in the current session and (ii) in each of the last two sessions. [118757]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of occasions on which House rose

  Session

  between 10:31 and 11.00 pm

  between 11:01 pm and midnight

  00:01 or later

  1999–2000 to date

  13

  8

  16

  1998–99

  29

  19

  23

  1997–98

  55

  26

  34

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Libraries (Shropshire)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for each constituency in Shropshire, the branch libraries which were(a) downgraded, (b) closed and (c) opened (i) between 1979 to 1997 and (ii) since May 1997. [118538]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information about the annual number of libraries opened or closed is not collected centrally. However, data about the number of libraries operated by each library authority are set out in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's annual publication "Public Library Statistics", which can be consulted in the House Library, and from which year-to-year changes can be established.

WALES

  Employment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of people who have moved from benefits into work in Wales since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [116235]

  Per 1,000 population

  Stop and searches

  Arrests resulting from stop and searchers

  Ratio of ethnic rate to white rate

  Borough

  White

  Ethnic minority

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Stop and search

  Arrests resulting from stop/search

  1996 (1 January to 31 December)

  Barking and Dagenham

  18.7

  34.7

  2.4

  5.9

  1.8

  2.5

  Barnet

  18.1

  22.7

  1.5

  2.1

  1.3

  1.4

  Bexley

  28.5

  30.8

  3.7

  4.2

  1.1

  1.1

  Brent

  22.0

  42.4

  2.1

  4.3

  1.9

  2.0

  Bromley

  28.0

  60.6

  3.2

  10.0

  2.2

  3.1

  Camden

  71.7

  151.7

  6.8

  13.8

  2.1

  2.0

  City of Westminster

  98.4

  207.8

  12.0

  23.4

  2.1

  1.9

  Croydon

  20.8

  40.3

  2.4

  5.7

  1.9

  2.4

  96W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In Wales, the number of claimants of Jobseeker' s Allowance leaving the claimant count and known to have found work as the reason for ceasing their claim was 281,940 between 8 May 1997 and 10 February 2000, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117805]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following devolution, the Wales Office was established on 1 July 1999, and employs one lawyer who works four days per week.

  In 1995 the former Welsh Office employed 23 lawyers in established posts, excluding trainees and probationers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117424]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 4 April 2000, Official Report, column 385W.

  Metropolitan Police Searches
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many searches were conducted of(a) white people and (b) ethnic minority persons per 1,000 population in each borough in the Metropolitan police area in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998–99; and for each borough what was (A) the ratio of ethnic minority searches to white searches in (1) 1996, (2) 1997 and (3) 1998 and (B) the ratio of ethnic minority arrests to white arrests in (x) 1996, (y) 1997 and (z) 1998. [118275]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has provided the information requested in the tables.

  The table showing population data based on the Metropolitan Police District 1998 mid-year estimate of the 1991 census for London boroughs provides information on population data used in the calculation for the other three tables.
  97W

  Per 1,000 population

  Stop and searches

  Arrests resulting from stop and searchers

  Ratio of ethnic rate to white rate

  Borough

  White

  Ethnic minority

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Stop and search

  Arrests resulting from stop/search

  Ealing

  17.4

  44.2

  1.8

  4.7

  2.5

  2.7

  Enfield

  24.0

  30.4

  3.6

  4.8

  1.3

  1.3

  Greenwich

  62.1

  90.5

  5.1

  9.5

  1.5

  1.9

  Hackney

  42.0

  79.7

  6.0

  11.9

  1.9

  2.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  38.7

  124.3

  4.4

  15.1

  3.2

  3.5

  Haringey

  19.9

  49.2

  2.3

  6.6

  2.5

  2.8

  Harrow

  12.5

  23.7

  1.5

  2.7

  1.9

  1.8

  Havering

  17.9

  34.6

  1.8

  5.6

  1.9

  3.1

  Hillingdon (including Heathrow Airport)

  16.6

  28.6

  1.1

  2.6

  1.7

  2.3

  Hounslow

  22.2

  41.8

  2.4

  4.3

  1.9

  1.8

  Islington

  52.4

  115.8

  4.4

  10.5

  2.2

  2.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  41.4

  205.4

  5.0

  25.7

  5.0

  5.1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  22.0

  29.8

  2.2

  3.9

  1.4

  1.8

  Lambeth

  43.9

  102.1

  5.5

  13.5

  2.3

  2.4

  Lewisham

  27.9

  51.6

  2.9

  6.3

  1.9

  2.2

  Merton

  21.8

  30.7

  1.6

  3.0

  1.4

  1.9

  Newham

  27.0

  38.7

  3.0

  5.3

  1.4

  1.8

  Redbridge

  24.7

  42.6

  2.7

  5.3

  1.7

  1.9

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  8.6

  36.3

  0.9

  5.2

  4.2

  5.9

  Southwark

  70.5

  141.3

  9.1

  21.1

  2.0

  2.3

  Spelthorne1

  14.1

  28.6

  1.7

  2.9

  2.0

  1.7

  Sutton

  22.4

  44.3

  2.2

  5.7

  2.0

  2.6

  Tower Hamlets

  49.7

  102.0

  5.7

  8.2

  2.0

  1.4

  Waltham Forest

  21.4

  54.5

  2.0

  5.8

  2.5

  2.9

  Wandsworth

  28.6

  80.6

  2.9

  9.4

  2.8

  3.3

  1997 (1 January to 31 December)

  Barking and Dagenham

  23.2

  62.7

  3.0

  9.0

  2.7

  3.0

  Barnet

  19.8

  27.6

  1.8

  2.5

  1.4

  1.4

  Bexley

  31.2

  36.5

  3.6

  5.5

  1.2

  1.5

  Brent

  28.5

  59.9

  2.6

  6.4

  2.1

  2.4

  Bromley

  26.4

  61.0

  2.5

  7.2

  2.3

  2.9

  Camden

  83.9

  200.7

  8.2

  16.4

  2.4

  2.0

  City of Westminster

  114.3

  268.2

  13.1

  27.5

  2.3

  2.1

  Croydon

  28.3

  64.6

  2.1

  8.3

  2.3

  2.6

  Ealing

  19.1

  54.4

  1.8

  5.1

  2.9

  2.8

  Enfield

  26.5

  47.9

  2.9

  6.2

  1.8

  2.1

  Greenwich

  63.1

  95.3

  6.2

  11.4

  1.5

  1.8

  Hackney

  37.9

  87.5

  4.7

  10.1

  2.3

  2.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  43.5

  144.5

  5.1

  15.9

  3.3

  3.1

  Haringey

  23.1

  58.5

  2.9

  8.3

  2.5

  2.9

  Harrow

  18.5

  32.7

  2.6

  4.8

  1.8

  1.9

  Havering

  23.9

  51.1

  2.5

  8.5

  2.1

  3.4

  Hillingdon (including Heathrow Airport)

  14.9

  39.9

  1.2

  2.8

  2.7

  2.3

  Hounslow

  24.0

  53.5

  3.2

  7.3

  2.2

  2.3

  Islington

  51.0

  125.5

  5.5

  12.1

  2.5

  2.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  41.2

  198.9

  4.2

  22.4

  4.8

  5.3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  26.1

  52.3

  3.0

  5.7

  2.0

  1.9

  Lambeth

  40.5

  99.7

  5.5

  13.3

  2.5

  2.4

  Lewisham

  36.7

  70.0

  3.5

  7.5

  1.9

  2.2

  Merton

  20.6

  26.3

  2.4

  3.1

  1.3

  1.3

  Newham

  27.8

  42.2

  3.0

  5.3

  1.5

  1.8

  Redbridge

  27.0

  57.0

  3.5

  6.8

  2.1

  2.0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  9.8

  47.9

  0.9

  4.0

  4.9

  4.3

  Southwark

  76.4

  175.1

  9.6

  22.5

  2.3

  2.4

  Spelthorne1

  16.1

  31.9

  2.1

  4.6

  2.0

  2.1

  Sutton

  23.8

  50.5

  2.6

  5.9

  2.1

  2.2

  Tower Hamlets

  56.7

  149.2

  5.3

  9.2

  2.6

  1.7

  Waltham Forest

  20.0

  67.0

  2.3

  7.4

  3.3

  3.3

  Wandsworth

  27.9

  76.4

  2.9

  9.3

  2.7

  3.2

  1998–99 (1 April to 31 March)

  Barking and Dagenham

  25.1

  80.7

  4.3

  13.7

  3.2

  3.2

  Barnet

  15.4

  22.4

  1.9

  2.9

  1.5

  1.6

  Bexley

  25.5

  35.6

  3.5

  5.1

  1.4

  1.5

  Brent

  25.0

  54.8

  3.4

  7.4

  2.2

  2.2

  Bromley

  24.8

  78.6

  2.8

  10.7

  3.2

  3.8

  Camden

  74.4

  183.7

  9.2

  17.6

  2.5

  1.9

  City of Westminster

  115.1

  265.9

  14.9

  30.6

  2.3

  2.1

  98W

  99W

  Per 1,000 population

  Stop and searches

  Arrests resulting from stop and searchers

  Ratio of ethnic rate to white rate

  Borough

  White

  Ethnic minority

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Stop and search

  Arrests resulting from stop/search

  Croydon

  23.8

  51.0

  3.1

  7.1

  2.1

  2.3

  Ealing

  18.3

  59.3

  2.4

  6.6

  3.2

  2.7

  Enfield

  30.3

  48.7

  4.0

  6.7

  1.6

  1.7

  Greenwich

  58.9

  85.4

  7.2

  10.8

  1.4

  1.5

  Hackney

  31.2

  68.0

  4.0

  9.7

  2.2

  2.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  42.7

  130.3

  5.6

  17.9

  3.1

  3.2

  Haringey

  23.6

  56.3

  3.4

  9.7

  2.4

  2.9

  Harrow

  21.0

  37.1

  2.9

  5.6

  1.8

  1.9

  Havering

  20.6

  49.3

  2.3

  6.9

  2.4

  2.9

  Hillingdon (including Heathrow Airport)

  15.6

  41.6

  1.8

  4.6

  2.7

  2.6

  Hounslow

  19.9

  48.0

  3.6

  7.4

  2.4

  2.1

  Islington

  47.7

  113.5

  5.3

  14.6

  2.4

  2.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  26.1

  114.4

  2.7

  12.9

  4.4

  4.7

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  31.3

  60.2

  5.4

  11.5

  1.9

  2.1

  Lambeth

  32.0

  75.0

  4.4

  11.5

  2.3

  2.6

  Lewisham

  35.9

  66.7

  2.9

  5.7

  1.9

  2.0

  Merton

  25.6

  33.5

  2.2

  3.0

  1.3

  1.4

  Newham

  22.4

  41.5

  2.6

  4.5

  1.9

  1.7

  Redbridge

  23.0

  54.2

  3.2

  6.4

  2.4

  2.0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  9.6

  41.8

  1.0

  4.9

  4.4

  5.1

  Southwark

  78.9

  150.6

  11.3

  23.0

  1.9

  2.0

  Spelthorne1

  22.9

  40.3

  1.7

  4.2

  1.8

  2.5

  Sutton

  21.3

  42.1

  2.3

  3.9

  2.0

  1.7

  Tower Hamlets

  34.8

  105.3

  5.1

  10.8

  3.0

  2.1

  Waltham Forest

  14.7

  52.2

  2.0

  7.0

  3.5

  3.5

  Wandsworth

  23.0

  53.7

  2.8

  6.6

  2.3

  2.4

  1The information provided for Spelthorne is based on the 1991 Census population data, not the updated 1998 estimates

  Population data based on the Metropolitan Police District 1998 mid year estimate of the 1991 census for London boroughs

  Boroughs

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Barking and Dagenham

  144,971

  10,586

  Barnet

  270,544

  61,004

  Bexley

  205,213

  12,627

  Brent

  139,751

  113,410

  Bromley

  283,233

  13,885

  Camden

  154,949

  33,660

  City of Westminster

  173,549

  47,297

  Croydon

  278,760

  59,457

  Ealing

  204,565

  97,553

  Enfield

  227,504

  37,366

  Greenwich

  187,688

  27,405

  Hackney

  129,330

  65,347

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  129,912

  27,558

  Haringey

  157,285

  64,286

  Harrow

  155,924

  55,362

  Havering

  221,044

  7,287

  Hillingdon

  220,309

  30,856

  Hounslow

  159,902

  51,679

  Islington

  145,181

  33,779

  Kensington and Chelsea

  143,401

  26,525

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  134,649

  12,682

  Lambeth

  187,956

  81.542

  Lewisham

  190,213

  53,559

  1 January to 31 December 1996

  Stop and Searches

  Arrests resulting from Stop and Searches

  Borough

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,717

  367

  343

  62

  Barnet

  4,893

  1,387

  407

  128

  Bexley

  5,852

  389

  754

  53

  Brent

  3,077

  4,813

  295

  488

  Bromley

  7,944

  841

  914

  139

  Camden

  11,113

  5,107

  1,057

  465

  100W

  Population data based on the Metropolitan Police District 1998 mid year estimate of the 1991 census for London boroughs

  Boroughs

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Merton

  154,371

  29,953

  Newham

  133,432

  97,855

  Redbridge

  182,277

  49,641

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  176,464

  10,237

  Southwark

  175,304

  56,666

  Spelthorne1

  86,913

  3,074

  Sutton

  166,621

  10,463

  Tower Hamlets

  116,761

  64,490

  Waltham Forest

  164,795

  56,603

  Wandsworth

  212,342

  53,242

  1 Information on Spelthorne is based on the 1991 census, not the 1998 mid year estimate

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) white persons and (b) ethnic ninority persons were stopped and searched in each jorough in the Metropolitan police area in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998–99; and how many stops and searches resulted in arrest in each case. [118274]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of he Metropolis has provided the information requested, which is set out in the tables.
  101W

  1 January to 31 December 1996

  Stop and Searches

  Arrests resulting from Stop and Searches

  Borough

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  City of Westminster

  17,075

  9,827

  2,085

  1,107

  Croydon

  5,804

  2,396

  660

  341

  Ealing

  3,552

  4,313

  358

  462

  Enfield

  5,468

  1,137

  815

  180

  Greenwich

  11,662

  2,479

  954

  261

  Hackney

  5,437

  5,209

  775

  780

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,022

  3,426

  566

  416

  Haringey

  3,130

  3,162

  369

  425

  Harrow

  1,944

  1,312

  233

  148

  Havering

  3,949

  252

  397

  41

  Hillingdon1

  3,661

  881

  248

  79

  Hounslow

  3,555

  2.161

  377

  224

  Islington

  7,605

  3,911

  633

  356

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,938

  5,449

  719

  681

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,961

  378

  296

  50

  Lambeth

  8,243

  8,323

  1,042

  1,102

  Lewisham

  5,306

  2,766

  546

  338

  Merton

  3,362

  921

  241

  90

  Newham

  3,600

  3,790

  399

  523

  Redbridge

  4,496

  2,113

  493

  261

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,525

  372

  156

  53

  Southwark

  12,353

  8,005

  1,601

  1,196

  Spelthorne

  1,229

  88

  149

  9

  Sutton

  3,735

  463

  363

  60

  Tower Hamlets

  5,808

  6,575

  667

  531

  Waltham Forest

  3,529

  3,085

  336

  330

  Wandsworth

  6,082

  4,292

  606

  503

  MPS Total

  181,627

  99,990

  19,854

  11,882

  1 Including Heathrow Airport

  1 January to 31 December 1996

  Stop and Searches

  Arrests resulting from Stop and Searches

  Borough

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,367

  664

  433

  95

  Barnet

  5,359

  1,686

  488

  154

  Bexley

  6,404

  461

  746

  70

  Brent

  3,980

  6,794

  369

  730

  Bromley

  7,479

  847

  699

  100

  Camden

  13,007

  6,754

  1,272

  551

  City of Westminster

  19,837

  12,683

  2,265

  1,303

  Croydon

  7,897

  3,842

  875

  494

  Ealing

  3,901

  5,304

  366

  494

  Enfield

  6,040

  1,788

  670

  230

  Greenwich

  11,848

  2,613

  1,172

  312

  Hackney

  4,899

  5,716

  612

  662

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,651

  3,981

  668

  437

  Haringey

  3,633

  3,762

  449

  534

  Harrow

  2,881

  1,811

  401

  264

  Havering

  5,291

  372

  556

  62

  Hillingdon1

  3,272

  1,230

  266

  87

  Hounslow

  3,832

  2,765

  505

  379

  Islington

  7,406

  4,239

  795

  410

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,908

  5,275

  604

  594

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,509

  663

  400

  72

  Lambeth

  7,604

  8,130

  1,038

  1,085

  Lewisham

  6,977

  3,751

  660

  401

  Merton

  3,175

  787

  373

  94

  Newham

  3,703

  4,131

  401

  517

  Redbridge

  4,929

  2,829

  629

  340

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,737

  490

  165

  41

  Southwark

  13,400

  9,924

  1,675

  1,273

  Spelthorne

  1,401

  98

  185

  14

  Sutton

  3,958

  528

  439

  62

  Tower Hamlets

  6,616

  9,624

  619

  592

  Waltham Forest

  3,297

  3,792

  374

  418

  Wandsworth

  5,919

  4,069

  612

  497

  MPS Total

  198,117

  121,403

  21,781

  13,368

  1 Including Heathrow Airport

  102W 103W

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1998–99

  Stop and Searches

  Arrests resulting from Stop and Searches

  Borough

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  White

  Ethnic Minority

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,637

  854

  618

  145

  Barnet

  4,173

  1,365

  508

  178

  Bexley

  5,230

  450

  718

  65

  Brent

  3,487

  6,218

  477

  835

  Bromley

  7,030

  1,092

  790

  148

  Camden

  11,535

  6,183

  1,430

  592

  City of Westminster

  19,975

  12,575

  2,583

  1,449

  Croydon

  6,638

  3,034

  853

  423

  Ealing

  3,734

  5,782

  498

  644

  Enfield

  6,883

  1,818

  905

  249

  Greenwich

  11,060

  2,341

  1,357

  296

  Hackney

  4,036

  4,443

  518

  632

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,544

  3,591

  723

  492

  Haringey

  3,708

  3,617

  529

  626

  Harrow

  3,268

  2,052

  454

  311

  Havering

  4,546

  359

  515

  50

  Hillingdon1

  3,442

  1,283

  386

  141

  Hounslow

  3,176

  2,483

  574

  385

  Islington

  6,918

  3,834

  775

  492

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,743

  3,035

  394

  343

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,221

  763

  722

  146

  Lambeth

  6,016

  6,113

  835

  939

  Lewisham

  6,836

  3,572

  549

  305

  Merton

  3,953

  1,002

  342

  90

  Newham

  2,991

  4,065

  349

  436

  Redbridge

  4,196

  2,691

  592

  316

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,694

  428

  169

  50

  Southwark

  13,838

  8,533

  1,989

  1,304

  Spelthorne

  1,988

  124

  150

  13

  Sutton

  3,550

  441

  385

  41

  Tower Hamlets

  4,069

  6,789

  601

  698

  Waltham Forest

  2,428

  2,953

  326

  397

  Wandsworth

  4,887

  2,860

  591

  354

  MPS Total

  182,430

  106,743

  23,205

  13,585

  1 Including Heathrow Airport

  Police (Freemasons)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure public access to the register of freemasons in the police force. [118224]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are currently considering our response to the Home Affairs Committee report on Freemasonry and will be publishing our response in due course.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what permission the Animals Procedures Committee has granted for animals to be used in experiments into the effects of active and passive smoking; what species and numbers of animals are to be used in these experiments; and who is funding this research. [118037]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Animal Procedures Committee has no power to grant or refuse applications for authority to use animals in scientific procedures. Such powers are exercised by the Secretary of State.

  The Government have a firm policy of not granting applications to research tobacco products and the effects of these products. No applications for work on the effects of active and passive smoking have been approved nor have any such applications been referred to the Animals Procedures Committee for advice.

  Operation Nightshade
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 379W, for what reason information about the cost of Operation Nightshade is not available; and if he will make a statement. [118620]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that Operation Nightshade was an operation undertaken by the now disbanded South East Regional Crime Squad (SERCS). Records of the cost of individual SERCS operations are no longer available.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the fund-raising activities of the KLA in the UK; and what measures he has taken to stop such activities. [118245]

  Mr. Straw
  The police and Security Service place a high priority on countering all forms of terrorist activity in the United Kingdom, including fundraising. The investigation of any criminal activity is, of course, an operational police matter and responsibility rests with the Chief Officer of the force in the area concerned. I am not, however, aware of any evidence that members of the Kosovo Liberation Army are committing criminal offences in this country.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new asylum seeker support arrangements in part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will be extended to cover in-country applicants. [118788]

  Mr. Straw
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), announced in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 6 March 2000,Official Report, columns 556-58W, that the new National Asylum Support Service (NASS) would be phased in. The first stage commenced on 3 April, when NASS took over responsibility for support for all new applicants at port, and eligibility for social security and related benefits was ended for all new applicants. The second stage was for NASS to be extended to new in-country applicants. As I told the House on 10 April 2000, Official Report, column 6, we are now ready to begin this plan.

  Also on Monday 10 April, my hon. Friend the Minister accordingly made a Direction which sets out that the support scheme in Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will apply to all asylum seekers who claim asylum other than on arrival in the United Kingdom on, or after, Monday 17 April and who made the claim while in Kent. I shall announce plans to extend the new support scheme to other parts of the country at a later date.

  The direction also applies to asylum seekers who are resident in Kent; who are in receipt of benefits; who get a negative decision on their asylum claim and who go on to appeal. Their benefits will end and they will be eligible for support from the NASS.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Peacekeeping
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the future role of the United Nations in international peacekeeping. [117186]

  Mr. Hain
  We have held a number of important meetings with the Secretary General, both in London and New York on UN peacekeeping.

  Austria
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Austrian Foreign Minister to discuss immigration and related issues. [117188]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly has discussions with the Austrian Foreign Minister within the framework of the EU, and these have included consideration of asylum and immigration issues, e.g. at the Tampere Special European Council 15-16 October 1999.

  Kashmir
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his 106W
  assessment of the security situation along the line of control; and if he will make a statement on the future of Kashmir. [117189]

  Mr. Hain
  We are deeply troubled by continued violence in Kashmir, including along the Line of Control. We encourage India and Pakistan to find, through dialogue, a just and lasting solution acceptable to the people of Kashmir.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss the situation in Kashmir with representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [118506]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly raise the situation in Kashmir with the Indian and Pakistani Governments. We will continue to urge them to find, through dialogue, a just and lasting solution acceptable to the people of Kashmir.

  Chile
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Ministers have held with the incoming Chilean Government; and if he will make a statement. [117190]

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), held with the incoming Chilean Government during his visit to Chile between 10 and 12 March; and if he will make a statement. [117173]

  Mr. Battle
  I had wide-ranging discussions with members of the incoming Chilean Government, in particular the President and the Minister for the Economy, Mining and Energy. I also met the Foreign Minister, the Finance Minister, the Minister for the Interior and the Minister for Agriculture. These meetings were all friendly and constructive.

  Lebanon
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Lebanon. [117191]

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Lebanon. [117196]

  Mr. Hain
  We enjoy good relations with Lebanon.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign. [117192]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is organising several activities in the coming months to build on the momentum generated by last year's "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow to promote the benefits of our membership of the EU. On 19 April, I will chair a seminar at Canary Wharf to assess the prospects for European economic reform following the Lisbon European Council. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will host an Open
  107W
  Day on 9 May to mark Europe Day and launch its involvement in the London String of Pearls Millennium Festival. Between May and July, I plan to visit several cities in England, Scotland and Wales that will be holding Europe Days.

  Hungary
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Hungary's application for membership of the European Union. [117193]

  Mr. Vaz
  Hungary has made good progress in its negotiations for membership of the EU since they started in March 1998. Last week we opened another two chapters of the EU acquis communautaire (on Regional Policy and Financial Control), bringing the total number of chapters currently under negotiation to 25 (out of 31). Hungary has provisionally closed seven of those chapters, is near to closing several more, and is working successfully at implementing necessary reforms. We want Hungary to join the European Union as soon as it is able to meet the obligations of membership.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for a new protocol to the biological weapons convention. [117194]

  Mr. Hain
  In my address to the BWC Ad Hoc Group in Geneva on 23 March to mark the 25th anniversary of entry into force of the Convention, I stressed the urgent need for completion of work on the Protocol during 2000. The United Kingdom believes that this remains achievable and that a successful outcome would be a significant addition to international arms control regimes. We shall continue to work actively for this goal.

  Drugs Trade
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of British policy on combating the trade in illicit drugs. [117195]

  Mr. Battle
  UK counter drugs activity overseas aims to reduce the availability of Class A drugs in the UK.

  Co-ordinated inter-Departmental activity on agreed priorities has achieved results. Examples include increased seizures of heroin (up from 740 kg in 1996 to 990 kg in 1998) and cocaine (up from 1,150 kg in 1996 to 2,800 kg in 1998) through the work of over 50 Drug Liaison Officers in diplomatic posts overseas. Other initiatives such as the use of the West Indian Guard Ship on counter drugs work in the Caribbean have also led to major multi-tonne seizures of cocaine.

  Ethical Foreign Policy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in implementing an ethical dimension in his policy. [117197]
  108W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing an ethical dimension to his foreign policy; and if he will make a statement. [117198]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess),Official Report, column 167.

  World Service
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were on the agenda for his most recent meeting with Sir Christopher Bland to discuss the funding of the BBC World Service. [117199]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not met Sir Christopher Bland to discuss the funding of the BBC World Service. He has met Mr. Mark Byford, Chief Executive of the World Service, a number of times, most recently on 16 February 2000. The World Service bid under the 2000 Spending Review was among the matters discussed then.

  Europe Day
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to mark Europe Day. [117200]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will hold an open day to mark Europe Day on 9 May. The open day is part of the String of Pearls Millennium Festival, and aims to make the UK public more aware of the cultures of our European neighbours, and Britain's place in Europe.

  Far East POWs
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence about compensation for former prisoners of war held in Japan. [117201]

  Mr. Battle
  We have regular discussions with the Ministry of Defence about the issue of compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his colleagues from other member states of the European Union on the development of autonomy in Kosovo. [117202]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have regular discussions with my EU colleagues on all aspects of the situation in and around Kosovo. The EU is committed to the framework for Kosovo set out in UNSCR 1244. This provides for international administration in Kosovo, to be followed by arrangements to provide the people of Kosovo with substantial autonomy and self-government, and, in a final stage, a decision on Kosovo's future status.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of Serbs killed in Kosovo since the end of hostilities. [118020]
  109W
  Mr. Vaz
  In my reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 539W, I reported to the House that there had been 430 reported murders in Kosovo in the period between KFOR' s deployment there on 12 June and 25 December last year. I added that we did not have a breakdown of these figures by ethnic origin but of the 383 murders reported up to mid-November, 139 were Serbs. Since 1 January, responsibility for collecting crime statistics in Kosovo has been transferred to UNMIK, who have advised that of the 79 murders reported between 1 January and 31 March this year 19 were Serbs.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the President of the Security Council on the progress made in the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. [118246]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UN Security Council has regular discussions on Kosovo and on progress made in implementing UNSCR 1244. The Council was briefed on the situation in Kosovo by Dr. Bernard Kouchner, Special Representative of the Secretary-General, on 6 March. The Council is planning a mission to Kosovo next month.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received regarding the activities of(a) the Kosovo Liberation Army's military police and (b) the KLA Intelligence Service. [118248]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Kosovo Liberation Army was demilitarised in September 1999 in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 1244. KFOR continues to monitor closely and take action against activities by any parallel structures or institutions in Kosovo which pose a threat to KFOR's or UNMIK's objectives.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the OSCE mission in Kosovo registers all the displaced(a) Albanians and (b) non-Albanians to enable them to vote in the forthcoming elections. [118250]

  Mr. Vaz
  Registration of all displaced persons within Kosovo is the responsibility of the UN/OSCE. The OSCE Head of Mission, Daan Everts, regularly briefs the OSCE Permanent Council and the British Office in Pristina has regular contacts with the task force to obtain updates on this process.

  The registration of refugees outside Kosovo has been contracted by the OSCE to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The IOM has contacted all governments of countries which shelter Kosovan refugee populations for assistance in disseminating information about the registration for the elections. The Refugee Council has agreed to be the UK's contact point for the IOM.

  The international community has urged the FRY authorities to allow Kosovo Serb refugees in the FRY to participate in this exercise and to encourage them to register.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what KFOR's policy is towards those held responsible for crimes against humanity in Kosovo. [118244]
  110W
  Mr. Vaz
  KFOR is mandated to establish a secure environment in Kosovo and to ensure public safety and order until UNMIK can take over responsibility for this task. KFOR works closely with the UN police, including in the investigation of alleged crimes against humanity. KFOR troops are authorised to detain persons indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts from the Contact Group on the security and political situation in(a) Kosovo and (b) Serbia. [118247]

  Mr. Vaz
  Contact Group Political Directors met in Paris on 28 March, the first meeting of the Group since the start of NATO's air campaign a year before. The discussion covered Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro. There was a large measure of consensus on the international approach and the Group agreed to meet again later this month or early in May.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ex-KLA members have been integrated into(a) the Kosovo Police Service and (b) the Kosovo Protection Corps. [118249]

  Mr. Vaz
  Neither the Kosovo Police Service nor the Kosovo Protection Corps are able to specify how many ex-KLA members they currently employ. Former membership of the Kosovo Liberation Army is not an entry requirement to either of these civilian organisations. The International Organisation for Migration is making considerable efforts to assist former members of the KLA to return to civilian life and enhance their career prospects by the provision of training and job placement support.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the UN Special Representative in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement on the progress of reconstruction in Kosovo. [118254]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Dr. Kouchner in London on 30 March. Dr. Kouchner briefed on the security situation and on progress in political and economic reconstruction in Kosovo. He welcomed the UK's proposals to strengthen our contribution to the international policing effort in Kosovo. The Secretary of State and Dr. Kouchner agreed on the importance of taking forward democratisation, including the holding of local elections later this year, and of encouraging growth and investment in the economy in Kosovo.

  Montenegro
  Sir David Model
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to hold further talks with the Russian Government on the current situation in Montenegro; and if he will make a statement. [117203]

  Mr. Vaz
  I am in regular contact with Foreign Minister Ivanov on a range of Balkans issues. Russia shares our concern to promote stability in the region, including in relation to Montenegro. I refer the hon. Member to the
  111W
  answer I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), Official Report, column 177.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts about efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution of tensions in Montenegro. [118252]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with his European and international counterparts on questions of stability in the Balkans, including the situation in Montenegro. These discussions have been reflected most recently in the conclusions of the General Affairs Councils of 20 March and 10 April, and of the Lisbon European Council of 23-24 March.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government to be taken at the forthcoming review conference on the non-proliferation treaty. [117204]

  Mr. Hain
  We are unequivocally committed to the NPT, which remains the cornerstone of our non-proliferation policy. We have made a positive contribution to implementing the agenda agreed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and will work for a positive outcome to this year's conference which will advance the goal of nuclear disarmament.

  Falklands
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the new Argentine Administration about the Falkland Islands. [117183]

  Mr. Battle
  We have established a good working relationship with the new Argentine Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has met President De la Rua twice. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met the Foreign Minister Rodriguez Giavarini.

  I attended the Argentine Presidential inauguration on 10 December and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has met the Argentine President and Defence Minister. I know my right hon. Friend has visited the Falklands and I can assure him of our commitment to the question of sovereignty and our commitment to the Islanders' rights to determine their own future.

  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is consulting the Scottish Parliament on the proposed EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [118272]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government consult the Scottish Executive on all EU issues that touch on devolved matters, including the proposed EU Charter of Rights. The Executive is, in turn, accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

  Human Rights (Egypt)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received regarding the trials of human rights activists in state security courts in Egypt. [118521]

  Mr. Hain
  In February we received reports that the Secretary General of the Egyptian Human Rights Organisation (EOHR), Hafez Abu Sa'ada, faced the prospect of being tried by a State Security Court. I understand that Hafez has never been formally notified of the charges against him, and we will continue to follow his case closely.

  European Courts
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to try to prevent a conflict between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. [118310]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Court of Justice has for many years taken account of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, although not formally bound by it. Instances where the two courts have differed in their interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights have been very rare. The Government are working to ensure that the risk of conflict does not increase as a result of the current discussions about a European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  US National Missile Defence System
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 408W, if, in his discussions with the US Secretary of State, he (a) indicated UK (i) opposition to or (ii) support for the proposed national missile defence system and (b) offered UK co-operation over the proposed system. [118318]

  Mr. Vaz
  The US has not asked for UK assistance in the deployment of the proposed National Missile Defence system, nor would we expect them to do so until after a US decision on whether or not to proceed with its deployment. In our discussions with the US Administration on the subject, we have made clear that the UK would consider any such request carefully. We have also welcomed the fact that the US will make their deployment decision on the basis of a number of important factors, which will include taking account of the views of Allies and the status of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty.

  Macedonia (Mr. Richard Hudson)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to protect the rights of Mr. Richard Hudson, arrested for a driving offence in Macedonia in August 1999. [118358]

  Mr. Hain
  Our consular staff in Macedonia have raised Mr. Hudson's family's and our concerns for Mr. Hudson's safety with the Macedonian authorities on a number of occasions, most recently on 30 March when our Vice-Consul called on the Prison Director.
  113W
  Consular staff have visited Mr. Hudson regularly since his arrest and will continue to do so during his detention. If Mr. Hudson has any concerns about his welfare we will immediately bring them to the prison authorities' attention.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the cost of the 27 March Conference at Portsmouth on promoting Europe. [118027]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Council of Europe Parliamentary and Public Relations Committee's visit to Portsmouth from 25-28 March was organised by the Overseas Office in the House of Commons, and the costs therefore fall within the Administration vote which is a responsibility of the House of Commons Commission.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an announcement on the appointment of a United Kingdom member to the Council of Europe Venice Commission. [118863]

  Mr. Vaz
  I am pleased to announce that I have today appointed Professor Jeffrey Jowell QC as the UK Member of the European Commission For Democracy Through Law (the Venice Commission).

  Investment Sanctions (Burma)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers he has to impose unilateral sanctions on investment in Burma by UK-based companies. [118676]

  Mr. Battle
  We believe multilateral measures are more effective than unilateral ones. We have no statutory powers to impose unilateral financial sanctions against Burma in current circumstances, nor are we seeking such powers. Our policy is not to encourage trade or investment in Burma. We regularly review the adequacy of EU measures in Burma. Yesterday we persuaded EU partners to strengthen the EU Common Position on Burma.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 284W, what was the purpose of the High Commissioner's discussion with Roger Crooks since his return to Sierra Leone. [118621]

  Mr. Hain
  The High Commissioner encountered Mr. Crooks at a social event. Mr. Crooks told the High Commissioner about his refurbishment of a hotel in Freetown, to be used as the headquarters of UNAMSIL.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 3 April 2000,Official Report, columns 283-84W, if notes and minutes of meetings between the High Commissioner and Roger Crooks have, in each case, been conveyed to his Department. [118622]

  Mr. Hain
  The High Commissioner has had no formal meetings with Mr. Crooks. We would not require him to record social discussions with Mr. Crooks.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for amendments to the ABM treaty to enable the upgrading of Fylingdales consequent on the development of the United States' National Missile Defense programme; and if he will make a statement. [118752]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Kingdom is not a party to the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty. The question of any amendments to it is for the United States and Russia. Discussions between them on this issue continue.

  Serbia and Montenegro
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of the embargo on(a) Serbia and (b) Montenegro. [118281]

  Mr. Vaz
  A number of sanctions measures are in place against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). United Nations Security Council resolution 1160 (1998) imposed an arms embargo on the FRY. The EU has imposed a number of measures on the FRY, including an arms embargo, a ban on the sale or supply of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism, a ban on the sale and supply of petroleum and petroleum products, financial sanctions, a ban on flights and a targeted visa ban. These measures have included humanitarian exemptions where appropriate. Montenegro and Kosovo have been exempted from the flight ban and oil embargo, and from some aspects of financial sanctions. The flight ban on the remainder of the FRY has been suspended until the end of August.

  Sanctions have put pressure on and isolated the Milosevic regime and its associates, and have limited Milosevic's ability to build up weaponry for use for external aggression or internal repression. Humanitarian exemptions and the targeting of sanctions measures on the regime have been designed to minimise the effect of sanctions on the general public of the FRY.

  Britain-Russia Centre
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what formal contact his Department had with the Britain-Russia Centre during the last year; and if he will make a statement on the future relationship between his Department and the Britain-Russia Centre. [118641]

  Mr. Vaz
  My Department is in regular contact with the Britain-Russia Centre, including being represented in an ex-officio capacity on its Executive Committee. A statement on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's relationship with the Britain-Russia Centre is contained in the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Relations with Russia (page 124), copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the Britain-Russia Centre were consulted as part of his Department's last Quinquennial Review into the Britain-Russia Centre. [118665]
  115W
  Mr. Vaz
  The individuals and organisations consulted during the 1999 Quinquennial Review of the Britain-Russia Centre included the Director, all members of staff at the Centre and also members of the Centre's Executive Committee.

  Montenegro and Sandjak
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there is an international presence in(a) Montenegro and (b) Sandjak. [118321]

  Mr. Vaz
  A number of international organisations, NGOs and charities maintain a presence in Montenegro. These include the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (principally through the European Community Monitoring Mission).

  We are not aware of any international organisations based specifically in the Sandjak area of Serbia.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Devon County Council
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has made to Devon county council's request that certain commitments from their 1999–2000 social services programme can be charged against their 2000–01 grant. [118500]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have advised Devon county council that where they wish to fund ongoing projects from the Promoting Independence: Partnership Grant for 2000–01, they must be able to satisfy their auditors that they are providing the service to additional people, or more effectively than in the previous year.

  Housing (South-east)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote housing schemes for key workers in the South East. [116711]

  Mr. Mullin
  In addition to a number of existing schemes which support low cost home ownership, the Government's Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all", invites views on a new Starter Home Initiative. This is designed to help key workers and others on low incomes to buy their own homes in areas of high house prices and high demand.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on developing the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. [117570]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will launch a framework document for consultation on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal on Wednesday 12 April. The consultation period will run until the end of June. Copies of the document will 116W
  be available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office. At the same time we will be announcing offers of funding, worth at least £312 million over the next 10 years to seven more of our New Deal for Communities pathfinder projects to support long-term strategies for change in some of our poorest neighbourhoods.

  Empty Properties (North-east)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council houses and properties owned by housing associations in the North-east have been empty for six months or more. [117975]

  Mr. Mullin
  The latest available information reported by local authorities to the Department indicates that on 1 April 1999 some 3,800 local authority owned dwellings (1.3 per cent. of total stock) in the North-east had been vacant for more than six months.

  Equivalent figures are not available at regional level for stock owned by Registered Social Landlords.

  Local Government Bill
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental appraisal of the Local Government Bill he has carried out; and when he will publish the report of its findings. [118032]

  Ms Armstrong
  The provisions in the Local Government Bill deal primarily with the internal workings of local authorities and their councillors, and are unlikely to have significant impacts on the environment. For this reason, no substantive environmental appraisal was carried out.

  Local authorities will be able to take steps under Part I of the Bill to promote and improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. However, the environmental impact of these provisions will depend on how authorities choose to exercise their powers. In these circumstances it is not possible to conduct a meaningful environmental appraisal.

  Notes on the effects of the Bill on public sector finances and public sector manpower, a summary of the Regulatory Appraisal and a statement of the Bill's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights are included in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.

  Driving Licences
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change the age limits for holding UK driving licences. [118198]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans to change the age limits for holding driving licences.

  There are, nevertheless, plans to establish a more structured approach to pre-test learning to ensure that new drivers have a broader and more extensive experience of driving conditions before they take their test.

  This was announced in the Department's new road safety strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone" launched on 1 March—together with a number of other

  117W
  measures, and would be subject to public consultation. Copies of the strategy are available in the Library of the House.

  Road Improvements (South Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations(a) he, (b) his Ministers or (c) his officials have received from Councillor Ricky Rogers concerning the ACT Parker Plan for road improvements in South Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement. [117994]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 April 2000]: The Secretary of State, his Ministers and his officials have not received any representations to date from Councillor Ricky Rogers concerning the ACT Parker Plan.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to take forward and fund further work on the Parker Plan for road improvements in South Wiltshire; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultant's report on this scheme. [117993]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 April 2000]: I have asked the Highways Agency to place a copy of their consultant's report on the Parker Plan in the Library. There are no plans to fund any further assessment of the route proposals in the Parker Plan.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many homeless households are in temporary accommodation in(a) the UK, (b) England and (c) Scotland; [118225]

  (2) how many households were defined as homeless in (a) the UK, (b) England and (c) Scotland in the last year for which figures are available. [118228]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information on households accommodated under statutory homelessness provisions in England is published in a quarterly Information Bulletin, "Statistics of local authority activities under the homelessness legislation: England". Table 2 of the Bulletin presents a summary of those households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts. Tables 5 and 6 show the number of these households in accommodation arranged by the local authority, as at the end of each quarter.

  Copies of the Bulletin are held in the Library and the latest edition, published on 15 March, presents statistics up to and including the fourth quarter of 1999.

  For information about other parts of the United Kingdom, I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Housing Registers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were excluded from housing registers in (a) 1996, 1997, (c) 1998 and(d) 1999. [118227]

  Mr. Mullin
  This information is not held centrally.

  Wildlife
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the annual cost of maintaining the Wildlife Inspectorate; and what plans he has to increase the funds available. [118339]

  Mr. Mullin
  The annual cost of maintaining the Inspectorate is £158,500; and there are no plans to increase the current level of funding.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of the Wildlife Inspectorate; what criteria he uses to monitor its effectiveness; and if he will make a statement. [118338]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Wildlife Inspectorate's key role is to discharge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions' inspection responsibilities in accordance with sections 7(6) and 14(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in England and Wales; and regulations 9(4) and 9(5) of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 in the United Kingdom. It undertakes a range of inspection programmes throughout the year to gather and verify information to enable informed decisions on the licensing of trade in endangered species and on the registration of birds of prey.

  Wildlife Inspectors also provide specialist advice on species identification to assist the Police and HM Customs and Excise officials during wildlife-related investigations.

  The Wildlife Inspectorate plays an important role as a deterrent to those who may otherwise consider acting outside of the legislation. While this deterrent effect is hard to quantify, results from a DETR questionnaire issued to 1,436 registered keepers of Schedule 4 birds in 1993 showed that 89 per cent. of respondents considered inspection programmes to be an effective way of monitoring the registration scheme, and 76 per cent. felt that inspections acted as a significant deterrent against the illegal taking of wild birds.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he will take in response to the recommendations of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the effectiveness of wildlife species protection legislation. [118337]

  Mr. Mullin
  In Autumn 1998, my Department requested the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to review the effectiveness of the species protection Schedules to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The JNCC have recently concluded their review and advise that the Schedules have been generally effective in deterring persecution of the species listed, that they should be retained to give legal protection to appropriate animals and plants and also make a number of recommendations.

  I am already actively considering all of the issues raised in the JNCC's recommendations.

  The recommendations concerning enforcement of wildlife legislation relate to those made last year by the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime and are being addressed in the context of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
  119W
  I recognise that improvements to protection for threatened species in the wider countryside beyond the provisions of this Bill may be warranted and am considering what might be appropriate. Some measures may not necessarily require primary legislation, including JNCC's recommendation concerning the Quinquennial Review of the Schedules. I look forward to receiving JNCC's advice at the next Quinquennial Review in due course.

  I also agree the problem caused by invasive alien species does need to be addressed and we plan to review the effectiveness of policy concerning non-native species which can present an ecological threat to the United Kingdom's indigenous wildlife.

  Mobile Telephone Masts (Croydon)
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many mobile telephone masts(a) over and (b) under 15 metres high there are in the London Borough of Croydon. [118523]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government do not hold this information.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out detailed future spending plans for his Department. [118771]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today published my Department's Annual Report for 2000, and copies have been placed in the House Libraries. The Report sets out the Department's achievements over the last year and its detailed plans to continue to meet our over-arching aim of improving everyone's quality of life, now and for the future.

  DIYSO Scheme
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses have been allocated to owner/tenants under the DIYSO scheme in each of the last five years; and by which local authorities. [118755]

  Mr. Mullin
  The total number of units provided under the DIYSO (Do it Yourself Shared Ownership) scheme in England over the last five years is 11,887, of which 1,235 were funded by local authorities and 10,652 by the Housing Corporation.

  I will write to the hon. Member with a detailed breakdown by local authority area of the number of units provided through the DIYSO over the past five years.

  Housebuilding (England)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the housebuilding requirement figures for each of the English regions not already released. [118767]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Proposed housing provision figures have now been published by regional planning bodies for all the English regions, apart from the North West and the West Midlands which will follow later this year and in 2001 respectively. These proposals will be considered at public examinations into the draft Regional Planning Guidance. Subject to any proposed changes 120W
  published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and consultation on those, final RPG will then be issued. The current target timetable for the publication of final RPG in each of these regions is as follows:

  Region

  Target for issue of revised RPG

  North East

  Summer 2001

  East Midlands

  Summer 2001

  South West

  Winter 2000–01

  West Midlands

  Autumn 2002

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Summer 2001

  North West

  End 2001

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what analysis he has made of the age profile of those people likely to inhabit the new houses he has recently announced in the South East and East of England regions. [118766]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Table 4 (page 41) of the "Projections of households in England to 2021" (ISBN 1851123261) sets out the household projections for England by age, gender and marital status. A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the press officers appointed to his Department since 1997 have(a) declared political affiliations with the Labour Party and (b) have held previous positions (i) with the Labour party and (ii) with Labour party members. [118756]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Press officers in my Department are recruited on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. Political affiliation or previous association with any political party is not relevant and is not recorded.

  All civil servants must abide by the Civil Service Code. This makes clear that they should conduct themselves with integrity, impartiality and honesty. In addition, the Civil Service Management Code sets out principles underpinning restrictions on civil servants' participation in political activities.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department keeps a register of contaminated land in the UK. [118764]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department does not keep a central register of contaminated land in England. Under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which institutes a new regime for contaminated land, and which came into force on 1 April 2000 in respect of England, local authorities must keep a register of land in their area which they determine is contaminated land under that regime. Arrangements in the other parts of the United Kingdom are matters for the Northern Ireland departments, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.
  121W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for imposing environmental obligations on owners of land which was contaminated prior to their ownership. [118765]

  Mr. Mullin
  In 1995, Parliament inserted Part IIA into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This sets out a new regime for dealing with contaminated land., which came into full effect in England from 1 April 2000. Under it, where land is identified as contaminated and the person or persons who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination cannot be found, the owner or occupier of the land can be required, subject to the provisions of the Act, to carry out the necessary remediation. These provisions restate obligations which have existed as part of the statutory nuisance regime since 1860. Although the Government consider that some amendments to the new regime are desirable, we have no proposals to change this aspect.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the questions from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tabled for answer on 13 and 17 March, Refs 114399, 114400 and 115124. [118763]

  Mr. Hill
  I replied to the hon. Member's questions 114399 and 114400 on 7 April 2000,Official Report, column 605W. I will reply to question 115124 in due course.

  Goods Vehicles (Parish Councils)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to permit parish councils to object to the grant of licences by the Traffic Commissioners; and if he will make a statement. [118642]

  Mr. Hill
  The possibility of allowing parish councils a statutory right of objection to applications for goods vehicle operator licences was considered as part of the last major review of the operator licensing system, but was ruled out at that time. This review resulted in the present legislation, the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Bodies which may object to licence applications, such as local authorities, are listed in the Act. There may be a case for including parish councils in this list, but it is too early to carry out another major review of the system. In the meantime, I hope that local authorities will consult parish councils on applications for operator licences which may affect them and take their views into account in considering whether to use their statutory right of objection.

  Traffic Growth
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, columns 322-23W, on traffic growth, if he will list the levels of traffic growth for the South East in (a) 1979, (b) 1990 and (c) for each year from 1992 to date. [118731]
  122W
  Mr. Hill
  The table provides annual growth estimates for all motor vehicle traffic on major roads in the South East of England from 1984 to 1998. Comparable estimates for earlier years and for traffic on minor roads are not available.

  Estimated annual traffic growth on major roads in the south-east of England

  Year

  Estimated annual percentage change in all motor vehicle traffic

  1984

  5.8

  1985

  1.8

  1986

  9.8

  1987

  9.5

  1988

  10.1

  1989

  5.5

  1990

  0.3

  1991

  3.1

  1992

  -0.8

  1993

  0.8

  1994

  0.7

  1995

  2.1

  1996

  4.4

  1997

  0.3

  1998

  3.8

  Note:

  Data relate to the area covered by the South East Government Office Region

  The relatively small sample sizes used to produce regional traffic growth estimates mean that the confidence intervals around the annual growth estimates provided are larger than for comparable estimates at the national level. The 95 per cent. confidence interval surrounding the above figures is of the order of plus or minus 4 per cent. This compares to an interval of plus or minus 2 per cent. for the same data at the Great Britain level.

  The 1999 traffic growth estimates will be published in May.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what responses have been received by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law to the consultation paper on parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence; and when it is expected that the results of the consultation will be published. [118031]

  Jane Kennedy
  A report of the results of the consultation will be published by the Advisory Board tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will announce his proposals for the reform of the Public Trust Office. [118894]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor has today published "Making Changes—The Future of the Public Trust Office", setting out his plans for reform of the Public Trust Office.
  123W
  The Public Trust Office, an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department, was established in 1994. It incorporates three separate functions:

  Its Mental Health Sector deals with matters under Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983: The Sector's Protection Division overseas the activities of private receivers appointed by the Court of Protection to manage financial affairs for mentally incapacitated individuals. Its Receivership Division manages the financial affairs of mentally incapacitated people who have no one else to manage their finances. The Sector also deals with matters under the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985.

  The Court Funds Office is a banking and investment service for funds deposited in court. These are held under jurisdiction of the Chief Executive of the Public Trust Office, acting as Accountant General of the Supreme Court.

  The Public Trustee acts as an executor or trustee in respect of estates and settlements.

  In November 1999, the Lord Chancellor published the Quinquennial Review of the Public Trust Office. He welcomed the Review's clear diagnosis of the challenges faced by the Public Trust Office, agreed that radical change was required and undertook to explore the Review's recommendations in a programme of change.

  The Change Programme for the Public Trust Office, announced today, will improve services received by clients and, in particular, the vulnerable. The Government's overriding objective will be to ensure that the interests of the Public Trust Office's clients are fully protected. The changes proposed will deliver a step change in the quality of services. This will be achieved through centralised planning and monitoring, balanced by service delivery through those agencies which are best placed to meet the needs of clients. Where this means establishing new partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors, we will do this. Throughout the reforms, we will target resources on those clients who are most in need.

  The Lord Chancellor will separate the disparate functions of the existing Public Trust Office, transferring the Trust function and the Court Funds Office to the bodies best placed to provide them: the office of the Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court and the Court Service respectively. The Office's remaining core functions of oversight of receivers and functions in relation to Enduring Powers of Attorney will be reviewed to provide a cohesive and greatly improved service.

  The Lord Chancellor will ensure that he retains responsibility for the most vulnerable of Public Trust Office clients. There will be clear lines of ministerial accountability for those functions remaining within the Lord Chancellor's Department and he will establish and monitor clear standards of service provision both for those functions remaining within the Department and for those services provided in future by other parts of the public sector, and in the voluntary and private sectors.

  The Lord Chancellor will want to be satisfied that reform does not entail placing a greater financial burden on some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The new regime will deliver much improved value for money. Services received will be tailored to the individual's requirements; there will be much greater
  124W
  advice and assistance available; and it will genuinely protect the vulnerable. A new clearer and simpler fee system will be introduced and backed by the introduction of fee remissions for those who cannot afford to pay for the services they receive.

  The Lord Chancellor envisages that plans for the more significant changes proposed will be taken forward during 2000–01 with the intention that the Public Trust Office would cease to exist as a separate and distinct Office from April 2001 onwards.

  The Change Programme reforms to the Public Trust Office will also play an important part in paving the way for the Government's "Making Decisions" policy proposals to modernise and clarify the law governing decision making by and on behalf of the mentally incapacitated. The Government is committed to legislating on "Making Decisions" when parliamentary time allows, and the Change Programme will provide a firm basis for these reforms.

  The Lord Chancellor welcomes the views of all those who wish to comment on the reforms that he proposes to take forward.

  Copies of the booklet "Making Changes—The Future of the Public Trust Office" have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) number and (b) percentage of properties in his charge are empty; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the number of such properties. [116908]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 31 March 2000]: Northern Ireland public sector property centres were surveyed as regards properties and produced these returns:

  Number of vacant properties—5,995

  Vacant as percentage of total—4.4 per cent.

  All property centres are required to have a strategy which incorporates justifying the retention of each property held. These strategies are monitored by the Central Advisory Unit of Valuation and Lands Agency. Any property which is identified as being surplus to business requirements must be disposed of as quickly as possible in accordance with the guidelines published by Central Advisory Unit.

  In the case of the housing sector, which accounts for most of the vacant property in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a number of ongoing initiatives which set out objectives and targets for reducing the number of voids.

  Train Chassis Corrosion
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost to public funds arising from taking trains out of service because of chassis corrosion problems in the last three years. [117837]
  125W
  Mr. Ingram
  Translink have informed the Department of Regional Development that the only known cost is £615,706 for repairing corrosion to train carriage bogies.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance given to valuation officers when determining the rateable value of buildings in Northern Ireland. [117678]

  Mr. Ingram
  Rating is a wide-ranging and continually evolving area of valuation law and practice. It is subject to extensive and ongoing statutory provision and a substantial body of case law.

  Against this background the guidelines available to valuation officers, the majority of whom are professionally qualified surveyors, is equally extensive and wide-ranging, in terms of source and content.

  In the circumstances it would be impossible to assemble all the material which is of relevance to, and impacts on, the valuation process.

  Paramilitary Offences
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many paramilitary offences have been committed since the signing of the Belfast Agreement by(a) Republican and (b) Loyalist organisations, broken down by specific offence; and if he will make a statement. [117662]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: The information requested can be found in the table:

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  UK

  Total

  1. Incidents

  Deaths

  14

  35

  1

  50

  Shooting incidents

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1311

  Bombing incidents

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1188

  2. Casualties as a result of paramilitary attacks

  Shooting

  92

  52

  —

  144

  Assaults

  182

  93

  —

  275

  1 It is not always possible to confirm the attribution for these incidents.

  Note:

  It should also be noted that shooting incidents will include those incidents resulting in the 144 casualties shown in number 2 of the table and that there may have been more than one casualty in a single shooting incident.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117819]

  Mr. Ingram
  Some 108 lawyers are employed by the Northern Ireland Office currently. In April 1995 the numbers were 94. In addition to these figures, four lawyers are currently on career breaks and two were on career breaks in 1995. Under existing arrangements lawyers working under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland are formally employed by the Northern Ireland Office.

  Fire Brigade
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if new recruits to the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade receive training in dealing with civil disturbance. [118001]

  Mr. George Howarth
  New recruits to the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade receive training in dealing with civil disturbance incidents along the same lines as new recruits to other Fire Brigades in Great Britain.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil disturbance call-outs the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade has attended in each month since 1 January 1998. [118002]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The table sets out the number of call-outs attended by the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade where the Brigade met with hostility. These include incidents when children threw stones at appliances.

  Civil disturbances attended by Northern Ireland fire brigade January 1998-February 2000

  Month

  1998

  1999

  2000

  January

  17

  23

  26

  February

  20

  21

  12

  March

  46

  72

  —

  April

  35

  59

  —

  May

  58

  69

  —

  June

  59

  54

  —

  July

  743

  79

  —

  August

  54

  75

  —

  September

  33

  35

  —

  October

  47

  43

  —

  November

  29

  17

  —

  December

  15

  8

  —

  Total

  1,156

  555

  38

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what differences apply to the(a) financial and (b) leave arrangements within the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade in respect of (i) whole-time fire officers and (ii) retained fire officers. [118003]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Fire-fighters in Northern Ireland are entitled to the same rate of pay and leave as fire-fighters in Great Britain. Northern Ireland fire-fighters also receive a Northern Ireland allowance of four days additional leave. The allowance works out at £24.99 a week for whole-time fire-fighters and £1.24 extra per incident attended for retained fire-fighters. Neither the allowance nor the additional leave entitlement applies to new recruits who joined from 3 August 1999.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what differences in respect of duties, including civil disturbance call-outs, apply between(a) whole-time and (b) retained fire officers who are remunerated at different rates within the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade. [118004]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no differences in the duties of whole-time and retained fire-fighters.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what role the Labour Relations Agency played in the 1986 agreement to pay a Northern Ireland Allowance to Northern Ireland Fire Brigade officers; and if that allowance is still paid. [118005]
  127W
  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1986 the Labour Relations Agency acted as arbitrator in a dispute concerning the level of Northern Ireland Allowance being paid to fire-fighters. The allowance is still being paid to all personnel employed prior to 3 August 1999.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade has had a two-tier contract of employment pay system imposed; and if he will list those fire brigades in Great Britain which operate two-tier systems. [118093]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In November 1998 the Chief Fire Officer of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade wrote to the Fire Brigades Union telling them of his intention to issue new Contracts of Service to new recruits to the Fire Brigade. The new contracts, which were introduced for recruits joining from 3 August 1999, maintained the same conditions re basic pay, etc., that apply across the United Kingdom for all fire-fighters but removed a number of local conditions, one of which was the payment of the Northern Ireland Allowance. The contracts of existing fire-fighters were not affected. There is of course room for other brigades to have local pay enhancements and conditions—for example, different rates of London Weighting Allowance.

  Appointment Panels
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members of the appointment panels which are sitting to oversee the appointment of(a) the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Ombudsman and

  Hospital medical consultants in neurology by regional office 1988–1995 England at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  England

  180

  180

  200

  210

  210

  210

  240

  260

  Northern

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Yorkshire

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Trent

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  East Anglia

  0

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  North West Thames

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  North East Thames

  20

  20

  20

  30

  20

  30

  20

  30

  South East Thames

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  30

  30

  South West Thames

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Wessex

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  Oxford

  10

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  10

  10

  South Western

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  West Midlands

  10

  10

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Mersey

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  North Western

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  20

  Special Health Authorities

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  20

  30

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 10.

  2. '0' denotes 5 or less.

  3. Regional totals may not equal England figure because of rounding and because some staff work in more than one region. These staff are counted under each region where they work, but only once in the England figure.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase funding of(a) research into screening for and (b) educational awareness of prostate cancer. [101686]
  128W
  (b) the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service; and what are their respective (i) professions and (ii) nationalities. [118000]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The panel to select a new Ombudsman for Northern Ireland comprised Mr. John Semple, Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service; Mrs. Margaret Elliott, a Solicitor and NI Civil Service Commissioner; and Dr. Maurice Hayes, a retired senior civil servant (former Permanent Secretary of DHSS in Northern Ireland) and a former Northern Ireland Ombudsman. In respect of the appointment of a new Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to take over from Mr. John Semple when he retires this summer, the decision lies with me subject to the approval of the Prime Minister. However, I have appointed a panel to offer advice. The panel comprises Mr. Muir Russell, Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Executive; Dame Valerie Strachan, a retired senior civil servant (former Chairman of HM Customs and Excise); and Mr. Paddy Mullarkey, a retired Irish civil servant (former Secretary General of the Department of Finance). In the past a retired senior Northern Ireland Civil Servant has assisted in the selection process for a high level post in the Irish public service. The nationality of each panel member was not ascertained to appointment to the respective panels.

HEALTH

  Neurological Consultants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of neurological consultants in each NHS region in each of the last 10 years. [116272]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Yvette Cooper
  I have recently announced £1 million funding for urgent research studies into prostate cancer. This is in addition to the extra £800,000 we have already committed for new prostate cancer research, which includes a £277,000 feasibility study for a trial of
  129W
  treatments of localised prostate cancer detected early by a prostate cancer screening test. Funding for the main trial will be considered in the light of the findings from the feasibility study.

  A range of information on men's cancers—including prostate cancer—is already freely available. Additionally, general practitioner guidelines on urgent referrals of patients with suspected prostate cancer will be published shortly, and outcomes guidance on urological cancers—including prostate cancer—will be commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence within the next two years.

  Dental Services (London Area)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of NHS dentists working in the Greater London Authority area. [117822]

  Mr. Hutton
  Most people in London can get National Health Service dentistry. Since September 1998 the number of dentists in the London area has increased by 112 and there are now nearly 45 dentists in the General Dentist Service per 100,000 population. This is the highest proportion in the country.

  We recognise that in some areas of London it remains difficult to access NHS dental care. Positive steps have already been taken to address this problem. NHS dentists in the London area have had Investing in Dentistry grants amounting to £660,000 and a dental access centre has been opened and three proposals for dental access centres are currently being considered by the NHS Executive. Discussions will continue with the profession at local level to improve and modernise the service.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 commonest cosmetic surgical procedures carried out(a) in the NHS and (b) in the private sector in the last three years. [118193]

  Ms Stuart
  Surgery which is purely for cosmetic purposes is not normally undertaken by the National Health Service. Hospital Episode Statistics show that the 10 most common plastic surgery procedures carried out in the NHS in 1998–99 and the two previous years are as in the table.

  Information on cosmetic surgery carried out in the private sector is not held centrally. However, details of some of the procedures undertaken in independent hospitals, including cosmetic surgery, are available in "The Public-Private Mix of Acute Hospital Care" by Professor Brian Williams (November 1999), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs1): selected diagnosis with the 10 most common operations performed in NHS hospitals England: 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Primary diagnosis/operations

  FCEs

  Procedures for purposes other than remedying health state and follow-up care involving plastic surgery (ICD Z41-Z42)

  1998–99

  B31 Other plastic operations on breast

  1,949

  N30 Operations on prepuce

  1,081

  B29 Reconstruction of breast

  819

  130W

  Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs1): selected diagnosis with the 10 most common operations performed in NHS hospitals England: 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Primary diagnosis/operations

  FCEs

  B30 Prosthesis for breast

  758

  E02 Plastic operations on nose

  457

  B35 Operations on nipple

  430

  S60 Other operations on skin

  414

  S02 Plastic excision of skin of abdominal wall

  335

  S31 Other operations on flap of skin to other site

  232

  S48 Insertion of skin expander into subcutaneous tissue

  189

  1997–98

  B31 Other plastic operations on breast

  1,641

  N30 Operations on prepuce

  910

  B29 Reconstruction of breast

  799

  B30 Prosthesis for breast

  638

  E02 Plastic operations on nose

  459

  S60 Other operations on skin

  365

  B35 Operations on nipple

  323

  S02 Plastic excision of skin of abdominal wall

  317

  S06 Other excision of lesion of skin

  216

  S31 Other operations on flap of skin to other site

  215

  1996–97

  B31 Other plastic operations on breast

  1,578

  N30 Operations on prepuce

  963

  B29 Reconstruction of breast

  760

  B30 Prosthesis for breast

  618

  E02 Plastic operations on nose

  555

  S02 Plastic excision of skin of abdominal wall

  419

  S60 Other operations on skin

  337

  S48 Insertion of skin expander into subcutaneous tissue

  254

  B35 Operations on nipple

  233

  S31 Other operations on flap of skin to other site

  209

  1 An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year. These figures represent a count of all FCEs where the procedure was mentioned in any of the four operation fields in the HES data set.

  Note:

  Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are provisional, no adjustments have as yet been made for shortfall in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed). But the data for 1996–97 are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (DOH)

  Diptheria-tetanus Booster Vaccine
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the supplies of diptheria-tetanus booster vaccine will return to the levels of 1997; and what percentage of five-year-olds were vaccinated for diptheria and tetanus immunisation in the last year for which figures are available. [118190]

  Yvette Cooper
  United Kingdom supplies of diphtheria-tetanus (DT) pre-school booster vaccine have increased year on year since 1996–97 reaching over 890,000 doses in 1998–99. Both manufacturers of the DT vaccine used in the United Kingdom's childhood immunisation programme experienced severe, but different, manufacturing problems during last year which resulted in temporary shortages of this vaccine. The Department has, from the beginning of this year, secured another source of supply for the vaccine and sufficient supplies are now available to allow the levels issued in the previous three years to be reached very shortly.
  131W
  In 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available, 512,000 children in England aged under five received reinforcing doses of vaccine against diphtheria and tetanus. This represents about 81 per cent. of the target population of pre-school children for these vaccinations.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the health authorities which currently fund the use of interferon and ribavirin for the treatment of hepatitis C; and what is the estimated cost of offering this nationally; [118196]

  (2) what plans he has to create a national standard of care that will be available to all sufferers of hepatitis C. [118195]

  Yvette Cooper
  Details of individual health authorities' funding policies on particular drugs are not held centrally, but there is currently some inconsistency between health authorities' policies on the combination drug therapy interferon alpha plus ribavirin for the treatment of hepatitis C. We have commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to consider the use of combination therapy to treat hepatitis C. Their findings are expected in September. They are also looking at evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of patients with hepatitis C drawn up by the professions with funding from the Department. The recommendations of NICE, and the clinical guidelines, will provide authoritative guidance to healthcare commissioners and clinicians, creating a national standard of care.

  The cost of offering combination therapy nationally cannot be estimated with accuracy because of variations such as the length of treatment required. Estimates are between £10 million and £18 million per annum, not including the price of tests and related capital costs.

  Adoption
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children from overseas have been adopted by British citizens living in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [118378]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold information about the number of children adopted from overseas, only about the number of inter-country adoption applications that it has processed. These will account for the majority of such adoptions and are set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of inter-country adoption applications processed Year by Department

  1997

  223

  1998

  258

  1999

  277

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will end the practice of inviting hon. Members to comment on the shortlists for appointments to chair NHS trusts and health authorities; [118631]
  132W
  (2) what plans he has to review the role of regional NHS chairmen; [118634]

  (3) pursuant to his Department's press release of 22 March on the NHS appointments system, when he will implement his proposal to devolve decisions about local appointments out of the hands of ministers; [118629]

  (4) what plans he has to meet the Commissioner for Public Appointments to discuss her report "Public Appointments to NHS Trusts and Health Authorities"; [118632]

  (5) what plans he has to commission a fundamental look at the role and purpose of NHS boards and the range of skills and experience required in appointees, in line with the recommendation of the Fritchie report on NHS appointments; [118628]

  (6) what steps he has taken to draw up fresh job descriptions and person specifications for chairs and non-executive directors of NHS trusts and health authorities in line with the recommendations of the Fritchie report; [118638]

  (7) if he will end the practice of seeking nominations from local authorities for appointments to NHS boards. [118630]

  Ms Stuart
  We are currently considering the findings and recommendations of the Commissioner's report and a detailed response will be made in due course. We have no plans to meet the Commissioner at present.

  Hospital Infections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost per year to the NHS of hospital-acquired infections. [118563]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 354W.

  Logistics Management
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to pilot the clinical applications for logistics management, developed at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, in other NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [118673]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ministers welcome and want to encourage examples of good practice in the National Health Service. Systems such as Royal Shrewsbury hospital's Clinical Applications for Logistics Management (CALM) system will be studied further by the new patient access teams set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. In addition, work is shortly to be commissioned by the Department on improving bed management.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Emergency Services Advisory Team has made of the clinical applications for logistics management used at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital; and if he will make a statement. [118674]

  Yvette Cooper
  During 1997, the Emergency Services Advisory Team (ESAT) evaluated all bed management systems in the National Health Service, including the Royal Shrewsbury hospital's Clinical Applications for Logistics Management system.
  133W
  I understand that the report by ESAT published in 1998 commended Royal Shrewsbury hospital's innovative, advanced bed management system.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the clinical applications for logistics management used at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital; and if he will make a statement. [118675]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am aware that the Clinical Applications for Logistics Management (CALM) system used by Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service trust was identified as an example of good practice in a National Audit Office report. The system was also awarded beacon status in 1999.

  I understand that a visit has been planned by the Department's head of hospital development to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in the near future to make a further evaluation of the CALM system.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of patients annually who would not have operations cancelled if the clinical applications for logistics management, as used by the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, was implemented nationwide. [118672]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ministers are aware of the reduction in cancelled operations achieved by the Clinical Applications for Logistics Management (CALM) system at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. Other National Health Service hospitals operating their own independent decision support systems for effective bed management also claim improvements in lowering the number of cancelled operations.

  Successful replication of systems such as CALM depends at least as much on people, knowledge, commitment and local circumstances as on specific technology. Therefore, it is not possible to extrapolate Royal Shrewsbury Hospital's reduced figures for cancelled operations to all other NHS hospitals.

  NVQ (Care)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people who registered for NVQ Level 2 in Care completed and passed the registered course; and what percentage this represented of the number who registered, in the last year for which figures are available; [118635]

  (2) how many care assistants have (i) registered for and (ii) completed NVQ Level 2 in Care in (a) nursing homes and (b) residential homes, in the last year for which figures are available; [118637]

  (3) what is the average period taken between registration and completion of NVQ Level 2 in Care. [118636]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available on numbers of care assistants registering for or completing NVQs by type of care provision. Nor are data available on times of completion for individual candidates.

  However, data are available showing that during the 12 month period 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999, 35,742 candidates were registered for an NVQ Level 2 Care award in the United Kingdom. In the same period, 18,135 candidates received their certificates for this award.
  134W
  We have been advised by the National Training Organisation for Social Care that research undertaken on the completion of NVQs has shown that the average period taken to complete an NVQ Level 2 in Care is 18 months.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is her Government's practice relating to the nationality of personnel who are involved in making appointments to senior positions within the United Kingdom Civil Service; and if he will make a statement. [118092]

  Mr. Stringer
  Appointments to the Senior Civil Service by open competition are governed by the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. The Code does not include nationality requirements for personnel involved in making such appointments.

  Appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service are a matter for the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commissioners.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117817]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department employed 44 lawyers as at 31 March 2000. This figure does not include: three lawyers on career break; two lawyers on maternity leave; two lawyers on secondment and three lawyers on loan to other Government Departments.

  On 31 March 1995, my Department employed 55 lawyers. This figure does not include two lawyers who were on secondment.

  Organic Food
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the demand for organic food in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [118569]

  Mr. Morley
  We expect the demand for organic produce to be sustained and to that end have made provision for increased expenditure on conversion aid in the England Rural Development Plan.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he will make available to farmers who wish to convert to organic farming before the Organic Farming Scheme reopens. [118576]

  Mr. Morley
  We are continuing to fund the provision of free conversion advice, including on-farm visits, by the Organic Conversion Information Service.
  135W
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make new money available to fund organic conversion between now and April 2001. [118575]

  Mr. Morley
  We are projecting expenditure of £12 million for this financial year on conversion aid in England. I have no plans to increase that figure.

  Beef
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to secure a lifting of the ban on the export of British beef to the EU. [117187]

  Ms Quin
  British beef can be exported to all member states except France. The European Commission has begun legal proceedings against the French Government for their failure to lift their ban on the import of British beef. The UK Government have made it clear to the Commission that they expect these proceeding to be pursued vigorously.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has collated on the extent to which beef carcases retaining the spinal cord are being imported from other EU countries. [118666]

  Ms Quin
  Inspections of beef imported from the EU are carried out in all licensed meat plants in the UK. Since January 1998, when the Specified Risk Material Order 1997 came into force requiring imported carcases not to contain any specified risk materials, one of these inspections in mid-1999 has identified seven beef forequarters in a single consignment from which the spinal cord had not been completely removed.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2000,Official Report, column 588W, if the reallocation of quota involved resulted in a reduction of (a) quota and (b) resources available to non-foreign-owned vessels; and if he will make a statement. [118019]

  Mr. Morley
  Vessels which rejoined the UK fleet in the early 1990s, having previously been de-registered as a result of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, had incomplete track records for the period they had been off the register. To accommodate their return, the non-sector's quota allocations for Western hake and Area VII anglers and megrim for 1992, 1993 and 1994, which reflected fishing activity in a preceding rolling three year reference period, were adjusted as shown in the table.

  Western hake

  Area VII anglers

  Area VII megrim

  1992

  Pre adjustment

  2,578

  1,642

  485

  Post adjustment

  3,837

  2,361

  974

  1993

  Pre adjustment

  3,228

  1,512

  833

  Post adjustment

  3,928

  1,707

  1,107

  1994

  Pre adjustment

  3,002

  1,548

  1,002

  Post adjustment

  3,193

  1,548

  1,057

  136W
  Adjustments in subsequent years have been minimal as most of the vessels concerned had returned to the register by the end of 1994.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual revenue raised from tax on bank and building society accounts from accounts taxed at(a) the starting rate of tax, (b) the basic rate of tax and (c) the higher rate of tax in each of the last three years. [117235]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Banks and building societies are required to deduct income tax at the lower rate of 20 per cent. before paying interest to savers. This satisfies the tax liability of lower and basic rate taxpayers. The additional tax liability of higher rate taxpayers (the difference between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent.) is administered through Self Assessment. Estimates for the liabilities are shown in the table. The increase over this period reflects higher deposit levels and interest rates.

  Amounts of tax: £ billion

  Tax on interest liable at 20% lower rate

  Excess over 20% lower rate

  Total tax liability from bank and building society interest

  1996–97

  1.8

  0.4

  2.2

  1997–98

  2.3

  0.5

  2.8

  1998–99

  3.0

  0.7

  3.7

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which(a) benefits and (b) services a successful claim for Working Families Tax Credit is a passport. [117620]

  Mr. Timms
  The major central Government passports for many Working Families Tax Credit recipients are help with NHS costs such as prescription charges, dental treatment, sight tests and hearing aids and Social Fund payments to help with maternity costs or funeral expenses.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer in a full year of the Working Families Tax Credit. [117838]

  Mr. Timms
  The projection for 2000–01 is £4.8 billion. This takes into account (a) the increase in the child tax credit in awards made from June 2000, and (b) the introduction of the disabled child tax credit in awards made from October 2000.

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Houghton and Washington, East receive the Working Families Tax Credit; and what has been the expenditure on working families tax credit for that area since it was introduced. [117976]

  Mr. Timms
  It is estimated that 2,200 families in Houghton and Washington, East were awarded the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) by the end of
  137W
  February 2000. There is insufficient data available to provide a reliable estimate of the total expenditure on these awards.

  Car Taxes
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what taxes are payable on the purchase of(a) new cars imported from other EU member states, (b) cars less than six months old imported from other EU member states and (c) used cars. [117854]

  Mr. Timms
  UK VAT at 17.5 per cent. of the purchase price is payable when a private individual purchases a car which is either less than six months old, or has travelled less than 6,000 kms, in another EU member state and brings it to the UK. If the car is more than six months old and has travelled more than 6,000 kms, VAT will be payable in the member state in which the purchase took place. No UK VAT will be payable.

  Personal Pension Plans
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people paid into personal pension plans and how many schemes attracted tax relief at(a) the starting rate, (b) the standard rate and (c) the higher rate in each of the last three years; [117231]

  (2) what was the total annual cost to the Treasury of providing tax relief on personal pension plans at (a) the starting rate, (b) the standard rate and (c) the higher rate in each of the last three years. [117230]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Estimates of the cost of tax relief for contributions to personal pensions and such information as is available on the number of contributors by rate of income tax are given in the tables.

  Number

  Employees1 making contributions to personal pensions

  Approximately 23,000,000

  of which, higher rate taxpayers

  300,000

  1 Based on aggregate information provided by plan managers and survey data.

  2 All benefit from repayment of basic rate tax claimed by their pension provider, including those who are non-taxpayers or pay tax at less than the basic rate.

  Number of self-employed1 making contributions to personal pensions

  Thousand

  Rate of income tax

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Non-taxpayers

  290

  310

  280

  Lower rate

  170

  170

  160

  Basic rate

  690

  680

  660

  Higher rate

  210

  250

  260

  1 Based on relief claimed on tax returns

  Cost of tax relief for personal pension schemes

  £ million

  Source of contributions and rate of income tax relief

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Employees' contributions

  Basic rate

  480

  420

  470

  Higher Rate

  200

  390

  450

  Employers' contributions1

  Basic rate

  160

  180

  230

  Higher rate

  60

  170

  220

  138W

  Cost of tax relief for personal pension schemes

  £ million

  Source of contributions and rate of income tax relief

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  National Insurance rebates2

  Basic rate

  224

  217

  175

  Contributions by the self employed

  Lower rate

  30

  30

  30

  Basic rate

  200

  210

  210

  Higher rate

  420

  500

  530

  1 On the basis that under present arrangements, employers' contributions are not taxable as a benefit in kind of the employees. Figures assume that the proportion related to higher rate taxpayers is the same as that observed for employees' contributions.

  2 Basic rate tax relief in respect of the employees' part of the National Insurance rebate received by around 3.7 million employees with appropriate personal pensions.

  Medical Insurance
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of medical insurance policies held by the over-60s which have not been renewed since the abolition of tax relief. [117715]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: None. There is no reliable information available to the Government about renewals by the over-60s of their private medical insurance policies for any period since the tax relief was abolished in 1997.

  Income Tax Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers in 2000–01 he estimates will have a marginal income tax rate of(a) 10 per cent., (b) 22 per cent. and (c) 40 per cent.; what proportion of each of these groups works (i) part-time and (ii) full-time; if he will set out the calculations underlying his answer; and if he will make a statement. [117826]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 6 April 2000]: The table gives the figures requested for 2000–01.

  Percentage working

  Marginal income tax rate

  Number of taxpayers (million)

  Full-time1

  Part-time1

  10 per cent.

  2.7

  12

  56

  22 per cent.2

  22.6

  66

  12

  40 per cent.3

  2.7

  89

  5

  1 Those working full-time or part-time include both employees and the self-employed

  2 Includes taxpayers whose marginal rate is the lower rate on savings income or the ordinary dividends rate

  3 Includes taxpayers whose marginal rate is the higher dividends rate

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and Family Expenditure Survey and are consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the responses to
  139W
  the recent consultation exercise on the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts; and for what reasons the results have not yet been published; [118200]

  (2) if, after discussions with the Co-operative Movement are completed, he intends to propose amendments to the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. [118201]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 446W.

  Number of claimants

  1970

  1980

  1999

  Benefit:

  Income Support (Supplementary Benefit in 1970 and 1980)

  191,000

  316,000

  11,030,000

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Income based)

  n/a

  n/a

  14,000

  Housing Benefit2

  n/a

  n/a

  1,016,000

  Family Credit (Family Income Supplement in 1971 and 1980)

  15,000

  52,000

  3405,000

  Widowed Mothers Allowance4

  100,000

  79,000

  47,000

  Annual cost5
  (£ billion)

  1.1

  £1.4

  9.1

  Proportion of DSS budget (percentage)

  3

  3

  9

  1 This is the number of "single Income Support claimants with dependants". Therefore this figure includes some who are claiming Income Support (IS) due to disability or being over pension age as well as those claiming IS due to being a lone parent.

  2 Figures for Housing Benefit are for 1998. The current Housing Benefit scheme was introduced in 1988. Prior to 1988 figures were not collected separately for lone parents and so they have not been included in the table.

  3 Figures for Family Income Supplement are for 1971 and 1980. Figures for Family Credit (FC) only go up to September 1999. From October 1999, FC was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit.

  4 Figures for Widowed Mothers Allowance (WMA) are for December 1971, November 1981 and March 1999.

  5 The expenditure figures are given in real 1999–2000 prices. They are based on 1970–71, 1980–81 and 1999–2000 with the following exceptions: WMA is based on 1971–72 and 1981–82. FIS is based on 1981–82 and FC refers to 1998–99 (ie the last full year of FC). Therefore the proportion of expenditure for 1970–71, 1980–81 and 1999–2000 are approximate figures.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of the numbers on benefit are based on 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. scans of benefit computer systems. These scans select 1 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the relevant cases and so are subject to some degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Some lone parents will be in receipt of other benefits such as IB, SDA or Industrial Injuries Benefit. We have not included them in this table, as we cannot separately identify lone parents on the computer systems for these benefits.

  4. Figures cannot be added together as some cases will be in receipt of more than one of these benefits.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1999.

  2. Supplementary Benefit: Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Enquiries.

  3. JSA (IB): Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1999.

  4. Family Credit: Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1999.

  5. Widowed Mothers Allowance: 5 per cent. sample of Pension Strategy Computer System. March 1999.

  6. Housing Benefit: Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry, taken as at the second Thursday of May 1998.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of households headed by a single mother are currently in receipt of(a) housing benefit, (b) other social security benefits, excluding child benefit, (c) income support, (d) social security loans and (e) free school meals. [117531]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage

  Proportion of all lone mothers in receipt

  Housing Benefit

  59

  Other Social Security Benefits

  28

  Income Support

  60

  Social Fund Loans

  24

  Free School Meals

  1—

  1 Information for free school meals is not available by family type.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Statistics
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single parents in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999 were in receipt of social security benefits, excluding child benefit or its equivalent; and what was (i) the cost of such benefits and (ii) the proportion of the total social security budget which they constituted in each of these years. [117534]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of the numbers on benefit are based on 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. scans of benefit computer systems. These scans select 1 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the relevant cases and so are subject to some degree of sampling error.

  2. The proportions have been calculated using departmental forecasts of the number of lone parents. Figures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  3. Some lone parents will be in receipt of other benefits such as Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disability Allowance or Industrial Injuries Benefit. We have not included them in this table, as we cannot separately identify lone parents on the computer systems for these benefits. Other benefits is defined to include Jobseeker's Housing Allowance (Income Based) (JSA(IB)), Widowed Mothers Allowance and Family Credit (FC).

  4. Figures for FC only go up to September 1999. From October 1999, FC was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit.

  5. The figures for the Social Fund exclude people with an outstanding loan, which they are not currently repaying.

  141W
  Sources:

  1. Income Support: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1999.

  2. JSA (IB): Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 1999.

  3. Family Credit: Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1999 Widowed Mothers Allowance: 5 per cent. sample of Pension Strategy Computer System, March 1999.

  4. Housing Benefit: Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry, taken as at the second Thursday of May 1998.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single parent households which were headed by a divorced woman were in receipt of social security benefits, excluding child benefit or its equivalent, in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1999; and what was the cost of such benefits in each of these years. [117533]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested as, generally, statistics on the receipt of Social Security benefits can only be broken down into lone and couple claimants. Divorced claimants are not separately identified.

  Such information as is available is as follows. In 1980, of 316,000 lone parents claiming Supplementary Benefit, 109,000 were recorded as being female divorced claimants with dependants. In May 1994, 161,000 female lone parents were divorced (17 per cent. of all female lone parents). Since May 1994 divorced claimants have not been separately identified in Income Support statistics.

  Sources:

  1. 1994: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1994.

  2. 1980: Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  3. Caseloads have been rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the officials in his Department at Grade 3 and above with responsibility for retirement and widows' pension matters in the period 1986 to 1991. [117694]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the officials in his Department at Grade 3 and above with responsibility for retirement and widows' pensions matters in the period 1986 to 1991 and (b) the capacities in which they are currently employed in the public service. [118222]

  Mr. Darling
  The officials in this Department at Grade 3 and above from 1986 to 1991 are a matter of public record in The Civil Service Year Books from 1986 on. These are available in the Library.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of recipients of letters under his minimum income guarantee take-up campaign who are entitled to income support. [117870]

  Mr. Rooker
  As part of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) take-up campaign we will be writing to around 2 million pensioners whom our records suggest are most likely to have underlying entitlement. This targeted group will be pensioners who our pension records suggest have incomes below the MIG level. However, we 142W
  do not know how many of these pensioners will have capital or other income that could affect their entitlement to benefit.

  Pension Payment Methods
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he is putting in place to ensure that people in receipt of retirement pension paid through automatic credit transfer are paid on the date the pension is due. [118033]

  Mr. Rooker
  The frequency of payments is one of a number of issues to be considered on the move to payments by Automated Credit Transfer. No final decisions have yet been taken, but we will ensure that the new arrangements from 2003 continue to meet people's needs. In particular, we recognise that many pensioners will expect to be able to continue to be paid weekly.

  Mortgage Interest
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions have taken place between his Department and mortgage lenders to ensure that when mortgage interest is paid by the Department the borrower pays interest on the most favourable terms available from the mortgage lender. [118649]

  Angela Eagle
  There have been no discussions between this Department and mortgage lenders with regard to favourable interest rates. The Department calculates mortgage payments based on a standard interest rate that is calculated by the Building Societies Commission. A mortgage contract is between the lender and the borrower, with no involvement from this Department.

  Benefits (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over the age of 65 do not claim(a) a state pension and (b) other state benefits in the Crosby constituency. [118682]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available at constituency level. If my hon. Friend has a particular problem perhaps she will write to me.

  Widowers' Benefits
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 272W, on widowers' benefits, for what reason the ex gratia payment was made. [118664]

  Angela Eagle
  An offer of ex gratia payments was made to a widowed father by way of friendly settlement of his case before the European Court of Human Rights.

  Earnings Top-up Pilot
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many workers in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne are receiving benefits under the Earnings Top-Up pilot; what is the value of these benefits; what numbers of(a) women and (b) men are receiving the top-up; how many of these women and men are working part-time and do not have the care of children; and when the benefit will cease. [117877]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  143W
  The three-year Earnings Top-Up pilot began in October 1996 and finished as planned at the end of September this year. No new claims for Earnings Top-Up have been accepted since 28 September 1999. However, people in

  Earnings top-up (ETU) cases in Newcastle upon Tyne by sex and weekly hours worked as at 31 March 2000

  Weekly hours worked

  All cases

  Under 30 hours

  30 hours or more

  Cases

  Average ETU (£)

  Cases

  Average ETU (£)

  Cases

  Average ETU (£)

  All cases

  1,781

  26.98

  1,176

  25.36

  605

  30.13

  All women

  911

  23.44

  699

  23.35

  212

  23.76

  All men

  870

  30.68

  477

  28.30

  393

  33.57

  Notes:

  1. As Earnings Top-Up was a pilot of an in-work benefit for people without dependent children no one with the care of children would have been eligible for it. Such families would have been able to claim Working Families Tax Credit.

  2. Based on 100 per cent. caseload figures.

  3. Figures are unrounded.

  Source:

  Earnings Top-Up Statistical Enquiry, March 2000.

  Primary Carers (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over the age of 65 were primary carers in the Crosby constituency in each of the years from 1994 to 1997. [118681]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Winter Fuel Payment (a)

  200

  200

  760

  1,380

  1,210

  MIG (b)

  —

  —

  410

  700

  1,090

  Total (c = a+b)

  200

  200

  1,170

  2,080

  2,300

  RP earnings-uprated since April 1998 (d)

  —

  130

  610

  1,580

  1,860

  Extra spending (c-d)

  200

  70

  560

  500

  440

  Cumulative extra spending

  200

  270

  830

  1,330

  1,770

  Notes:

  1. Rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Costs are in 1999–2000 terms.

  3. Some figures do not appear to sum. This is due to rounding.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make an announcement about the payment of Winter Fuel Payments following the European Court judgment of 16 December 1999. [118811]

  Mr. DarlingI
  Following the European Court of Justice's ruling on Winter Fuel Payments last December, announced the Government's intention to equalise, at 60, the age at which payments could be made. I also said that it would be necessary to set up a claims process to make sure that the right people got the right amount of Winter Fuel Payment due.

  The arrangements are as follows:
  We want to ensure that people entitled to payments for past winters will receive those payments as soon as practically possible. The plan is to make them from the end of June onwards and payments for this coming winter before Christmas 2000.
  Around 50,000 people, who think they may now be eligible for a backdated payment, have already registered their details with the

  144W
  receipt of Earnings Top-Up at the time the pilot ended are allowed to claim one further six-month award. This means that some people could continue to receive Earnings Top-Up until 25 September 2000.

  State Pension
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of State of 3 April 2000,Official Report, columns 624-25, on the state pension, if he will give a breakdown for the figure of £800 million. [118801]

  Mr. Darling
  The information is in the table and shows an annual breakdown of the amount spent on Winter Fuel Payments and on earnings-uprating the MIG, over and above what the cost of earnings-uprating the basic state pension would have been.

  Department. We will be writing to them in the next few weeks with a claim form for completion.
  Over a five week period starting in May, we will also be writing to over two million people, who we think are eligible, to invite them to make a claim. There is no need for anyone to do anything now.
  People who think they are eligible will also be able to download claim forms from the Department's own website, www.dss.gov.uk, or they will be able to obtain them, on request, from the Winter Fuel Payment helpline. The helpline number is 08459 15 15 15.

  A simultaneous national advertising campaign will be set in train to encourage those who think they are eligible, and who have not received a letter by mid-June, to contact the Department. Also, from June up to Christmas, information and advertising campaigns will be run to help ensure that people are fully aware of how to claim and when they will receive their payments. Arrangements for notifying representative bodies will be set in train so that they will be able to advise those who contact them for advice.

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

Taiwan
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they are making to the Chinese Government regarding the continuing independence of Taiwan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, none. Like most countries, we do not recognise Taiwan as an independent state. We acknowledge the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China and recognise the Chinese Government as the sole legal government of China. Taiwan and the UK nevertheless enjoy an excellent relationship, particularly in the commercial and cultural spheres. We wish to build on that to our mutual benefit. We believe that the issue of Taiwan should be solved peacefully through dialogue by the Chinese people on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. We are firmly opposed to the use of military means, and we make that view clear to the Chinese on every appropriate occasion.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting reply, is there not something of a paradox in what she says? Is it not a fact that, since the election of Mr Chen as leader of Taiwan, the economic integration between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland increases all the time but the political current flows very much in the opposite direction? Therefore, is it possible for western governments to maintain quite the disinterested attitude that in some respects the Minister's Answer reveals? Is this an area where possibly the unfulfilled wish of China to join the World Trade Organisation may be used as a bargaining counter to ensure that peace continues on both sides of the Taiwan Strait?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, nothing that I have said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government should properly be interpreted as a disinterested attitude. Our attitude is anything but disinterested. However, we must acknowledge the reality of the position in which China and Taiwan find themselves. We believe that the issue of Taiwan must be addressed through a process of peaceful dialogue. We have made very clear to both sides that there should be no recourse to military action, which would be extremely destabilising in that region of the world. At the moment
76
both sides appear to behave in a proportionate and responsible way, and we urge them strongly to continue in that vein.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the choice by the newly-elected President of Taiwan of Mr Tang Fei (a former member of the KMT) as his Prime Minister indicates an attempt to reach a middle way with the People's Republic of China? Does the Minister also accept that the passage through Congress of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which must still go before the President, may lead to an unfortunate deterioration in what is a tense situation? Will Her Majesty's Government make that plain to the Government of the United States?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government work with their partners to try to sensitise them to the very delicate situation presented by China and Taiwan. We shall do all in our power to ensure that the current sensible response by both the Chinese and the Taiwanese authorities continues so that there is a productive resolution of the difficulty.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I welcome the response of my noble friend about the importance of dialogue between China and Taiwan. Pursuant to that theme, will my noble friend make a statement about the summit between North and South Korea?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to do so. I am to answer a number of questions on this theme today, and this is just one more. We very much welcome the news that the President of South Korea and the Leader of North Korea are to meet in Pyongyang on 12th to 14th June. That is a very encouraging sign of the progress in relations between the two countries and provides a potentially historic opportunity to reduce the tensions and address the issues. That is an exemplar and provides hope that, similarly, the Chinese and Taiwanese situation will also remain stable.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it not the case that the People's Republic of China fired missiles in the direction of Taiwan at the first indication that it would hold free elections? In this difficult situation will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that Taiwan is a democracy and the Taiwanese are free, whereas China is not a democracy and, far from its people being free, has an appalling human rights record?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are very sensitive to the history the noble Baroness has outlined. Therefore our energy is directed increasingly to ensuring that the proportionate response to which I

77
spoke earlier is maintained. We very much take on board the regional concerns which are evident as a result of the past history.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, have the Government any specific plans for improving their relationship with Taiwan, given the encouraging nature of the Minister's first reply?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we certainly have. Although, as I made clear, our formal position is that we are unable to recognise Taiwan, we have done all we can to ensure that we have a long and fruitful relationship with Taiwan. We are actively seeking ways to take that aim forward and to develop it. Taiwan is an important trading partner to whom we exported over £867.7 million worth of goods last year. Therefore through trade and other issues we seek to ensure that the informal contacts we have with Taiwan are supportive and mutually productive.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is not Taiwan, in the words of Chairman Mao, a problem left over by history? Is it not an insoluble problem? Therefore would it be better not to attempt to solve it? Is it not fortunate that, unlike Hong Kong, there is no date by which the problem of Taiwan needs to be solved?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord would say that. However, it is a problem which needs solving. The Chinese and the Taiwanese are the two sets of Chinese people who need to solve the problem. Their global friends should do all they can to enable them to find a mutually satisfactory solution.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what exchanges has the Foreign Secretary had with the United States with a view to securing the territorial integrity of Taiwan?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness about the specific conversations. We have had a number of contacts with our American partners. We share a similar approach.

Passive Smoking: Protection of Children
2.44 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they will take to protect children from the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, for most children exposure to environmental tobacco smoke occurs in the home through the smoking of parents and elder siblings. The
78
Government have published a comprehensive strategy designed to reduce the prevalence of smoking among adults.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the noble Lord aware that there is at present some angry correspondence between parents of young children and the Rank Group over the smoking policy the company operates in its Butlin's holiday centres, in particular in indoor play areas and at events where children are present? One child suffered an exacerbation of the asthma from which he was suffering caused, so the local GP said, by the smoky atmosphere at the holiday centre. Does the noble Lord find it extraordinary that there was even smoking in the doctor's waiting room and that so far the company has declined to do anything about that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was unaware of the case. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing it to my attention. I understand that for children with asthma to have to inhale smoke can be uncomfortable and distressing. I encourage all companies to observe the public places charter which the Government agreed last September with representatives of Britain's pubs, hotels and restaurants to boost more and better smoke-free facilities. I believe that it also makes good business sense for them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I speak as a non-smoker and one who is well aware of the ill effects of smoke. Can the Minister define "environmental tobacco smoke"? The noble Lord referred to it as occurring within the home. I presume he means that it occurs anywhere. Does he not believe that there are other equally dangerous carcinogens in the air and that smoking is not the be-all and end-all of this air problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, "environmental tobacco smoke" is better known as passive smoking. I agree that there are many areas in which smoking can he inhaled if one is a non-smoker. I believe that by the efforts we are making—I have referred to the public places charter, and there is reference to the Health and Safety Executive, to see whether we can adopt an approved code of practice in relation to the work place—we are taking a responsible approach to encouraging more smoke-free areas while at the same time allowing choice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind that we are discussing a filthy product that is deadly dangerous, has the Minister seen the report in the Lancet which showed how the producers and purveyors of this disgusting product endeavoured to subvert the latest scientific research on the dangers of passive smoking in a way that was not only dangerous to the interests of the public but also subverted the very science involved?

79
Why have the Government not spoken out against this appalling example of bad behaviour on the part of industry?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have seen the report. However, I cannot comment on the specifics without knowing the full detail. We would be very concerned about any effort made by tobacco companies, or any other interest, to influence unduly the results of scientific research.
We are careful to ensure that research sponsored by my department is conducted under rigorous circumstances, that there is always peer review and that members of research committees with a direct interest in the area being investigated declare that interest.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with that famous Conservative, Edmund Burke, that example is the school of mankind and that therefore school teachers and the parents of school children should be discouraged from smoking.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure it is right that if people set an example it is much easier for children to follow it. I have to say that a degree of humility is due on my part. Another area where example would be effective is among nursing staff. In relation to staff in the NHS, the number of nurses who smoke seems to be relatively high.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how much damage can be caused to unborn babies by the mother smoking and by smoke in the environment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot quantify the damage, but I am prepared to write to the noble Baroness in that respect. Clearly, there is potential for damage and we must do all we can to ensure that women do not smoke during pregnancy.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend follow up that answer by saying what steps the Government are taking to warn parents of unborn children of the dangers of people smoking in their home during the pregnancy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, last autumn the Government launched a health education strategy designed to bring home to everyone in the country the dangers of smoking. It addresses adult groups, young people, pregnant women and the less advantaged. In particular, general practitioners giving direct advice in their surgeries can have a powerful impact on people's smoking habits.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware of the dangers of smoking, will he ensure that the Government take robust action against the spending of 1,000 million euros from the EU budget on subsidising tobacco growing in the EU?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that on health, inspection and control
80
grounds the Government strongly disapprove of the tobacco regime within the EU. We continue to press for positive disengagement from that regime.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the incident referred to by my noble friend emphasises the danger of extending qualified majority voting?

Genetic Testing: Insurance Companies
2.51 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jonesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What genetic tests they intend to permit insurance companies to carry out.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, insurance companies cannot require genetic tests to be carried out. The Government have established the Genetics and Insurance Committee to assess whether there is sufficient scientific and actuarial evidence to justify the consideration of genetic test results when assessing insurance premiums.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which did not give the full reassurance that I sought. First, does he agree that any decision to allow genetic testing by insurance companies, particularly of those with congenital illnesses such as the early onset of Alzheimer's disease or breast cancer, would prejudice them as regards life and travel insurance and endowment mortgages, thereby considerably increasing social exclusion, lessening the protection of consumers and contributing nothing to public health? Secondly, will he ensure that before any decision is made, whatever it may be, insurance companies abide by the code of practice?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are concerned to prevent the unfair and inappropriate use of genetic information in any circumstances, including by the insurance industry. I understand that the deliberations of the committee will reach a conclusion at the end of this year. The insurance industry has agreed to respect its decisions; to stop using the results from any test that does not meet the committee's criteria; and retrospectively to consider insurance premiums written as a:result of a test that the committee does not subsequently approve.
Earl Howe: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that one consequence of obliging people to take a genetic test is the likelihood of a large number of people finding themselves uninsurable? Does not the Minister consider that to be an important point?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do, indeed. If a large number of people fail to find insurance, that is a matter of concern. That is one of the issues which

81
needs to be given careful consideration in any review of the insurance industry's approach to genetic testing and of wider social and ethical issues. Alongside the committee's deliberations, which will be reported at the end of the year, the Government have set up the Human Genetics Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, which will examine some of those wider issues.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to undertake medical research into the prevention of conditions such as spina bifida and leukaemia? However, will he ensure that no individual is penalised because he has such a condition?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, we must invest in research into such conditions. However, a number of issues in relation to genetic testing and research will need to be carefully considered. I refer to the fairness and appropriateness of tests and the confidentiality of genetic information. We should question whether testing should be performed when no treatment is currently available. As regards the insurance industry, we have set up a committee to review the use of current tests and have established the Human Genetics Commission to examine wider issues.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am greatly reassured to hear that the issue will be considered by the Human Genetics Commission as well as by the Genetics and Insurance Committee. However, is the Ministei aware of the prediction that within perhaps 20 years it will be theoretically possible for each of us to carry a microchip giving details of our individual genome, not only identifying genes which may be responsible for single, fatal diseases, but also genes conferring susceptibility to illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and strokes? Does not that issue make this matter of very urgent importance?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. None of us can fully foresee the impact of the new developments, which is why we must be careful in making assessments about the legal and ethical basis on which they are being undertaken. There could be a tremendous challenge for the health service in ensuring that our services are geared up to take advantage of some of the work.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, will the Minister do all he can to achieve cross-party agreement in order to ensure that the insurance companies do not begin to play politics with this very serious issue which should be kept right out of the political spectrum?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure that the Government can look for the support of the opposition parties on this and many other matters. I believe that this country has taken a sensible approach to genetics and genetic testing. We have set up a number of advisory bodies, including the two
82
which I mentioned today, in order to ensure that we keep fully abreast of the current situation and future developments. It is important that we continue to work in a consensual and open way.

Kosovo: Political and Economic Progress
2.48 p.m.
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether political and economic progress in Kosovo is satisfactory.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there has been considerable progress in Kosovo since the international community inherited the wreckage left by Milosevic's forces. Over 800,000 refugees, brutally expelled from their homeland, have returned. Kosovo's children, educated in cellars and garages during the years of Belgrade's apartheid, are now taught freely in reopened schools. Small businesses are opening. Kosovar Albanians are working with the UN Mission in a joint administration. Kosovar Serbs are soon to join them. Local elections are planned for the autumn.
However, we are not complacent. Much remains to be done. In particular, extremists on both sides need to understand that we will not tolerate the pursuit of political goals by violent means.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full response to my Question. Does she recall that while there has been good progress in some sectors, only three weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the Secretary-General of NATO, said that we are on a razor edge between success and failure? As one example of the problems, does she recall that it was stated in last month's report from the UN Mission that the number of police who had been recruited under UN auspices amounted only to 2,000, whereas the target figure was 4,700? Does not that and other examples indicate that a very strong effort must be made by every country concerned to ensure that further resources are provided so that we do not stand in danger of losing the peace?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind the noble Lord's comments. I am sure that many of us were reassured that at the European Council in Lisbon on 23rd and 24th March it was agreed that the international community needed a more coherent strategy to support Kosovo and the region. The High Representative, Mr Solana, has been asked to develop action-oriented proposals in full association with the Commission where Mr Patten will have the crucial role. The UK is working closely with them both.
I turn to the second part of the noble Lord's question in relation to police. We agree that more police are vital in the region. At present, only 2,500 police out of the 4,700 total approved by the UN are in Kosovo. The UK has met both UN targets,

83
initially deploying 60 RUC officers and now a further 60 MoD police. We intend to contribute more, including up to 25 specialists in police and Customs work to strengthen UNM1K's capacity to tackle organised crime. Already, 40 UK police officers are training the future Kosovar police service. We must all do everything that we can to ensure a proper resolution to these difficulties.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that so far extremely little progress has been made in Kosovo towards civil and political education and that in the long term that is vital to the restoration of the health of Kosovo? Will she give some reassurance to the House that the Government will support such education with all the means at their disposal?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although, respectfully, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's assessment that little has been done, I certainly agree that this is an important endeavour. Rightly, it is a matter that has been highlighted and worked upon. The noble Lord will know that many judges and lawyers from the United Kingdom are going to Kosovo to assist in this regard. We see this as a positive move and we are certainly encouraging all our partners to do what they can to meet this very clear need.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend give us a little more information? She has given us some information about the British contribution to policing in Kosovo. Perhaps she will give the House some information about the detail of our assistance to economic reconstruction in that country.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made a considerable contribution to Kosovo. In the second half of 1999, we pledged almost $8 million for activities to support UNMIK: $1 million for salary costs for utility workers; $1 million for prisons; $3 million to support transformation of the former KLA and $2.9 million for other support, including UN mine action. We have also spent $5 million on upgrading Pristina airport. We have done much to ensure that the reconstruction is as positive as we can make it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there probably will not be much economic progress until there is law enforcement and a functioning system of justice? Although I welcome the British contribution on those fronts, will the Government ask the UN authority to do its utmost to rest rain traffic, both in drugs and in women?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we absolutely understand the nature of the problem to which the noble Lord rightly refers. We are doing everything that we can to ensure that the civil systems work, and work properly, and to support the mechanisms that will enable such trafficking, if it has taken place, to be curtailed, if not stopped.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I speak as
84
someone who returned only this weekend from a week in Albania. Certainly, as seen from the Albanian side of the border, the picture that she has painted of the restoration of economic progress and political justice in Kosovo is, I can only say, one of excessive optimism. The Americans, for example, built a refugee camp in Albania for 60,000 refugees from Kosovo. It was never occupied by a single one because they wanted to return to their own homes as soon as they could. Does the Minister agree that, sadly, ethnic cleansing has occurred in Kosovo, but it is ethnic cleansing by the Albanians of the Serbs? Does she agree that one of the mistakes made was that not nearly enough UN people were involved early enough and that not enough concerted organised planning took place between international organisations on what should be done once the bombing stopped? That is a lesson that we should learn for future crises of this sort.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that the picture that I sought to paint is in any way a rosy one. We are faced with incredibly difficult and pressing issues. No one who looks at the Kosovo situation could say anything but that we are faced with the most enormous challenge. However, we are determined to face that challenge and must bring about a creative resolution to it; nor do I accept that we are seeing ethnic cleansing in Albania if the noble Lord is suggesting that it is now ethnic cleansing of the Serbs. I should remind noble Lords ( many of whom, I hope, will not need reminding) that Milosevic expelled over 850,000 of his own citizens from their homeland in Kosovo and made a further ½ million homeless within Kosovo. Since June 1999, approximately 100,000 Kosovar Serbs have left Kosovo. The scale of the problem is very different. We should concentrate all our efforts on finding a resolution as opposed to revisiting a history that is now well recorded.

Zimbabwe
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
Whether Her Majesty's Government will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom's relations with Zimbabwe.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, together with other members of Her Majesty's Government, have sought in all statements to demonstrate that Britain is not an enemy but a friend of the people of Zimbabwe. It is because of that friendship that Britain is leading the international demand that the Government of Zimbabwe respect the rule of law and that the people of Zimbabwe have the right through free and fair elections to decide for themselves who will

85
govern Zimbabwe. We shall continue to take every responsible and realistic step to secure those twin demands.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that statement. Your Lordships' House will be concerned by recent and continuing events in Zimbabwe: the wholesale intimidation of journalists and, as the noble Baroness is aware, of anyone with dissident views; the way that lawless thugs are being cynically encouraged by the Mugabe Government to break the law and invade other people's property, despite failing to win the recent referendum; the continued prosecution of a costly and pointless war in the Congo; and the postponement of the elections. All those things condemn Zimbabwe, which should be one of Africa's most prosperous and stable nations, to penury and oppression. The process has all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing.
Is the House aware that everyone in Zimbabwe agrees that land reform is needed but that the 1 million acres acquired by the Government over 20 years since independence has been given not to the dispossessed but to Mugabe's cronies? Can the Minister tell the House why bilateral aid to Zimbabwe's Government is increasing; why Britain is still providing military assistance to Zimbabwe; why Britain has done nothing to investigate freezing the overseas assets of Mr Mugabe and his cronies; why the European Union yesterday continued to provide aid to the government of Zimbabwe; and whether the Foreign Secretary has agreed to meet Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader, as Mr Maude plans to do, in Britain later this week? Why has nothing been done to involve the Commonwealth?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt but the House will be aware that there was an agreement in the Procedure Committee about the arrangements that we should make on the basis of these deferred Questions being taken in the form of an extra Question at the end of Question Time.
I refer the noble Baroness to the Companion in which it says that where there is a Private Notice Question which is to be repeated in the Lords, the questions should be confined to not more than two short points.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords,the noble Baroness has asked a number of question, in fact so many it was difficult to keep track of them. But in response to the plethora of questions which I have been asked, I shall outline what we have done because that is important in relation to what the noble Baroness said.
Your Lordships will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met President Mugabe last week in the margins of the EU-Africa summit and he was grateful to President Obasanjo of Nigeria for helping to arrange that meeting. The Secretary of State emphasised our deep concern at the present situation
86
in Zimbabwe, and in particular the refusal of the Zimbabwe police and the government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law by complying with a court order to clear the illegal occupation of farms or by protecting the right of citizens to peaceful demonstration without fear of violence.
My right honourable friend stressed also the importance that we attach to free and fair elections within the time frame set out in the constitution of Zimbabwe.
It is extremely important to remember that when we talk about the land issue we are talking about something which affects all Zimbabweans. Whether black or white, they are Zimbabweans first. President Mugabe assured my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that he intends to hold the elections. He agreed also to send a delegation to London to discuss all our concerns. Britain remains willing, within such a discussion, to support a programme of land reform; but that would be on the basis of a fair price to willing sellers and must be targeted on helping the real rural poor. There can be no question of us supporting a programme of land reform unless the illegal occupations end and free and fair elections are held.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, while it is certainly the case that the situation in Zimbabwe is extremely volatile and dangerous, does my noble friend believe that the trotting out by the Opposition from the dictionary of insults and headlines in a hostile way towards a Commonwealth government helps the situation, or does she believe that a calm and sensible approach of discussion with the Government of Zimbabwe will pay better dividends?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that probably the best way of getting President Mugabe to change his mind is for a fellow African to persuade him of the error of his ways and that he is driving his country into economic ruin? There are Africans who may be able to do that.
Secondly, will the Government do everything that they can in all the international bodies, such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Commonwealth, to persuade President Mugabe not only to have an election but to have monitors to ensure that the election is fair?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord speaks with great good sense and I respectfully agree with his suggestions. It is of importance and of some comfort that President Obasanjo of Nigeria has been very helpful in that regard. We are obviously giving him our wholehearted support. We wish to see this matter successfully concluded.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what my noble friend said in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington,

87
but surely we should have placed a greater emphasis on the Commonwealth in this matter. After all, it was in Harare where the declaration wa s made about the future commitment of the Commonwealth to democracy and the enforcement of it.
I have no objection whatever to the European Union also exerting some influence, but that is not the primary place for influence to be exerted. It should have begun by obtaining advice on this matter from the Commonwealth Secretariat and then ideally we should find an African Commonwealth leader who might intercede.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I obviously hear what my noble friend says, but Iassure him that we have given proper emphasis to our Commonwealth partners. The efforts that we have made have very much included the Commonwealth. We have been warmed and greatly encouraged by the fact that our Commonwealth partners have come to the fore and have helped us to deal with this issue. We give real credit to the Nigerians for their efforts because we know that, historically, they have had their problems and have overcome them. We hope that that experience will assist them greatly in the conversations that they are able to have with President Mugabe.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and my noble friend Lord Carrington, if she feels, as I do, that the Commonwealth should be taking a leading role in this matter, how is it that Her Majesty's Government have emphasised the role of the European Union at the expense of that of the Commonwealth until the Minister's replies this afternoon?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have not. We need the help of our EU partners just as much as we need the help of our Commonwealth colleagues. This is a joint enterprise upon which we should all be engaged, irrespective of from whence we hail.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the dissolution of the Zimbabwean Parliament today provides a time limit within which the elections must be held and yet there is no electoral register and no boundaries have yet been defined? Will the Government do everything that they can to persuade President Mugabe that, if he does not want to accept the offer of technical assistance from the United Nations, some other international body—whether it be the European Union or the Commonwealth—will offer that technical assistance which will allow a clean and fair electoral register to be compiled and boundaries to be properly delineated?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we absolutely share the noble Lord's concerns. In the conversations that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and others have had with President Mugabe and members of that administration we have made clear the importance of a fair and free election and the need to really concentrate on making sure that thattakes place. Therefore, we are convinced that that
88
needs to happen with that technical assistance, from wherever it can be culled.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that they fact that the European Union has become involved has not proved to be helpful and, indeed, is being used by President Mugabe to say that that is interference by the European nations against free African countries which have been decolonised?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with the comments made by my noble friend.

Business of the House: Debates, 12th April
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Harrison set down for tomorrow shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Ashley of Stoke set down for the same day to two hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Irvine of Lairg.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 89 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 90 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have given notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the Clerk of the Parliaments that I should like to raise the question of the compatibility of Clause 90 with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Clause 90 consolidates Section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended, and continues to provide that,
"Where a person convicted of murder…[was] under 18 at the time the offence was committed, the court shall (notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act) sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure",
without having the duty to set the tariff in open court. The power of fixing the tariff remains in the hands of the Minister, not the judiciary.

89
The clause may be incompatible with Article 6, paragraph 1 of the European convention. On 16th December 1999, the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in the Venables case. It decided that it is a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the convention for Ministers, as members of the executive, to set tariffs for juveniles sentenced to detention at her Majesty's pleasure. To give effect to that judgment, it is necessary for tariffs to be set by the trial judge in open court, in the same way as they are currently set for adults subject to discretionary life sentences.
This valuable consolidation Bill contains the Lord Chancellor's statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that, in his view, its provisions are compatible with the convention rights. Unfortunately, almost 18 months after the Human Rights Act received Royal Assent, there is still no parliamentary Select Committee to scrutinise such ministerial statements of compatibility. However, on 28th March, the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills published its report on this Bill. The committee is chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde. The Select Committee drew the special attention of this House and of the other place—which is why I am on my feet now—to the question of the Bill's compatibility with convention rights in the following terms:
"This is the first instance of a consolidation bill being brought forward after the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, and in accordance with that Act the Lord Chancellor has made a statement that in his view the Bill is compatible with the Convention rights. We considered this point with the assistance of officials from the Home Office, recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings printed with this report, and draw attention to the concerns expressed about the compatibility of clause 90 of the Bill. As this is a consolidation bill, any non-compatibility cannot be rectified in the Bill itself. However, we understand that the issue is likely to be addressed in amendments which the Government intend to table to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill".
To the best of my knowledge, no amendments have as yet been tabled. I share the concern expressed within the Select Committee about the compatibility of Clause 90 with convention rights. Clause 90 as it stands seems to require the courts to continue to act in breach of Article 6(1) of the convention, despite the judgment of the European Court in Venables. In those circumstances, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would inform the House of his reasons for considering Clause 90 as it stands to be compatible with Article 6 of the convention and of the Government's intention in the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for giving me notice of his question. The same point was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, when the Joint Committee considered the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that I am aware of the importance of statements of ECHR compatibility by Ministers when they introduce legislation. Ministerial statements, however, are to the effect that the legislation in question is itself compliant.
90
The European Court of Human Rights held in T and V v United Kingdom that the setting of a tariff by the Home Secretary, where a young person had been sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, contravened Article 6 of the convention, in that the Home Secretary is not an independent tribunal, as a court is. As Members of the Committee will be aware, the Government will bring forward amendments to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill this Session in order to rectify that breach. The European Court of Human Rights did not, however, find that the passing of the sentence by the domestic court was unlawful.
I accept that it is arguable that the setting of the tariff can be said to be an inevitable consequence of the sentence, so as to make the sentence itself objectionable. But the test to be applied when a Minister considers whether to make a statement of compatibility under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act is not that no argument can be raised about compatibility. The test is on balance, whether it is likely that the provisions of the Bill will be found by a court to comply with the convention rights. In my judgment that is the likely outcome if the matter were to be tested in the courts.
The Bill consolidates the power of the courts when passing sentence in criminal cases. Clause 90 provides that, where a person under 18 is convicted of murder,
"the court shall…sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure".
That re-enacts part of Section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It does not deal with the working out of that sentence. It does not include the provisions which deal with the setting of the tariff, which are contained in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and which will, as I have said, be amended by another Bill during this Parliament, if Parliament so decides. We are not addressing a statement as to whether the relevant provisions of that statute are compatible.
Pending the making and coming into force of those amendments, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced that, on an extra-statutory basis, he will obtain and abide by the views of the court when setting tariffs in such cases. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hobhouse, is satisfied that that will resolve the problem, obviously not permanently, but for the time being. It appears to me that if a change in the practice of the Home Secretary is sufficient to remedy the situation for the time being without any change being made to the legislation on the passing of the sentence itself, then that legislation, by itself, is not incompatible with Article 6. I do of course accept that the point raised by the noble Lord is an important one.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may simply express gratitude for that full answer and optimistic hope that that is the last time I shall have to intervene

91
in such a way because there will be a parliamentary Select Committee to deal with it in a much more orderly way in future.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 168 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 12 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will want to know the Government's position. First, as far as we are concerned, this is a free vote. If my advice is wanted, and even if it is not, I offer it. I support the principle and the detail of the Bill. I believe that it will improve our law and ensure equality before the criminal law for young homosexuals and young heterosexuals. Secondly, should the Bill be once more rejected by your Lordships, we shall use the Parliament Act procedure.
On 28th February this year, the House of Commons passed the Bill at Third Reading by 317 votes to 117, a majority of 200 votes. The House was entitled to know, from the outset, what our intention is, and I hope I have made it clear. Apart from that, when I offer my own opinion to your Lordships, for what it may be worth, I am fortified by the fact that I am in good company. I shall mention just one or two organisations: Barnardo's, NCH Action for Children, Save the Children, the Family Welfare Association, the British Medical Association, the Family Planning Association, the National Association of Probation Officers, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I again declare my former interest, having been a trustee until the date of the last election of the NSPCC. Perhaps I may say about all of those organisations—I hope without dissent—that every one of them is a deeply respected organisation absolutely committed to the welfare and well-being of young people.
Your Lordships may allow me another short list: the Prime Minister, Mr Ashdown when leader of the Liberal Democrats and Mr Charles Kennedy now all support this step towards equality. So did Mr Hague. I repeat what I said last time about Mr Hague's position. I think that it was an act of political and moral courage. What I said last time was not "cosmetics" and I repeat it now. Mr Portillo supports this position. He voted in favour of the Bill at Third Reading in the Commons. I repeat that what I said about Mr Hague applies abundantly to Mr Portillo. His has been a stance of political and moral, sometimes quite rare, courage.
Sometimes the human mind is capable of being changed by rational argument; not, I readily admit, on every occasion. Perhaps I may give a citation which
92
particularly struck my mind on looking at the proceedings in the House of Commons on 10th February. Mr John Bercow, Member of Parliament for Buckingham, stated:
"I have changed my mind on this subject…The words, 'I was wrong' do not readily trip off my tongue, but that is what I believe".
Mr Bercow continued,
"I intend to vote for the Bill, for reform, and, I think progress".—[Official Report, Commons, 101.2/2000; col. 455.]
It is idle to attribute bad faith to anyone. Your Lordships who have attended debates on this topic and similar topics will, I think, recognise that I have never tried to impute bad motive to anyone. I would ask your Lordships to wonder if you are entirely in tune on past history with what the young think; what they do; how they run their lives and the sweetness of heart and greatness of mind with which they view those who are different from them.
It is deeply necessary not to confuse what we may disapprove of with what must be criminalised. There is, after all, a libertarian thread that runs through our public life and, indeed, still has reflection among many of those in the Conservative Party who voted for this Bill in the other place. I have mentioned only one or two but there were others. It is one of the most attractive features of this country. It is worth remembering it and protecting it. One noble Lord said in a context not dissimilar on the continuing—I almost said "endless"—discussion about Section 28 that homosexuality is wrong; adultery is wrong and fornication is wrong. That may be so but trey are not criminal offences, nor should they be in any world that aspires to be sane or civilised.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. I rather fancy, from what he said and the way that he was looking, that he was attributing those words to me. However, if he would do me the courtesy of reading Hansard correctly, he would see that I said that the Churches said that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl was, indeed, quoting what some church leaders say. However, the consequences of those views do not produce an equivalent response in all bishops, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well. He and I have studied the way the bishops voted last time and they were not unanimously against what I am presently putting before your Lordships. Nor were they unanimous in the debate on Section 26 and its related matters.
It does not really matter who said it first or who thought of it first because I do not regard it as a flash of blinding illumination, but it is still the position in some states of the United States that some of these activities remain notionally subject to the criminal law, and if they are, it simply makes the law a nonsense.
We have examined the issues, and related ones, at great length. I do not do your Lordships any great service by adding to the tedium. The Bill does three things, which are very important. First, Clause 1 reduces the age of lawful consent for certain sexual

93
practices, including buggery, to 16 from 18; that is, to the lawful age of consent for heterosexual intercourse. In Northern Ireland, as your Lordships will have seen, there is equality, but at 17 because 17 is the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, Clause 2 provides that a person under the age of consent no longer commits an offence if the other party is over the age of consent. Clause 3 introduces a new offence where a person of 18 or over has sexual intercourse or engages in sexual activity with or directed towards a person under that age if he or she is in a position of trust.
Those are extremely important matters. Your Lordships know from our previous discussions that I have been, I hope, a strong protagonist of the protection presently lacking in our law in respect of the abusive misuse of a position of trust. Clause 4 defines a position of trust. It is important, as we shall see in a moment, that Clause 4(1) allows the extension of that definition by statutory instruments.
I shall be brief. We need to be clear—I say this with great respect—about what we are debating. We are not debating whether homosexuality is a good idea or a bad idea. We are not debating whether homosexuality should be lawful; it already is between consenting adults—that is 18 and over—in private. What we are debating is quite simple: should the present age of consent for buggery be reduced from 18 to 16? That relates also to male homosexual activity.
Many of the organisations which I have specified, and many others, support this reform. The arguments are well known. I do not recapitulate them. I have said that my personal stance is that I support this reform. I suggest, though this may not please all your Lordships, that an unequal age of consent is the mark of an intolerant society. This country, and this House—I believe that we can glory in some of our history—has a long tradition—
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, as it stands, the law covering the age of consent for buggery for both males and females is 18?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not at all to the point of my submission. The age of heterosexual consent is 16 here and 17 in Northern Ireland and it is not the same age of consent for homosexual activity. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—whom I can describe as my noble friend because we agree on many more matters than we disagree—I do not think that the noble Lord's point goes to what I am saying here.
I repeat, in this House we have a good history of supporting individual liberty and of challenging prejudice. Sometimes, although not always, we have been in advance of the other place. I suggest to noble Lords that the time has come to put this matter right. We already have laws in place to punish those who sexually abuse others. The Home Secretary announced
94
a fundamental review of the laws relating to sexual offences. The aim of that review is to protect the vulnerable and to punish the predator.
Perhaps I may observe, from my own experience in the criminal courts—shared, I daresay, by all those who have ever practised—that abusers may be either heterosexual or homosexual. We need to be able to deal effectively with both. It is morally wrong to suggest that homosexual abuse is any more common than heterosexual abuse, whether it takes place in the home, in care institutions or in schools. Furthermore, it is equally wrong and offensive to suggest that if one's sexual orientation is homosexual one is more likely to be a paedophile than if one's sexual orientation is heterosexual.
Perhaps I may now turn briefly to the remainder of the Bill. The second change concerns decriminalising the younger partner in buggery and homosexual acts. This is an important child protection measure. At present, anyone under the age of consent commits a criminal offence if he takes part in such activity with someone over the age of consent. In contrast, a girl of under 16 commits no offence if she has sexual intercourse with someone over the age of 16. For that reason, we think that the protection should apply equally to both. First, the threat of the criminal law can be a tool in the hands of sexual predators. Secondly, if the matter is not decriminalised, any child in these circumstances might be dissuaded, or at least influenced against, seeking medical help, advice and guidance. This is a needed reform and I commend it to your Lordships.
Finally, I turn to abuse of trust. Again, this is a child protection measure and I hope it will have the support of noble Lords. We considered it as long ago as 1998 when an amendment was moved in another place to the Crime and Disorder Bill. This offence has been considered at some length. It is intended to protect young persons—girls and boys—who are most at risk and vulnerable, or where the position of trust is most strong. The circumstances currently defined include residential care, detention and hospitals. They also include full-time education, given the special status of teachers and their well-established positions of trust. Perhaps I may repeat that 1 gained much benefit from conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the difficulties one encounters as regards those engaged in positions of trust in full-time education.
Some will say—I have every sympathy with this—that the provisions covering the definition of abuse of trust do not go far enough. For instance, they do not cover Scouts or Guides. I accept that we may need to look at this again. That is why I mentioned earlier the order-making power that has been provided in the Bill to extend the scope of the new offence at a later date if there is demonstrable evidence of need.
The Bill is not difficult to understand, either in its scheme or detail, and, most important, in the reasoning behind it. I repeat that I recognise that there are many noble Lords who will find this matter unacceptable. I recognise that people hold very strong views. However, I hope that noble Lords will look

95
again at the real issues. We have held back these measures for too long and we should now progress to action in pursuit of equality and justice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I welcome the return of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the Dispatch Box. I hope he will forgive me for resorting to military language when I describe him as one of the Government's "big guns", or, to use the language of the boxing ring, he is a man who, "regularly punches above his weight". The noble and learned Lord has also paid a great compliment to my noble friend Lady Young and her supporters in that no less a person than the Attorney-General has been assigned the task of taking this Bill through the House. Because the Bill and its deliberations are subject to a free vote, it is important for me to make clear that I speak from these Benches in a personal capacity.
It is the Prime Minister's intention, should this House take a contrary view to the other place, to invoke the Parliament Act on an issue which is highly sensitive and is a matter of conscience. That will serve only to confirm this Government's distorted sense of priorities. One must join with a growing number of people from both Houses—including some Members of the Labour Benches—to ask: what is the Government's obsession with sex and sexuality?
No manifesto pledge was made on the age of consent. Clauses have been tacked on to Bills at late stages and counter-clauses have been introduced to Bills, also at late stages. This House is now to be packed with compliant Labour and Liberal Peers who, no doubt, have all been subjected to and passed the Section 28 test.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to give way? Is the noble Baroness aware that I interview every single newly appointed Peer who enters this House and joins the Labour Benches? I would not dream of asking for their views either on Section 28 or on the age of consent.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no reservation whatever in believing what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just told me.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to give way again? I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw that remark. I repeat, I have interviewed every single newly appointed Labour Peer. I have not asked them about their views on Section 28 or on the age of consent—I shall give way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat, I have no reservation whatever in taking the noble Lord at his word.
If that does not work, then Mr Blair, the Prime Minister, will resort to the Parliament Act. As I have just said, he will do that on an issue which is said to be a
96
matter of conscience for each Member. Why is there this obsession with sex and sexuality and, given the timetabling difficulties, what is the urgency?
No doubt during the course of the debate we shall again hear many criticisms of those of us who see the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals and the repeal of Section 28 as moral issues and, significantly, a matter of child protection. They will say that we are prejudiced, bigoted and exclusive. Indeed, only an hour ago I faced that criticism on television from Mrs Alice Mahon, MP. I refute those criticisms most strongly.The Bill does not invite us to legislate for same-sex friendships between young people. Let us examine its specific proposals. First, the Government propose that boys and girls of 16 may lawfully consent to buggery and certain homosexual acts defined in Section 13(4) of the 1995 Act as,
"sodomy or an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency by one male person with another male person".
Secondly, the Government are proposing that a person under the age of 16 may lawfully commit buggery or certain homosexual acts with a person over the age of consent. Thirdly, the Government propose a feeble and deeply-flawed attempt at introducing safeguards for vulnerable young people.
Almost no publicity has been given by the Government or the Minister for Women, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, to the fact that that buggery on girls of 16 is made lawful by this Bill—a practice which must be a nightmare for parents, not to mention the girls themselves. For a government who have spent unprecedented funds on public relations, they are uncharacteristically coy when it comes to this measure. Where are the consultation documents dealing specifically with that issue? How many schools, parents and interested parties have been consulted? Where are their responses?
We know that a majority of people, when asked, do not support the Government on these proposals. My noble friend Lady Seccombe, who has patiently and with great concern pursued this matter with the Government, will address it when she comes to speak.
Where is the logic in these proposals. The Government talked of strengthening the prohibition on boys and girls of 16 buying alcohol and cigarettes. An army of 20,000 mentors is to be recruited by the Government to guide young people of that age at school. The Children Act defines 116 year-olds as "children"; and the Government, quite rightly in my view, wring their hands about the number of teenage pregnancies, about promiscuity, about children becoming sexually active at too young an age, and are also concerned about the spread of HIV and AIDS. Yet the message of this Bill is: sex is OK for children of 16, whether between boys and boys, or girls with girls or, worse, between young boys and older men.
Clause 28 is to be repealed, which will remove protection of young people from those who wish to promote homosexuality. Only today we learnt about a newsletter written by Berkshire Health Authority which is being circulated to schools. The letter advertises websites which carry blatant sex material and recommends courses

97
run by an organisation teaching homosexuals how to "cruise" for sex. Are not the Government concerned about that corrupting material being made available to school children? Not only is there a case for retaining Section 28; there is also a strong case for extending it to include health authorities.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness for being out of the Chamber for a moment. Am I right in understanding that she is raising the item from Berkshire Health Authority reported in this morning's paper?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in that case she might be interested to know that that material was not distributed to pupils. It is part of an HIV prevention document and was distributed only to head teachers and personal health and safety advisers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes, with an invitation to head teachers to make it available to their children in the schools.
Earl Russell: No!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we will have to agree to differ on that. I was speaking to someone in Berkshire only this morning and I know that many heads have been appalled by the letter that they received on behalf of their children.
There are so many mixed messages here. The Government express concern over the education and health of the nation's children, and yet this Bill represents a serious health risk to young people. There is also an inconsistency; even—dare I say?—a misleading message coming from the Prime Minister and Mr Donald Dewar, First Minister in Scotland, when they claim that sexuality role-playing by children in school does not happen and will not happen under this Government.
First, it does happen. On page 16, paragraph 4.4 of the Government's guidelines, which are out for consultation, it specifically advocates role-playing as a way of dealing with sex and sexuality in schools. The teaching book which is used in the Avon area sets out detailed lesson plans, including lists of characters to which I referred in a previous debate, representing every form of sexuality including some pretty deviant ones.
Government Ministers have been extremely critical of the media, and of the effective campaign that has raged in Scotland, which opposed these proposals and the repeal of Clause 28. Well, I thank God that we still live in a country where the voice of the people can be given expression without fear or favour of the government of the day—any government of the day.
There is another dimension to this Bill which should be explored. I recently asked a Written Question about the effect of the Human Rights Act where there is a ban on homosexual and heterosexual activity in boarding schools. For example, would the human rights of two
98
boys to have sex while in the care of a school override the school rules? What I found extremely disturbing is that, after all the reassurances that were given to Members of this House when the Human Rights Bill was considered, the Minister, in answer to my Question, was unable to clarify the position and said that it must be a matter for the courts. That will come as cold comfort for the parents who see the schools as acting in loco parentis. My noble friend Lord Waddington will speak further on that issue.
As I have said, the abuse of trust clauses in this Bill are feeble and are deeply flawed. First, there are many other categories of people who are in a position of trust but who are not included in the Bill and the Government appear reluctant to accept amendments. In fact, this Bill had only cursory debate in another place and I hope that that will not be the case in this House. Secondly, what is the position, for example, of a teacher or youth worker who has sex with another 16 year-old from a neighbouring school or youth club for whom they are not directly in a position of trust?
One only has to read the Waterhouse Report,Lost in Care, about the child abuse scandal in Wales to know that the abuse of trust clauses are wholly inadequate to protect vulnerable young people. No account is being taken by government of the particular vulnerabilities of 16 to 18 year-olds in care—a point highlighted in the report with great poignancy when referring to the unbelievably cruel abuse of "Child B".
Much of the abuse suffered by the children in the Waterhouse Report was committed by people who were not in a position of trust as defined in the Bill. Does not that concern the Government? My noble friend Lady Young will deal with that point in detail. Meanwhile, I must appeal to the Minister that if this Bill is not to be abandoned, as I believe it should, then the abuse of trust clauses must be strengthened.
If equality is the issue, then the age of 16 is highly debatable, not simply because many of us believe it is far too young, but because other ages can be considered; for example, 17 in Ireland or 18 as is the case now. One can level upwards as well as level downwards. I put the Minister on notice that he will hear more on that at Committee and Report stages.
I was fascinated to see that, although Scotland now has a Parliament and this is a devolved matter, the Bill includes Scotland as well as Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Can the Minister say why that is? Has the Scottish Assembly waived its right to consider and determine the matter? If so, was it formally agreed in the Parliament by all ofits Members and when? Do the people of Scotland who have expressed serious concerns over the repeal of Section 28 know that there is a probability that the Westminster Government will use the Parliament Act to impose these measures on Scotland as well as on England, Wales and Northern Ireland? I believe members of the public in Scotland will be as appalled as some of us are that, on a matter of conscience, the Government intend to invoke the Parliament Act. I would have thought that the Ayr by-election just might have given Mr Blair second thoughts, especially given the second thoughts he has had over the devolution process in Scotland and Wales.

99
Bullying is another very real issue. But bullying of young people should not be used to defend this Bill. As has been said on many occasions, bullying is an issue which must be addressed by schools, just as respect for tolerance of others is fundamental to a civilised society and must be taught by parents and teachers and supported by the community.
In bringing forward this Bill, the Government have taken no account of the delicate stage of development of pubescent teenagers. Little account has been taken of public opinion on this issue. The Bill provides little or no protection for the most vulnerable children. Their health and well-being will be put at greater risk by these proposals. The Government have been too ready to listen to and take heed of the more vociferous campaigning gay and lesbian groups. "Children's rights" have given way to "gay rights".
In the name of equality, men will now be allowed to commit buggery on girls as young as 16. How can that be defended? And predatory men will now be able to claim that their victim consented. And if they are to be convicted, it will be up to the victims to prove that they did not consent. In this regard the Government would do well to read and to learn from the report on the child abuse scandal in Wales.
Childhood should be nurtured and cherished, not corrupted and damaged by persons who are not in the position of trust, as in the case of "Child B" in Wales —a situation that would be permissible under this Bill.
Those who share the view of my noble friend Lady Young and myself will spare no energy in the coming weeks in pressing amendments to persuade the Government that this is, above all, about the protection of children. This House has a duty, if it so decides, to ask the Government to think again, and I hope that it will.
4 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in his masterly study of the struggle between the House of Lords and Asquith's Government, my noble friend, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, recalled how, in 1886, the prospect of Irish Home Rule threw the great mass of Liberal peers into the arms of the Conservative majority and how, seven years later, Gladstone's second attempt at Irish Home Rule was defeated in this House by 419 to 41 votes. By their disregard of the authority of the elected chamber on Irish Home Rule, as well as in voting down the "people's Budget" in 1909, the House demonstrated the aptness of Lloyd George's quip that this House was not the watchdog of the constitution; it was "Mr Balfour's poodle". It was, of course, the obstinate refusal by the House of Lords to accept the supremacy of the democratically elected House that led to the Parliament Acts.
The present House is no more democratic now than it was in 1911. Despite the creation of many new Lords by new Labour, the present House remains both undemocratic and politically unbalanced. It wholly lacks democratic legitimacy. Because none of us has been elected by the people, we have no right to claim to he a legislative chamber, representative of the
100
people or for the people of this country, whatever the letters to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or the opinion polls may say.
This time it is not the prospect of Irish Home Rule which tempts the opponents of this Bill to obstruct its passage in the face of the wishes of the great majority of members of the other place, expressed in a free vote. What drives the opponents of this second Bill is the continuing fear and moral disapproval among the older generation, so strongly represented in this House, of consenting sexual activity between adult homosexual men.
This time the opponents of the Bill will not obstruct a Second Reading, so as to allow the Government to invoke the Parliament Acts immediately. Their tactics will be to use their temporary majority in the House to wreck the Bill slowly and then to play parliamentary ping-pong with the other place. We on these Benches will support the Government in defeating these tactics, however much parliamentary time it may take.
Equalisation of the age of the age of consent was in my party's manifesto at the last general election and our support for the Government is in accordance with the manifesto that we put before the people.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord saying that those on his Benches will not have a free vote in the matter?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am not learned and I doubt my nobility, but on these Benches we of course allow a free vote. I am simply expressing what is the policy of my party, as put to the country at the last general election. I f any Liberal Democrat peers do not agree, then no doubt they will express their disagreement in one way or another, as is their important right.
The Attorney-General has stated on the face of the Bill that in his view its provisions are compatible with the Convention rights. I respectfully agree with that position. The enactment of this Bill will enable the United Kingdom to comply with the obligations binding in international law on Parliament, the executive and the judiciary. The rejection or the wrecking of the Bill would lead to inevitable condemnation by the European Court of Human Rights, and by our own courts after 2nd October. If this Bill were not enacted now, it would have then to be enacted—after the United Kingdom had faced international public humiliation.
The criminal legislation fixing the minimum age for lawful homosexual activities at 18 rather than 16 undoubtedly interferes with the rights of adult male homosexuals, under Article 8 of the Convention, to respect for their private life, which includes their sexual life. The very existence of the legislation directly affects the private lives of such men. Either they respect the law and refrain from engaging in any prohibited sexual acts prior to the age of 18, or they commit such acts and risk criminal prosecution.
Contracting states are entitled to exercise some control over homosexual conduct, to provide safeguards against exploitation of those who are

101
specially vulnerable by reason, for example, of their youth. The contracting states are not entitled, however, to maintain in force laws that discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexuality or sexual preference.
A difference of treatment is discriminatory, for the purpose of Article 14 of the convention, if it has no objective or reasonable justification. Under the present law a young man of 17 years of age who wishes to enter into and maintain sexual relations with a male friend of the same age is in a relevantly similar situation to a young man of the same age who wishes to enter into and maintain sexual relations with a female friend of the same age. Indeed, young male homosexuals are also treated differently from and less favourably than young lesbians, because it is not a criminal offence for lesbians or heterosexuals to have sexual relations at the age of 16.
The United Kingdom is out of line with most other European countries in maintaining a different age of consent for male-female and female-female relationships, as compared with male-male relationships. Of the 15 European Union countries only two others—Finland and Luxembourg—maintained discriminatory age differences in 1997. All of the major countries have equal ages of consent; as do, for example, Ireland, Portugal and Spain—countries noted for their strong Christian traditions.
In 1981, in the Dudgeon case, the European Court of Human Rights held that the criminal offence forbidding homosexual conduct in Northern Ireland between adult men amounted to an unjustified interference with the convention right to respect for private life. Where there are restrictions on a most intimate part of an individual's private life, the Court explained, there must be "particularly serious reasons" to amount to a justification. The Strasbourg Court reached the same conclusion in 1983 in a case against Cyprus, and in 1988 in a case against Ireland.
Last September the European Court unanimously ruled that the exclusion of homosexuals from the British Armed Forces violated various convention rights. It observed that a predisposed bias on the part of the heterosexual majority against the homosexual minority in the Armed Forces could not amount to a justification for the interference with the applicants' rights, any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a different race, origin or colour. The Court pointed out that the hallmarks of a democratic society include—words that I have not heard very often from some in this House—pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness.
Last December the Court ruled, again unanimously, that the Lisbon Court of Appeal in Portugal had discriminated against a homosexual father by granting custody of his child to his former wife, on the ground that he was a homosexual living with another man. The Portuguese court had said that the child had to live in what it called "a traditional Portuguese family" and that
"children must not grow up in the shadow of abnormal situations".
102
In July 1997, in the Sutherland case, the European Commission of Human Rights decided by a large majority that there was no objective and reasonable justification for maintaining a higher minimum age of consent for male homosexual than for heterosexual acts, and that there had been a violation of the applicant's convention rights, in breach of Article 8 read with Article 14 of the convention.
In that very important case, the commission referred to the evidence from the council of the British Medical Association that most researchers believe that sexual orientation is usually established before the age of puberty and that reducing the age of consent would be unlikely to affect the majority of men engaging in homosexual activity. The BMA council concluded in its report that the age of consent for homosexual men should be set at 16, as the existing law might inhibit efforts to improve the sexual health of young homosexual and bisexual men.
As the commission noted, an equal age of consent was also supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Health Education Authority and the National Association of Probation Officers, as well as by other bodies concerned with health and social welfare in this country. The commission also noted that the great majority of member states of the Council of Europe now recognise equality of treatment in respect of the age of consent.
The commission rejected two arguments made in Parliament and by the then government in favour of retaining the criminal law as it stands. In the first place, it was argued that some young men between the ages of 16 and 18 do not have a settled sexual orientation and that the aim of the law is to protect such vulnerable young men. It was claimed that criminal sanctions against persons aged 16 or 17 would have a deterrent effect and give the individual the time to make up his mind. Secondly, it was argued that society is entitled to indicate its disapproval of homosexual conduct and its preference that children follow a heterosexual way of life.
The European Commission of Human Rights pointed out that current medical opinion is to the effect that sexual orientation is fixed in both sexes by the age of 16 and that men aged 16 to 21 are not in need of special protection because of the risk of their being "recruited" into homosexuality. As noted by the BMA, the risk posed by predatory older men would appear to be as serious whether the victim is a man or a woman and does not justify a differential age of consent. Even if there might be some young men for whom homosexual experience at the age of 16 would have influential and potentially disturbing effects, it is not a proportionate response to the need for protection to expose to criminal sanctions not only the older man who engages in homosexual acts with a person under the age of 18 but also the young man who is claimed to be in need of such protection.
The argument that society is entitled to indicate disapproval of homosexual conduct and its preference for a heterosexual lifestyle was rejected as an objective or reasonable justification for inequality of treatment

103
under the criminal law. The commission referred to the Dudgeon case, where the court had said that "decriminalisation" does not imply approval, and that fear that some might draw misguided conclusions from the reform of the legislation does not afford a good ground for maintaining the legislation in force with all its unjustifiable features.
That case is now pending before the European Court of Human Rights which would, in my view, as I have said before in previous debates, be virtually certain to come to the same conclusion. The proceedings have sensibly been adjourned to allow this Bill to be enacted, if necessary by invoking the Parliament Acts if the Bill is torpedoed yet again in this House.
As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General very clearly told the House, this Bill gives protection to vulnerable young people by creating the offence of abuse of trust and by decriminalising the younger partner. Those provisions are a proportionate response to legitimate concerns from the Bill's opponents.
When I spoke on this subject on 22nd July 1998, I recalled the wise words of the Prime Minister, spoken in 1994 when he led for the Opposition. I recall them again today. Mr Blair said that the issue is,
"not at what age we wish young people to have sex. It is whether the criminal law should discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual sex, It is therefore an issue not of age, but of equality…At present, the law discriminates. There is no doubt about the personal misery that such discrimination brings to young people frightened to admit their own sexuality and of the fear of imprisonment".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/94; cols. 97–98.]
We believe that the Bill should be enacted speedily and as it stands, so as to secure compliance at long last with the basic human right, which is as much a moral question as the morality that the opponents of this Bill deploy, to respect for one's private life without discrimination against young homosexual men.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I rise to speak with some diffidence today as much has already been said about this issue on previous occasions. I have to confess that I have absolutely nothing new to add to the excellent expositions given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. However, I have chosen to speak for a selfish—or some might think frivolous—reason, which, nevertheless, has a serious point at its heart.
Some noble Lords may have noticed that there are two "Baroness Youngs" on the speakers' list. First, there is the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who sits on the opposite Benches and who is a key campaigner against gay rights and gay equality. Secondly, there is myself, Baroness Young of Old Scone, on these Benches. I am equally committed, but in the opposite direction: to equality and rights for gay and lesbian people. Alas, during the past few months, the newspapers have found themselves singularly unable to distinguish between the two of us. Indeed, the most recent perpetrator, Private Eve, was unable to
104
distinguish between us and yet another person. That confounds the issue even further. I am now probably in the unique position in this country of having gained an unmitigated and unasked-for apology from Private Eve, without even having to sue.
I am afraid that even the BBC—1 must declare an interest because I am vice-chairman—has also fallen into the trap, although it has now realised -.he error of its ways. In typical BBC style, although this may not be the case in the future under the leadership of Greg Dyke, it has introduced a new policy concept; namely, that of "the Ying and Yang of Young", which enables people to describe us and to tell us apart.
Today I simply want to give your Lordships some handy hints on how to tell the "Baroness Youngs" apart. First, there is the small matter of the 20-year age difference. I have discussed the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and we have agreed that we should simply leave it to your Lordships to decide which of us is which on that issue; indeed, we shall bow to noble Lords' judgment.
Perhaps the most important distinguishing peculiarity is the issue that I believe to be at the centre of the Bill. I want to make it very clear that I am the Baroness Young who believes that the time for equality for homosexual people on this issue is long overdue—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have, of course, been listening to this delightful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I am delighted when we are mistaken in photographs because I promptly look 20 years younger, which is certainly well worth while. However, it would help the whole debate if the noble Baroness did not keep saying that there are two "Baroness Youngs": if I may say so, I am the Baroness Young, while she is the Baroness Young of Old Scone. We would not run into such difficulties if the noble Baroness were to refer to herself in that correct form of address on all occasions.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am delighted to have that clarification from the noble Baroness. Indeed, I hope that I can assure the House that I work ceaselessly to clarify my name to all those who are prepared to listen. Alas, as we have seen even in our august organs of the press, some people find it difficult always to be correct on that point. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I simply want to make the point that the issue at the heart of the Bill is one that I firmly support.
I believe that the time for equality for homosexual people on this issue is long overdue. I am indeed the Baroness Young (of Old Scone) who believes that the measures in the Bill to safeguard 16 and 17 year-olds from abuse of trust and to decriminalise the younger partner deserve support. I am the Baroness Young (of Old Scone) who believes that those who oppose this Bill—many of whom sincerely believe that they are protecting young people in this country—continue to endorse the idea that gay and lesbian people are morally unacceptable in our society.

105
My noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said that young people today are more accepting, believe instinctively in equality, and show qualities of greatness of mind. I believe that a great blow for freedom, acceptance and care for our fellow human beings will be struck when this Bill becomes law, as it inevitably will. I, Baroness Young of Old Scone, shall be proud to be part of a Parliament which achieves that.
4.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I am not a habitual speaker in this House and I have not made any contribution to previous debates on this Bill. I therefore rise to speak with some humility, aware of many distinguished speeches, not only today but on previous occasions, both in this House and in another place. Nevertheless it seems appropriate that on the matter before us today there should be a modest contribution from these Benches. On the question of identity, I am the Bishop of Gloucester, not the Bishop of Bradford, with whom I am frequently confused.
In a statement issued on 21st June 1998, on the age of consent for homosexual relations, the House of Bishops said:
"All who have leadership responsibility in our society, both in Church and state, have a particular duty to support young people in their personal development, to protect them from harm and exploitation, and to offer them a vision of what is good".
I have no doubt that all noble Lords would assent gladly to that statement. The Church therefore warmly welcomed the fresh steps which the Government have taken in order to afford protection in law for young people against those in certain positions of trust who might seek to abuse that trust. I have followed with interest the discussions on the detail of the Government's proposals in order to ensure that workable, effective and adequate safeguards are in place. The Home Office booklet, Caring for young people and the vulnerable? Guidance for preventing abuse of trust is a clear and helpful guide to those safeguards. However, I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for suggesting that further safeguards could be considered if, in due course, the House asked for them. I believe that if this Bill is to be pushed through, such extra safeguards would be essential.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving way. Does he recognise that the step which he has just mentioned was taken to protect children? Surely children are in need of protection. However, does it not give protection only in a limited and "ring-fenced" area? As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, many children may be accosted by schoolmasters or schoolmistresses other than their own schoolmasters or schoolmistresses. Does the right reverend Prelate agree that protection must be more widespread?
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I believe that my comments gave that impression. I supported
106
the noble Baroness in saying that further safeguards would be required if the Bill were to be pushed through.
As I said, I think that we in this House would agree that all who have leadership responsibility have a particular duty to support young people in their personal development, to protect them from harm and exploitation and to offer them a vision of what is good. The problem for me, and, I guess, for most of us, is how best we do this, and whether this Bill helps us or hinders us as regards our responsibilities to the young. It is absolutely clear both from our debate so far today and from previous debates that within society and within the Church there are different opinions which are held strongly and passionately and with sincere conviction. Had the entire Bench of Bishops been able to attend today, there is little doubt that we too would express different opinions, as we did on a former occasion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has already alluded to this in his opening speech. I therefore speak in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the whole Bench.
However, this division of opinion is hardly surprising. It surely does not reflect any deep division among the Bishops on a basic principle. Some years ago the House of Bishops, through its statement, Issues in Human Sexuality, made it clear that the teaching of the Church, which is, of course, based on the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels, is that the norm for all human sexual relationships is that they should take place within the context of a life-long marriage between one man and one woman. That is a moral principle which we strongly underlined in September last year in a teaching document which we issued to all our clergy and parishes which is entitled quite simply, Marriage.
Bearing in mind that, sadly, some marriages break down and end in divorce, and that such people often wish to marry again and have the ceremony in their parish church, we have also recently issued another document, Remarriage after Divorce, which has been sent to all parishes for detailed discussion and comment. The discussion will continue throughout the year before the House of Bishops and then General Synod look at this crucial matter once again. We hope that this long and democratic process will enable our parish clergy to have clear and consistent guidelines which continue to stress the supreme importance of marriage, but also make possible through repentance, forgiveness and understanding, a second marriage in church under carefully defined circumstances.
I believe that Bills such as this one can so easily distract us from emphasising as strongly as we possibly can the venerable institution of marriage. I believe that that institution continues to be vitally important to many people in society today, in spite of the considerable pressures, conscious and unconscious, which act against commitment, stability and perseverance. I believe that marriage is a major building block in our contemporary society and contributes strongly and obviously to that aspiration of the House of Bishops that all who have leadership responsibility in our society, both in Church and state,

107
have a particular duty to offer young people a vision of what is good and to support them in their personal development.
I am a happily married man with four married children and 10 grandchildren. I count myself as blessed in enjoying a strong and stable family life. Therefore noble Lords would expect me to say what I am saying, not only as a bishop but as a very married bishop. I could undoubtedly be accused of bias and even prejudice on this matter. But to stand firm—as I do—on the vital importance of marriage does not imply homophobia; nor does it imply in any way the exclusion of those whose lifestyle does not conform to these moral principles.
There are surely moral principles and pastoral compassion. Moral principles are usually clear, particular, simple and normally easy to understand. Pastoral compassion is offered to all and is indiscriminate—in its scope it is entirely without judgment and discrimination. As my right reverend brother the former Bishop of Norwich said in a previous debate in this House, there can so easily be a muddle when the two become confused or opposed to each other; for example, when those who hold strong moral principles are accused of lacking compassion, or when compassion for everyone is elevated to the highest moral principle that there can possibly be. On these Benches, as on all other Benches, we share moral principles and deep pastoral compassion. But those principles and that compassion can lead us to different conclusions about what is expedient or timely in our shared duty and concern for the young.
In the Bill before us and in our debates, there are powerful arguments for equality and against discrimination. Of course, all human beings are equal—that is absolutely basic. In the words that I would use, we are all made in the image of God; deeply loved by Him and called by Him to take a proper part in His eternal purposes by living a fully human life in society to the very best of the abilities which God has graciously given us.
But surely this equality does not imply that everything that human beings do with or to each other is equally desirable or valuable. Like many other noble Lords, I have received many letters on this matter from concerned people, from all over my diocese and beyond. I share with them the conviction that some forms of sexual fulfilment are intrinsically better and more in accord with God's will than others—not only better, but it seems that they are also safer. If I and others hold that view, it would seem to us entirely proper that our law should continue to allow certain sexual behaviour only to those of whatever age it deems mature and responsible. That, to me, argues strongly against lowering the age of consent.
Our society today is dominated by sex in all its forms, too often presented as simply an appetite like any other which must be satisfied whatever the cost. I believe that all of us have to share some responsibility for that. We are all—old as well as young—damaged and hurt by that remorseless sexualising of life today. It is a culture which is
108
particularly difficult for our young people—and perhaps especially hard for the young who are struggling to discover their own sexuality among so many pressures and siren voices.
I cannot believe that every kind of sexual activity is as good and as beneficial as any other just so long as you may want it and so long as you can persuade yourself that it harms no one else. Despite many who attempt to persuade me to agree with them. I continue to judge that we shall do much more harm to young people, and to many older people, of whatever orientation, by going along with our modern culture in this regard. By appearing to legitimise it at an earlier age, we are giving unhelpful and muddled signals to many people who look to us to enunciate clear moral principles.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate.
The Bill is not really about bestowing rights on young people. To use such language is rather like saying that a railway company bestows rights on its passengers when it leaves the train doors unlocked. To be honest with ourselves, the Bill is about removing from young people aged between 16 and 18 the protection that they now have from older people minded to prey on them. That is what the Bill is about.
Government spokesmen say that the Bill is about equality. When he was moving the Second Reading of the Bill, Mr Jack Straw said:
"The Bill is based on…equality before the law".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/00; col. 432.]
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General used much the same language today, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
But we have to face this fact: to insist that the age of consent must be the same for homosexual and heterosexual acts on the ground of equality makes no sense at all unless one is suggesting that homosexual and heterosexual acts are of equal quality. It makes no sense at all unless one is suggesting that homosexual and heterosexual lifestyles are of equal validity and morally the same. That is something which many people, including the right reverend Prelate, find extremely difficult to accept and it is, I believe, contrary to the teachings of most, if not all, religions.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for nodding. He has taken my point. One cannot escape that conclusion. One can rest one's case for the Bill on the ground of equality only if one is saying that both acts are of equal quality.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. We extend equality between ourselves to all political parties. Does that mean that we regard them as of equal merit?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not base my opposition to this Bill on the ground of equality. If I was arguing for the Bill, I would not base my arguments on equality. All I am saying is that the logic

109
of the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, the logic of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the logic of the arguments advanced by Mr Jack Straw in another place and by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General here today, is exactly as I have stated. I do not think that anybody can gainsay that.
Lord Alli: My Lords, if I may respond to that, I do feel that I am the noble Lord's moral equal; I do feel that morally my lifestyle is as valid as his. If that is what the noble Lord is saying, I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I respect the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for saying that. I can see that he accepts the logic of the argument advanced by the Government. I am grateful for that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, am I right in understanding that the noble Lord disagrees with the judgment of the European Court and of the European Commission of Human Rights in the cases I mentioned: that it is right to compare the treatment of homosexual and heterosexual people? As I understand it, the noble Lord is saying that it is not right to draw a comparison on the basis of equality of treatment. Is that right? Is the noble Lord therefore disagreeing with the Strasbourg case law on this?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, all I shall say at this stage is that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, need have no fears. I hesitate to bore the House, but I am afraid that I shall have to advert to some of the arguments he has advanced and mention the case of Sutherland. I apologise in advance to the House for having to do so.
Worse, to say that the debate is all about equality is to say that the achievement of equality in this area is more important than the protection of vulnerable young people from sexual molestation, harassment and seduction. That is a most extraordinary position for anyone to argue himself into.
There has been much talk during this debate, and in similar debates in recent months, about the need for tolerance. But to send out a signal to young boys that homosexual acts are healthy and acceptable is not a mark of tolerance but an act of gross irresponsibility. I say that not least because of the very special and extra health risks involved in a homosexual lifestyle. As Dr Nicholls, the chief executive of the Public Health Laboratory Service, said in his recent report:
"The risk of contracting AIDS is vastly greater in homosexual people than in heterosexuals".
We also know that there is little to suggest that those drawn into a homosexual lifestyle find lasting happiness and fulfilment. It is surely our duty to discourage young men, who often at the age of 16 are confused about their sexuality and can go through what turns out to be a passing phase when they are attracted to older men, from going down this road.
110
It certainly is not true to say that all experts now accept that young men of 16 are settled in their sexual orientation. That is perhaps—I mention this to the noble Lord, Lord Lester—one reason why one may doubt whether the court will follow the commission in the case of Sutherland. If I have followed the noble Lord's speech, he attaches considerable weight to an assertion made by the commission that there was no doubt at all that all these young men's sexual inclinations were fixed irreversibly at the age of 16.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That opinion was based on the view of the British Medical Association, which gave evidence that was relied on by the commission. It was not the opinion of the commission.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would agree with me that all experts are not of that view. I also submit that we should not be telling young people that homosexuals have no choice but to commit homosexual acts; that if you have an appetite for homosexual sex, you are entitled to gratify it. We should be telling them, surely, that some urges are better resisted, particularly when they may involve making a commitment one may later live to regret.
But, in my submission, far worse than giving the wrong signal to young people is making them the legitimate prey of older men. In reintroducing the Bill, the Government seem to have learnt nothing at all from the appalling revelations in the Waterhouse report on the North Wales child abuse inquiry. I would only remind noble Lords of one key finding. Sir Ronald Waterhouse concluded that the dangers to those out of care are as great as for those actually in care. As my noble friend Lady Blatch mentioned, at paragraph 52 of the report is cited the case of "Child B" and the abuse he suffered between the ages of 16 and 18 from people who were not in a position of trust but were paedophiles outside the care system.
In the light of that and other revelations in the report, the breach of trust provisions in the Bill are absurd. By putting the provisions in the Bill, the Government concede that boys of 16 can be exploited and need protection. But does anyone seriously believe that the only people from whom they need protection are those who fall within the various categories set out in Clause 4? Of course, no one believes that.
Lastly, there is no reason in logic why the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts should be the same when young men generally reach puberty some years after girls. But we are told by some—the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is of this number—that we have to equalise the age because of the European convention. I do not want to get into that debate, except to say that I have seen an opinion from Mr Paul Diamond of counsel, who said that it is unlikely that the Court will accept the commission's view of Sutherland—that there is no pressure from Europe with regard to the equalisation of the age of consent—and that it is wholly a matter for our

111
parliament. If, however, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right, I would rather see the age of consent put up to 18 for all than see this Bill pass.
Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to this extent: there are obviously serious issues to be addressed as a result of recent legal developments. I hope that I can address them briefly without trying the patience of noble Lords and being thought to be digressing. I think that this Bill and the Government's presentation of it are frightening reminders of the dangerous path we are treading as a result of an obsession with equality which has, I fear, infected not only the Government but the courts.
In the middle of last year, the president of the Family Division expressed her approval of adoption by homosexual couples; and in October last year the Appellate Committee of this House, in a vivid example of judges making new laws, decided in the case of Fitzpatrick that a homosexual partner is a "member of the family" for the purposes of succeeding to a tenancy under the Rent Acts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, was at pains to say that the decision did not undermine the traditional concept of marriage and the family. But, as predicted would happen—I take no pride in this—in the debate on the Address on 24th November last year (at col. 469 of the Official Report), the fall-out from that decision was soon to become apparent; for within a matter of months Mr David Pannick, a very eminent QC, was arguing, in an article in The Times on 29th February of tins year, that as the courts had held that a homosexual couple could constitute a family, Section 28, designed to prevent local authorities dealing out homosexual propaganda, offended against,
"the right to respect for family life"
provisions in the European convention simply because our courts had now recognised that homosexual relations amount to family life.
Well, my Lords, if Mr Pannick is right, the conclusion is inescapable. The courts, because of their obsession with equality and determination to treat homosexual and heterosexual relations alike, have succeeded at one and the same time in torpedoing the traditional family and destroying one of the protections that now exist against young people being showered with homosexual propaganda; and now we have this Bill which itself is born of a belief that homosexual and heterosexual acts are as good as each other.
The next stage—this was suggested in plain terms by a Liberal Democrat in another place on 10th February of this year (at col. 482 of the Official Report): I am referring to a speech by Dr Harris—will be, if not homosexual marriage, a complete equalisation of the rights of a homosexual couple with those of a man and wife.
I think that we have to call a halt to this madness. We all know the importance of the traditional family for the bringing up of children and for the stability of society. But the courts and Parliament are allowing its destruction, with completely unpredictable results for both society and civilisation. I will have none of it.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I start by fundamentally disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as might be expected, and with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I should add that my free vote will be used in support of the Bill. I speak as an individual; I do not speak on behalf of the Government. I would also add that I have no obsession with sex or sexuality. What I do have is an obsession with making sure that young people are protected and that we show concern about the future for them. That is what the Bill does. It is a great shame that your Lordships' House has twice rejected the possibility of providing that protection— protection that has meant that young people have lacked the safeguards that could have been put in place some time ago. I sincerely hope that we will not do that again.
My concern for protection arises because there are and will continue to be predatory men who want to abuse, rape and use young girls and boys. Crucially, the Bill provides equal protection for young men and women against adults who may use their position of authority to gain sexual advantage. I hope that the argument about protection and the areas that it covers will not be used in Committee to get rid of that part of the Bill. I have some reservations about whether this part of the Bill goes far enough. Therefore, I was delighted to hear the Minister say, although I think that some noble Lords did not hear him, that the clause would be looked at and that it would be possible under Clause 4(1) for a statutory instrument to be brought forward to extend the areas of protection.
I have a particular difficulty in understanding why part-time education is excluded when full-time education can mean part-time education in two establishments. I do not accept the view—pressure has been brought to bear on this point by some of the teachers' unions—that teachers should be exempt. One cannot realistically argue that those who run a children's home should be subject to the criminal law and at the same time exclude teachers. I hope that we might look at the extension of the clause.
It has also been suggested— it was suggested in the other place—that the clauses of the Bill providing protection are not necessary if there is no equal age of consent. That is to deny protection for young girls. So far we have had little comment about young girls and I want to make some remarks about that. I find extraordinary the indifference and lack of concern on the part of some people as to the consequences for young girls. The Home Office report—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I spent a fair proportion of my speech quite specifically talking about girls, so it is quite wrong to say that they have not been mentioned in this debate so far.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. Maybe I put them in a slightly different context. The Home Office report, ,Sex Offending Against Children, concluded that 60 to 70 per cent of child molesters target only girls: that is

113
the important point. That means heterosexual men committing violence against girls. Yet there are still Members of your Lordships' House, as we have heard in previous debates, who somehow believe that young men require greater protection from unwanted sexual advances than young women. They seem to believe that somehow or other young women are less affected by sexual abuse.
I find such a view not only ridiculous, but offensive. It is unbelievable that it can be suggested, as it has been, that a young girl's life is not ruined by being seduced, but a young man's life is. It is amazing how easy it is to find a reason for discrimination. When women wanted the vote they were told that they lacked maturity and rational judgment. Now we are told that a young woman can easily get over being seduced: that she has the resilience, the strength and the moral purpose that is somehow missing in young men. That is to quote what was said in the other place. Of course it is nonsense.
I have said this before and I will say it again: a girl is faced with the prospect of becoming pregnant, of being disbelieved, of possible parental displeasure, of forced marriage, perhaps an abortion or the misery of early separation through adoption. These consequences of abuse on girls were identified by the Royal College of Psychiatrists as far back as 1976. These possible outcomes are likely to have a traumatic effect on her for the rest of her life.
The effect of a young girl being subject to rape was graphically illustrated by an article in the Guardian on Wednesday last. A mother described the devastation that was caused when her 16 year-old daughter was raped. She described how the rapist stole a large and important part of her daughter's life and the harrowing ordeal of three days in the witness box being subjected to a vicious and degrading cross-examination. I suggest that that article should be read by all those who have doubts about the consequences for girls of abuse and rape. Such attitudes, to me, are as discriminatory against girls as the current law is against boys. I do not believe that discrimination has any place in the law.
It was argued by an opponent of this Bill in the other place that there was an extra dimension in the case of young men and that homosexuality takes them outside the mainstream of life. I am sure that such a concept would not find favour with those many well known and highly respected men who are openly gay and who have accepted their sexuality, and the realisation of who they are—a situation so movingly described by my noble friend Lord Alli in speeches in this House. I look forward to the speech he will give to the House today.
The argument based on difference moves us away from the type of society I think we ought to be striving to create: a society which is free from all prejudice, one which understands difference and which does not live a lie by pretending that there is no diversity of sexuality, and a society where all people, gay or heterosexual, are treated and valued as equals. To me, that is a decent society. To put the contra view, that
114
this has nothing to do with equality, means that we are saying that young homosexual men are somehow lesser beings than the rest of us. That is an argument that I cannot accept.
However, it is necessary, if we are to achieve that decent society, that there is equality in the law. As my noble and learned friend Lord Williams said, the law has never criminalised same-sex relationships, but only those between males. This leaves young men open to exploitation and, in the extreme, to blackmail. A girl under the age of consent is not charged with a criminal offence if she unlawfully has sexual intercourse with an older man. That is a safeguard which should apply to boys as well as girls, and it is one which is now provided by this Bill.
The Bill will provide protection for the young boy who has a homosexual relationship at school—dare I say even perhaps at his public school?—and is criminalised for it. Without this Bill he will carry that stigma for a very long time, and no family wants that to happen to their son. I am sure that many of us have received letters from young men and from the parents of young men who, through fear of being branded a criminal, have been reluctant to declare their homosexuality. These young people want help. They want advice. How can they question something that is illegal? Removing that fear and creating openness and support are the core to providing protection.
That is why this Bill is so important. They particularly need access to good medical care and they need to understand, as do all young people, the importance of safe sex. There is no evidence, as has been suggested, that the present law reduces the incidence of homosexual activity. There is no indication that it minimises the spread of infection; nor is there evidence that it increases the protection available to young people. In fact it does just the reverse: it restricts the giving of advice, and can delay treatment.
The BMA and the RCN continue to stress the concerns of the medical profession as a whole that the present law can inhibit efforts to improve the sexual health of young homosexual men. All the major organisations at the forefront of dealing with the problems caused by the present inequality in the law are calling for change. My noble friend the Minister identified some of them and I will add a couple more: the British Association of Social Workers, the National Children's Bureau, the BMA and the RCN, the British Youth Council and the British Youth Agency. These are respected organisations: they need to be heard and their expertise taken note of.
As responsible parliamentarians, we should not dismiss lightly such expert opinion. We have a responsibility to take seriously the views of those organisations who work on a day-to-day basis with vulnerable young people. Their views have been wrongly ignored in the past and I hope they will be listened to today. I cannot accept the view, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that there is a contradiction between equality of the age of consent and protection. Equality in no way overrides

115
the imperative to protect young people; rather, equality should be enshrined in the law to provide adequate protection, as this Bill does.
The statute book, as it presently stands, delivers a recipe for confusion, misery and fear. I return again to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, about the young man who had been abused and who was unable to do anything because of his age, since he would be outside the protection area. In fact if this Bill goes through, such a boy will then feel free to be able to complain and to have his case heard, but at the moment he is fearful of doing that because he might also be criminalised.
Voting against this Bill, or any of its clauses, would be to vote to retain that recipe of misery and fear. It would mean voting against the protection of a vulnerable section of society and continuing to penalise young homosexuals by ensuring that they continue to be subject to ignorance and bigotry. I firmly believe that passing this as I sincerely hope we will, through all its stages:in your Lordships' House will help to provide the decent society I believe all of us, whichever side of the argument we are on, wish to see.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she not agree, going to her point about the likelihood that young boys may not go and complain about what has occurred because they may be criminalised, that that is an argument for having no age of consent at all? Once having reduced the age to 16, there will surely be those under the age of 16 who get involved with older men and, on the noble Baroness's argument, they will not be able to go and make a complaint because they will be criminalising themselves.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, that is not the case. Under this Bill they will be protected just as are the 16 year-olds.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, but they will not be protected if they are of the same age as the person who has sex with them.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, T detect that this debate will go on for rather longer than I expected. As I have an engagement which means that I must leave the House at about seven o'clock, I shall respect the custom of the House and not speak in the debate. I rise only to put the Attorney-General on notice that later I shall table amendments to try to extend the category of persons who are in positions of responsibility and trust; and I hope also to join with others in addressing the much greater danger of anal sex. I shall write to the Minister.
5 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, the most powerful case for a particular measure is sometimes to be found in the arguments used against it. I do not flatter myself
116
that what I say today will change votes but I want to put on record that the case against this Bill rests, both intellectually and morally, on the flimsiest of stilts and it is time that they were kicked away.
Let me address the various arguments deployed against this Bill. We are told that by not lowering the age of consent we are protecting young people at a vulnerable stage of their development and that if the age of consent is lowered vulnerable teenagers, who are uncertain as to their sexuality., may be drawn towards homosexuality. That argument does not survive even the most cursory examination. It confuses two completely separate matters: uncertainty as to what one is with what one chooses to be. There is certainly evidence that some young people are confused as to their sexuality, but that is confusion as to what they are. The question that they ask is, "What is it that I am?" not, "What is it that I choose to be?" They are discovering that they are homosexual., not choosing to be homosexual.
There is little or no evidence of sexuality being a matter of choice. People do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. If one believes that argument one should ask oneself at what point one chose one's own sexuality. If it was a matter of choice, why on earth would one choose to he homosexual, even in today's supposedly liberal society? One variation of this argument is to claim that, even if homosexuality is not a matter of choice, none the less it may be the product of nurture rather than niiture. That claim has been advanced by Mr Brian Souter. In an article in the Scotsman he said that teenagers could be cultivated into any type of sexual activity,
"given the wrong influence and circumstances".
Teenagers often go through a phase and (he wrote),
"This is not the time to send the 'gay is OK' message to a confused adolescent".
That is an intellectual sleight of hand. It is the same argument as that which I mentioned earlier, but dressed up in slightly different form. It completely misunderstands the argument about nurture. Psychologists who deal with nurture are concerned with pre-school developments. There is no suggestion that "nurturing" in the way that is claimed here takes place at 16 or 17 years of age. Exposure to literature, or to particular messages, thus has no relevance in the context of this Bill.
Those are not the only arguments advanced in favour of the contention that the existing law protects young people. We have heard the claim this afternoon that if the age of consent is lowered 16 year-olds will become prey to predatory older males. The same argument was deployed in 1994 against lowering the age of consent, yet there is no evidence that 18 year-olds have been preyed on by older males following the passage of the 1994 Act. Furthermore, the argument misses the point that we are talking about the age of consent. To prey on an unwilling teenager is not permitted by this measure.
We are also told that boys develop more slowly than girls. That may or may not be, but it is not particularly relevant to this debate. To be relevant, one has to show

117
that boys who are homosexual, or confused about their sexuality, somehow develop at a different rate from boys who are heterosexual; otherwise, one has to argue that the age of consent for boys to engage in homosexual or heterosexual sex should be set at 18 years of age. As far as I am aware, most people do not seek to do that. The whole argument appears to derive from a premise that may or may not be valid; and much of it appears to derive from highly subjective anecdotalism.
I deal briefly with the other arguments deployed against lowering the age of consent which are concerned more generally with homosexuals and homosexuality. We are told that there is a moral argument; namely, that homosexuality is (as one former MP frequently put it) "unnatural and abnormal", that it is condemned by the Bible and that it conflicts with family values. These are trotted out essentially as soundbites and their validity is taken almost as self-evident. They are not self-evident—far from it. The claim that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal is in part wrong and irrelevant. It is wrong to claim that it is unnatural. It is natural to the person engaging in it and it is known in the natural world. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has claimed that only human beings engage in homosexual acts. That is not the case. Homosexuality is to be found in the animal kingdom. Recent research shows that it is far from uncommon, especially among certain species.
The claim that homosexuality is abnormal is true in the sense that homosexuals do not constitute a majority in society, but to be left-handed is abnormal. We are all aware of the dangers of legislating against those who differ from the rest. We have witnessed the effects of that not only abroad but also in our own history. It is not that long ago that left-handers were discriminated against—were seen, by definition as sinister—simply because by definition they were different. The fact of being different—to be a minority—is no basis in itself for legal discrimination.
I turn to the argument that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible. There are those who assert that the Bible is unambiguous in its condemnation. There are biblical scholars who take a different view. John Elford, Canon Theologian of Liverpool Cathedral, is the latest to question the belief that the Bible prohibits active homosexual relationships. Nor is this questioning confined to a particular wing of the Church. The evangelical Michael Vasey has been among those who have questioned it. In so far as the Bible can be taken to condemn homosexuality, the Old Testament condemnation is exactly the same in relation to the eating of oysters or for women to remain indoors while having a period. No one suggests the use of law to outlaw either of those. One cannot be selective in this way without incurring the charge of hypocrisy.
I turn to the argument that homosexuality conflicts with family values. I do see how the two can be taken to relate one to the other in an adversarial way. What are family values? The answer that is frequently offered is a description, not an explanation. Homosexuals come
118
from families, usually heterosexual ones, and frequently wish to create their own family relationships. Given that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, it is not a case of people threatening family values by choosing not to marry or by engaging in homosexual activities. Homosexuality is a state of being. Family values are precisely that: values. There is no inherent conflict between these two things. Indeed, if one really believed in the concept of family one would encourage homosexuals to form stable relationships and to be an integral part of wider family relationships, with their parents and so on, not seek to isolate them from society and the opportunity to create such relationships. Most people now accept that homosexuality is neither right nor wrong, but simply a fact of life. Seventy-two per cent of those questioned in a Gallup poll published in the Daily Telegraph on 11th February gave that response.
There are those who will remain unpersuaded and believe that the law should be used to prohibit homosexual activity and to send a signal. Even then there are problems, certainly for any Conservative. Let us not delude ourselves that the existing law is strictly adhered to, or even that it is enforceable. Should we have a policeman or a camera in every bedroom? Of course not. Do we really suggest that two consenting 17 year-olds should be sent to prison? For most people, I suspect that the answer is no. Conservatives do not believe in law that is unenforceable. A measure that is unenforceable serves to undermine respect for the law.
Even if the law is not enforceable it is still claimed that it should remain in order to send a signal—in essence saying what legislators believe people should think about the subject. One can argue that, but one cannot really put that forward as a Conservative. That is not how Conservatives view the purpose of law. Conservatives believe in diversity and in allowing people to make the most of their lives unencumbered by the state and equal before the law. The present law is discriminatory, unenforceable and serves no demonstrable purpose. It is time to bring it to an end. I shall support this Bill throughout and I urge other noble Lords to do likewise.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say what a privilege it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I wish to associate myself with many of his arguments. I shall try not to repeat them.
I did not want to speak in the debate today. However, I speak on behalf of those who are unable to speak, too frightened to speak or who dare not speak. The Daily Mail will inevitably attack me again tomorrow morning and ask what right I have to be here, why I am championing the pervert's course and what I have done to earn the right for noble Lords to hear my words. The answer is simple. I do not believe that I have done anything particularly special, noteworthy or good that gives me this privileged position in this House. But I do know that having got here there is an immense responsibility to be true unto one's self. I know that that responsibility is shared throughout the House.

119
It is because I wish to be true unto myself that I once again put forward the case for equalising the age of consent. I am a reluctant champion of any pressure group, rights organisation or cause. However, I look around me and see tasks that need to be done. I look around me and I want to understand. I know what my job is. It is my responsibility to advocate the case for equality. This is not about whether 16 or 18 years is the right age for sexual activity: it is about the abolition of discrimination. It is about supporting young people—young, vulnerable men in our society.
The views of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are well known, as are the opposing views held by many noble Lords opposite. But so are the views of the organisations that support the change and work with young people on a daily basis. This change in the law is supported by—I repeat the list because I think that it is worth repeating—Barnardos, NCH Action for Children, the Family Welfare Association, Save the Children and the NSPCC. This change in the law is supported by medical institutions: the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This change of law is proposed by the other place with the consent and support of the Prime Minister and the majority of the Government, William Hague—and I share with the tribute from the Attorney-General for his courage in standing up for the change—Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown, the overwhelming majority of MPs on a free vote, and the overwhelming majority of MPs within each political party. We have opinion polls too—opinion polls to counter opinion polls to counter opinion polls.
Over the past few years the arguments have not changed. I have listened carefully to the voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Generations have heard her voice, and voices like hers in this Chamber and beyond. There are voices from the past that 100 years ago would have told us that a black man is not equal to a white man. The voices of the past would have told us 50 years ago that women should not have the right to vote. The voices of the past would have told us that Catholics are not entitled to the same rights as Protestants. The voices of the past tell us that to oppress the poor for the rich is all right. They are the voices which believe that they have right on their side and that right is achieved by denying equal rights to all.
They are the voices that this House must resist. Today the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, ask us what rights do Members of another place have to invoke the Parliament Act on a matter of conscience? I am content that they are the only people who have the right to use the Parliament Act on a matter of conscience. They are the servants of the people. They are accountable to the people. It is for that reason that we do not have the right to stand in the way of the free will of another place. Its Members are the legitimate, elected representatives of the people; and they are satisfied on this question. They were agreed across party, religion and gender. I shall sleep more easily tonight knowing that my fate is in their hands and not in the distant voices of the past.
5.14 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the charms of your Lordships' House is that by the curious operation of the speakers' list one often finds oneself following a speaker from whom one holds diametrically opposed views. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, found that today when following my noble friend Lord Waddington; and I find that when following the noble Lord, Lord Nevertheless, views are listened to usually with courtesy and the recognition that even if one does not agree with the argument being put forward it is at least a view which can be reasonably held and should be properly heard. That is one of the great advantages which noble Lords have—I would say over almost any other chamber.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that one must be true to one's self. The noble Lord is true to himself; and I like to hope that I am true to myself, too. However, I find it fairly disagreeable and discouraging that we are yet again discussing the subject of sex. In the past 18 months we have done so on a number of occasions. One might even he forgiven for thinking that the Government have sex on the brain. But on this occasion it is because the Government are insisting on trying to alter the law in a way to which most people object and for which the Government have no mandate.
Everyone knows that sex is a delicate subject, and that people's views as to what is or is not acceptable, and legally acceptable, vary considerably. Perhaps it is because of that that people have a fear that there is a common tendency to push the barriers of freedorn, acceptability or licence (call it what one will) just that bit further down the road. Perhaps it is easier not to defend what one believes to be right for fear of inviting ridicule or being cast as old fashioned. Perhaps it is because the lobby which may be opposed to one's views is so powerful that it is easy to believe, often erroneously, that the volume of the noise reflects the breadth of support for the argument —like the politician who had written in the margins of his speech, "Weak point. Shout."
Yet no one should be deterred from standing up for what he or she believes is right. Whenever Bills come before your Lordships for which I do not feel a great deal of sympathy—as is the case with this Bill—I take comfort from the words of a previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Fisher, who said,
"There is no unreasonable argument which cannot he proved reasonable by reason".
In other words, take a rotten argument, dress it up with fine words and it sounds quite acceptable.
Surely one of the most important things for Parliament to do in this day and age when all previously accepted attitudes are being turned upside down is to protect young people. People under 18 are still young, and often uncertain as to the values of life. To say, as the Bill permits, that two people who have reached the age of 16, who are still at school and possibly even in the choir together, should be allowed to bugger each other whenever and wherever they like—a matter about which not even the headmaster

121
can do anything and, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, if he does he is likely to run foul of the Human Rights Act—seems to be totally wrong.
So much has been said about the subject that I shall desist from wearying your Lordships with all the reasons why I believe the Bill to be wrong, other than to encapsulate my views by saying that I believe that heterosexuality is the norm. That is why we are made how we are. Most people would hope that their children would follow that natural path. Homosexuality, for whatever its reasons, is an aberration from the norm; and while some people may be born that way others can be drawn into it. Children need protection.
I now have the pleasure of turning to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. We have not seen so much of the noble and learned Lord lately since he left the Home Office. It is a pity that when he comes to the House he is always leading some disagreeable Bill. I feel sorry for him because he has been given the task of taking the Bill through your Lordships' House. He took the last one through and I dare say that his colleagues told him that he could take this one through, too.
The noble and learned Lord is an honourable man of the highest integrity, even if in the recesses of his mind he periodically harbours some wayward ideas. However, I find it hard to believe that, having introduced the Bill with such conviction, he considers it right to subject young people between the ages of 16 and 18 to the legal approbation of these homosexual experiences. After 18, they can do what they like. Is it really too long to wait for a further two years before being able to be exposed legally to those experiences? That time can be spent in formulating their judgments.
I find it hard to believe that the noble and learned Lord really believes that it is right for men, by law, to be able to bugger girls of 16—something which they were not allowed to do previously. That is the kind of thing which the Bill would allow and I do not believe that it is right. A few years ago, it would have made one's hair stand on end! I suggest that it ought to make one's hair stand on end now, if we are to be a country with any moral code.
Is it right that in Clause 4 it should not be an offence for a person to have sexual activities with another person if before the passing of the Bill that person was already in a sexual relationship with the other person and when he was in a position of trust? In other words, because something appalling is going on when the Bill becomes law, that appalling thing will be allowed to continue. That is what the Bill does and I find it unbelievable.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord does not really believe in all this, but it is government policy. Periodically, government policy requires the wheeling in of the heavy brass, which is what has happened today. Of course, the Government will find no more able a person than the noble and learned Lord, who is
122
capable of applying himself to any argument and of advocating either side of a case with equal conviction and abandon, as he once admitted.
I wish that he had put his head further down in the scrum behind the scenes and had pushed more purposefully for rectitude and for young people to be surrounded by the good facts of life. It seems that nowadays everything has to be hurled at young people on the basis of breadth of knowledge. They are told, "We have told you everything. It is now up to you. You choose". But the duty of parents and teachers is to "mould" the young. That is what is meant by "bringing up".
There was a parson at home who possessed many virtues, but of which speaking in the pulpit was not one. I remember some 35 years ago he made a very profound observation. He said, "What will destroy this world will not be the atom bomb or the hydrogen bomb, but the inability to discern between right and wrong". Those words ring true today.
Wherein lies the great desire of the Government to lower the age of consent to 16? They know that almost every poll shows that the majority of people do not want it. The Government have no mandate for it. It was not in their manifesto and, I dare say, had it been they would not have had such a large majority in Parliament. Why do they want to make this change?
Your Lordships will remember that during debates on the House of Lords Bill the Government Spokesmen—the noble and learned Lord was at the head of the pack—said that the abolition of hereditary Peers was in the manifesto, that the Government had been elected to do that, and therefore hereditary Peers should not complain that the Government had introduced that measure. That was an argument which I found a little difficult to swallow, especially when the Government decided to keep 100 hereditary Peers, which was not in their manifesto. After that, we did not hear too much about what was in it.
However, the lowering of the age of consent was not in the Labour Party's manifesto. The Government can claim no mandate for this. They cannot begin to say that they are carrying out the will of the people. Why, therefore, do they want to do it?
On the previous occasion, I reminded your Lordships that when in 1994 we debated the lowering of the age of consent from 21 to 18, I had the privilege of being an ornament in the Home Office. I was therefore the hapless character who had to deal with the amendment. My officials stressed firmly that it would be quite wrong for me, as a member of the Government, to give my views as to the virtues of the amendment. I was told that it was, as are all matters relating to sex, a matter of conscience for the individual Members of Parliament and that the Government must remain neutral. Needless to say, I took the advice of my officials—and I used to take their advice when it was right.
When I asked the noble and learned Lord, who was in then in the Home Office, whether the advice of his officials was the same as it was when I was a Minister, he said that he had not asked them. That was, if I may

123
say so, a crafty lawyer's answer. It did not mean to say that they had not given it. My modest experience is that officials are only too happy to give advice, even if they have not been asked for it. Indeed, today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that he would give us advice even if we did not want to hear it.
I wonder why only a few years ago the official view of the Home Office was that this was a matter of conscience for individual Members of Parliament and that the Government must not intervene, yet today the Government are saying that it is their policy to go ahead with the change without any mandate or the approval of the people. The Government are saying, "We shall dictate the age of consent. If Parliament does not like it, we shall force it through under the Parliament Act".
By what right do the Government believe that they are in such a unique position to decide such issues better than are individual Members of Parliament? How can the noble and learned Lord say that this is a free vote of Parliament when they say that they will use the Parliament Act if one House objects to it?
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that all the members of his party would back the Government, despite getting himself into a slight intellectual tangle as a result of a question from my noble friend Lord Monson. That means that the Liberal Democrats will not have a free vote.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I am sure that when he reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that I said that our party had a policy which it included in its manifesto before the previous election, but that individual Members on these Benches are entirely free to take whatever course they like.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that, which I remember him saying, but I believe that it was in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Monson. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, looks at the earlier part of his remarks, he will see that he said that the Liberal Democrat Party was behind the Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may set this matter to rest. My noble friend correctly stated the policy of our party. He did not say that this party intended to whip for that policy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that his party is not going to whip for the policy. That is fine. We shall look with interest to see which way the various members of the Liberal Democrat Party go.
I wonder whether at least part of the momentum behind the Bill is due to the pressures of the homosexual lobby. It is a very powerful lobby. Once one of its objectives has been obtained, it moves on to
124
another. Having got the age of consent lowered to 16, it will make one of its next objectives the legalisation of homosexual acts in public lavatories. It is almost—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the Government are in the pocket of the homosexual lobby. Does he believe that the 22 organisations, such as the BMA, the Royal College o I Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing and Barnardos, are all in the pocket of the homosexual lobby?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not say that even the Government were in the pocket of the homosexual lobby. If the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, believes that they are, that is fine. I do not like to think that any of those normally fine organisations are in the pocket of the homosexual lobby. I am surprised that such organisations which often carry such respect should necessarily have bowed to the prevailing wind of the homosexual lobby. As I said, it is a very powerful lobby and, having obtained one success, it will move on to another.
I did say, as, indeed, members of that lobby have said quite clearly, that they wanted homosexual acts in public lavatories to be allowed to take place. I believe that that is quite appalling. I believe that no one should doubt that, should the lobby achieve what it wants today, that will be the next issue on the agenda. I do not like this Bill. I do not like it at all. I believe that the Government were wrong to introduce it.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I am sorry that I cannot follow his tact. I welcome this important Bill. It seems extraordinary that the law still discriminates between various kinds of sexual activity. Such discrimination can only encourage the stigmatism of homosexuality, and that is both mindless and cruel.
The Bill successfully fulfils the Government's undertaking to the European Court of Human Rights to equalise the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sexual acts. Most important of all, it puts homosexuals on an equal footing with heterosexuals in terms of sexuality. Certainly, prejudice's against homosexuality exist, but there is no excuse and no reason for those prejudices to be enshrined in the law.
As someone in his late twenties, I can say confidently that among my contemporaries homosexuality is rarely regarded with distaste or alarm but as a perfectly normal way of being. The additional Clauses 3 to 6, relating to people's positions of trust, are sensible and as necessary for heterosexual relationships as for homosexual ones. I am pleased that the Government have brought back the Bill and I support it wholeheartedly.
5.32 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speeches that have been made on behalf of the different sides of this argument, even if I have agreed with about only half of them. However,

125
having read the debates that took place in this House when the matter was discussed on the previous occasions—in the Crime and Disorder Act, in the 1999 version of the Bill and in the present version—I am struck by the fact that there are two types of argument from both sides, although I do not suggest that only one side in the debate has two types of argument.
We are told either that it concerns a matter of conscience, morality and moral principle; or, after a while, whoever is taking that particular line feels that they should perhaps move on to a different position and appeal to reason or evidence.
I believe that that is understandable. What do people mean when they say that this is a matter of moral principle or of conscience? It is not the type of comment that they make when, for example, they say that they are pacifists or that they cannot support the return of capital punishment or are against abortion. In this situation, what they are really saying is that they do not intend to take any notice of the principles of other people. Indeed, what they infer is that they do not intend to pay any attention to a whole series of arguments; for example, to what the Whips say (that has arisen this afternoon), to what government policy is (we have had that, too), to what Europe wants (several people have said in effect that they do not give a damn what Europe wants; they disregard that), to the views of Stonewall (that is something that one can easily dismiss), or to the opinions of the electorate. Although I must say briefly in passing that, according to successive polls, the sympathy of the electorate lies far less on that side than that side appears to believe.
In any event, if we proved that 90 per cent of the electorate were on the side of the Bill, one would not expect them to take any notice of their opinions or, of course, of the provisions of the Parliament Act.
Therefore, when speakers invoke their conscience, or their moral principles, they are dismissing other people's statements or, rather, their conception of other people's positions.
There are two problems with that: first, one usually slightly misrepresents what the other person is saying; and, secondly, dismal though it may be, we all know that one never obtains agreement and one is unlikely to make progress or reach a compromise if one states one's position and says that it is based on a moral principle, that it is a matter of conscience and one does not propose to take into account the susceptibilities of anyone else. I have principles, he has beliefs, you have only prejudices.
Therefore, I believe that at this late stage we should focus as far as possible on the appeals of reason and evidence. Anyone who has evidence or an argument which seems to stand up will use it. As John Locke said:
"I note that all sects make use of reason when it does serve. When it does not, they do cry out: it is a matter of faith and above reason".
Therefore, let us see what the reasons are. I have tried to boil down in my mind the three reasonable and evidential propositions which, for those who oppose
126
the Bill, could be capable of being buttressed by facts. I find it very difficult to take two of them seriously. I shall come to them later. The third is the real and serious argument, but here they do not have enough evidence.
The first, put very strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she last spoke on this matter, is that the removal of the 16/18 anomaly in favour of heterosexual sex would be a body blow to the institution of marriage. I do not say that the institution of marriage is in a good state. It is in a rather parlous state. An increasing number of young people do not seem to want it. However, it seems to me utterly bizarre to suggest that the reason that they do not want it and live outside it is because other people are not heterosexual but homosexual.
The institution of marriage is in a bad state and I deplore that. But I speak as someone who has been happily married—at least, I am happy on my side of the marriage; one can never speak for anyone else—for 44 years. Some of my friends have never been married. Some of them have large families and have never been married. They seem to be as happy as anyone else. Some of my friends have been persistently unhappy and they have gone through one marriage after another. They are still trying, so there must be something in that institution! However, I believe that it is arrogant to say that what has suited you for 44 years must suit everyone and everyone should do it; that what undermines it is the growth of homosexuality and the progressive liberalisation of the law relating to homosexuality. What is bad for marriage is not gay sex but the availability nowadays of sex and children without its constraints. That is what is doing marriage in. I wish I knew what to do about it, but it is nothing to do with this Bill.
The second argument which is used is that the removal of that anomaly will give rise to an increase in homosexuality and that there is something particularly irreversible about a sinking into homosexuality at the beginning of life—at 15, 16 or something of that kind. I find it amazing that people can say that in all seriousness. In Eton, in the Guards and in the Navy people move from homosexuality to heterosexuality and have very happy lives. They may occasionally go backwards and forwards but they are not condemned and damned for ever to live in a permanent sink of homosexual activity.
Several of our most successful monarchs were bisexual most of the time. It is rumoured—and, indeed there is some evidence—that one of our greatest and most honoured queens (I hesitate to give the name) was a little out of the straight from time to time. Yet there are those who believe that, somehow, once you become a homosexual, you live in that slough of despond for ever, and especially you are subject to people preying on you when they are older than you. But those who believe that are living in a phantom world. That is not the situation in other countries where the age of consent is different or where it is the same. It did not occur when we lowered the age of consent last time or the time before that.

127
What worries me about current sexual behaviour is not an irresistible movement towards homosexual practices brought about by increasing liberality and the work of homosexual lobbying. It is the growth and apparent total inability of any of us to know what to do about the irresistible attraction of promiscuity; about the death of fidelity, both for heterosexuals and homosexuals. What that has to do with the law, I confess I do not know.
I come now to the third reason; that the removal of the anomaly will be fatal and disastrous because it will become the core of sexually transmitted disease. In that regard, I believe that those on the other side—or those on the other side of this side, if I may put it like that—really should have consulted the evidence which some of us have received from distinguished bodies like the BMA, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Nursing and so on. Those people have really looked into the matter. After all, they have lived at the edge of the problem for a long time.
They say two things to us. First, the critical variable in the escalation of sexually transmitted disease is unprotected sex of any kind. Since many more people are heterosexual than homosexual, the danger is on the heterosexual side. Unprotected sex of any kind is the danger. The solution—and the BMA is particularly strong on this—is the critical influence of education and treatment.
The reason that all those distinguished bodies, which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, admires when they do not disagree with him, support the Bill is that they want to increase education and treatment for people who are made illegal practitioners by the present state of the law. They are convinced of that, not just the professional doctors and nurses but all the institutions like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardos. Do we think that all these bodies are controlled by the homosexual lobby? To say it is to be ridiculous.
So I cannot see why there is much of an argument. I read the last debate when this matter was discussed and I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did not feel that she should see and talk to those people or read their information and arguments. As far as I understand it, she said that they did not communicate with her. That is not a sufficient reason. I hope she will deal with that matter this evening. She said, "I think I know some of the things that they say", or something like that. That is not good enough. Those who oppose the Bill should be prepared to tell us why they cannot find one really well-known, respectable organisation which supports their position. They should tell us that.
Finally, I turn not to the opponents outside my own party but to the opponents inside it. I know that there are those within my own party—for some of whom I have the greatest possible respect, whom I normally find myself on the side of and even drinking with—who hate this Bill, just as they hate Section 28. I say to them, "It is a question of time. You are all changing. We are all changing. It is a question of time. You have not quite changed enough".
128
One of the finest speeches that was made in the other place was the speech made by the Member for Buckingham, a Conservative, who said that he could now see that what we have here is unjustified discrimination. That is what he said: unjustified discrimination. Those within my own party to whom I referred do not believe in unjustified discrimination. If there is no evidence or rational argument, I say that they must put aside their prejudices.
To put aside our prejudices, we must think of ourselves as we used to be. I have always found that one of the ways that I can purge my prejudices is to think of my past attitudes to Shakespeare. When I first saw "The Taming of the Shrew", I sided with Petruchio. I cheered for Petruchio. I cannot now stand "The Taming of the Shrew". I certainly cannot stand the last speech in "The Taming of the Shrew". Petruchio was a sick sexist and should have been arrested. But I did not think that in 1948.I call that progress.
I cannot remember when I first began to dislike the last act of "The Merchant of Venice". There are nasty people in "The Merchant of Venice". But I can remember the first time I felt what an insult, what a horror it was, when Antonio makes Shylock become a Christian. I did not think that many years ago.
Finally, since we are talking about homosexuality, up until the 1960s, the actor who played Osric invariably played him as an effeminate ponce—what the actors called at the time a "ponce" part. He flipped around with his handkerchief all the time. If your Lordships are interested, there is on tape, eternally captured, Peter Cushing's wonderful example of the effeminate ponce in the Olivier film. Nobody would play it like that now. There is such a thing as progress. You just have to get there.
I say to my noble friends on this side of the House who may not see their way to keeping up this Bill: respond to your innate beliefs; respond to your belief in equality, in non-discrimination and tolerance. Believe me, you can vote for this Bill all right.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, two things need to be said about this Bill. First, it is far more important than the debate on Section 28, about which so many thousands of column inches have been written. Section 28 is of powerful symbolic importance but its practical significance is limited.
Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, himself pointed out, we are not discussing the rights and wrongs of homosexual activity in general. For 35 years I have consistently maintained that consenting adults should hive a legal right to do whatever they want together in private, however physically dangerous or aesthetically degrading such activity may be. I believe that nowadays the great majority of people subscribe to that view, but strictly in respect of adults.
However, we are not talking about adults today but about children. It is almost universally accepted, I think, that where minors are involved the libertarian

129
principles so rightly extolled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, are frequently heavily circumscribed by the criminal law. One has to think only of restrictions on alcohol, tobacco, gambling, the ownership and use of shotguns and air rifles, the driving of cars and the riding of motorcycles and mopeds. Not all those restrictions are always logical or justifiable when subjected to close analysis, but the point is that most of the electorate endorse them and do not believe that young people are being treated unfairly.
I spoke of children rather than of young people because "children" is how the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child describes all those under the age of 18 whom it rightly deems to need protection against sexual exploitation. Surely no one can deny that the sodomising of 16 and 17 year-old boys or girls amounts to sexual exploitation, since few of the boys and virtually none of the girls can actually enjoy the experience, however persuasively they have been inveigled into submitting to it. Of course, with the United Nations convention still in mind, such ordeals would not be limited to 16 and 17 year-old boys and girls as there is always a grey, hazy borderline area just below the legal age of consent into which one can be certain that 15 year-olds and even some 14 year-olds would be drawn were the law to be altered.
Clearly, the Government are not basing their case on some alleged fundamental human right to sexual fulfilment. If that were so, they would be lowering the age of consent not to 16 but to 12 or 13. Certainly, young people in Northern Ireland would not have to wait 12 months longer than their contemporaries in England, Scotland and Wales to obtain such fulfilment. The Government seem to be basing their case on equality; not so much on the sacred doctrine of sex equality, but on the newly devised doctrine of equality of penetration. Need one say more?
Yes, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is right; the existing law is widely disobeyed. But the law which forbids the smoking of cannabis is also widely disobeyed, which does not prevent the Government from remaining adamantly opposed to relaxing the law on cannabis smoking. The fact is that hardly any youngsters ever go to prison for smoking cannabis, as opposed to dealing in it, and hardly any youngsters ever go to prison for homosexual activity. That is as it should be. The law is there not to punish—whatever may superficially appear to be the case—but essentially to act as a marker; the unspoken reasoning being that if the laws deter no more than 5 or 10 per cent of those who might otherwise be tempted to experiment and to drift into dangerous habits, the laws are therefore justified. No one can deny that being sodomised is far more dangerous physically, and probably psychologically, than smoking a joint of cannabis.
Moreover, the mere existence of the law can help someone hovering on the brink, so to speak, who is not entirely sure of his orientation, to resist temptation. Some will argue—indeed, a great many noble Lords have already done so—that all homosexuals are born,
130
not made and therefore no law will deter them. Of course it is true that some are born that way; few would deny that. It may even be that the majority are born that way. But others are undoubtedly made, as the former Archbishop of York, the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, who is as well versed in matters scientific as he is in matters spiritual, reminded us on the previous occasion we debated the matter. It is such young people, who in the last resort do have a choice, which the existing law helps to protect.
Clause 3 has been briefly mentioned. It appears not to go far enough in some respects, but too far in others. It would seem that an 18 year-old hospital nurse could go to prison for kissing a 17 year-old patient, if one reads subsection (4) of Clause 4 in conjunction with Clause 3. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether that is so when he comes to reply. For the sake of people's children and grandchildren, we shall have to endeavour over the weeks ahead to make this regrettable Bill less dangerous. The general public will expect no less from your Lordships' House.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I feel extraordinarily nervous. I wondered why, after so many years in your Lordships' House. I believe that in part it is because I was brought up to believe that one should never use foul language and that if one had a command of the English language, one need never use swear words. The word "buggery", or "bugger", was extraordinarily offensive to me. I tried never to use it.
Last year during Second Reading I asked whether I could use that word. I was told, yes, it was a legal word. At the time I made the point that blasphemy was wrong. I remember that at the school I went to, if people were bowled out just before their 50, they might use foul language. I once said something unholy and was given a complete bollocking by the sports master who said that had I not been bowled out, I would have been dismissed out of hand.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would be kind enough to give way. Perhaps I may ask him whether "bollocking" comes in the English language.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, my noble friend talked also about various other issues such as acts between consenting males in private. He will recall that at our school none of the lavatories had doors, in order to prevent such activities. That was just before the Sexual Offences Act 1956. But my nervousness on the subject is not because of the word, or because of homosexuality or lesbianism, but because of the misinterpretation that goes with it; that opposition to this Bill means that people are against the gay or lesbian community. I do not believe that that is true.
The difference between when I spoke previously and now is twofold. I have never received so many letters on a particular subject in all my time in this House. I received two objections. First, because I linked previously the act of buggery with bestiality and sheep, a former secretary of a particular regiment wrote to

131
advise me that his regiment was not the one known as the "sheepshaggers" but that it was another far more eminent; I shall not mention it. I still find today that, in the act, "buggery" relates also to bestiality.
The second objection was because I said that something was "unnatural". However, in the reference to Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 in the Explanatory Notes, the heading "Unnatural offences" has been eliminated. We can talk about "natural" or "unnatural" or "abnormal", but what may be natural to some is unnatural or abnormal to others. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said in a speech which I should like to have been able to make myself, it is the institutions of marriage and of the community which are important. I wonder why I should speak in a different way today.
Since the Second Reading of the previous Bill, there has been the abolition or amendment of the House of Lords and the excommunication of 600 guardians of the nation's morals, or whatever they may be called, replaced by a few, of whom I am one. Although the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that none of us have a right to be here, those of us who are here by an Act of Parliament and election probably have more right than others. We have also a responsibility to represent someone. In this debate, I should like to represent the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and families who wrote to me.
I do not say that homosexuals and lesbians cannot represent families, but almost by definition they do not normally have children. This debate is about children. Last year I went back in time, because I was always brought up that to try to understand the present and to determine the future, one must always go back as far as possible. I went back only to medieval times, but this time I go back to the ancient Greek that I learnt at school and to the word paedea—the bringing up of children both morally and spiritually; then to paediatrics and paediatricians, who study childhood and the diseases of childhood.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, children are those under 18. In medical terms, a paediatrician looks after or treats children up to the age of 18. Therefore, by definition at present, anyone under the age of 18 is a child. Within that framework, the experts, advisers, individuals and many others to whom I have spoken would draw the logical conclusion that every child is different; every age is different; and upbringings and experience are different. I am told that in general a 16 year-old girl is probably two years ahead of a 16 year-old boy in sexual matters. Be that as it may, we are after the protection of children. We then come to the word "paederast", the unnatural connection with a child. I shall not go on. Some of them are quite disturbing. But there is no doubt that there is exploitation in this field within and without the law.
I do not know whether I can bring myself to say some of the things I shall try to say. This is our country. The matters are domestic. If we want to deal with international issues, I should like to share with your Lordships some of the experiences I have had in
132
Africa, the Middle East and other places where small boys and girls are sold almost together and where the buggery of a girl is not unusual; her virginity should be maintained because if it is lost, she would not later be able to get a husband and her family would have to pay more in dowry. These matters tie in with that awful sin or crime of female circumcision to prevent a woman from feeling sexual gratification so that she will not go off with another man.
Sexual gratification goes back into the mists of time. There is nothing new about homosexuality or perverse or strange behaviour. It is just that, suddenly, the Bill has made public things that many of us would possibly prefer to put under the carpet, to be kept quiet, or to say that they concern other people. I am frightened as to where this might lead and by some of the moves that have been made, even on the Continent, for sexual glorification and gratification via the Internet. Young children have shown me how to tap into particular programmes which, frankly, disgust me but which they find of more than passing interest.
I do not know where this Bill will lead us However, we must consider other issues which are involved. I am concerned about the attack contained in some of the correspondence I have mentioned upon Members of the House of Commons. That is unjustified. It is said that many of them today do not want to cause offence to any minority group. Therefore, they may well support legislation to which they would be opposed if they could have a private word about it. I do not believe that is true. But today it seems as though the Labour Benches support the Government rather than speaking individually for themselves; the Liberal Benches are supporting the party. I do not know whether the Conservatives are supporting the party. We are tending to speak more as individuals. I know not where this will lead.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, made an excellent speech. When I listen to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I often wonder whether he is prosecuting or defending I would willingly have him on my side whatever he was doing. At this moment I feel that he is having to defend because there are ingredients of the Bill to which amendments may be desirable. I am not opposed to some of the principles that go with the Bill as long as they relate to the protection of children. But in many ways the Bill as currently drafted opens up dangers for children.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I was not a Member of your Lordships' House when the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was debated last April. I do not believe I was introduced to your Lordships' House because of an obsession with matters sexual or even, indeed, because of being very married As I shall undoubtedly miss an all- party parliamentary cricket dinner—which is a true obsession—because of this debate about sex, I shall expect some sympathy.
I have read last year's debate. During seven hours or so many issues were discussed, and many are being discussed tonight. There remains little to add. It seems

133
to me that certain principles need restating. It feels a little like looking thorough a kaleidoscope where the elements remain the same but the pattern becomes different with each shake. Maybe we will readjust and enrich that pattern this afternoon. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, feels so disturbed. Maybe I can reassure him.
I want to thank the many organisations and individuals who have discussed the Bill with me and have written to me—they include those involved with children, parents and young people—in relation to issues of health, welfare and education.
I believe that the Bill will ensure both justifiable rights and necessary protection for young people of 16. Where the age of consent is equal for young men and young women and is 16 or even lower, such as in Spain or Sweden, there is no evidence of negative consequences to young people or society. We need a balance between protecting young people and allowing them rights. When rights are established, it becomes more imperative to educate for responsibilities. I believe that young people of 16 are old enough to expect rights and to accept responsibilities. We must not put ourselves in what one writer, in relation to sexuality, described as "the ostrich position".
In the debate last year, the noble Lady, Baroness Young, stated:
"I believe that in public life one must stand up for those things which one believes to be right and believes to be true".—[Official Report, 13/4/99; col.656.]
My noble friend Lord Alli echoed her view. I also believe that. There is an eternal tension about issues defined as "moral" when people of goodwill stand at opposing ends of the spectrum. That dilemma was alluded to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
I am not sure that today's debate will change attitudes suddenly but it may clarify some issues and narrow the divide. Perhaps we are involved in a debate about views of life which are only symbolised by this particular topic. I do not believe that adults as well as young people should be expected to base the way in which they behave on ignorance, threat and fear. I believe that people have the right to information and education which enables them to make life choices in a supportive climate. That includes laws which are seen to be just and protective but which do not stigmatise particular groups.
There was a statement in the editorial in yesterday's Guardian which said, about another issue,
"Politicians have a duty to articulate people's fears, but they have to do so in ways which do not endorse or authenticate raw and dangerous prejudice. What they say helps create a climate".
Surely in arguing that one section of society—gay young men—should be treated in a discriminatory way creates and fosters prejudice, not only about them but about male gay relationships generally. I recognise that there are strong moral and religious views about gay people and what they do, real or imagined. I doubt that sexual acts of whatever orientation have changed
134
much since sex began—much earlier than the 1964 of Philip Larkin's poem. Open and honest climates which recognise the richness and diversity of sexual expression would seem to me to be less open to negative consequences. Certainly, this has been shown to be true in international research. Open and honest climates do not encourage debauchery and abuse. They contribute to people's abilities to know about unwanted pressure, resist it and tell about it. I suggest that this—the likelihood of a victim informing on an abuser —discourages abuse as much as does law, although I support laws which make a firm statement about abuse and exploitation.
The high moral ground belongs to people who are realistic as well as idealistic. We must be realistic about the context of young people's lives today, as has been said before by several speakers. Each generation of young people is different; no more or less moral, no more or less caring, in my experience, but subject to different influences and trends. Many young people of 16 would say that we adults have no right to dictate what they need; our reality is different. Young people of 16 are more mature in many ways, not only sexually, than young people in my day. I believe that by showing them respect and understanding we do more to further independence and dignity. If we believe that young people can be trusted to make informed decisions and helped to resist unwanted pressure and make judgments, we are more likely to have fruitful dialogue with them. Fruitful dialogue is more likely to breed responsibility than diktats.
There is surely a warped logic in allowing young men to join the Army at 16, but not to choose their sexual partners. The key issue must be that we are not talking about legalising the encouragement of a particular kind of sexual behaviour; we are concerned with equalisation under the law and with appropriate protection of young people—all young people, not only gay young men. Sexual violation is always wrong, whether it happens to a man or a woman, within or outside a relationship. Statistics tell us that young women are more likely to be violated than young men, as my noble friend Lady Gould said so forcefully. Violation does not teach people to be either homosexual or heterosexual. It damages them, whatever their gender.
Sexual orientation is neither taught nor caught. It is what it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said so eloquently. Indeed, I suspect that people are more likely to be drawn into heterosexuality rather than homosexuality. Young men usually know that they are gay by the age of 16. Some deny it. Some go on to have women partners, even wives and children, sometimes with tragic consequences for all parties. How much better it would be to recognise what one is and to have that validated and supported.
The law as it stands gives permission for stigma and exclusion in relation to gay young men. The extension of that stigma and exclusion to all gay people is easily made. Stigma and exclusion of a section of society that comprises ordinary citizens, not criminals or murderers, has to be wrong in any just and civilised society.

135
I believe that one reason for passing the Bill concerns attitudes; it is about valuing people, whatever their sexual orientation, and about acknowledging that young people of 16 are capable of making decisions about their own lifestyles, given education and support from adults. They do need sex and relationships education where they learn about respect for themselves and others, but that point is for another debate. Young people learn most from adults they respect and who will listen to their concerns in a constructive way. Adults should feel encouraged and able, without fear of the law, to give that support to young people of all ages, whatever their sexual orientation.
A further reason for supporting the Bill relates to the health of young people, in particular to the health of gay young men. Of course laws should protect individuals. I suggest that laws in relation to health issues give rise to great complexities. Those relating to issues such as the wearing of seat-belts and smoking give rise to perhaps fewer ambiguities and nuances than those related to sexuality, which essentially is an issue of private morality and intimate acts. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to it as "delicate".
However, the need to encourage safer sex practices among all young people is essential, as has been reflected in national statistics. Incidentally, last year heterosexual infection with HIV exceeded that of homosexual infection for the first time. It is an inadequate response to say, "Don't have sex". Male gonorrhoea in those under 16 and between 16 and 19 rose by 50 per cent between 1998 and 1999. We have a generation of young people who were not exposed to the HIV awareness campaigns of the 1980s and the early 1990s. It is vitally important that they understand about safer sex and sexual health. The medical imperative is clear. Young people—most people—are going to have sex. Laws and exhortations will not alter that. They need to learn about avoiding the unwanted consequences of sexual activity, such as infection. Furthermore, if they become infected, they must have the confidence to be tested and to receive treatment. If the law says "no" to sex at 16, it may be assumed by young people that treatment will be denied to them or strong disapproval will deter them from seeking help.
In relation to gay men, health arguments sometimes become distorted and can, by implication and innuendo, add to damaging perceptions about gay men. One argument puts it that gay men are particularly vulnerable to HIV and that therefore the law should be punitive in order to discourage gay sex. The other argument states that HIV is no longer a gay issue. Again, we must recognise reality. Gay men are disproportionately affected by HIV, certainly in western Europe and the US. Their health risks are related to the environment in which they live. This environment is largely punitive. Health-related behaviour is influenced by cultural, social and economic constraints and possibilities. Punitive laws do not change people's behaviour; they send negative
136
signals to those directly affected by them and give permission to those who are looking for an excuse to penalise and marginalise those affected.
Gay young men grow up in a culture of homophobia. There is a great deal of evidence that they feel that education and other services do not meet or even take account of their needs. If a person feels that he—in this case it is "he"—is not equal and that his relationships are less valid, then he will feel rejected by society. Those rejected by society may feel less responsibility towards it.
The difference in the age of consent reinforces that sense of marginalisation and sense of inequality. If we want to reduce the numbers of gay men who become infected with HIV or other infections each year, then we must support young men and enable them to be assertive in seeking help and advice, rather than being worried about the law. Blaming gay young people and punishing them in law is not a way to encourage healthy lifestyles. It merely adds to the problems and prejudice which affect health and well-being.
I put forward three reasons for supporting this Bill: the first relates to the dignity of gay people and to all young people; the second to protection, and the third to health and welfare. All of these are important and I believe that this House should send out positive signals that, in our society, we value all three.
6.16 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, it has been clear to me for a long time that the Government appear to subscribe to a religion called "political correctness". It appears to be a polytheistic religion. It has important gods and less important gods, but one of the most important is called "Equality".
I am rather mystified because there seems to me to be no logic whatever in this Bill. If the age at which young people become adult—in that they can legally buy a drink, buy cigarettes, vote, fight for their country and enjoy homosexual activities—is 18, surely it is rather strange that they may enjoy heterosexual activities at 16 and hold a driving licence at 17? That does not make much sense because it does not equate to equality. Surely it would be more sensible to raise the age at which the last two activities become legal to 18 years old? That would be much simpler than reducing the age of homosexual consent and the age at which girls can legally be buggered to 16 years old. Or do the Government propose to make buying drink and cigarettes legal at 16 and to allow 16 year-olds to vote or fight for their country? As I said, I am rather mystified.
I support everything that has been said by noble Lords who have spoken against this all. Furthermore, I expect I shall wish to support everything that will be said later in the debate by those who will speak against the measure. I cannot understand why the Government are so determined to push it through against the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country and in the face of the Waterhouse report.
I have to tell the House that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and I entirely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, as regards

137
the many letters which the noble Baroness, Lady Young—sitting to my right—and I, along with others, have received from people concerning both this Bill and Section 28. I accept that we are not the elected representatives of the people of this country, but the reason we are receiving such letters is because the elected representatives are not representing the people of this country.
The Government are yielding to what I believe to be a small but very noisy and violent pressure group. Many noble Lords will remember the violence offered to Members of this House after votes against previous attempts to lower the age of consent; and I do not suppose that I was the only one of your Lordships to be sent a piece of used loo paper through the post. Of course, it came in a buff envelope addressed in leggy capitals and did not have on it the sender's name and address, so I cannot prove that it came from members of that group. But because I received it just after that vote, I put two and two together.
Those are the kinds of people the Government are trying to protect at the expense of defenceless young people. Could it be that there are supporters of that group in the Cabinet as well, apparently, as on the Front Bench of the Opposition in another place and among a huge list of apparently highly-respected organisations? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave us most of those names, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, gave us a few more. I have to say that the fact that those organisations support the Bill does not impress me. I believe that they are wrong, and from now on not one of them will receive a penny of my money.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness know any better than I do who speaks for those organisations? I do some work for the NSPCC and I asked people who work for that organisation who they thought spoke on its behalf and said that it was in favour of the Bill. The answer was that they had not got the faintest idea.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I too have not got the foggiest idea.
To remove, as this Bill does, with totally inadequate safeguards the only legislation under which it is often possible for the police to obtain a conviction of many of the paedophiles who destroy children's lives is a wicked thing to do. Safeguards will be necessary. But they are necessary now, before the Bill receives Royal Assent, not later, when many more children have had their lives ruined. I shall be supporting amendments at Committee stage to introduce such safeguards.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, mentioned a free vote and almost in the same breath he referred to using the Parliament Act to railroad the Bill through. I am a little mystified, therefore, as to exactly what the Government are planning to do. But to railroad the Bill through under the Parliament Act, as they threatened, will be a total and utter disgrace.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I suppose all governments are remembered for a specific reason. There is absolutely no doubt that this new Labour Government will always be associated with their obsession with sex. The Government have brought Bills on sex before your Lordships' House and, not content with that, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, they have sought ingenious devices to keep the dialogue going by adding amendments at late stages of Bills, such as the Local Government Bill and the Learning and Skills Bill. So here we are again with a Bill before us which the Government are determined to get on the statute book, even if they have to resort to the Parliament Act. I find it offensive that a Bill which is a matter of conscience, and hence a free vote, is to be treated in this way.
In a previous speech on this subject in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is just leaving the Chamber, mentioned her age of 51. I hope that in so doing she was not implying that, because she is 20 years younger than my noble friend Lady Young, she takes the view she does. I cannot accept that premise. I can assure her that I have had discussions with people of all ages, including the very young. It is certainly not our age which determines our views; it is our beliefs.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way. Perhaps I can just draw her attention to a recent opinion poll which demonstrated that there is a considerable gradient between older and younger registers of opinion in supporting this Bill. It showed that 78 per cent of those aged between 15 and 24 support the Bill, which compares very differently with those who were 55 and over. So there is a much greater acceptance of the principles of this Bill among younger people.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, perhaps when the noble Baroness reaches the age of 55, she might have thought more and changed her mind.
Since this Bill was last in your Lordships' House there has been an important event; that is, the publication of the Waterhouse report. It made for disturbing and horrifying reading. In fact, I felt quite sickened when I read how young people were subjected to acts of such depravity and brutality when "in care". How bizarre those two words appear in this context. We supposed that they were in a safe and caring situation when, in fact, the carers were abusers of the worst kind.
I cannot believe that such wickedness has taken place in this day and age. One had hoped that evil people would no longer be able to act in that way. I feel that all those young people who suffered were completely let down, particularly by those in authority, but also by all of us. So we must accept responsibility and do everything in our power to ensure that such ghastly events never occur again. That is why I find it inconceivable that this new Labour Government are going ahead with this Bill, and at this particularly sensitive time.

139
As I have said before, one aspect of the Bill gives me great concern; that is, the effect on girls. It was only as recently as 1994 that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act lowered the age of consent from 21 to 18 for homosexual acts. Also, for the first time, it decriminalised consensual buggery in private of a woman by a man where both parties were over 18. Not many people realise that the Bill before us will in any way affect girls. In fact, I have still not found anyone who understands that that is the case; and I have to report to your Lordships that their reaction is one of horror when told that the Bill will legalise the buggery of girls as young as 16.
During the passage of the 1994 Bill, Tony Blair—now the Prime Minister—referred to the debate as one not about age, but about equality. I cannot accept that. As the bodies of boys and girls are very different, they can never be treated as equal. But I accepted the majority view of the House when the age of consent was lowered from 21 to 18. It is at 18 that young people become adult and are able to make up their minds and make their own decisions. If that means following a homosexual way of life, then that is their prerogative.
I am reluctant to go into detail, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do so just a little. There has been extensive research on the effect of consensual buggery which makes for distressing reading. Anal intercourse carries particular risk for the transmission of disease and increased vulnerability to HIV. It also carries the risk of actual physical damage for the receptive partner as the soft tissues can become traumatised and impaired permanently. The use of condoms cannot offer adequate protection. Also, there is great significance in the fact that those who have ever had anal intercourse are not permitted to donate blood in the UK through the National Blood Service.
It is therefore my belief that we have a duty to protect young girls. This Bill would send a message to them that this type of activity was safe, and the message to predatory older men that it was all right for them to lure the young into a way of life that they may later regret.
I know that some noble Lords feel that, because I hold the views that I do, I must be bigoted and out of tune with society. They take an opposite view. But I respect them, even though I am in total disagreement. I feel just as passionately as they, and certainly speak from the heart. I am no expert, but l am the mother of two sons, and the grandmother of a boy and two girls. I am also a magistrate and in that capacity I have listened to lurid details of young people being subjected to appalling acts. Having seen the impact of this behaviour in the raw, one never forgets these things. I see this Bill not as an added freedom for the young but as a licence for evil men to abuse young people.
I only hope that new Labour, as opposed to old Labour, understand that it is they who are out of tune with society, as the vast majority of people in this country do not want this Bill. This Government live not by the sword but by spin, and I do not know which
140
is worse. They appear to employ, at public expense, more and more of those highly paid people to put over their message; but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. It may be that, one day soon, nobody will know whether or not to believe anything that this Government say.
I conclude by quoting from the fifteenth report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1984. It stated:
"The differing opinions as to whether the age should be 16 or 18 expressed on our Working Paper are taken by these members to demonstrate that this is a sensitive issue, on which the law would do well not to move too far in advance of public feeling".
I believe that those words are just as relevant today and that the Government would do well to heed them. I can only ask your Lordships to agree.
6.31 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have just listened to a very moving speech. I cannot go along with everything that the noble Baroness said because she was so harsh about the Government. However, she spoke from her special knowledge.
There has always been a free vote on this matter and therefore I am happy to think that I am able to vote against the policy advocated, so ably as always, by the Minister. I am aware that there are deeply-held views on this subject and therefore I shall speak very briefly.
I suppose that I must present my pro-homosexual credentials by saying that I was the first person who dared touch the subject 40 years ago, when I introduced a Motion in relation to the Wolfenden Report. I said then, as I say now, that we must treat people with homosexual leanings with proper respect; but in those days that was not at all a popular thing to say.
Turning to the present time, I am not bigoted against homosexuals and I hope that nobody thinks I am. I visit in prison two who have been homosexuals, sentenced for grave offences: one to 10 years and the other to 15 years. In the second case the prisoner has now abandoned those ways, and I shall have my hand on his shoulder as his sponsor when he joins the Catholic Church next week—so no one must call me "an enemy of the homos".
Do we or do we not wish our children to be homosexual? Do we just laugh it off, as some people do? The strange fact is that, in the 50 years that I have been in this House, there has been only one man, and no women, who has got up and said that he is homosexual—Lord Alli. I salute him; I give him all credit, and we want men like him. If it is a normal fact of life that people are homosexual, why has no one here said that they are homosexual? We cannot see it in the same way as backing Manchester United rather than the Arsenal, or something like that. Et is really very serious and it is very rare.
We have to ask ourselves why we—why Christians, if you like—consider that it is wrong. Christians consider that sex outside marriage is wrong—heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. In that sense, therefore, they are on a par. That, logically, is one way

141
of looking at it. Nevertheless, very few of us would want our children to be homosexual. I have been very lucky, having had eight children, 26 grandchildren, and heaven knows how many great-grandchildren.
Homosexuality is not normal; though that does not prove that it is necessarily wrong, it is very abnormal. People have to bear that in mind. People cannot be blamed for the leanings, of course; it is the performance, the act, which is wrong.
Why is it that so few of us would want our children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren to be homosexual? One obvious answer is that they cannot have families, and most people look upon families as a vital part of human life. That is the very sad fact about being homosexual. We therefore do not want to encourage it. Does anyone want to encourage homosexuality? I cannot believe that anyone does, except possibly my noble friend Lord Alli. I do not think that anyone would get up and say, "I am in favour of homosexuality. There is a lot to be said for it". You may perhaps find people saying it in some artistic club but, in my experience, you will not find it being said here.
We have this problem. Do we want to encourage homosexuality? This proposal will encourage it. We have to face the fact that it will encourage homosexuality in the young, and we do not know where that will lead. Maybe they will recover. The boy who assaulted my son in the bath at Eton, and was later expelled for doing the same to another boy, became a much-respected member of county society and captain of the cricket team. You can recover from it. Nevertheless, I think you are doing permanent damage to young people if you encourage them to be homosexual. I am therefore against this present proposal.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has so long and distinguished a record in defending personal freedoms.
As a society, we send out peculiarly mixed messages as to when we can do what. At 16 we can leave school; we can join the Army; we can buy a lottery ticket; marry; smoke tobacco; and drive a nippy little motorbike. At 17 we can drive a car. At 18 we can take out a mortgage; we can buy alcohol for ourselves, and we can vote. At 20, if we are fast learners, we can pilot a passenger-carrying aircraft. At 21 we can drive a lorry or bus; we can drive a train; we can stand for Parliament. All of these without sex discrimination: men and women have the same rights. Indeed, it is only as we approach a rather higher level of maturity that gender raises its head. At 60 a woman can travel free on London Transport; a man has to wait a further five years.
All of these age points no doubt have their own rationale. From time to time the ages are adjusted, usually downwards; but sometimes, as with the school-leaving age, upward. But the rationale is multi-factored: a balance between such considerations as
142
public safety, community health, adequacy of information and, far from least, personal freedom in a free society.
It may seem odd to have to wait till you are 18 before voting and then be restricted to voting for someone at least three years older. It may seem odd that you can pilot a passenger airliner at 20, but must be 21 before you can drive a passenger bus. It may seem odd that you cannot drive a Mini till you are 17 but you can scoot around on a rather more lethal moped at 16. It may seem odd to refuse a girl of 16 a glass of wine while letting her buy a packet of cigarettes. The White Paper published yesterday mitigates this (at page 36) only to allowing the girl her glass of wine if she is,
"accompanied by a supervising adult".
which hardly offers us any useful analogy as we approach this Bill today.
In the Bill before us, we are responding to what again seems odd to many people; namely, that boys and girls may have vaginal sex at 16, but have to wait till they are 18 if they wish to have anal sex. There is indeed pressure—from men at any rate; I, for one, have had no letters from women's organisations urging me to support this Bill—for what is loosely and misleadingly referred to as the "equalisation" of the age of consent, meaning an equalisation not of male and female consent rights (they are equal already) but an equalisation of vaginal and anal intercourse.
Many people, of course, regard such an equalisation as a nonsense, even as an affront—or, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has just said, as wrong—but, as in past debates going back nearly three years, I shall address only the health issues involved. Let the young be properly informed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, urged.
Bodies such as the Health Education Authority have done young people a serious disservice not only in breezily offering vaginal and anal sex as valid alternatives but in neglecting to inform the readers of the risks of damage and disease that are specific to anal sex—issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for example, alluded. The sole exception so far as the HEA is concerned has been information, welcome enough, on AIDS. But although condom wearing may protect the inserting partner (especially if he adopts the recommended thicker condom), no word is said of the risks of physical damage to the recipient partner, girl or boy, though this is actually increased for pretty obvious reasons if her or his partner is using a thicker, less sensitive condom. And no word is said of the manifold risks to the girl whose partner is bisexual. No word, for example, from the various authorities listed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
These are matters that I have raised before, but on this occasion I hope the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, will assure the House that full and frank information on the health implications of anal sex will now be made widely available, irrespective of whether the consensual age for boys and girls is lowered. The relevant research results are in the public domain: for example, there is T.E. Schmidt's 1995 book, Straight and Narrow, or, closer to home, the more technical

143
study of 1993 by three Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons at the Westminster Hospital, right here in SW1, and published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. All that is needed is for such material to be distilled into the reader-friendly style in which the Health Education Authority is so expert.
I am dismayed to see teenagers smoking but I take some uneasy comfort in the knowledge that (unlike me when I started smoking) they have been clearly and repeatedly warned—on every packet. I am alarmed to have teenagers flash past me on 50 cc machines, but I recognise that the health risks to themselves—if not to me—are mitigated by an obligatory helmet. Sex, as we surely know in this House by now—having had so many debates on it—is a commoner pursuit than motor cycling or even smoking. Let the information thereon, so far as social responsibility and personal well-being are concerned, start to be at least as cogent and clear.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, as usual, I rise to speak when there is little left to say; indeed, everything has been said and most of it—at least that with which I agree—I have been pleased to hear. I respect the views of my noble friend Lord Alli, who always puts an honest and straightforward view when he speaks about prejudice, and so on. However, I have to remind him that some of us, perhaps from a different generation, have Christian beliefs and have tried to stand by them. We have also suffered a great deal of discrimination and abuse. We still do. So discrimination, inequality, and so on, do not apply simply to homosexuals or to people like my noble friend Lord Alli. We are talking about a much wider field than that. That is not to say that it is right; but it is there. We have all experienced some of it.
I shall try to shorten what I intended to say. My basic belief comes from my Christian upbringing. I still believe in the Bible and the Ten Commandments. I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester emphasise the need to promote marriage as the base of a good relationship.
This discussion both here and in the other place tends to try to equalise homosexuality and homosexual relationships with heterosexual relationships. There is no similarity. One is firmly based on religious and moral teachings. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, spoke about homosexuality as being a case of having no choice; in other words, it is something that is inbred in people. But not so long ago it read a letter in reply to correspondence that had been carried on for some time in newspapers regarding chromosome X and chromosome Y. It was held for a long time that different chromosomes determined whether a person would be heterosexual or homosexual. This argument was dismissed and ridiculed by a leader of the homosexual community. He said quite clearly that that business was rubbish and that the whole thing about homosexuality was a matter of choice. It is not something that you are born with; it is something that
144
you choose. That is not a problem for me but people ought to be honest about this matter and not try to hide behind some kind of a generation—
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, the noble Lord provides anecdotal evidence, but can he provide any firm empirical evidence because all we have heard this afternoon is assertion after assertion on this point? What is the hard empirical evidence which bears out what the noble Lord says?
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am recounting the comments of a leading homosexual who wrote in a letter to a newspaper that the whole argument about chromosomes is rubbish and that one is no horn to be homosexual but that it is a matter of choice. The noble Lord cannot accept that, but I take it that I may be speaking of one of his friends. I have to accept that I come from a different world, background, education, environment and beliefs from some of my younger friends. Now there is a much wider gap between the generations than was ever the case in the past.
Those of us who still hold firm to Christian morals and beliefs find it difficult suddenly to overthrow them and become so lackadaisical of anything that is decent. That seems to be the conduct of the new generation—the "www dot com" thing. Everything has been taken out of context and, unlike in the past, there is nothing to link the generations. There was not a big gap between myself and my grandfather, but there is a huge gap between me and my grandchildren. That is a problem that most of us have to face. We try to come to terms with it, but the one thing I cannot come to terms with is the concept that homosexuality must be equated with heterosexuality and that homosexual couples must be equated with married couples. That is not the case and I am glad that at least the right reverend Prelate had the guts to say that the heterosexual relationship must be emphasised. That is the basis of the society that I know and the basis of the society that I espouse and one that I shall continue to espouse.
The Bill before us reduces the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. It also lowers the age at which men can commit buggery on girls. Those of us who have read of the abuse scandals in north Wales must be horrified at this prospect. I know that in view of the scandals, the court cases and what was exposed in north Wales there is no public support for lowering the age of homosexual consent from 18 to 16. The Waterhouse report specifically concluded that in the matter we are discussing the dangers for those outside care are as great as for those in care. I should like to discuss the report at greater length as it discusses in great detail the differences between 16 and 18 year-olds in terms of the problems that they experience and their need for protection. We are talking about the need to protect children from the kind of incidents that occurred in north Wales. As I say, there is little public support for the Government's proposals in the Bill.
There is even less support for the Government's determination to steamroller the Bill through. If the Government do not get the Bill through this House,

145
they will invoke the Parliament Act. That is quite disgraceful, given the severity of the proposals and the opposition to them. Although I admit that the Government have introduced safeguards since the incidents in north Wales, they have not yet gone far enough. We need to introduce further safeguards. People who share my views would make those changes. If we rely on others to make the changes, they will move in completely the opposite direction. I am happy to endorse the comments of those who have spoken in favour of Christian morals and beliefs, which most of us support. We need to do all we can to amend the Bill to ensure that children are given the protection to which they are entitled.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, this is the third time that we have debated lowering the age of consent. The Government's case has not altered, nor, I believe, improved. The overwhelming majority of the population do not want the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals. This is a view shared by Peers on all sides of the House.
I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and others speaking from the Labour Benches, mention the number of Conservatives who support the Bill. My noble friend Lord Norton has supported it this afternoon. There is, of course, an equal number of Labour Peers who are opposed to the Bill. A great many Labour Members of the House of Commons voted against it. Therefore the Bill cuts across party. However, it is also opposed by all the major religions: the Christians, the Muslims and the Jews. I would have thought that we should take that into account. Like others, I warmly support the wise words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
To force the Bill through against all those considered opinions the Government have made clear, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, has said, that they will use the Parliament Act on this Bill, which most believe to be a matter of conscience, which has been subject to a free vote in both Houses and which was not in the Labour Party's manifesto. The Bill had neither Report nor Committee stage when debated in the Commons earlier this year. The Parliament Act has been used only five times since 1911, and never in circumstances such as these. I believe that that is a parliamentary disgrace.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, I believe, that people like me are torpedoing the Bill. However, I do not think that he had many qualms of conscience over voting with us on, for example, the order which would have allowed a free election leaflet to be sent out in the elections for the Lord Mayor of London. Was that a case of torpedoing the Government or not? Noble Lords believed that their action was right on that occasion; I believe it is right that we should stand firm now.
The Bill is presented as a theoretical debate about equality. However, it is not even a case of equality in the United Kingdom, because the proposed age is 16
146
in England, Wales and Scotland and 17 in Northern Ireland. The debate is not about equality at all but about children. As we all know, the lowering of the age to 16 would in practice mean 14. All the arguments that have been adduced about the difficulties that 16 year-olds face would apply equally to 14 year-olds if the Bill becomes law.
I refer to two other points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke at considerable length on sex education. I am doubtful about the value of sex education. It seems to me that the more sex education there has been, the more difficulties young people have experienced. Having read much of the literature, I can see why there are so many teenage pregnancies, as some of the literature constitutes positively a kind of "do-it-yourself" kit.
Nowadays the health promotion units pose dangers. They are now issuing dangerous material. I refer to the article in today's Daily Mail—this has been mentioned—and the material which was sent to the headmistress of a girls' school in Slough. I have spoken to that headmistress. I assure the House that the material was sent to her and that she was asked to distribute it in her school. She refused to do so and has sent me a copy of it. It is an appalling piece of literature to distribute to schoolchildren. The Berkshire health promotion unit has now commented on the issue. But those are the facts of the case as I know them.
My noble friend Lady Blatch and many other noble Lords have pointed out the different ages at which we are legally permitted to do things. We forget that 18 is the age of majority; and we forget that, under the all-important Children's Act 1989, 16 year-olds are defined as "children". I find it curious that the Government have introduced the Children (Leaving Care) Bill—under which 16 and 17 year-olds will have mentors to guide and help them after leaving care up until 18—and at the same time they have introduced a Bill which will lower the age of consent for homosexuals and turn 16 year-olds into adults, without any care, help or back-up from the law. That is completely inconsistent. We find that in one Bill the Government will look after 16 year-olds and in another they send out the message that sex is all right at 16, never mind the health risk.
We have heard little from the Government Benches about the very real health risks referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. The health risks are real. It is worth repeating that no one who has had anal sex is ever allowed to give blood. That should say something to us all about the dangers.
We have only to look at the video distributed by the Avon health promotion unit. Its message is quite clear: try experimenting with boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with. This is not the message that most responsible parents want to hear, nor do the British public.
I turn now to the question of legalising buggery with girls of 16. I can only suppose that this has been put into the Bill to please the Women's Unit, the leader of which, I believe, is the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. She

147
will no doubt want to boast about her latest achievement in equality. I confidently expect that this proposal will feature prominently in the next issue of that glossy magazine, Views. To be serious, I believe that most girls would find this act repulsive and that most responsible people would say that it was dangerous.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that he was looking for evidence to show that there were dangers, as did my noble friend Lord Norton. My noble friend Lord Waddington referred to the Waterhouse report, as have a great many other speakers. The very important report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, Lost in Care, is the one major difference since we last debated this matter. I was surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, did not refer to it. If he did and I did not hear him, I apologise.
Most unusually, Sir Ronald draws the attention of Parliament to the vulnerability of boys aged 16 to 18, precisely the age group that we are discussing. He said:
"We have concentrated our attention on evidence relating to children who were in care at the time, having regard to our terms of reference, but we have necessarily heard some evidence about others who were on the fringe of the care system, that is, children who were later committed to care and youths who had recently been discharged from care. In our judgement, the perils for such persons are as great in this respect as for those actually in care and our findings emphasise the importance of continuing support by Social Services for those v, ho are discharged from care. We draw the attention of Parliament also to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years, in circumstances which appear to have made him question his own sexuality for a period. Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred".
Those are very strong words. They are surely words which all of us who take a responsible view of our role in Parliament should consider very carefully.
I shall be the first to acknowledge that the Government have made some proposals to answer the recommendations in the report, but the abuse of trust provisions proposed by the Government in this Bill would not have covered much of the abuse which took place in North Wales. For example, some of the boys met their abusers outside the care home, a point not covered in the Bill. At least two of the abusers would not have been convicted had the Bill before us been an Act. They were convicted when the age of consent was 21.
But perhaps most worrying of all is the theme which runs through the report of the complacency of the statutory services, in particular the local authority social services department. The Home Office consultation paper on abuse of trust stated:
"The responses to the consultation exercise indicated that the large majority of organisations, including the majority of voluntary organisations working with children, believed that such conduct was better regulated by professional codes".
It also stated:
"The majority of the respondents stated that they were opposed to the introduction of a criminal offence to cover cases of abuse of trust".
They may have given that evidence, but we must recognise that today there is evidence of widespread abuse of children. Some 32—I repeat, 32—major
148
police investigations are under way, some of them, I understand, much larger than that in North Wales. The truth of the matter is that if we support this Bill we are weakening the law and giving less protection to children.
It is quite clear that, at the end of the day, there may be homosexual boys who want the right to have sex at 16 with men; there may even be girls— although I suspect hardly any—who want the right to buggery.But there is no way of changing the law to give them freedom without taking away the protection of the law from the overwhelming majority of vulnerable 16 to 18 year-olds who could be subject to predatory abuse.
We have been told that we in this House are too old; that young people think differently; that certainly anyone of my age is obviously over the hill and should not express an opinion on anything. I believe that it is our duty—I do not mind saying what I said before— to speak to what we believe to be right and believe to be true. Before we take a final decision on the Bill, every one of us should study the Waterhouse report. It is a report from an independent inspector who was looking at a terrible case. I have been appalled and sickened by some of the things I have read. I can hardly bear to think of what may be happening in other tragic cases to boys, and to a lesser extent to girls, while we are debating this issue. It will be dreadful for both. It is our duty to speak out.
Public opinion polls may be split on age groups, but there is no doubt that in every poll taken the overwhelming majority of people are worried about this Bill and do not like it. They are worried because they, too, know about these kinds of cases. They are worried that it might happen to their particular child—and that is what they do not want.
All the abuse in the North Wales inquiry took place when the age of consent was 21. We must ask ourselves what would happen if the age of consent was 16.
I turn now to answer the question about the charities which has been raised by a number of noble Lords. I have been asked what I think on this matter. I will tell your Lordships' House exactly what has happened. None of the charities has sent me a brief. They did not send me one a year ago. They have not sent one at this time, and so on this occasion I have not heard directly from them.
Those noble Lords who took part in the previous debate may recall that at that time there was a large advertisement in The Times specifically aimed at me to show that I was the only person in the United Kingdom who was intolerant and that everyone else was on the side of tolerance and all the good qualities that one can possibly think of. The advertisement listed all the charities. I was rather surprised when I saw the advertisement, so when the debate was over I wrote to every one of the charities. I said that I was surprised to see that organisations like them, well respected in the country at large, and, I thought, intended to be non-political, would have lent their names to that advertisement. Every single one of them wrote back and said that they had never given permission for their names to appear on the

149
advertisement at all. I was slightly surprised that most of the charities, which raise considerable sums of money and do not hesitate to send all of us vast quantities of begging letters, did not employ someone to read the newspapers and correct the matter before I needed to write to them. However, let that pass.
I then went on to inquire what the views of the charities were not only about the age of consent but about the adoption of children by homosexuals. I quote from a letter from Barnado's:
"We do not exclude anyone from consideration as an adopter or foster carer on the grounds of sexual orientation. Barnado's is concerned that emphasising traditional family structures can discourage potentially valuable applicants from coming forward".
I was rather surprised to receive that reply from one of the charities. I ask myself why they have all said that they support the lowering of the age of consent. All of the letters which I received said that the charities had put the matter to their main committees—I have no doubt that they did—and the main committees decided. Had the charities actually taken a poll of their supporters or invited all their supporters to come to a meeting to decide whether or not they should do this, I think that they would have got a very different result. I am bound to say that I have been very disappointed by their attitude.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness have any evidence for the statement she has just made? Did she go on to contact the BMA, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing? Is she saying that any of the people she contacted contradicted the view expressed in this House that they support the reduction to 16?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear. They all wrote to me and said that they supported the reduction to 16. I did not in fact write to every single one of those organisations, but I wrote to quite a number of them. The point I am making is that I believe that had those organisations, at an annual general meeting, put the question, they might have got a very different result. My experience of volunteers is that they are completely opposed to lowering the age of consent.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I did in fact get in touch with the NSPCC, a charity which we support as a family, and discovered that it had not taken soundings from its supporters. The decision was made at board level.
Baroness Young: My Lords, time goes not allow me to go further into the other question which has been raised, but I think that it was fully answered. I refer to the argument about the European Court, an argument which we have heard many times in this House, which was completely successfully answered by my noble friend Lord Waddington.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I have heard no
150
answer to the point that I made other than that there is a opinion—I have never been shown it, nor have I read it—which states arguments that I have never seen. This may not be a very fair question to ask someone who is not a lawyer, but I wonder whether we can have some indication of how on earth we could comply with the convention if this Bill were not carried. I do not understand the beginning of an argument that would show that we could comply with our international obligations if this Bill were not passed. It is obvious that that is the position. No one who has spoken has given any answer. I have raised this matter in three debates, as the noble Baroness and other noble Lords know to their misery. I have raised it again and again. No one has ever given a reasoned answer.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend Lord Waddington had given a reasoned answer to it. Perhaps I may quote the legal advice which I have been given on this matter. It states:
"It is commonly argued that 'Europe' requires the UK to lower the age of consent. This is not true. Sutherland v. UK is the case usually cited. The Court of Human Rights has yet to hear this case. A provisional, advisory opinion has been issued by the Commission of Human Rights, but this does not legally bind the Court itself'.
It goes on to say that we do not know whether the Court,
"would agree with the Commission that unequal ages of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals breach the European Convention of Human Rights".
The fact of the matter is that the issue of the homosexual age of consent is a matter for national parliaments, not the Court of Human Rights. After all, it varies in quite a number of places in the European Union.
I, and those who think as I do, will not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill today, but that should not be taken to mean that we are in favour of it—quite the contrary. For the reasons which I have given, particularly in the light of the Waterhouse report, we regard this as a bad Bill. It is bad for responsible parents and it is bad for children. It sends out the wrong signal. We shall do our best to improve it at the Committee and Report stages and I hope that we can move some amendments at which the Government will look. I was encouraged by the opening words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, when he referred to the scout movement and the guide movement. I hope that we may look at other organisations. I take this matter very seriously indeed. But whether the Government use the Parliament Act or whether they do not, the British public should know that the House of Lords has spoken for them this evening—spoken the words which the overwhelming majority want to hear—on this occasion, as it has done in the past.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may suggest that

151
she has confused two noble Baronesses. I would not wish my words to be attributed to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I did not mean to call the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. It was a slip of the tongue and I apologise.
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I have not previously spoken on this matter. I was prompted to do so today because of my concern about the way in which some of the issues are being debated. If I may say so, I think that we had an extreme example this afternoon when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke from the Opposition Benches. But not only has the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accused the Government—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should be deeply grateful if the noble Baroness could say which aspect of my speech was extremely extreme.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, first, the noble Baroness accused the Government of being obsessed with sex and suggested that the people who are shortly to be introduced into the House must have been put through a test to make sure that they support the Bill. When my noble friend the Chief Whip objected to that, the noble Baroness did not accept—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take great exception to that. I agreed with it in the beginning. It was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who misunderstood what I said.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I apologise if the noble Baroness agreed with my noble friend in the beginning, but I am afraid that I stick to what I said about the way in which the noble Baroness started her speech. Not only has the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accused the Government of being obsessed by sex but so have a number of other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. The noble Baroness went on to say that she found it offensive. I think she was referring in that context to the Government having said that they would use the Parliament Act to get the legislation through. I must say to the noble Baroness that I too find it offensive to have the motives of the Government questioned in this way, and that includes the motives of some Members of the Government, including the Leader of the House.
There was another example this morning in the "Today" programme on that same theme. That programme, in the usual way "Today" has of putting out bright headlines, referred to the Government legislating for homosexual sex at 16—as if the Government were actually trying to promote homosexuality for young people. The Government are at tempting to deal with the problem in an effective way within the context of the situation that exists today. None of us in this Chamber, or generally in the country I think, wants to promote either heterosexual or
152
homosexual activity at 16, or at any young age. But equally nobody in this Chamber has a monopoly of moral standards.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said, we are looking for the best way to deal with the issues in the circumstances of today's society. So naturally we look, first, at the law, and the law as it stands today is not effective. Although it makes illegal the practice of homosexuality under the age of 18, it does not stop homosexuality happening under the age of 18: nor does it help those whose orientation is homosexual to have access to the help and guidance they might need at a difficult time in their adolescence. Indeed, on the contrary, it is a barrier to their seeking such help and advice.
Nor does the law protect our young people—and here I disagree with the noble Lord. Lord Waddington, and other speakers—because it does not protect young people of either sex from being abused. The Waterhouse report, which has been referred to in the debate on several occasions, indicates just that: under the law as it stands today young people have not been protected against being abused.
The reality, as I have said, is that the present law does not work and needs replacing by one that will meet the circumstances of the current age. Currently, the law makes heterosexual activity at 16, and even marriage at 16, lawful. We may not be completely happy with that. I think most of us here would prefer young people of either sex not to engage in sexual acts at such an early age, and we might seek to mitigate that. However, like my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen, the best way to deal with this is through education. The discussion that is going on at present on guidelines to help schools to teach sex education and health-related matters is, I think, one way forward.
In that respect at least, the law is facing up to the reality of today. It recognises that young people are having sex, and it is trying to do something about it. However, it is not facing up to reality when it allows young women of 16 to engage in lesbian activity, but not young men of that age in homosexuality. This is where the law begins to diverge. It is neither realistic nor equitable to treat young women and men differently. It exposes boys to criminal action, and although the law, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, indicated, is not much used in this respect, nevertheless it sends under cover the natural development of some boys and encourages them to be secretive. It also undermines their confidence and self-respect and inhibits them from discussing their sexuality with parents or others who might guide them. It exposes them to abuse and corruptive action.
These are surely all features that we do not wish to foster. I know that many of your Lordships have said that by amending the law we are sending out the wrong signals, but I do not see it that way. We are recognising something that is very real to a section of our community, albeit a minority in our community, and we are giving them the protection of the law that they need.

153
In this context it is worth repeating what my noble and learned friend Lord Williams said in opening the debate: that there are many major organisations that are concerned with the care and well-being of children and young people. They think that this Bill is necessary. That has been disputed by some Members of your Lordships' House, despite being on record as having supported the Bill. I think that the Bill will help them in the work they are undertaking with the children and young people in their care in the difficult context of today's society.
This is not legislation that the Government have plucked out of the air. It stems from the experience of those who are working with children and young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, when we last discussed the matter and again this evening, has referred to the fact that this legislation was not in the Government's manifesto. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also made that point. No, it was not in the manifesto but, as a matter of fact, this legislation has been prompted by the European Commission of Human Rights and by a case which went before the Commission and which will go to the European Court of Human Rights unless our domestic legislation is changed. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has referred to that.
We all know that the European Commission of Human Rights is not an arm of the European Union or a Brussels invention. It is a longstanding institution, which is supported by nearly 40 countries throughout the whole of Europe. It was greatly influenced by that speech of Winston Churchill in 1948, which did much to promote the Council of Europe, which oversees the European Convention on Human Rights—a convention, incidentally, to which we are committed by signature of the Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I could interrupt the noble Baroness for one moment. Would she agree that the European Commission of Human Rights is not the same as the European Court of Human Rights; that the European Court takes precedence over what the Commission has said; and that the Court has not yet spoken?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I said—or certainly intended to say—that the matter had gone before the Commission and would go before the European Court of Human Rights if domestic legislation was not changed. That clearly justifies the Government taking action to promote legislation, albeit on a free vote in both Houses. But there is more to it than the involvement of the European Court of Human Rights. One must also consider all the social implications to which reference has been made in today's debate. When this matter was debated last April I was struck by the views of the two youngest Members of this House: the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who has spoken briefly today, and the Earl of Clancarty, who is no longer with us. They both spoke for their generation. In particular, the Earl of Clancarty said
154
that if the issues dealt with that day had been debated by the under 25s they would have taken a different and much more realistic view of the situation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not many people under 25 are yet parents, still less grandparents?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, certainly not many of those under 25 are grandparents but a great number are parents. Regrettably, many of them are single parents, which is one of the problems related to the matter that we are now debating. I was impressed by the contributions of those two young Members of your Lordships' House. We must remember that in the 21st century we are legislating for the young people of this country whose views and needs should guide our decision on this Bill.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am the last speaker before the gap at my own request. I am grateful to whatever usual channels have arranged that privilege for me. My reason is that I wish to speak to a matter of importance that arises on this Bill, although it has nothing whatever to do with sex. I wish to enter a strong protest at the way in which this Bill is drafted. I sincerely hope that I shall not cause any offence to parliamentary counsel, for whose skill I have the greatest respect. I do not expect the Attorney-General to reply to anything that I say, unless he wishes to do so, because I have not warned him in advance.
This Bill deals with the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 1967 and comparable legislation that affects Scotland and Northern Ireland. I shall confine myself to Section 1 of the 1967 Act by way of example. Section 1 as originally enacted contains seven subsections. If a Bill seeks to amend a section it can do so in one of two ways. It can amend the section in piecemeal fashion by inserting a word here and taking away a word there; or it can repeal the section in toto and re-introduce it in the amended form which it is intended to take. If the section has already been heavily amended by previous Acts of Parliament and is intended to be further re-amended, obviously the time will come when the only sensible course is to repeal the section and substitute a new one.
Section 1 of the 1967 Act has already been amended in eight respects by the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is now intended to amend it a further five times by this Bill. In consequence, if the Bill reaches the statute book in its present form and someone wishes to read the whole of Section 1 of the 1967 Act, as amended, he will need to proceed as follows. For subsection (1) the reader must first go to Schedule 11 to the 1994 Act to amend line two. The reader must then go to Section 145 of the 1994 Act and Clause 2(3) of the Bill for the remainder of the subsection. Subsection (2) is unaltered. For subsection (3) the reader must go to paragraph 34(a) of Schedule 1 to the 1982 Act to amend lines one, two and eight. The reader must then go to paragraph 34(b) of Schedule 3 to the

155
1982 Act to insert a new subsection which is numbered (3A). Subsection (4) is unaltered. For subsection (5) the reader must go to Section 146 of the 1994 Act to learn that it has been repealed. For subsection (6) the reader must back-pedal to Section 145 of the 1994 Act and then go to Clause 1(2) of the Bill for the final words of that subsection. Subsection (7) is unaltered.
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that in order to discover the text of Section 1 in the amended form that it is intended to take under the Bill the reader will have to cope with amendments spread over the text of three Acts of Parliament and two schedules. In my respectful submission, that is not fair to the public, to lawyers who have to advise the public or to anyone else.
The reader may think of turning to what used to be called the Notes on Clauses (now the Explanatory Notes) to discover the text of Section 1 in its amended form. He would be ill-advised to do so. Page 11 purports to set out the subsections amended by the Bill and identify the subsections which continue unaffected by the Bill. Subsection (5) is included as a provision which is unaffected by the Bill, but that subsection has been repealed by Section 146 of the 1994 Act. Furthermore, subsection (7), which continues unaffected by the Bill, is omitted from the list of subsections unaltered by the Bill, and the reader will therefore think that it is not there.
If the editor of Notes on Clauses cannot get things right, what hope is there for the rest of us? Why on earth does the Bill not repeal Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act and set out a new Section 1 in its amended form and save everyone a great deal of trouble and the possibility of making mistakes. I do not place any blame on the editor of Notes on Clauses. I found it a difficult and tedious task to build up Section 1 into its intended final form. It is extremely easy to make a mistake and I made several mistakes before I got it right.
If I had the opportunity I would table an amendment to the Bill in the form of a Keeling schedule setting out the section in its amended form. The contents of the schedule could then be removed at a later stage and placed in the body of the Bill. This happened with the Trustee (Delegation) Bill of the last Session. The Bill as drafted amended Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 which had already been heavily amended. I tabled a Keeling schedule which rewrote Section 25 in its amended form. The Government accepted the amendment in principle, repealed Section 25 of the Trustee Act and set out the amended Section 25 in full in the body of the Bill. I refer to Hansard, 9th March 1999, at col. 125. However, having regard to the rubric which is printed at the top of page 1 of this Bill, I doubt whether this course is practicable in the present case.
Finally, the guidelines for the drafting of Community legislation produced under the Treaty of Amsterdam state:
"To make texts more readily comprehensible, references to other Acts should be kept to a minimum. Cross-references … should he avoided … Amendments should take the form of a text to be inserted in the Act to be amended".
156
When I inquired not so very long ago, I was told by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel that there were no guidelines here for the drafting of Bills. In my respectful opinion it is high time that there were.
I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time on a matter which is peripheral to the substance of the Bill. But as the Bill is one of the most extreme cases of piecemeal amendments which I have encountered, I felt that I should not allow the occasion to pass without comment. As the guidelines for Community legislation say:
"Clear, simple … drafting … is essential if it is to be transparent … and readily understandable by the public".
That ends my protest, and I hope that I have not caused offence to anyone who has been involved in the formulation of the Bill.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for reminding us of the virtues of the Keeling schedule. It is something which should be employed more often.
We on these Benches have a free vote. Thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I do not need to elaborate that point further.
One or two points struck me from the debate. For me the high moment of the debate was the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, emulating Nell Gwyn by throwing open the windows of the carriage and saying, "Good people, I am the Labour Young".
I return also to the matter of the Berkshire Health Authority which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, reintroduced. I have an official press release from the health authority dated last Friday. Its exact words are these:
"Circulation of the newsletter was recently extended to personal health and sex education advisers in Berkshire schools and student counsellors in colleges. This is to give people in key positions information about sources of help and advice to assist them in their work. It has not been circulated directly to school pupils".
That seems to be an official statement which demands at least some degree of attention.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I never said that it had been circulated to school pupils. I said that it had been sent to the headmistress. That is what she said to me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that welcome clarification. However, I am somewhat bewildered by her insistence that the Waterhouse report is a key document in this debate. First, paedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different things. In a previous debate on the subject, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, said that what most paedophiles are looking for are pretty boys of seven or eight, not pimply youths of 17. I understand that there is one case in the report involving someone of an age to be within the provisions of the Bill, but it is my understanding,

157
and indeed to me the definition of abuse, that it happens without consent. So I do not see what difference the age of consent makes to it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Earl once again. The Waterhouse report is of great relevance. It is far too large a report to go into great detail now, but one of the points made is that young boys are manipulated by older people and that is one of the reasons that they get into difficulties. I shall not elaborate now. But the report has real relevance to the Bill we are debating.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is a point to which I shall return, if I may, in its proper place later. It is an argument we have been having since 1994, and I am sure that we shall debate it for a good deal longer.
I am afraid I have one more question to put to the noble Baroness. It is about the European Court of Human Rights. The noble Baroness must accept that there is at least a theoretical possibility that in the Sutherland case there will be a finding against the United Kingdom. I want to ask the noble Baroness— and in due course as the debates continue, the Conservative Front Bench will also have to answer the question—if there is such a finding against the United Kingdom would it be the view of the Conservative Party that this country should accept its international legal obligation entered into by a Conservative government and fortified now by all the panoply of a sovereign Act of Parliament? Before they answer, I hope that they will reflect that the European Court of Human Rights is not in any way an emanation of the European Union. It represents a much wider collection of countries.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very happy to come to the Dispatch Box to answer that question directly. First, when in power, my government had a record of complying always with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and we would do so in future. Secondly, a decision has not yet been reached. Thirdly, we would still want to strengthen the abuse of trust clauses in the Bill, which are wholly unacceptable.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for a helpful answer. On the other hand, I was not so well satisfied by her allegations about the Government being obsessed with sex. It seems to me that what we are dealing with is not the Government's obsession with sex but the obsession of certain people on the Conservative Benches and in some other places with prohibition. These are matters that many of us would far rather treat as private. But when there is an insistence on what many of us see as an indefensible and unenforceable prohibition, that prohibition brings the matters within the public domain. So long as that prohibition is defended, it will not be possible to treat these matters as private.
As we have been reminded, we have before us a Bill with the Parliament Act sailing in attendance. If the Government go ahead and use that Act, they will enjoy
158
support from far beyond their circles. I ask people who are opposed to the Bill to recognise that others as well as them have convictions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to "compliant" Liberal Democrats. I have been waiting for a Bill such as this to reach the statute book since I first took up the issue on the publication of the Wolfenden report in 1957. The present Prime Minister was then only four years old. I did not have a good enough crystal ball to set out to be compliant to him. In any case, I believe that I have as much right to express my convictions when they happen to agree with the Government as when they do not.
Furthermore, I am not aware that there is anyone in my circle of friends or close acquaintances who does not support the Bill. One of the reasons why I believe that we are dealing with a profound division within the country is that each of us talk only to each other.
I shall not express the certainty voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that public opinion is on my side. The opinion polls seem to me to be all over the place. When that is the case, I am tempted to draw the conclusion that many members of the public have not yet made up their minds. They are therefore unduly easily led either by the wording of the question or even by the tone of the interviewer. It is certainly clear, as was said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Lockwood, that there is a clear difference of age.
When I listen to my pupils discussing the subject, I hear the same voice that I heard and applauded from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I can believe that it is true of one exception, who happened to be an extremely able young man and happened to get a first. However, in numerical terms, he does not constitute a majority. I find it almost impossible to convince most of my students that there are any people, or were even in past centuries, who take the kind of attitudes which we have heard expressed today. They just do not know that people think like that.
There is opinion poll evidence. The Brook Advisory Centre commissioned from NOP, a perfectly reputable organisation, an opinion poll which found that 73 per cent of people in the 15 to 24 age group believed that the age of consent should be equal. When asked what that equal age of consent should be 70 per cent said that it should be 16 and only 4 per cent said that it should be lower than 16. No one mentioned any higher age.
If in Committee we should be offered an amendment to bring the age of consent to equality at 18, in my opinion that would be totally and utterly unenforceable. If an attempt were made to enforce it by draconian measures, we could end up imprisoning 25 per cent of the age group. If no attempt were made to enforce it in that way, it would introduce total contempt for the law.
I did not believe the Sun when it announced the death of the Conservative Party. At worst, it will not fall further than we did in 1945. But were the Conservative Party to adopt such a course, I should believe that it had voted its own extinction. The

159
ribaldry that would greet it whenever it came to argue its case in school would be more than it could survive. Perhaps it is masochist enough to do so, but I rather hope that it is not.
We start from the fact that there is a profound division of opinion, and that is a division of moral principle. We have moral principles, too. They are not the same as everyone else's—they are not the same as those we have been hearing from that quarter of the House—but they are none the less moral and they are none the less principles.
On 23rd March, the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, spoke for me when she said:
"Love, fidelity, stability and joy are not limited to those who have entered into the holy state of matrimony. Such qualities can also be found within other relationships. Neither are those values guaranteed by the state of matrimony. Marriage can be abusive and unstable".—[Official Report, 23/3/00; cols. 447–448.]
Those words spoke for me as much as they did for her. Morality is not, as Belloc would have it, a matter of simple little rules and few. It is a matter of how things are done; whether they are done with kindness, honesty and love. Therefore, in some circumstances, a relationship between two homosexuals, who are so and know that they are so, entered into with love, can be a moral relationship while a marriage entered into without love, and perhaps carried on with cruelty, can be an immoral relationship.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the noble Earl reject the whole Christian approach to these matters?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not happen to be a Christian. I have no objection whatever to Christians within their own churches believing whatever they see fit to believe. What I do not concede is that they have any right to enforce their own private moral principles on the rest of us. We are a divided society. The law must recognise that fact and it is the duty of the law to keep the peace between people whose moral principles differ from each other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked: why now? First, it is because those of us who believe that the existing law is morally wrong are a growing number. Secondly, it is because we have reached the point where homosexuals are no longer prepared to accept inequality. That is a stage which many groups have reached. The working class has reached it; women have reached it; racial minorities have reached it; and people with disabilities are beginning to reach it. If homosexuals reach it now and they speak their minds, they are saying something to which, as a good Whig, I have centuries of training encouraging me to respond.
I am concerned not only about morals; I am also concerned—and just as much as the noble Baroness, Lady Young—about the protection of children. I am concerned about the protection of children from useless and unnecessary fear. If the law does nothing else, it generates such fear in those who are subject to it. I also believe that as soon as one labels any group of people "unequal" one encourages them to be bullied. I speak with feeling; I have been in that situation. I was labelled "unequal" when I was at school in the United
160
States of America at the age of five because I was English. I am not ashamed of being English. That labelling me unequal for it gave me a stubborn and bloody-minded pride in it. It gave me no impulse to conform. But I did, literally as well as metaphorically, shed blood for it.
Therefore, I do not believe that labelling people "unequal" and then saying that they should not be bullied is any good. The worst thing you can do for a child is to produce it out of a marriage entered into by one or two people of uncertain orientation and without vocation. That is the most immoral thing of all that you can do to a child.
People who have opposed the Bill are constantly afraid that teenagers may be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, put it, "corrupted". I Find the word offensive because I do not believe that being homosexual is corrupt. My own morality says:
"To thine own self be true".
If that is what you are, that is what you should do. In addition, I do not believe that people's sexual orientation is that easily changed.
I took the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in one of the best speeches of the day, that we can still argue about "nature" or "nurture". However, whichever it is, in the words of the BMA,
"A common feature of these factors is that they operate at a much earlier age than 16".
To me, a more appropriate summary would be:
"By no endeavour
Can magnet ever
Attract a Silver Churn!".
Of course, it is different for people who live in an entirely one-sex environment, as prison warders and prison governors know. I recall a detective story in which the detective said:
"I have known people who would drink whisky and soup if they had no other option, but I have never known anyone who did not have a decided view in the water or soda controversy".
I believe that that remark is the point.
I make one more point, and that is in relation to the reputation of this House. I love this House. It has a right to throw out the Bill if it wants. I hope that it will not exercise that right. This House is often right, but not always. It has often had the sense to back away on the really big confrontations. In 1832, for example, it backed away because Sir Robert Peel, with great wisdom, had recognised in private three years before the event and in public two years after it that reform could no longer be resisted. With great reluctance this House did the same in 1911.
It was a different matter in 1893 when we threw out the Irish Home Rule Bill, to which my noble friend has referred, by 419 votes to 41. If noble Lords look at the picture in the Bishops' Corridor, they will see a House that believed that it had done something rather clever. It had not. The trouble was that for centuries Englishmen who dealt with the Irish had been totally unwilling to concede their moral claims to equality. The Irish were treated as second-class citizens—a lower form of life to whom rights of equality did not

161
extend. That is why in 1893 this House did what it did, and we are still paying for it. I hope that homosexual equality is not going to be the Irish Home Rule of the 21st century.
I have one final thought, and I shall ask your Lordships to forgive Eric Shipton's language on Mount Everest:
"For God's sake, let's climb the bloody thing and then get back to real mountaineering".
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask him to think again about dismissing the Waterhouse report so out of hand. Although I have little knowledge about these matters, I should like to remind him that paedophilia is effectively an abnormal, especially sexual, love of young people, whereas pederasty is an unnatural connection with a boy, meaning sodomy. I believe that he is wrong to say that the one was not connected with the other in the case of the Waterhouse report. Since those were his reasons for dismissing it, I believe that he should think again.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was following all medical opinion in making that distinction. If all medical opinion is wrong, at least I have erred in good company.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her very courteous and generous welcome to me in returning to the Dispatch Box. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I have a good regard for this House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, this is the third—I almost said "canter"—stroll around this particular course and I thought it only right to continue with the work that I had started earlier. I hope that that does not meet with disapproval from your Lordships.
The noble Baroness also said—I must say that my mind was really boggling!—that we on this side (I believe that she even cast her net to include the Liberal Democrats) were obsessed with sex. I must say that, three years since the last election, you could have fooled me. I am not attributing any personal forgetfulness myself. I simply point out that the best way to ensure a full House here is to discuss for 26 days the abolition of the hereditary element, or the removal of most of it, followed only by any subject relating to sex. On each occasion that I have been here in the past two weeks, Question Time has been rather sparse. At Question Time today, just before we were about to begin our debate, the place was packed.
I believe that the noble Earl has a point. We are not obsessed with sex. We are trying to deal in a civilised way with the true distinction, which I venture to repeat, between what we may approve or disapprove of for ourselves—mainly for others when it is disapproval—and what should be the subject of criminal sanction.
162
The second point raised by the noble Baroness was the question of Scotland. Perfectly reasonably, she wanted to know the position in Scotland and I shall give her the precise details. There was a full debate there on 19th January this year. The Motion was that:
"The Parliament [in Edinburgh] endorses the principles of equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity, creating a new criminal offence of breach of trust as set out in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to be considered by the United Kingdom Parliament in the 1998–99 parliamentary Session and to agree that the UK Parliament should consider any Bill introduced in the same terms in the current Session".
The noble Baroness also perfectly helpfully asked whether or not there was a vote. There was; the Motion was carried by 90 votes to 16. That was in Scotland.
There were then further questions which focused largely on Waterhouse. The noble Earl did not dismiss the Waterhouse report out of hand. I believe that I can say that I have as much knowledge of those particular circumstances as most in this House. I was counsel involved in one of the closely related cases and I conducted an inquiry into a children's home which had a certain degree of overlap. The point that I was about to make was two-fold: first, that no one of any political view or persuasion will feel other than horror, shame and virtual disbelief at what is contained there. However, perhaps I may point out that there were no laws to protect the children in that closed gulag. There were no laws in terms of breach of trust; none. That is not a political point; it is an accusation of reproach to all of us.
Secondly, the noble Earl is right. The vast majority of the allegations in the Waterhouse report relate to physical and sexual abuse; that is, not consensual. That is why—I believe that I took his point correctly—although the Waterhouse saga is bitterly shameful, in substantial part it does not cover the issues with which we are dealing this evening. On the earlier occasions when we discussed this Bill I asked your Lordships not to throw it out because that would mean that for a time there would be no breach of trust laws to protect vulnerable young people. Noble Lords came to a view contrary to the one that I urged upon them, and there still are no breach of trust laws to protect young people.
I move on. The noble Lord—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way because this is a very important point. I believe that we are all agreed that it is a shameful episode. I do not apportion blame to anyone with regard to what happened in North Wales. However, whereas there were some cases of consensual sex, does he agree that in other cases highlighted by the report unquestionably boys were manipulated and there was not consensual sex? Does he agree that those matters should be addressed if we are addressing this whole issue?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is precisely my point. If sex is not consensual, it remains

163
a criminal offence, whatever the age of the victim. That is entirely the point that the noble Earl was making and the one that I ventured to reiterate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for again giving way because, I agree with my noble friend, this is a very important point. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is a matter for victims to prove that they did not give consent? Does he also agree that we are talking about young people who in any case have very damaged lives and are much intimidated by the way in which they are treated? Therefore, proving that they did not give consent would be extremely difficult for them. We have an opportunity in this Bill to strengthen the protection for them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I agree with those propositions. As in all criminal charges, it is for the prosecution to prove its case. There was much physical abuse in Bryn Estyn, almost savage beyond understanding in some instances. The abuse was not simply sexual. Of course, one has to rely on the evidence of the complainant. One looks for corroboration. But many of those young men—and they were mainly young boys rather than young girls that Sir Ronald dealt with—were not consenting. They were being coerced and subjected to favours. They were given alcohol. Sometimes they were physically threatened. That is not consensual, despite the age of the victim.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that criminalising the behaviour of the victim makes it much less likely that the real predator will be able to be proceeded against and that the best way of securing protection and enforcement is by not criminalising the victim but rather the behaviour of the predator?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That was the second aspect to which I spoke briefly in my introduction. It bears repetition and I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reminder. It will now put young men in the same position as young girls. They are not criminalised either if they are subjected to sexual intercourse at an inappropriate age.
The accusation of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was that the Government are obsessed with equality. I can bear that with a degree of fortitude. At least it is not the same as being accused of being a freemason or a keen golfer!
There is an important point here. I find that there is a terribly sexist approach towards young boys and young girls. I raised this on the last occasion. Nobody has beaten any metaphorical drums or tubs about what I regard as the immorality of someone who is wealthy, successful, powerful, possibly in his 50s who seduces a young girl. Nobody seems to complain about that. They say, "Oh, it is just jolly old Bill". Nobody has made that point this evening. When I raised that on the last occasion, it did not meet with universal
164
applause. Some young women of the age of 16 and one week are quite vulnerable to the sort of seduction of which I have spoken. There is no law to protect them nor, as I understand it, is there any present proposal that there should be. The idea was floated that the age might be raised to 18 for young men and young women. I do not think that I can helpfully add to the guidance given by the noble Earl about the possible consequences of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, criticised the decision of your Lordships' House sitting judicially and, in particular, the decision and speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, that someone might inherit a tendency because he had been living in a very long-term homosexual relationship; and that was very long term indeed—from memory, 20 years plus.
The noble Lord will remember, now that I remind him of it, that the Inheritance (Provision of Family and Dependants) Act extended rights to those who were not part of the conventional family and I think that that is as long ago as 1975. The world does change. The certainties which we all imbibed with our mother's milk do not remain constant.
We need to remember, too, that until very recently, certainly during the professional life of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and myself, which does not extend beyond the memory of man, it was a criminal offence for a husband and wife, within their marriage, to engage in sodomy, punishable by life imprisonment. That is very recent indeed.
I believe that the answer to the question of my noble friend Lady Gould about split-site education will be found, I hope to her satisfaction, in Clause 4(8).
I pay tribute, which is genuine, to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It really was a masterly exposition with not a word wasted and not an ounce of fat upon it. I should find it very difficult to improve on his description of the present law as unenforceable, discriminatory and insupportable.
I enjoyed the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as always. I thought that there were two novel constitutional propositions to be found there. The first was that if the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did not exist, it would undoubtedly be necessary to invent him. The noble Earl always looks at me because we are on such good terms and he is able to direct his acid criticisms at me. The second was his bitter criticism that it was very wicked to try to use the Parliament Act because there was no mandate. But the figures are 371 to 171, a majority of 200 on a free vote in the other place, with Conservatives voting for the Bill, including Mr Hague and Mr Portillo. This is not a plot; it is not the homosexual lobby.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord on this fascinating point. Will he accept that there are two Houses of Parliament through which a Bill must pass and the second is now

165
a House of Parliament of the Government's own making? Therefore, the Bill must pass through both Houses.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course, that is the purpose of the Parliament Act. It would be quite wrong of me to try to remember whether or not the noble Earl was a member of the government when the War Crimes Act was similarly "Parliament Act-ed" through without an apparent mandate. I think that he was but, of course, memory does fade.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's memory fades to such a degree that I feel uncomfortable and I shall put him out of his misery. I was a Member of that government and I thought it was the wrong thing to do.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I forgive the noble Earl for his past misdeeds, and even possibly for his future ones.
He overstepped his usual moderate bounds by saying that this matter is something to do with the homosexual lobby. No one has spoken to me about this Bill at all. No one ever seems to write to me. My noble friend Lord Bach suggested that I should start writing to myself because I would have a ready audience. One person alone has spoken to me about anything to do with homosexual law reform. I have known him for many years. He had been living with a partner of 15 years who recently died. They had shared a faithful and happy life for 15 years. He found it deeply and bitterly offensive that that relationship was typified as a pretended family relationship. That is the only conversation that I have had.
I am not part of any homosexual lobby. I hope that I have an open mind. To suggest that the Prime Minister—than whom no more devoted family man and father could be found—is in league with any sort of partisan lobby is to be in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
I was interested—and my noble friend Lord McCarthy beat me to it—as to whether or not any of the organisations with which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had been in correspondence had resiled from the views they had expressed. The answer is that they have not resiled from those views. They remain the views as I expressed them; as my noble friend Lady Gould expanded on them; and to which my noble friend Lord McCarthy also spoke.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to those charities which support him. Those charities were listed on previous occasions as supporters of the Bill. I wrote to those to which I make small annual contributions and asked for the authority on which that support was based. The replies, while mixed, gave no general authority for that support being given to the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was here when the noble
166
Baroness was explaining her correspondence. She said—if I heard her properly and understood her aright—that the charities had been authorised at board level to adopt that stand. In the case of the NSPCC I do not know whether it was at board or trustee level. But not one of those bodies has resiled from its position.
There was a substantial amount of publicity on the last occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is right to say that I read out the names of most of those bodies on the last occasion. I anticipated there would be questions and not one has resiled from its position.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that the NSPCC would be nothing if it were not for the supporters who donate to it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course. I have said on several occasions that I was a trustee of the society for many years so I know a certain amount about how it raises money. Any society depends on the members. But I repeat that none of those organisations has resiled from that position. I take up the point of my noble friend Lord McCarthy that no similar organisation is to be found supporting our opponents.
I shall, of course, take fully on board the helpful suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. I shall undertake to bring his remarks about health education in this area to the attention of my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Blackstone.
My noble friend Lord Stallard said, as he did in the previous debate, that he comes from a different world and a different background. I am not so sure. Quite a few of us had a similar upbringing but recognise that the world has changed, sometimes for the better, and that one cannot equate religious precept with the true foundation and basis of the criminal law. In an extremely moving speech—if I may say so—my noble friend said that he still abided by and revered the Ten Commandments. I honour his commitment. I simply point out again that adultery is not a crime; coveting one's neighbour's ass is not a crime; various forms of activity of which some organised religions do not approve—in fact, which they violently and vigorously condemn—are not criminal offences. I believe that my noble friend and I live in the same world, although we view it from a slightly different perspective.
The issues remain by and large the same and in the same form as we discussed them on the previous occasion. I said then that the force of rational argument on either side might not necessarily be determinative of people's final views. That point remains the same tonight as it was then. I must say—I am not being disrespectful to the House; indeed, I hope that I am being respectful to the House—that we shall continue with the Bill.
A number of matters were raised. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, said that she had received a disagreeable matter through the post. I am sorry about that; such matters should play no part in our political discourse. I was looking at Hansard and I read

167
what happened to Mrs Ann Keen, who was rung up after the Soho bombing where people had lost their lives and limbs by someone wondering whether she would like to come round to pick up the arms and the legs. That was done more than once. I am not sure that there is a monopoly of vice on either side in this particular argument.
We are determined in this matter. We believe that it is right and that is why we shall continue.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General completes his reply, will he give the House the benefit of his advice as to the prospect of success in the European Court of Human Rights if the Bill were not to be enacted?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I had in fact intended, when dealing with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to deal with the matter in that context. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, raised the question.
The position is that the case of Sutherland went to the European Court of Human Rights. At that time, it was necessary—as the noble Lord knows full well, I am simply explaining fully—for the Commission to rule it admissible or not. The Commission ruled it admissible. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is quite right; that would not determine the final outcome of the court. The advice that the Government had was that Sutherland would win. Accordingly—it is only right that your Lordships should be reminded of this—the case in Strasbourg was adjourned for the introduction of this Bill or something similar. We are therefore continuing on that path. My own view is that Sutherland is much more likely to succeed than not. I am in the same state of ignorance as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about any material which might satisfactorily persuade me to the contrary. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Women Parliamentarians
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the Charter of Intent signed by the Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Women Parliamentarians in Naples on 8th March.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in March this year I and three other Members of this House attended the Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Women Parliamentarians in Naples. All four of us speak tonight as a co-operative effort. I raised the debate for two reasons: first, to give the Government the opportunity to put on the record their response to the Charter of Intent signed by those countries
168
represented in Naples. I have put copies of the Charter of Intent in the Opposition Whips Office for any noble Lord interested to read it.
Secondly, I wanted to ensure that we are accountable to the British people on the matter. They so often read in the newspapers of alleged "jollies" enjoyed by parliamentarians travelling here, there and everywhere around the globe. Of course, they are right in respect of every such parliamentary visit abroad to ask, "What has it got to do with me?" I hope to answer part of that question tonight and to hear from the noble Baronesses who went with me to Naples the other part of the answer.
The questions that I shall address are as follows: who created the forum and why; who attends it and why; why did it meet this year; and what is its future? As for the detail of what actually happened at the forum, I shall leave it to other noble Baronesses who attended to fill in the background. I shall try to paint a picture of the good intentions which underlie what can appear to the interested—or, perhaps more often, the disinterested—observer to be a bureaucratic mountain of declarations and charters flowing from various meetings. My noble colleagues will, I hope, be able to put interesting flesh on my rather dry bones of a speech.
The forum was created by the President of the European Union and the Presidents of the Euro-Mediterranean countries; in other words, it was created by something rather like a speakers' conference. They met in Majorca in March 1999 and approved a declaration of Euro-parliamentary co-operation. That declaration included among its objectives the creation of a forum of women parliamentarians to meet at regular intervals. The first meeting was last month. Those entitled to attend the forum are four women representatives from each of the signatory countries to the Barcelona Declaration. The Barcelona Declaration was the parent to the Majorca meeting. I had great fun trying to work out which came first; it was rather chicken-and-egg.
The Barcelona conference in 1995 brought together the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the European Union countries and their colleagues in the Mediterranean Basin. In addition to the EU, the following countries were represented: Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority. The conference ended with a declaration. The signatory for the United Kingdom was my right honourable friend Malcolm Rifkind. Therefore, the basis for the declaration has the co-operation of both the past and the present Government. The declaration set out the work that should be done by the EU with the other Mediterranean Basin countries, comprising political and security issues; economic and financial matters; and social, cultural and humanitarian sectors. The overall objective is to make the Mediterranean Basin an area that enjoys peaceful stability and shared prosperity as a result of us all talking to each other instead of fighting.

169
Part of the work needed to achieve that objective is the strengthening of democracy and of the understanding between different cultures. That takes us to the importance of women talking to women about their perceived needs in their respective societies and about the different pace of change we can see and of movement towards equality with men within those diverse societies. The forum met this year with a particular section of work set out for it by the Majorca conference. It was directed to look at three particular issues: first, women's participation in political life—putting emphasis on the development of the Euro—Mediterranean partnership; secondly, the safeguarding of human rights; and, thirdly, the issue of migration.
The participants had also to decide on the future pattern of work of the forum—indeed, whether the forum should continue at all—and to ensure that women parliamentarians work together as a more effective force for change; change which should be of benefit to all who espouse equality between women and men, and the importance of human rights for all.
What is the Charter of Intent agreed at the forum? The charter that emerged from the forum gives a general commitment to good practice on a range of policy issues and a commitment to assess how far we achieve that in good practice. It must not be merely good words; we must be able to measure what we achieve. It was a fascinating experience, to say the least, to work over a couple of days with such a diverse group of women parliamentarians, all of whom were determined, come what may, to come to an agreement on a declaration to which all could put their name. We were diverse in our cultural experience and very diverse in our political allegiances.
As I mentioned earlier, I shall leave other speakers to say what went into the charter. I should merely like to comment on one issue which was excluded at the eleventh hour and which will be top of the agenda for discussion at the forum next year, if indeed there is such a forum.
I refer to the original paragraph 7 which states:
"Commitment to ensure, in the host countries, the recognition of the fundamental rights of migrant women and women refugees, protecting their health and dignity of life".
I start by saying that all four United Kingdom members present were happy to endorse that comment. We found no problem with it. However, it fell at the last fence because agreement could not be reached at that stage between Israel and the Palestine Authority, either on the wording or, indeed, on whether it should be in the charter at all. In order to save the remainder of the charter, a pragmatic solution was found. That part would simply be taken out and postponed for discussion until next year. I suppose it was rather a case of the old story of whether the horse might eventually talk.
I mention that simply because this will be an important issue for discussion and perhaps creates a potential difference of opinion that could arise as far as concerns the UK and other countries. When I
170
attended the migration seminar group I listened with great interest, but also some measure of concern, to the presentation given by the Italian chairman. She stated that underlying this paragraph on the agenda was the recognition by Italy that the EU countries should—the translation of what she said is as follows:
"develop a strategy of integration for non-EU nationals who are economic migrants and provide paths of citizenship for them as of right when they express a wish to stay [in the host country]".
I consulted noble Baronesses who were with me in Naples about what could be said on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. Consequently, I pointed out that I am proud to live in a multicultural society. Indeed, in Woking, the town from which I come, 12 per cent of our population comes from a different ethnic background from the remainder of that population. We are proud of the way in which our society is enriched by that multicultural aspect.
I pointed out too that our country has been a country of destination for migrants for centuries—for us, it is nothing new—but that we do not currently have a policy for automatically accepting economic migrants from all non-EU countries and that I could not see that happening in the near future. I also made it clear on the record that the wording of paragraph 7 as it then stood on the duties of host countries was absolutely acceptable to the United Kingdom but that it should be understood against the background of current government policy in the UK.
What does the future hold for the forum? In the short term, the answer is, rather prosaically, that the chairman of the forum will report on the decisions taken at Naples to the next conference of the presidents of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliaments and the European Parliaments that will take place in Alexandria next month. If all goes well, the next meeting of the forum will be in Spring next year. But in the long term the future of the forum will be determined by the goodwill of the member countries and their governments.
I conclude by saying that it was a privilege to have the opportunity to represent the UK Parliament at the forum and to work with the other three noble Baronesses present. I learnt much from them as well as from the whole experience. I am grateful to the committee staff of the House of Lords for making all the travel arrangements. I particularly thank the Italian Government and the region of Naples for their amazing hospitality. They bore all the cost of the conference, the accommodation and considerable security for the parliamentarians. My goodness, they are a hard act to follow for a future host.
It is vital that the goodwill which undoubtedly currently exists between the countries involved in the forum should be maintained and should enable the good intentions which now exist to be translated into good practice. I look forward to hearing the other speeches tonight.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for

171
tabling this Unstarred Question and for her succinct introduction outlining the background to the conference in Naples arising, as she said, from the Barcelona Declaration of 8th March 1999. I, like her, was pleased to have the opportunity to attend. I endorse her thanks to the Overseas Office in this House and to the region of Naples and the Italian Government for, as she says, their amazing organisation and hospitality. We had discussions about whether we would be able to provide the same if the conference was ever held here.
All too often we take part in delegations and nobody hears why we went and what was the outcome. On this occasion, our views and conclusions will now rightly be on the record. The noble Baroness was also right to ask the question: "What has it got to do with me?"
As vice-president of Socialist International Women for over 10 years and chair of the Equality Committee at the Council of Europe, I have attended and participated in many such conferences. There are times when one ponders about the value of participation; what value do we receive and is our presence important to other countries? Does it matter if we are there or not? Of course it does.
'The added dimension of gender and equality to our discussions has meant that women around the world have always understood the importance of dialogue, communication and drawing strength from each other. Priorities will vary from country to country and region to region but the world's women share a common feature; that is, discrimination. But as the Charter of Intent states:
"Aware that we represent diverse cultures and experiences, we can promote a fruitful exchange of ideas and foster international co-operation".
For me, the value of such meetings is hearing of and learning about personal experience. This is vital if we really are to understand differences and similarities. That was achieved at this forum by the bringing together of women from the industrialised countries of Europe, whose main priority is to eliminate the more subtle forms of discrimination and "glass ceilings", and those in the more rural and developing areas, whose priorities are the elimination of traditional attitudes to women's equality and in particular to low levels of education.
The revolution in information technology brings us closer but for me it also highlights stark contrasts. At the same time as we were discussing the importance of literacy and the lack of education for so many women, we also determined that we would communicate with each other by e-mail and the Internet. I do not think that there could be much more of a stark contrast than that.
The noble Baroness also referred to the need for us to talk. Only by talking can we achieve stability, peace and shared prosperity for the Mediterranean region.
She also referred to the sensitivities of trying to arrive at a form of words for the question of migrant women and women refugees. There is no doubt that women are more vulnerable to immigration
172
difficulties, because many of them rely on the consideration given to their husbands' cases and rarely obtain refugee status in their own right.
Similarly, a great deal of time was spent in trying to overcome the raising of an internal matter relating to Turkey. It is absolutely crucial that in any deliberations we are always conscious of the political and cultural sensitivities of different countries. I believe we tried to achieve that at the forum.
Equally, we were conscious of the fact that still too many women continue to suffer second-class status. We heard how they continued to be subject to violence, exploitation and intimidation, continue to be subordinate and have little control over income and assets. Clause 7 in the charter clearly illustrates how true that is, calling, as it does, for a continuation of the struggle against trafficking in human beings and the labour and sexual exploitation of women and children. I recall similar words being used in declarations from international conferences many years ago. But that does not mean that progress has not been made; it has. That came over too. However, there is still a lack of gender analysis in policy decisions. Women in too many parts of the world continue to suffer purely because they are women. Many of the speeches, particularly from the southern shores of the Mediterranean, refer to their struggle against social and economic poverty, illiteracy and violence.
Many speakers also mentioned a common condition, one that we all share, but to very differing degrees; namely, not being full and equal participants in the public policy choices that affect our lives. One cannot separate women's empowerment from progress towards women's equality. That means that women must achieve equality in the decision-making bodies in parliament, local government, civil service, industry and on NGOs. It was therefore correct that this first conference of the Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Women Parliamentarians should have as its main theme women's participation in the political process.
I was privileged to be one of the introductory speakers and I was gratified by the interest shown in my remarks. I was able to concentrate on the position of women in the political life of the UK. I attempted to do that in the context of political participation being a human right as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reinforced at the UN Conference in Beijing, which were also the themes on which the conference discussions were based. In particular, as regards Beijing, there were four key objectives to form the platform of action: acceptance that improving women's social, economic and political status depends on the sharing of power between men and women; the goal of gender balance throughout government and all public bodies; the importance of establishing adequately resourced national machineries to promote and monitor policies for the advancement of women; and for the above to be achieved by mainstreaming throughout government.
In that context I was able to refer to the women Ministers, the Women's Unit and the work of the Women's National Commission and the EOC, and to

173
report that women comprise 18.4 per cent of the House of Commons and 15.7 per cent of your Lordships' House—figures with which we are far from satisfied. They place us only 25th on the world scale. They put us way behind the Scandinavian countries, at nearly 40 per cent, and far from achieving the target of 30 per cent set by the UN Economic and Social Council. But our problems are much less acute than in so many other countries, not least because women MPs make up a third of government.
In the workshop held on women's participation we heard about the real struggle in other countries. In a sense it made us feel a little ashamed of the fact that we felt that we were not doing well. In Turkey, women make up 4 per cent of government membership; in Greece, a little over 6 per cent; Malta has 9 per cent and Israel has 11.7 per cent. One of the delegates from Israel was the first Palestinian woman in the Knesset. She was not sure that she would retain her seat, nor was she hopeful that other women would join her. The delegate from Egypt told the conference that because of a change in the electoral system, there had been a reduction in the number of women MPs, which had been about 6 per cent and was now down to 3 per cent.
The first question I put forward in my introduction was: why do women MPs make a difference? In Naples I tried to respond to that question as it affects the UK, but I believe that it applies to everywhere. I believe that we make a difference because we bring a diversity and experience of different occupational backgrounds. Women also have the distinct experience of balancing work and home responsibilities. The latter point is reinforced by women in this country taking on five times as much domestic work as men and the fact that 1.2 million women care for elderly relatives. Many MPs have young families, but it is the women MPs who bear the brunt of having to carry out the two jobs of being a parliamentarian and also looking after the family. This gives them a genuine empathy with all women who work long hours and have problems in finding satisfactory childcare.
That led me on to my next question: how do women parliamentarians make a difference? The charter we agreed in Naples makes it clear that women's participation in the decision-making process can make a difference. This has been reflected in a number of ways, but I shall not go into the detail tonight. However, there are positive examples from the UK that show that the contribution of women parliamentarians is both significant and effective.
As the noble Baroness has already said, the forum took the decision to meet on an annual basis within the parliamentary dimension of the Barcelona process, focusing on a specific issue and adopting a resolution which would provide the basics of support for women in their respective parliaments. I found the internal meeting we held to be of great interest in this respect. It was held to try to get the wording right. It took a considerable amount of time because it was a question of whether we should be a subsidiary to the Barcelona conference and also whether we could instruct our respective parliaments when we returned home—I
174
only wish we could. Nevertheless, the form of words we agreed on showed that we could offer a basis of support for women in their respective parliaments. For that reason, I hope that this country will again be represented in 2001. I believe that the conference will be held in Tunisia.
I have said that I hope that we will be represented because I feel strongly that women will move forward only by forming alliances, networking, building strategies, lobbying and campaigning for change. Indeed, this debate has been summed up for me by a quote that I came upon quite by accident the other day. It is from Mary Robinson, speaking when she was President of Ireland. She said:
"As women lead, they are changing leadership: as they organise, they are changing organisation … When women lead and articulate their purposes, they work together with a sense of community in a healthy way … Women have fresh and imaginative skills of dialogue and are setting a more open, flexible and compassionate style of leadership".
The 20th century saw massive progress in the advancement of women, yet much more needs to be done. Discussions such as we had in Naples—dialogue at both national and international levels—will help to build bridges and to assemble common aims and agendas. These must continue so that in the 21st century we might see equality after all.
8.46 p.m.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I, too, wish to say that I am grateful both for the time that has been given for this debate and also for the experience of the forum. For myself, it was my first experience as a parliamentarian. I am still learning exactly what that means and so I found it a valuable experience, both to share it with the noble Baronesses with whom I attended and also to see what it means in other parts of the world.
It was an extremely interesting experience. We were royally treated by our Italian hosts. The meals and banquets we enjoyed perhaps ought to be declared! We were guarded by police escorts and met in a wonderful palazzo. The 20 countries represented at the meeting revealed an amazing variety of different people, cultures and religions. It was a rich experience.
However, I believe that the forum would have been helped by one or two improvements. We needed more in the way of advance information. I believe that I have learnt more of its origins from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, tonight than I did before or during the time I was in Naples. We also needed a little more time for meeting people and sharing in small groups. I felt that perhaps there were rather too many prepared statements that people were going to deliver at whatever cost. However, when we considered the conditions in the places from which these people came, and the pain and hurt they so often experienced, it was quite understandable that those delegates wanted everyone to hear about it. On many occasions it was deeply moving.
The event began with speeches from four men telling us at length how important women are. At the end of their contributions, most of the press who had been in

175
attendance decided to leave. I was reminded of similar reactions on many occasions when women meet together. One receives one of two reactions: "The ladies, God bless 'em", or "The women, God help us". Nevertheless, the meeting was not one that addressed women's issues. It was clear that we were debating and discussing issues that were of real importance to the whole community, but those were mainly where women's experience has a great deal to offer.
As has already been said, the three main areas covered were participation, migrants and human rights. We were reminded of how far we have come in the region since the days of the old nation states and the fortresses, and of how we are moving away from the old female experiences of discrimination, exclusion and subordination. Most countries have entered into legislation for change, even though that change is taking a long time to happen. There is a long way to go, but the actual occasion was an experience of encouragement for many who were there.
I wrote on my paper a quotation from one of the delegates and about which I thought afterwards. She said:
"Women hold the strings of generosity and integration".
That is largely true. There are a great many things that women can do if we put our minds to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, made a wonderful presentation at the beginning that set the tone and the scene for much of what happened later.
The groups into which we formed were rather more hearings than discussions, but none the worse for that. They provided fascinating glimpses of other people's experiences. My group was concerned with migration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, she talked of the way we think about these things, and to great effect if I may say so.
Some topics in that group were new to me and posed problems about which I had not particularly thought before. Britain seems to be the stopping place for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and that is our problem. It was interesting to hear the experience of some countries which are not the end place, but have a flowing through of migrant peoples in huge quantities.
The chairman of the group was from Italy and spoke at length, quoting figures which surprised me. She mentioned that of a study of 585 women, 52 per cent had a university degree and 27 per cent had postgraduate specialisation; but when they found work within the country, 77 per cent were involved in jobs that required little in the way of education.
The concerns of the group were reflected in two of the clauses of the charter that was eventually agreed. One was Clause 6, which sought to support policies aimed at fostering growth and employment in disadvantaged countries and regions so as to reduce migratory pressures. It was clear that everybody felt that that was one of the major tasks. The other was Clause 7, which sought to continue in the struggle against the trafficking in human beings and the labour and sexual exploitation of women and children. Again, that was a very real problem in some of the countries and was highlighted by them.
176
Probably the greatest value of the forum was the meeting itself; the mutual encouragement and sharing of experiences. Sometimes, when people begin to speak of what they know, it confirms and encourages them in their own place. It is important to develop a trust so that the real issues are not avoided, as I felt they were this time. I hope that on the next occasion when we deal with these sensitive issues, they will be dealt with properly and significantly. There was a lot of empowerment of individual women who can go back to their own parliaments and speak of the support they received from the number of women who were there.
But the real value of the forum was in the results from all the talking, and that must go on in the individual countries as those insights are fed back into the way in which we do things. It was helpful that the charter spoke, first, of monitoring the implications of international conventions and action plans. Perhaps that is a role that the women among us can continue; that is, we must ensure that those factors are not lost sight of. We must organise a further gathering which will,
"assess the degree of implementation of the commitments made".
So it is not just a new forum every time, but that what we have done on one occasion will be carefully considered the next time.
In conclusion, perhaps I can make one further point. I rather regret that it was not possible to send two Members who have seats and voices in the other House. I hope it might he possible next time. That is important even if it means that there will be no room for me. The only long-term value is in the government policies that are implemented.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dourer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for giving us the opportunity for this debate tonight and for her clear introduction which, like the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, I appreciate as an historical perspective. For me, one of the greatest pleasures was to get to know three colleagues from different Benches of the House. It was a privilege to be able to do so as one of the newer Members of the House; to be able to share their experience and knowledge, and many of the humorous moments too.
I feel that in some ways it was particularly good that it was a delegation from the Lords that attended on this occasion, especially as we have a woman leader in this House. The Chairman of the Women's National Commission is also a Member of your Lordships' House, in the form of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. The Front Bench of the Government in this House is particularly well blessed with able women, compared with the other place. Therefore, although I share the feelings of the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, that it would be nice if the other place were to take an interest in the future, in this instance this House is leading the way.
First, I should like to talk about the point of the charter and why it is important to discuss what women can do in the countries that came together for this

177
forum. Secondly, I want to reflect for a moment on what we should be doing in our own country to further the aims of the charter and perhaps ask the Minister for her views on that.
One of the early questions to which we addressed ourselves in the forum was whether it duplicated efforts already being made in the European Union. Of course, similar work is going on in the European Union, but this forum widens that debate both to the south and the east. We can become too inward looking if we share such a debate within the current European Union, when so many issues—particularly in relation to refugees and asylum seekers—affect that wider area. It was interesting to hear from those member countries on the southern rim of the Mediterranean on some of those issues.
The common themes that arose as being extremely important to women, as delegate after delegate spoke, were under-representation of women in every country, at every level in the political arena; violence against women; and sexual exploitation of women. A number of countries mentioned the issue of women in peace, and it was particularly heartfelt perhaps from the delegate from Cyprus. The Palestinian delegate mentioned the links between the lack of women representatives and illiteracy and poverty, and several other delegates mentioned illiteracy and the importance of education if women are to take their rightful place in the political scene.
A delegate from Sicily spoke about the difficulties of integration and pointed out that that was a particular problem in the cities in relation to immigrants. Jordan and Algeria highlighted the role of the media in portraying women in a positive light. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, we all shared the frustration at the way the press left as soon as the men had spoken. I am sure that, over time, and if we are persistent, that will change.
Tunisia was concerned at how countries implemented the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, particularly with regard to the role of women in the household. Morocco highlighted the bad economic position of women, especially in rural areas. It was clear how common the issues were. Morocco saw the difficulty of under-investment in its country, and we and France saw the effect of that lack of development because Moroccan families are having to move north in search for work.
The way in which we shared these issues was very important. It was particularly interesting to hear of the commonality, the different points of view, and also of how increasing mobilisation can intensify many of these problems. I have in mind the delegates who talked about trafficking in women and children. That was particularly sad, recalling how last year the press was highlighting police comments on the numbers of women now being brought into the UK to be exploited in the sex industry. Going to a forum such as this made all of us feel—I certainly did— that we must all give these issues a higher profile on our own national agenda.
178
Turkish delegates felt that political parties were part of the problem, in that there was great difficulty for women candidates to get on to the party lists. Once on those lists, there was perhaps less of a problem; but there were many, almost invisible, barriers to being selected in the first place. Many women in the United Kingdom would also feel that that invisible barrier still exists. Proportional representation based on a list undoubtedly produces a much better result for women. That is a debate to which we shall no doubt return. One has only to look at the recent Welsh—and Wales was widely cited—Scottish and European elections to see the positive effect that producing a party list can have, particularly if it is a balanced one. My own party, for example, chose the method of "zipping".
I would pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, who walked a very honest, straightforward but sensitive tightrope in promoting what this Government have done and are continuing to do for women in politics, but at the same time not painting an over-rosy picture.
The issue of women and armed conflict was a particularly difficult one. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, has touched on how difficult it was—impossible, in fact, in this instance—to achieve agreement on paragraph 7, which highlighted the difficulties of refugee women in host countries.
The Naples Charter also highlights the positive role that women can play in conflict resolution, and also the high price that they pay as refugees from any conflict. I believe that the current debate in this country about asylum seekers would have taken a longer and cooler look at the causes for people seeking asylum if women were driving the discussion, particularly the discussion in the tabloid press which has taken a very macho rather than an objective approach.
The Naples Charter explicitly urges signatories to support policies aimed at fostering growth and employment in disadvantaged areas so as to reduce migratory pressures. I hope that that is a debate to which we can return in this House.
There was extensive debate as to whether signatories would accept a clause which called on host countries to recognise the fundamental rights of migrant women and women refugees to protect their health and dignity of life. When the delegates from the UK go to the next forum, whoever those delegates are, it will be against a background of self-examination as a country, given our debate about how we, as a nation and not just politically, treat refugees and what dignity of life means in these cases.
It was a very useful forum in terms of making all of the delegates think about the targets which their own countries must set and in creating a very supportive atmosphere in which to envisage the way forward.
The attainment of 50 per cent representation in political life by women is a very slow process, but it is considerably speeded up by networking, by hearing about what does and does not work and by letting governments know what is happening elsewhere—

179
particularly for those women with more reactive governments. They at least can go back to their home countries and say, "This is what is happening elsewhere. Maybe we should be thinking about it".
As it moves forward, the forum will be about setting targets, making plans and making commitments together, then going back and pursuing those commitments in our own countries. It is about making commitments to each other, nationally and internationally.
9.05 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for giving the Government an opportunity to respond. I would also like to thank the other noble Baronesses who attended the conference and who have participated in the debate this evening. I endorse their view of the importance of accountability to Parliament and to the British people.
I am not sure whether this is the first time in this House that there has been a debate in which all the speakers have been women, but it has been a very rich experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, certainly brought the conference to life for me, with her descriptions of the palazzo, the outriders and, in particular, the good food!
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made clear in her opening remarks, the organisation of the Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Women Parliamentarians was a goal of the Declaration on Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Co-operation, approved last year by the Conference of the Speakers of Euro-Mediterranean Parliaments.
The Charter of Intent of the Women Parliamentarians sets out a number of important commitments. I would like to focus this evening on the action the Government are taking in a number of areas: human rights; trafficking in women and girls; equality legislation and national machineries; education—which was not mentioned specifically this evening but is in the charter—and I shall also say something about our priorities as a Government for the future.
Let me start with human rights and the international conventions. The United Kingdom is a signatory to all the major human rights conventions and takes its commitments very seriously. A condition of the conventions is a commitment to report regularly to the relevant United Nations committee and to undergo an oral examination on the progress made towards achieving the goals of the convention.
In the case of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the UK's fourth report was submitted and examined by the committee in June of last year. Our latest report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child was also submitted last year, and awaits oral examination. These documents are available in the Library of the House. As noble Baronesses are aware, these reports are substantial documents and a clear
180
sign of the Government's commitment to the implementation of the conventions, both in letter and in spirit.
But we do not rest on our laurels. The Government continue to take measures to improve the position of women and girls. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, talked about the importance of women talking to women in the context of the forum. My noble friend Lady Gould talked about the importance of dialogue, communication, hearing and learning. The Listening to Women" campaign provided an opportunity for more than 30,000 women across the country to talk to Government Ministers through a series of regional roadshows, focus groups and postcard questionnaires. The findings of this consultation were published in an innovative magazine-style document, Voices, last autumn. This was a valuable contribution in establishing the priorities of women, so that the Government can find ways to tackle those issues of most importance.
We take action not only in the UK but also in our development programme. In February of this year, as part of a series of strategies for achieving the international development targets, the Department for International Development issued a consultation document on poverty eradication and the empowerment of women that is now being discussed with all interested parties, including NGOs and civil society. The paper argues that the goal of gender equality needs to be pursued across all the internationally-agreed development targets and in the wider process of governance and the pursuit of human rights.
The Government are also committed to playing a leading role in international human rights fora, such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission that is taking place at the moment in Geneva. We shall also be playing a leading role at the Beijing plus Five meeting in New York in June, which will examine progress made towards the equality of women since the 1995 World Conference on Women. One of our main contributions to this meeting will be the launch of a document, Equality in Practice, which will outline work of the UK Government and partner countries in five key areas—women and the economy, making equality happen, education, health and the resolving of violence and conflict. The aim of the document is to share examples of best practice and to stimulate debate on what more governments can do to improve equality for women around the world. I cannot put it any better than the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, who talked about the importance of "insights" being fed back in to the process.
My noble friend Lady Gould spoke about women suffering violence and intimidation. The noble Baronesses Lady Richardson and Lady Miller mentioned trafficking. The seventh commitment in the charter is on the theme of trafficking. This is a subject that the Government take very seriously. People who traffic in women can already be charged under various laws. As part of the review of sex offences, we are considering making trafficking a specific offence.

181
The UK is playing a leading role in the negotiation of a UN convention against transnational crime, which will include a protocol on the trafficking of women and children. We are also trying to tackle both demand and supply for trafficking in our policies. We have sponsored a research study into the consequences of trafficking in England and Wales. We are also taking a number of steps to improve labour standards in developing countries by encouraging British companies to adopt voluntary codes of conduct and by supporting the trade unions, NGOs and business in developing the Ethical Trading Initiative, which commits major retailers to continuing improvement in labour standards in their supply chains in developing countries. These standards have a major impact on the employment rights of women.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about the importance of women and peace which was raised by some delegations at the forum. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the FCO, the DfID and the MoD are currently engaged in discussions about conflict resolution and conflict prevention. We are well aware of the impact of war on women and the need for government departments to work together and think about ways in which we might prevent conflict. However, we are also aware of the positive role that women can play in conflict resolution; indeed, we have seen examples of that in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to national legislation on equal opportunities. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 form the basis of our legislation on sex discrimination. Both Acts are under regular review and have led to further legislation, including the Pensions Act 1995 that began equalising the provision of pensions for men and women.
In 1998, the Human Rights Act was passed to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into English law, thereby allowing UK citizens, both men and women, to argue their case before a UK court when they believe that their rights under this convention have been infringed.
My noble friend Lady Gould spoke of the importance of political participation and of national machineries. The Government support various national machineries to monitor and promote equal opportunities for women, including the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Women's National Commission. Following the election in 1997 the Government established two Ministers for Women—one in the Cabinet—and the Women's Unit. One of the unit's roles is to ensure that women's concerns are taken into account in government policy. One of its most recent reports considered women's incomes over their lifetimes. For the first time the reasons for the differences between men and women's
182
incomes were quantified and explained. The key finding was that there is both a cost to being a woman—what we call the "female forfeit"—and a cost to being a mother; that is, time spent away from work and women choosing to work shorter hours—what we call the "mother gap".
The Government are taking a series of actions to close that gap through improving education—I shall return to that—supporting women in the workplace through improved rights and through policies such as the national minimum wage, the working families' tax credit and the childcare tax credit.
I said that I would return to education. The Government have comprehensively reviewed their policies for education. The national curriculum already promotes equal access for boys and girls between the ages of five and 16 to a broad and balanced curriculum. The next three years will see a significant real growth in government spending on education. The Government have set out a four-part strategy to achieve widespread excellence, including laying firm foundations for young people through nursery education for all four year-olds; improving all schools; making a real push for inclusion—which clearly includes working with girls—and modernizing comprehensive education.
Our priorities for the future include looking at what more can be done to reduce the pay gap; giving women better information on money, savings and investments; supporting women to strike a good work/life balance; supporting women wanting to start up or expand a small business; encouraging more women to apply for public appointments; helping girls to fulfil their potential through careers advice, better and earlier "education for life" in schools and greater participation in sport; and communicating more effectively with women.
In conclusion, women are a key asset in our economic prosperity. As technology continues to make the world a smaller, more interconnected place, women have what it takes to flourish in this new economy. Policies and practices need to recognise and encourage women's contributions and to see them as central social actors, not victims. This Government are committed to working with others, at home and abroad, to empower women to reach their full potential and claim their rights. It is important that we share ideas and learn from others' experiences. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we need to foster good will between countries. I am therefore grateful to noble Baronesses for drawing our attention to the Charter of Intent. I also thank them for their hard work, their diplomacy and pragmatism, which were clearly needed in negotiating the charter, and for representing the UK at the meeting.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Non-discrimination: Additional Protocol to Human Rights Convention
  Non-discrimination: Additional Protocol to Human Rights Convention
  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  Kosovo: Deployment of Police Officers
  Kosovo: Deployment of Police Officers
  Angola
  Angola
  Montenegro
  Montenegro
  UK Aid Budget and EU Assistance Programmes
  UK Aid Budget and EU Assistance Programmes
  Civil and Commercial Judgments: Proposed EC Regulation
  Civil and Commercial Judgments: Proposed EC Regulation
  Public Trust Office
  Public Trust Office
  Tax Harmonisation
  Tax Harmonisation
  Law Officers' Departments Departmental Report
  Law Officers' Departments Departmental Report
  Lords Ministers: Special Advisers
  Lords Ministers: Special Advisers
  Gulf War Veterans: Epidemiological Study
  Gulf War Veterans: Epidemiological Study
  BMW and Rover
  BMW and Rover
  CJD: Transmission
  CJD: Transmission
  New-variant CJD
  New-variant CJD
  NHS: Allocation of Additional Funds and Hospices
  NHS: Allocation of Additional Funds and Hospices
  Parents with Care: Maintenance Assessments
  Parents with Care: Maintenance Assessments
  Mersley Farm, Isle of Wight
  Mersley Farm, Isle of Wight
  DETR/National Assembly for Wales Concordat
  DETR/National Assembly for Wales Concordat
  Pig Industry: Structural and Retirement Aid Packages
  Pig Industry: Structural and Retirement Aid Packages
  BSE: Latest Statistics
  BSE: Latest Statistics
  BSE: Strain-typing
  BSE: Strain-typing
  Young People: Government Consultation Exercise
  Young People: Government Consultation Exercise
  Northern Ireland: Crime Prevention and Domestic Violence Strategy
  Northern Ireland: Crime Prevention and Domestic Violence Strategy
  Northern Ireland Railways: EU Funding
  Northern Ireland Railways: EU Funding
  County Down to Belfast Rapid Transit System Proposal
  County Down to Belfast Rapid Transit System Proposal