Sitting of 7 February 2000

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

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the housing benefit system. [107185]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are committed to reform housing benefit and will publish a Green Paper this year. In the meantime, we are making improvements to the way in which it is administered.
    Mr. Stunell: The Secretary of State must be aware of the concern at the Government's delay in producing their proposals. Does he accept that the housing benefit system is seen as being in disrepute? In Stockport, there is a particularly grave problem with private tenants who are the victims of oppression by the Greater Manchester rent officer service. What assurance can the right
    2
    hon. Gentleman give that, when and if we get the new system, there will be an end to the economic cleansing of private tenants from my constituency?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problems in Stockport which have resulted in assessments being made by the rent officers. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and the three other Members of Parliament who represent Stockport are going to see the local rent officers to discuss the matter, so I do not propose to say anything further on that matter.
    The 400 or so tenants who have had their housing benefit reduced are covered by the exceptional hardship payments which are available. The amount paid out by the hon. Gentleman's local authority is actually less than the amount that the Government have provided for, so those people are well covered.
    The housing Green Paper will be published this year and will cover far more than housing benefit, as financial support for housing is only one part of the problem. We will address a number of the problems that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised and, at that stage, we will have a full and proper debate.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: When reforming the housing benefit system, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that some pensioners have what might be called offspring-engendered poverty, in that they do not get the contribution from their grown-up so-called children that they might otherwise get? That creates difficulties for some of them, who must meet substantial housing costs out of very low incomes.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is referring to the non-dependant deductions, which have been a feature of housing benefit for many years. If we did not take into account sums that someone living in a house could reasonably pay towards their upkeep, everybody else would have to subsidise that house. That is not right, as a

    3
    matter of principle. People who live in a house and who have their own income ought to make a contribution towards the running costs of that house.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: The Secretary of State was not very forthcoming about when the Green Paper is due—he was making similar promises this time last year. Will he confirm that his reforms have now run into the sand with a dispute between his and other Departments? Will he confirm that the biggest obstacle facing him is the £13 billion investment by housing associations, which borrowed that money on the basis of the level of benefit payments? Will any scheme compensate housing associations for that? Is he still serious about reforming housing benefit, or will the next Budget tinker with the poverty trap through the working families tax credit, which will leave 3 million out of 4.5 million housing benefit claimants unaffected?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on just about every point that he raises. The housing Green Paper will be published this year and will cover not just housing benefit, but other housing matters. He might want to reflect that, during the 18 years that they were in power, the Conservative Government did nothing about many of the problems with housing benefit.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on the Government's policies towards pensioners. [107187]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Our objective is to make sure that retirement is a time to look forward to. We are doing more to help today's pensioners. We are reforming pension provision for the future to make sure that people retire with decent pensions. As a result of our policies, older and poorer pensioners are £500 a year better off than they would have been but for the change of Government.
    Mr. Waterson: Why should pensioners look forward to retirement as a result of the Government's policies? The Government have ripped off £5 billion from pension funds and abolished the married couples allowance, tax relief on private medical care, widows bereavement benefit and many other benefits affecting older people. On top of that, they are proposing to introduce a system in which there will be two classes of pensioner. There will be a disincentive to save at one end of the scale, and real unfairness for those who have saved during their working lives at the other.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we now have the lowest rates of corporation tax that this country has seen, allowing companies to decide whether they want to reinvest their money or pay it out in dividends. He will no doubt have seen reports suggesting that many pension funds are beginning to benefit not just from our advance corporation tax changes, but because of the benign economic conditions that have been a feature of this Government.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bereavement benefit changes. The status quo could not be sustained, because it was discriminatory: a man who lost his wife
    4
    and was left with young children to bring up was not being helped. We have now arranged for help to go to either men or women when they lose their spouses.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman's key objection is to the minimum income guarantee. I see that he is nodding vigorously. One and a half million pensioners are now getting more help, thanks to the Government: people who were not able to save enough of a pension during their working life, often because they were employed on very low wages or were in and out of employment.
    It is clear that we believe that we should help Britain's poorest pensioners—the ones who lost out in the past 20 years—and it is equally clear that the Tories would take that money away; unless, of course, another U-turn is about to be announced at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. John Cryer: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says about the minimum income guarantee, but is he genuinely happy with the 75p increase in the state pension?
    Mr. Darling: I have explained on many occasions that the Government's pensions policy is geared towards providing the most help to the poorest pensioners who lost out in the past 20 years. Over those years, the richest pensioners did very well compared with the others, whereas the poorest lost out very badly. If we gave an across-the-board increase to all pensioners, those who were better off would not notice the amount and those at the lower end of the income scale would get no increase whatever because they would lose it pound for pound in benefit.
    That is why we are absolutely right to target most of our efforts on helping the poorest pensioners; but I remind my hon. Friend that the winter fuel payment, increased to £100, goes to all pensioners; free television licences, from this autumn, go to all pensioners over 75; and we have taken out of tax 200,000 pensioners who used to pay tax on their savings.
    Mr. Steve Webb: I agree with the Secretary of State. I agree with his statement in the House 12 months ago that pensioners are rightly angry when they save for a lifetime and then cannot get means-tested benefits. I agree with him in his statement of 12 months ago, when he said:
    "That reform is long overdue."—[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 486.]
    Given that it was long overdue 12 months ago, why has he done absolutely nothing on capital limits since then?
    Mr. Darling: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman on countless occasions that the Government said in the Green Paper that the capital limits needed to be considered. I am glad that he agrees with everything that I said previously, because I notice that the Liberal Democrats' manifesto says that it is their policy that the basic state pension should be increased in line with prices and that there should be extra earnings-linked help for the poorest pensioners, and that is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Given what my right hon. Friend has just said about the minimum income guarantee, and rightly so, when does he expect to be in a

    5
    position to launch a publicity campaign to ensure that all the pensioners who are entitled to it are able to claim and receive it?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend asks a very good question, the answer to which is very soon indeed. I shall make an announcement in the not-too-distant future setting out how we intend to ensure that those pensioners who qualify for the minimum income guarantee get it.
    Mr. David Willetts: The trouble is that, whatever else the minimum income guarantee may be, it is not a guarantee of a minimum income to pensioners. A pensioner with savings of more than £8,000 in a year is not entitled to any help, even though her income could well be way below the supposed minimum income guarantee level. It is a matter not only of pensioners not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled, but of the old income support rules meaning that pensioners with incomes way below the minimum income guarantee level are simply not entitled to receive it. The Secretary of State should either change the name of his policy so that it is not so misleading, or change the policy to do something to help pensioners with modest savings.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's argument would have more force if he had done something about the capital limits when his party was in power, because they remained unchanged for many, many years. We have said that we will consider that, and we will. His policy is not to give more help to those receiving the minimum income guarantee but to take that guarantee away, so 1.5 million pensioners would lose money, not gain it. People should remember that when they listen to what the Conservatives have to say on pensions.

    Pensions
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What steps he is taking to improve the public's knowledge of pensions and saving for retirement. [107188]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We shall be introducing new pension forecasts giving both state and private pension details. For the first time, individuals who work will have a clear statement of their current and projected pension rights. We hope to be able to provide that information for everyone by 2002, and this year it has been piloted in several large companies.
    We have already greatly improved the general pension information available with award-winning pension leaflets, based on the "Monopoly" game, which are used at exhibitions and in advertisements in the press. We shall continue to do all we can to improve people's knowledge of pensions and to encourage individuals to make adequate provision for their retirement.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that young people, who are often unaware that it is important for them to join a pension scheme, do join a pension scheme? What will he do to encourage them to do
    6
    so? Is he aware that many old-age pensioners are suffering because of the mis-selling of endowment policies under the previous Government?
    Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The whole House will agree that it is not easy to encourage young people to think about pensions. However, when from 2002 everybody gets an annual statement of their pension entitlements—similar to a P60—and they see what is being accrued in their state, company, occupational or stakeholder pension, they will start to ask questions in a way that they did not before. It is likely that more young people will start to make better provision for their pension arrangements.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Obviously, the more information people have about their pensions, the better. In that context, all pensioners know that they will get a measly 75p increase in April. How does that square with the fact that the council tax in Chelmsford will increase by £1.31 a week, which will mean a 56p a week loss for pensioners before taking into account the increase in the rate of inflation since September, the increase in rents way above the rate of inflation and other income problems that pensioners face? The Chancellor seems to have about £7 billion to £8 billion spare next year, so why cannot the pensioners have a decent increase and share in the nation's prosperity?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the 75p increase is tied to someone living on the basic state pension of £66.75. Average pensioner net incomes in 1997–98 for single people were £132, and for couples £252. To compare the 75p increase with the council tax increase is totally and utterly misleading.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: As well as improving the public's knowledge of pensions, will my right hon. Friend ensure that pension advisers who advise members of the public and firms are also brought up to speed? Will he carefully consider the ombudsman's decisions on the collapse of H. H. Robertson's, a firm in my constituency, when they are published and ensure that lessons about the weaknesses in the current legislation are learned and that pension advisers take their share of responsibility for the collapse?
    Mr. Rooker: I do not know the particular circumstances of that firm, but any report from the pensions ombudsman that highlights a loophole in the protection of pensioners, future and present, will be examined seriously by the Government.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Many people will get a shock when they receive their personal statements and realise what they will be entitled to when they retire. Will the Minister use the opportunity afforded by the statements to give an up-to-date running total of what is in the national insurance fund? Will he confirm that, if the statements were sent out this week, the recipients would learn that the fund had a £16,000 million surplus, but many of them will receive an increase of only 75p in April?
    Mr. Rooker: If we did that, we would have to send out a volume the size of a telephone directory explaining that

    7
    the position is not as simple as that—as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The national insurance fund can be in surplus at times because its level depends on the number of people who claim contributory benefits. The hon. Gentleman, in his position as Chairman of the Social Security Committee, should not give such misleading information in his questions.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the Minister confirm that the information that he has just promised for 2002 was indeed the information that the Green Paper on pensions promised for April 1999? Will he confirm that the delay is because of the decision about widows' inheritance of the state earnings-related pension scheme? Are we to conclude that there will not be a decision until about 2002, or can we expect it to be earlier?
    Mr. Rooker: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood what I said. We expect to get the pension forecasting service to everybody in the system up and running by 2002, perhaps even by late 2001. It has been piloted with tens of thousands of employees in seven or eight large companies this year. Indeed, a pilot of the pilot has already started. This scheme is new—it has never before been attempted to combine state and private pension forecasts for everyone on an annual basis.

    New Deal (Lone Parents)
    Mr. Chris Pond: What is his estimate of the total savings to date to his Department as a result of the new deal for lone parents; and what forecasts he has made of future savings. [107189]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The independent evaluation of the programme's prototype phase is due to be published at the end of this month and will include a full cost-benefit analysis. The full national programme is being evaluated separately. It, too, will include a cost-benefit analysis and will be available in spring 2002.
    Mr. Pond: I thank the Minister for that response and look forward to the results of the full evaluation. Is she aware that among the 100,000 lone parents who have benefited from the new deal so far is a young woman in my constituency who, after many years of unemployment, has gained so much in terms of skills and confidence that she is now working at Gravesend jobcentre? The help that the new deal has given her and so many other lone parents is a major factor in helping the Government to fulfil their commitment to halving child poverty in 10 years.
    The Minister will not be hurt if I say that the majority of lone parents would love to sever their relationship with her Department. However, is she aware that many are fearful that, if they make the transition from social security into work, there will be a dangerous gap between the receipt of benefits and the arrival of the first pay packet? Can she give any reassurance to those lone parents considering making that transition?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to point to the successes of the new deal for lone parents. On his specific question, the Government have introduced a lone parents benefit run-on from last October. That means that all lone parents moving off benefits into jobs will receive an extra
    8
    two weeks' income support or jobseeker's allowance, depending on what they were claiming before moving into work. There is also the four-week housing benefit run-on which continues to be paid for the month after lone parents come off benefits. We hope that together those measures will tide lone parents over that difficult gap.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister confirm that 100,000 people only attended interview; they were not taken off the dependency list? Can she also confirm that there remain 470,000 single parents with children over five who would be eligible? What measures is her Department taking to encourage those people to break the dependency link? They would love to get off benefits and into a stable job, but her Department is singularly failing to encourage them to do so.
    Angela Eagle: First, at least we have a new deal for lone parents and are trying to help them off benefit; the previous Government did nothing but abuse them. I can say that 32,710 lone parents are now in jobs who would not have been in jobs before, and 10,630 are in further education and training. This is difficult: 30 per cent. of lone parents have no qualifications, and 55 per cent. have qualifications under national vocational qualification level 2. Some, perhaps, are not job-ready, and we are doing our best with these programmes to prepare them for the labour market so that they and their children can look forward to a lifetime off benefits rather than the lifetime on benefits that the previous Government left them with.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. David Winnick: If he will make it his policy to provide winter fuel payments for pensioners on a permanent basis. [107191]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in November 1999 that winter fuel payments would be made every year from now on. Additionally, in December, following a European Court of Justice judgment, we announced our intention to extend the scheme to those aged 60 and over, whether or not they are pensioners.
    Mr. Winnick: That is very good news on both counts. Has the £100 winter fuel payment not been of tremendous help to many pensioners, particularly those on low incomes? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, before 1997, no extra money was given unless the weather was freezing for seven consecutive days? Does he agree that that system, which the Conservative Government defended at every opportunity, was both inadequate and farcical? Will the Opposition perform a U-turn by accepting winter fuel payments if they return to office?
    Mr. Rooker: The exceptional cold weather payment system still applies but the greenhouse effect means that it does not often come into use. The winter fuel payment to pensioner households is all the more valuable for that. We did not, so far as I am aware, inherit any plan or budget from the previous Government for the payment of that benefit.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Will it help pensioners to pay for their fuel or anything else this winter

    9
    if they are forced to take out annuities—currently at an all-time low—at 75? They are being forced into poverty and not receiving their just deserts because the Government are being totally inflexible.
    Mr. Rooker: This is not the time for a debate on annuities, but one must ask what pensioners who complain that they are being forced to buy annuities at 75 had lived on until then. I accept that annuities are a serious issue, but we must not run away with the idea that it affects the poorest people in this country. Those involved have managed to avoid taking out an annuity until they reached 75, and one must ask what they were living on.

    Housing Benefit
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the housing benefit verification framework. [107192]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The verification framework is a key part of our overall strategy to root out fraud and error in housing benefit. The framework is a good practice guide that forms a platform for secure and accurate administration by defining the evidence that should be gathered to support a claim for housing benefit or council tax benefit. It also defines the frequency of subsequent checks during the life of a claim. As of 28 January, 226 local authorities had received funding to implement the framework.
    Dr. Iddon: Various housing organisations in Bolton have expressed concern about how the housing benefit verification framework is operating. For the record, will my hon. Friend assure us that no one will be denied housing benefit—hence accommodation—because he or she cannot produce two bona fide forms of identification? Will she assure us that benefit will not be stopped after a housing officer has attempted a second visit, having failed to make contact on the first, particularly when it occurs as early as 7.30 am to 8.30 am?
    Angela Eagle: The idea behind the verification framework is that it will secure the gateway to benefit, which was too lax in the past. That involves proof of identity. However, we have improved the framework in the light of its live operation, not by reducing security but by ensuring that we fit in with people's life styles. For example, hostel dwellers do not often have two proofs of identification, and we have made adjustments accordingly. However, we do not want to make housing benefit security any worse, and the verification framework is a big improvement. We want all local authorities to put it into effect.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Last year, there were nearly 250,000 cases of housing benefit fraud, but only 700 successful prosecutions. Given those figures nearly three years after the Government came to office, how can the hon. Lady continue to say that Ministers will be tough on housing benefit fraud?
    Angela Eagle: We inherited a difficult system from the Conservative Government who fragmented the administration of housing benefit to 409 different local
    10
    authorities with which we must co-operate. We realised that there was a problem with prosecution, and we have launched prosecution pilots in which we lend departmental lawyers to local authorities in order to pursue cases. We are tightening up.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is aware that I have been doing some work on reform of the housing benefit system and on the relationship between rents paid and taxes paid by landlords. Will she tell me how that work is proceeding in the Department?
    Angela Eagle: As always, my hon. Friend is most ingenious and has come up with some very interesting ideas. I assure him that the Department is taking a close look at them.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the Minister aware of a case in which a person was caught claiming for 43 children and 11 houses? He was an illegal immigrant and was jailed for three and a half years. Will she stress to people who are cheating the system that they cheat not only the Government but those people who could also be receiving benefits, if the system were not being fleeced as it is? As there are a reported 70,000 asylum seekers flooding into the country, will she reassure the country that, whereas the Home Office seems to have lost its grip on those people, the Department of Social Security will ensure that they are not fleecing the system?
    Angela Eagle: As always in this matter, the hon. Gentleman makes a disgraceful contribution. I assure him that we take fraud extremely seriously. He proves that by citing a case that was prosecuted successfully and in which the person was jailed. Prosecutions are going up. We shall not tolerate fraud in the social security system; we work night and day to ensure that we minimise successful fraud.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What representations he has received regarding time taken in dealing with housing benefit claims. [107193]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Department regularly receives correspondence about local authority administration of housing benefit. Working with local authorities, we aim to transform the delivery of housing benefit so that it is faster, more accurate and more secure against fraud and error.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. We acknowledge the actions that have already been taken. However, does she agree that the housing benefit system remains complex and that, although a verification process is needed, many councils are struggling with the system and many people have to wait far too long? That is extremely worrying, especially for elderly people who have never been in debt and who think that they are in debt although in fact they are not. Will she ensure that councils are able to deal with those claims speedily, thus removing such anxieties?
    Angela Eagle: We always have to find a balance between securing the gateways to the benefit and speed. Some local authorities experienced a decline in their

    11
    ability to process housing benefit forms when they adopted the verification process. However, because of the co-operation that we are receiving over live running, I assure my hon. Friend that we aim to get right the balance between accuracy and speed.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given the critical importance of that benefit, the figures cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and the importance that the Government attach to the benefit, why have no proposals for its reform been put to the House during the lifetime of this Government? When can we expect them?
    Angela Eagle: We have introduced many reforms to the housing benefit system. For example, we set up the benefit fraud inspectorate, which is currently examining every local authority among the top 30 housing benefit spenders. We have also introduced changes to weekly benefit savings to encourage prosecutions. Almost all local authorities have remote-access terminals, which give access to Benefit Agency records so that they can make cross-checks. We are introducing the electronic transfer of data between the BA and local authorities, beginning this month. We have set up a pilot to examine the single gateway to the benefit system. We have done much; the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer for the Green Paper.

    Benefits Payment
    Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the impact upon people in rural areas of proposals to computerise the benefits payment system. [107195]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): About half of new pensioners and more than half the people in receipt of child benefit prefer to have their benefits paid into their bank accounts. However, for some people, especially in rural areas, receiving their money in cash at the post office is very important, and we want that choice to remain. So, even after the move to paying benefits directly into bank accounts, from 2003, people in rural areas will still be able to collect their cash at the local post office if they want to do so.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. People who live in east Northamptonshire, a rural part of my constituency, have been greatly concerned about press reports that were not the same as his reply. Will he assure me that the Government have joined-up thinking in this matter and that they recognise the vital social, as well as commercial, functions of post offices? Will he further assure me that in future we shall see a halt to the decline of services in rural areas that began under the Tories, and that there will be a real rural revival?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right—doing nothing and sticking with the present system would be an absolute disaster for post offices, because more and more of those who are coming into the benefit system, especially pensioners and people receiving child benefit, are asking to have their money paid direct into a bank or building society account. That is their right, and there is nothing that the Government can or should do about that.
    12
    We have also ensured that, for the first time, the Post Office has the capability to compete with the banks—it can now get access to the money necessary to enable it to pay out cash to its customers. When we came to office, the Post Office could not do so because the necessary investment had not been made. The previous Government had no intention of doing anything about it, and instead were going to privatise the entire post office network.
    We are ensuring that people will have a choice after 2003, and that the Post Office can compete with banks in a way that simply is not possible at the moment.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he received from officials the same advice that I received about the impact of moving to compulsory ACT—compulsory payment of benefits through the banks—namely, that it would lead to the collapse of the post office network across the country, that the only way to prevent that collapse would be to introduce a subsidy, that such a subsidy would absorb a large part of the savings that it was hoped to make in the first place, and that the net effect would be a minimum saving but maximum hardship for old, disabled and young people, and that communities would be destroyed? Will he think again about this disastrous policy?
    Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Conservative Government—and he belonged to the right-wing, doctrinaire part of that Government—who wanted to sell off the whole of the post office network, which would have put many post offices at risk—so he has no credibility as a defender of the Post Office.
    I do not know what advice the right hon. Gentleman was given because, of course, we do not see the advice given to previous Administrations. However, he must have been told that the present system—under which the cost of paying a benefit by girocheque is some 79p an item, whereas the cost of paying it direct into a bank account is less than 1p—is unsustainable. He must also have been told that making payments by means of order books and giros is extremely expensive because of the amount of money lost through fraud, and that therefore that is also unsustainable. The only way to ensure that the post office network survives is to ensure that it gets investment—something that he opposed when he was a member of the Conservative Government who wanted to sell it off.
    We are giving the Post Office the additional investment necessary to ensure that people have a choice about whether they receive their benefit in cash at a post office or through a bank or building society. The alternative to what we are doing is to maintain a system whereby we continue to pay benefits using order books that are by and large unchanged since the ration books of the second world war. That is clearly unsustainable and nonsensical.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning certain newspapers and certain Opposition politicians who, by their scaremongering, are serving only to undermine public confidence in sub-post offices, in spite of the fact that the Government and my right hon. Friend today have clearly stated that cash benefits will still be available at post offices? Does he agree that comments to the contrary serve only to frighten elderly people, and that those who

    13
    are calling for the abandonment of ACT would compel the 50 per cent. of people who have chosen ACT to return to the ration book type of payment?
    Mr. Darling: The point that those who differ with us on our policy should remember is that more and more people—whether we like it or not—are asking to have their benefits paid into their bank accounts. Therefore, if we did nothing, the post office network would suffer, and anyone who believes that that is a sensible policy needs his head looking at.
    The right thing to do is to ensure that people have a choice, because we believe in choice. People should be allowed to choose where they receive their benefit or pension. However, we also need to ensure that the necessary investment is made in the Post Office. That did not happen, and the Post Office paid a heavy price for the doctrinaire opposition to addition investment shown by the Conservative privatisers who now sit on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, in any departmental publicity leaflets, equal emphasis will be given to both choices, including the post office choice, and that the option to retain payments through a post office will not be buried away in the small print of the leaflets?
    Mr. Darling: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. A poster campaign is being mounted jointly by the Benefits Agency and the Post Office. Posters and leaflets explaining the new system should appear in every post office throughout the land to give people the reassurance that they will have a choice as to whether they receive their money through the post office or their bank or building society.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the end of last week in which he pointed out that 3,000 extra cashpoint machines will be available in rural post offices? Many people will want to receive their benefits through the new system and, despite the scaremongering of Conservative Members, that will add to the renaissance of services in rural areas.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The Post Office already has an alliance with, I think, three banks and offers banking facilities as a result of that. I fail to understand the policy of the Conservative party. I know that it is conservative in every sense of the word, but its recipe is to do absolutely nothing and to stick with a system that is not sustainable. That is nonsensical and it would also cost the DSS substantial sums in administrative costs and in money lost through fraud and error. Surely nobody in their right mind could defend that, but let us hear what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has to say.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I begin by assuring the Secretary of State that I feel very much in my right mind. I am sure that he would wish to join me in acknowledging that the effects of rural transport difficulties are compounded for those who are elderly or who have disability problems. While we are discussing states of
    14
    mind, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman suffers from a degree of selective amnesia. He seems to be unaware that the sub-post office network is already privatised and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who spoke so eloquently a moment ago, had initiated a project for the automation of the benefits payments system that would have been highly beneficial.
    Although the Secretary of State has given assurances, does he not accept that, in the form that he has given them, they are merely bland, imprecise and uncosted? Does he not understand that they will cut very thin ice with an elderly or disabled person who wishes to go to his or her local sub-post office, finds that its business has become uneconomic because of the significant loss of benefit payments that will result from the changes that the Secretary of State has initiated, and that it has simply shut its doors—so that that person has nowhere to go?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt reflect on the fact that rural transport was significantly run down by the previous Conservative Government, principally because of the deregulation of bus services that took place in the 1980s when Mr. Ridley was the Secretary of State responsible for such matters.
    I return to point about the Post Office. The hon. Gentleman says that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) left us with the benefits payment card. Indeed he did, and it was another mess that we inherited. When we took over, the project was three years late and the contractor was not willing to continue with it unless he received significantly more money to do so. What was worse, the system still cost substantially more to pay money directly into people's bank accounts.
    I come back to my point: if we do nothing, more and more people will vote with their feet because they are asking for their money to be paid into banks and buildings societies. The Government are giving the Post Office the additional support and investment that will allow it to offer more services. After 2003, people will have a choice—they can either have their money paid direct into their bank or building society or they can get their cash through a post office.

    Family Poverty
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What further measures he proposes to reduce family poverty in the next decade. [107196]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are committed to eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and we expect to make substantial further progress towards that goal over the next decade. For most families, the best way out of poverty is through work. Measures in the last two Budgets will mean that the poorest families with children will gain more than £1,000 a year.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that I share his pride in Labour's objective of eliminating child poverty in 20 years, and that I also recognise the wretched situation that the Government inherited after the growth in the disparity of incomes and the considerable growth in poverty during the Thatcher-Major years?

    15
    Does my hon. Friend acknowledge, however, that studies from the London school of economics and the Child Poverty Action Group show that the laudable objective of eliminating child poverty in 20 years will not be achieved unless there is an accelerated initiative by the Government in their existing programmes and more resources are allocated to the objective, and that if there is no change we will have eliminated only two thirds of the existing poverty? To demonstrate the scale of that situation, I point out that child poverty will be at the same level as it was when Labour left office in 1979. Will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Labour Members want more resources allocated to achieving that important policy objective?
    Mr. Bayley: I reassure my hon. Friend that our policies are already making a difference. As a result of tax and benefits measures, the families of 800,000 children who were living in poverty have been raised above the poverty line, and that is just the start. We have set an extremely challenging objective, which is why it will take 20 years of work to achieve it, but the Government are determined to do so.
    We have further measures in the pipeline, such as the new child tax credit which will be introduced next April, and the changes to disability living allowance which will increase the incomes of families with severely disabled three and four-year-olds. That is a long-term project, and we acknowledge that it will be difficult to achieve. We are putting large sums towards it—by the end of this Parliament we will have provided an additional £6 billion. The goal can be achieved if we are single-minded in our purpose, and we are.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is real, if sometimes hidden, poverty in rural areas, as confirmed by a study last week? Contrary to the Prime Minister's rather rosy view, poorer families in rural areas face difficulties in accessing services and they have additional costs. Will the Minister make sure that his policies directly address that problem?
    Mr. Bayley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is indeed poverty in rural as well as urban areas. Hon. Friends from constituencies throughout the country, including my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) and for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), make that point. The Government's policies to attack poverty apply equally in rural areas as in urban areas.
    The key reason why poverty trebled when the Conservatives were in power was a trebling of the number of workless households with children. The key policy to attack worklessness is the working families tax credit, which applies in all constituencies, urban and rural. The problem is not confined to the inner cities; it is a nationwide problem that is the legacy of 18 years of Conservative policy, and we have the policies to tackle and reverse it with our strategy to eliminate child poverty.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is tremendous support among Labour Members for the Government's objective of countering child poverty? Will he further confirm that, in achieving
    16
    that objective, the higher that the Government feel it safe to set the statutory minimum wage, the lower will be the cost to taxpayers of the working families tax credit?
    Mr. Bayley: We have made it clear from the start that the rate of the national minimum wage will be kept under review, and indeed it will.
    Mr. David Willetts: I welcome back the Minister from his visit to the Ceredigion by-election, where Labour went from second to fourth place. I hope that he will be paying many more such visits around the country. I have a simple question for him. Will he give the House a cast-iron promise that the working families tax credit will be delivered through the pay packet from April, as planned?
    Mr. Bayley: Yes, it will.

    Lone Parents (Education)
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What measures his Department has taken to reduce barriers in the benefits system to education for lone parents. [107197]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The benefits system provides support for lone parents who take up education and training. Time spent on study does not affect their benefit. Lone parents on the new deal may also get help with course fees, travel expenses and the cost of child care while attending approved work-focused training or education.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that counting the student loan as income rather than money that must be paid back can pose a particular problem for mature students? If she cannot change that rule, will she describe the extra help that she and her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment may make available to help people who want to improve themselves through education in order to get back into work?
    Angela Eagle: This year, the total budget for child care access funds in education colleges is £25 million, which is almost three times the amount made available last year. There is extra student support in higher education—£12 million in the current year—through access funds, too. The DFEE has announced that it will be introducing in due course means-tested child care grants for parents who want to study. So we realise that this is an issue, and we are tackling it.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What percentage of single parents successfully getting a job following invitation for interviews under the new deal for lone parents does the Minister regard as a good return for investment in the scheme?
    Angela Eagle: There are more than 32,000 lone parents in jobs who would not have been given any help by the Conservative party. Any lone parent getting a job is a benefit. In due course, we shall be publishing an analysis of the new deal for lone parents. A report on the pilot project, which is due at the end of the month, will show that the scheme has covered 90 per cent. of its costs.

    17
    All those 32,000 lone parents with a job have children, and they came from workless households. They are now in households with work, and that is how we shall tackle child poverty.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of the Child Support Agency. [107199]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Bill that gives effect to our proposed reforms of the child support scheme is being discussed in Standing Committee. We are on course to start the new system in 2002.
    Mr. Howarth: The overwhelming number of CSA cases in my constituency involves men who are very happy to contribute to the maintenance of children from their first marriage, but who find it extremely difficult to meet the agency's demands. Given that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said in October that 190,000 absent parents—in most cases, that means the fathers—are likely to face higher assessments under the Government's proposals, does the Secretary of State share my concern that such proposals will lead to much greater stress and further suicidal tendencies among some fathers, while the feckless escape into the night?
    Mr. Darling: Most assessments will in fact be lower and, as the changes that we are introducing will be phased in, both families will have some time to adjust to any vastly different settlement. I agree that difficulty arises because fathers must sometimes wait months before they find out how much they are supposed to be paying, and when they get the bill it is very often much more than they can afford, and that naturally leads to great tension. Under the new, simplified system that we are introducing, it will be possible to calculate in days, not months, how much a father—it is usually the father—will have to pay, so payments will flow far more quickly. We should not lose sight of the fact that, as a result, up to 1 million children will gain, and that must be a good thing.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Secretary of State not realise that an arbitrary, formulaic system is ineffectual and that each family's circumstances are different? To criminalise those who withhold payment will surely lead to them absconding and going into hiding. If, ultimately, the sanction of jail is invoked, how will that help their earning prospects or make it easier for them to look after their children?
    Mr. Darling: There are two points. First, the simplified formula makes it possible to calculate quickly—within days—the amount due. Anyone who has children knows that it is difficult to calculate down to the last penny how much children cost, or how much should be paid when two people are living together. We consulted widely on the new simplified formula and it has been widely welcomed. Very few people suggested that we should retain the present system. Some suggested that we should go to the courts, but most people think that the simplified formula is better.
    18
    Secondly, there is a fundamental point of principle involved: an absent parent has a duty to support his or her child. There is no getting away from that, and I make no apology for the fact that we propose that the persistent minority of people who refuse to live up to their obligations ought to be punished. They should be supporting their children—they should not expect somebody else to do it. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should defend people who refuse to pay for their children.

    Pensioners
    Mr. John Bercow: What steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [107200]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we will shortly announce our decisions on the Government-sponsored national take-up campaign. We hope to do so next week.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, given that it is now almost 17 months since the Secretary of State said that the NIRS2 computer breakdown, which deprived 285,000 pensioners of their just entitlements, would be resolved "in the next couple of weeks", will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that those payments, unlike Billy Bunter's postal order, will arrive; that full interest will be paid on top of them; and that Government coffers will not profit by so much as a single penny from this woeful saga of ministerial incompetence?
    Mr. Rooker: It is not our intention that the Government should benefit from the inherited disaster of NIRS2. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is a regular attender at Question Time, I said a couple of weeks ago that we had not met the target of clearing the entire backlog, and that there were 83,000 people still to be paid. We are convinced that their payments will be brought fully up to date before the end of the year. We regret the delay. The compensation payments are being paid to people who have experienced delays to their pension payments. The entire saga is very much regretted. That it why it is important that we get to the bottom of it. We must make sure that we do not overload the system in future, so that it can deliver regular payments to our pensioners.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: To solve the problem and ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled, would it not be easier to lift the state pension?
    Mr. Rooker: I can tell my hon. Friend that it would not. We could raise the state pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it would not benefit the 1.6 million people who already get it. They would lose pound for pound. Also, it would cost £3 billion to do that. As I said earlier, the average income of a single pensioner

    19
    in 1997–98 was £132 net. I can think, as can my hon. Friends, of much better ways of using £3 billion in the social security system, such as by targeting help at those who really need it.

    Vibration White Finger
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will list the functions of his Department in relation to those suffering from vibration white finger. [107201]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The Department's function in relation to vibration white finger is to administer the industrial injuries scheme to employed earners who have been disabled by the disease. People could also apply for other social security benefits, depending on their individual circumstances. Payment of damages awarded by the courts for this disease to employees of British Coal is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of the constructive meeting in Cardiff today with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, and the meeting convened by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) with two distinguished doctors, which some of us attended last week, could the Government do something to speed up the payments to coal miners and shale miners, who have the feeling—it may not be justified, but they have the feeling none the less—that people are waiting until they pass on before awarding the compensation that is surely due to them?
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for notifying me this morning of the nature of his supplementary question. I hope that progress was made in Cardiff today. Delays have to do with the courts process, although departmental responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are referred to it.
    If our legal system worked as quickly as our social security system, we would not be considering the issues of recovery because those responsible for the industrial environment in which people contracted the disease, not the state, would pay compensation.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I shall make a short business statement. The business for the rest of the week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Programme motion followed by proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill 2000, instead of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Programme motion followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
THURSDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Apart from tomorrow, all the business will be as previously announced. However, the House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
Sir George Young: As the right hon. Lady knows, the Opposition have called for the suspension of the Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, following the lack of satisfactory progress on decommissioning. We therefore agree with the proposed change in business and will support the Bill tomorrow.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: There is a sense of foreboding in my party about the necessity of undertaking the Northern Ireland Bill. We do not approach the matter with any enjoyment or glee; we are worried about the course on which it takes all parts of the United Kingdom. However, we believe that the measure is necessary, and we support the Leader of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: The Government are grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for their remarks. They are right to say that the matter is difficult and important. However, we are glad to have support on it across the House.
Mr. Michael Howard: Does the right hon. Lady agree that our consideration of the Bill tomorrow would be greatly assisted if we had sight of the
22
de Chastelain report? Will she use her good offices to ensure that the report is available before tomorrow's debate begins?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that those matters were aired during my right hon. Friend's statement the other day; they will, no doubt, be aired tomorrow.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I cannot conceive that any hon. Member would wish to delay unduly the passage of the Bill tomorrow, given the seriousness of the issues that it addresses. I therefore urge the Leader of the House to allow as generous a programme motion as possible. There are advantages to allowing a reasonable debate here within the limits that the Government set, rather than leaving hon. Members to feel that they have not had the opportunity to say what is on their hearts at this time.
Mrs. Beckett: The Government are not seeking to curtail debate unduly. The right hon. Gentleman will note that I have announced a programme motion. With good will across the House, hon. Members will have the opportunity to raise the points that they wish to make.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Lady say when Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill will take place? Will it be next week, or will the measure be kicked into the long grass? Many of us have little sympathy for bringing British service discipline into line with the view of the European Court of Human Rights.
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I shall make the ordinary business statement on Thursday.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will there be an opportunity tomorrow to discuss whether we should suspend the release of terrorist prisoners at the same time as suspending the Executive?
Mrs. Beckett: The scope of the debate is a matter for the legislation and for the Chair. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that tomorrow's debate will be conducted in the spirit and the mood that is, I think, that of the House and the country. Everyone wishes to facilitate the continuation of the peace process, not bring it to a halt.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday's Sunday Express reported that the Government have covert plans to withdraw from the Falklands. The Prime Minister said that
"no withdrawal should occur until after the next general election".
That is a serious matter and I hope, in the circumstances, that a Minister—if not the Prime Minister himself—will come to the Dispatch Box soon to make it absolutely clear where the Government stand and to give Parliament a chance to ask the questions that are naturally in all our minds, not least those of the Falklanders themselves
Madam Speaker: That seems to be a statement rather than a point of order to me, so it requires no response.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the wanton destruction of United Nations vehicles, the injury to NATO troops and reports over the weekend of mounting and desperate ethnic violence in Mitrovica, coupled with reports of the unsatisfactory situation of our own British soldiers in the cold of Kosovo, has there been any request to make a statement—either by Defence or Foreign Office Ministers—on what is becoming a dire situation?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that such a statement is about to be made, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that Foreign Office questions are not far away, and that he will use his ingenuity to ask a question to that effect.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law, first in Welsh and then in English:
Simon Thomas Esq., for Ceredigion.
Mr. Eric Forth: What does that mean?
Madam Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) had been patient enough, he would have heard the hon. Member for Ceredigion explain himself a moment later.
Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman should apologise.
Madam Speaker: Order. Let us cool down; that is quite unnecessary. We have business to do.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security
  3.39 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  Mr. Darling: The second order is largely technical. The House will be aware that employers are required to increase guaranteed minimum pensions by the retail prices index or 3 per cent., whichever is less. The order makes it clear that the requirement this year will be to increase guaranteed minimum pensions by 1.1 per cent. The first order covers all other benefits. I make that point because I understand that the Liberals said over the weekend that they would vote against it. If the Liberals vote against this order, they will be voting against all benefit increases in the United Kingdom. The order uprates all social security benefits in the usual way, as I announced in November. It uprates the amount of money that we pay for children in particular: child benefit will rise to £15 for the oldest child and £10 for subsequent children, and, as a result of the measures that we have taken to help families with children, families are already an average £740 a year better off.
  If the Liberals vote against the order, they will be voting not only against increases in child benefit, but against the additional help that we are giving pensioners, particularly older and poorer pensioners. As well as raising the state pension to £67.50, we are increasing the minimum income guarantee for pensioners in line with earnings. Taken with the winter fuel payments, the changes to value-added tax and the introduction of free television licences, that increase will mean that the oldest and poorest pensioners will have gained £500 a year—nearly £10 a week—as a result of steps that we have taken. All that, we understand, is to be opposed by the Liberal party.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the order remedy the anomaly whereby—I believe—460,000 expatriate pensioners currently do not enjoy the uprating, while 390,000 do? It is not a blanket embargo; it is a case of "some do, some do not". We are the only country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that has been treating pensioners in that way. Will the order remedy the unfairness? If not, why not?
  Mr. Darling: The order will not change the position. If we spent money uprating the pensions of people living abroad, that money could not be spent on people in this country.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will give way to as many hon. Members as I can, but let me finish this point first.

  25
  Over the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government will spend £5 billion on pensioners. I expect to show in today's debate that the money will be well spent and well targeted: it will tackle pensioner poverty, which is one of the many scandals that we inherited from the Conservative party. Let me say to the Liberals, as I said at Question Time, that not only do I fail to understand how on earth they can justify voting against the uprating of all benefits, but I fail to understand how on earth they can justify voting against what is in their own manifesto. Their manifesto stated that they would increase pensions in line with prices, and that they would introduce extra earnings-related help for the poorest pensioners, which is precisely what we propose.
  No one should be in any doubt that the Liberals—who intend to vote against the orders—would, if successful, stop not just pension increases but increases for children, and all the other benefits that go to some of the poorest people in the country. It may be merely a gesture; perhaps people should be thankful that there do not appear to be enough Liberals present to make much of a difference. I believe, however, that any serious political party ought to be serious about its intentions, and should not vote against the Government unless it really wants to carry the day—which, in this instance, would deny many people benefits.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Certainly.
  Mr. Webb: To save the right hon. Gentleman the trouble of misrepresenting us for the rest of the afternoon, let me assure him that, should his party be defeated in the Division, we, through the usual channels, will make time available at the earliest opportunity for the orders to be brought back to the House, amended only in respect of the 75p rise and the capital limits. We will then give them plain passage, and the business can be completed by the end of the week.
  Mr. Darling: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has a sense of humour, which we all appreciate. I shall continue to represent accurately what is in the Liberal party manifesto, to which I think we should all attach significant weight. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would not have stood as a Liberal party candidate if he did not intend to support his party's manifesto—or so one might have thought.
  Let us examine what the hon. Gentleman has done during the time that he has been the Liberals' pensions spokesman. Last year, he came up with a policy to pay more to those aged 80 and over. Part of that policy—in addition to the policy for scrapping the state earnings-related pension scheme, which would completely disrupt the pensions industry—he has repeated, saying that the basic pension would continue to be uprated in line with prices. What has happened between publication of the manifesto, the hon. Gentleman's last public policy utterance, and today's debate, seems to me opportunism at its worst.
  Mr. Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman be staying to hear the answer?
  Mr. Darling: I shall certainly be staying, and I shall see what happens to the Liberal Democrats' policy.
  Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. Friend made very welcome references to child benefit, and
  26
  I certainly believe that mothers and their children would greatly benefit from such changes. However, is he not astonished at Liberal Democrat Members' irresponsible and childish attitude to those issues? Could he explain to me the type of mindset that is prepared to turn somersaults to make such ridiculous points?
  Mr. Darling: The short answer is no, I cannot. I would never attempt to explain the Liberal Democrats' mindset. Moreover, I have always understood that one of the great virtues of the Liberal Democrat party was that it did not have a collective mindset—which is why it has been able to come up with so many policy contortions at the same time.
  Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend mentioned winter fuel payments. Did he notice that, at Question Time, Opposition Front Benchers gave absolutely no commitment that they would continue such non-means-tested benefits? Was that not interesting? Should we not warn the electorate that, if the Tories were to win the next general election, winter fuel payments would almost certainly go?
  Mr. Darling: As I understand it, Conservative policy is to oppose winter fuel payments, and, were they to get back to power, to remove them. However, it may be that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. portillo) has already delivered a lecture to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and told him that he will have to change his policy on that issue, too. We shall have to wait; perhaps the hon. Gentleman's speech will be more interesting than it otherwise might have been.
  I should like to deal with two aspects of the uprating order. The first is pensions—which is a matter of particular interest to hon. Members—and the second is the payments that we make for children.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I shall certainly give way in a moment.
  I should like to return to a theme that we touched on a few moments ago, at Question Time—the problem that we inherited. The problem can be put quite simply: whereas pensioner incomes as a whole increased by about 64 per cent.—mainly because of occupational pensions that have been building up in the past few years, and the state earnings-related pension scheme, which is only just beginning to mature—the gap between the better-off pensioners and the poorest pensioners has widened. The figures show that the income of the bottom fifth of pensioner couples increased by only one third, whereas the income of the top fifth increased by almost 80 per cent.
  The Government therefore believe that the right thing to do is to target most of the £5 billion extra on those pensioners who lost out. That is not all that we are doing, but that is what we wanted to do. The poorest 1 million single pensioners and the 1 million pensioner couples who

  27
  have not kept up need to be supported. That is why we are targeting help on those people, as well as helping all pensioners across the board.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: May I give way first to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and then to the hon. Lady?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend may intervene first.
  Mr. Darling: Despite the hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic courtesy, I shall give way to him first.
  Mr. Bercow: I am sorry; I was merely displaying my natural chivalry, which I should hope would command the assent of the House as a whole.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why the Government are not prepared to apply the same principle to their payment of benefits as they apply to the payment of commercial debts? Given that the late-payment legislation requires businesses to pay interest on delayed commercial debts, why are the Government not prepared today to undertake that if, through their own incompetence they have caused misery and suffering to thousands of people by denying them their benefits, when those benefits eventually materialise, those individuals will receive interest on top of them?
  Mr. Darling: People are receiving benefits. However, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the national insurance recording system, just before he goes on about incompetence, he should remember who—in 1996—signed the contract for that system. If my memory serves me well, in 1996, the Secretary of State for Social Security was the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who, sadly, is no longer with us.
  Mr. Bercow: What?
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is not with us physically in the Chamber, but I am sure that he is with us somewhere.
  Miss McIntosh: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for the chivalry shown on both sides of the House. Nevertheless, I should like to make a more mundane point, on which I have tried to press the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions. Will he take the opportunity of today's debate to dispense with the rule that annuities must be taken out at age 75? A groundswell of opinion, which I cannot believe is unique to the Vale of York, is in favour of dispensing with the rule. Will he satisfy our constituents and the House by stating today that he will lift the rule?
  Mr. Darling: No. The hon. Lady will know that the Inland Revenue and Department of Social Security have been looking at annuities to see whether the system should be changed but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security has said, if there are
  28
  people who have delayed taking their annuity until the age of 75, presumably, they must have been living on some other income or capital before getting to that point. I do not believe that a change to the annuity rules should be the No. 1 priority. If people are getting tax relief for a pension, they should use their money as a pension, not simply as another form of tax-privileged saving.
  Let me set out what we are doing. I said that we wanted to help all pensioners, particularly the poorest. We knew this year's RPI increase would be low, which is why we increased winter fuel payments—so that each pensioner household would receive £100, a fivefold increase. For the first time last year, it was paid before Christmas. We hope that that will happen again this year. We are paying winter fuel payments to all households with someone over the age of 60. I shall announce the arrangements for doing that soon.
  Later this year, those aged over 75 will get free television licences; the oldest pensioners tend to be among the poorest. On top of that, we have restored free eye tests, reduced VAT on fuel and provided help for pensioners that was not there in the past, taking 200,000 pensioners out of income tax altogether, so that nearly two thirds of pensioners pay no tax. The 10p starting rate of tax helps pensioners as well.
  Clearly, our priority must be to ensure that those who have lost out over the past 20 years receive help. Although the winter fuel payments and free television licences disproportionately help pensioners on the lowest incomes, that is not enough.
  The House will be aware that the basic pension, although the foundation of the pension system, has never been enough on its own. That is why, in the 1960s, the graduated pension scheme was introduced and, in 1978, SERPS was introduced, but even those measures did not do enough to help pensioners who were earning low incomes throughout their lives. That is one of the reasons why we are making changes to SERPS, so that the state second pension greatly increases the amount of money that goes to someone on low lifetime earnings.
  To deal with pensioners who lost out, we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which sets a decent base for pensioner incomes. It is targeting our resources where they are most needed, making the worst off better off. For single pensioners, the pension is £78: an £8 increase since 1998–99. For couples, it is £121.95: a £12.60 increase since 1998–99. For the oldest—those over 80—it is £86 and £131. Those measures are a substantial help for pensioners who have lost out over the years. As has been made abundantly clear, not just today, but on previous occasions, the Conservative party is against the minimum income guarantee and will get rid of it. A total of 1.5 million pensioners would lose out as a result.
  I know that some hon. Members advocate increasing the pension by the earnings link, but when we consider that restoring the link would cost about £18 billion by about 2020 and that the poorest pensioners would not see a single penny of that benefit, we realise that there are far better ways in which to deal with the immediate problem for far too many pensioners: they do not have enough money to live on. We introduced the minimum income guarantee to help them.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: On the point about the poorest pensioners not benefiting from an increase in the

  29
  basic state pension, presumably my right hon. Friend refers to pensioners on income support. Why cannot the thresholds be raised in line with that? Indeed, is that not one of the principal purposes of the minimum income guarantee?
  Mr. Darling: The minimum income guarantee has the effect of ensuring that the poorest pensioners get more help. If we increased pensions across the board, the top fifth of pensioners, whose incomes have increased by some 80 per cent., would not appreciate or notice the difference. If we had not introduced the minimum income guarantee, those at the bottom would have lost out. I make no apology for the fact that the £5 billion that we are spending in this Parliament is concentrated on those pensioners who have lost out—the poorest pensioners, who are living in poverty. They are the sort of people who voted for our Government to help them out of the difficulties that the Tories had got them into. That is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: Is not the problem with this debate that it takes place in a context where everyone sees pensioners as a homogenous group of poor pensioners, whereas the reality is that there are rich pensioners, middle-income pensioners and poor pensioners? Are not the Government targeting help at those who need it, rather than spreading it across a range of pensioners, many of whom do not need help?
  Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said at Question Time that average pensioner net income is about £132. Like many other sections of the population, there are some pensioners who are well off and there are some who are appallingly badly off. The right thing to do is to help pensioners who have lost out, and to get those living in poverty out of poverty. That is the right approach for any reasonable and sensible Government to take. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) mutters about the winter fuel payment, which was universal. However, it benefits disproportionately those on low incomes. Again, it is more help for pensioners on low incomes who would not otherwise have received help.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) made an important point, and it may benefit the House to know that the Select Committee on Social Security may soon be looking at pensioner poverty and where the real financial agony lies. That would help the debate.
  It is perfectly valid for the Secretary of State to say that targeting poverty within available resources is sensible, but there is another aspect. The contributory principle has a wider social role, distributing income horizontally across people's lives. If there is so much of a surplus in the national insurance fund, surely there should be some balance, not just this obsession with targeting the poor.
  Mr. Darling: I am glad that the Select Committee is to look at pensioner incomes, as I suspect that it is indeed commonly held that all pensioners are poor. That is not the case. Many have investment income or substantial occupational pensions, which have largely built up through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. At the same time, we have pensioners who have lost out badly.
  30
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) recognises that—so should his party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Northavon, who has researched this matter. That research has been helpful. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman helped to write the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which states that the party would increase pensions in line with prices and would have earnings-related help for the poorest pensioners. The hon. Gentleman has learned the lessons of his research—it is a pity that he has not followed through the logic of that position today.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has stated that the Government Actuary reports that the national insurance fund is in surplus. He will know that the fund has to retain a working balance, which accounts for more than half that surplus. The remaining surplus would be eaten up in two years if we were to adopt the policies that the hon. Gentleman and some others are advocating—increasing the basic state pension up to £75, or the minimum income guarantee. That policy might get the hon. Gentleman by for a couple of years, but it is no long-term pensions policy.
  The Government actuary's report and the quinquennial review of the national insurance fund do not take account of the changes that we have made in policy since March 1999. To base a pensions policy on a surplus that is there today but that would be eaten up within a couple of years is not a sensible way of proceeding in the future.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to the contributory principle. Part of the problem is that pensions are contributory, but that far too many people have not contributed during their working lives to looking after themselves in their old age. That is why we want to build on the minimum income guarantee; why we have introduced stakeholder pensions; and why we have reformed the state second pension to increase the amount that the state gives, not only to low but to moderate earners, through the rebate structure.
  I remind the House that someone earning £6,000 gets £14 a week under the state earnings-related pension scheme but will get £54 a week under the new state second pension. We are not only helping today's pensioners but ensuring that far more people will be able to build up pensions in the future.
  Clearly, one cannot save if one does not have a wage. That is why we have attached so much importance to ensuring that people of working age stay in work, and to trying to prevent pensioner poverty in the future by going back to the root of the problem and giving children the best possible start, which will allow them to get good jobs and eventually retire on good incomes.
  I want to touch on the measures in the orders to help to combat child poverty. We are the first Government ever to commit ourselves to eradicating child poverty in 20 years and to halving it in 10: another policy to which the Conservative party is opposed. When we published our poverty report in September, setting out the scale of the problem and what we intended to do about it, Conservatives simply laughed and wanted nothing to do with our efforts, despite the fact that, during the 20 or so years in which they were in power, child poverty trebled. That is a damning indictment of the previous Government.
  As a result of our Budget measures, we have already taken nearly 1 million children out of poverty. We are also helping parents to get into work and increasing the

  31
  amount spent on families and children. We are helping children to get a decent education in school. From April next year, the new child credit will be worth up to an extra £416 a year.
  The orders increase child benefit beyond the retail prices index for the second year running, so the eldest child gets £15 a week, which is over £3.50 more than only two years ago. We have increased the amount that parents on income support get for the under-11 rate of personal allowances by more than £9 a week, or about £400 a year.
  We are determined to ensure, through a variety of measures, including increasing income, that children have the best possible start in life and that there is enough money in people's homes for them to bring up their children properly.
  The orders deserve support. They increase benefits across the board, in the normal way, but—crucially—they do far more for pensioners, and especially those who lost out during the Tory years. They also take us a further step along the way to the eradication of child poverty, which should be regarded as a blight on any society. I commend them to the House.
  4.3 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: We will not vote against the orders, because we do not want to stop the uprating of benefits, but I want to ask the Secretary of State some questions about the value of the uprating: 1.1 per cent. on income-related benefits and 1.6 per cent. on the Rossi index.
  The Secretary of State will be aware that his Department's spending plans, published in March, said that non-income-related benefits are assumed to be uprated by 1.3 per cent. in April 2000 and that income-related benefits and jobseeker's allowance are assumed to be uprated by 1.9 per cent. in April 2000. The orders save him £200 million compared with his own Department's expenditure plans for 2000–01. We want to know what has happened to that money. We are also concerned, and we understand pensioners' frustration, about the increase of 75p in the basic pension. The Conservative vision is one in which pensioners increasingly share in the rising affluence of our country, because they have genuine private savings.
  Mr. John Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that the Government of which he was a member cut the earnings link with the state pension?
  Mr. Willetts: Well, the figures that I was about to cite from the latest pensioners' income series give a good picture of what happened to pensioner incomes in our years in office. The figures show that
  "The proportion of pensioner units with some income from investments was 68 per cent. in 1987–98. The average amount received by those units with some investment income was £40 per week in 1997–98, having grown by 80 per cent. between 1979 and 1996–97."
  We delivered increasing pensioner incomes because more and more pensioners had investments and occupational pensions.
  32
  The Government's figures also show that, by 1997–98, 60 per cent. of pensioner units had an income from occupational pensions and
  "The average amount received by those units … was £92 a week in 1997–98."
  When I hear the Secretary of State and the Minister of State explain to their somewhat sceptical colleagues that that increase in pensioner incomes means that the basic pension is less and less well targeted at relieving pensioner poverty, I know that the Ministers are using the evidence of the success that we achieved. We encouraged more and more pensioners to have funded occupational pensions or private savings.
  Mr. Coaker: Does not the hon. Gentleman's point confirm that the Government's policy is right? If a big group of pensioners are better off, why should they be given extra money that they do not need when we can target extra help at the poorest pensioners and make a difference to their lives? Why spread the jam across the whole group, many of whom do not need it?
  Mr. Willetts: I accept and welcome the figures that I have given. More and more pensioners enjoy higher incomes because they have occupational pensions and private savings, and fewer and fewer depend on the basic state pension alone. We are happy to hear Ministers talk about that, because it is what we achieved. Our objection to what the Government are doing is that they are imposing a double whammy on pensioners. They will receive a measly 75p increase in the basic pension, but they are also suffering from all the attacks on occupational pensions and private savings, which mean that the boost in pensioner incomes that we have seen over the past 20 years is under threat.
  The representatives of funded pensions—the people whom the Secretary of State is praying in aid to defend the tiny increase in the basic pension—have commented unfavourably on his policies. In a survey of 216 occupational pension schemes, more than half the participants felt that
  "the thrust of the government's proposals was not helpful"—
  when it came to encouraging occupational pension provision. A story in Personnel Today was headed "Uncertainty brings pensions delay" and it stated:
  "A survey by the National Association of Pension Funds shows under 3 per cent. of occupational pension schemes were improved in 1999. This compares with between 7 and 10 per cent. in each of the past five years."
  There is a planning blight, caused by uncertainty about what the Government will do to the occupational pension regime with their proposals for stakeholders.
  Almost half of the participants in another survey by a leading fund of actuaries think that
  "the introduction of stakeholder plans will make it less likely that employers will want to offer or continue to offer occupational pensions."
  The picture that is building up is of a measly increase in the basic pension as well as policies that are a threat to the alternatives that the Conservatives want to encourage—funded occupational pension provision and private saving.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman has twice described the rise in the state pension as "measly". For the avoidance of doubt, can he say what he would do were

  33
  he to be Secretary of State for Social Security now? Would he have put the pension up by 75p, or more or less, this April?
  Mr. Willetts: We would carry on increasing the basic pension in line with prices. We would also encourage and boost pensioner incomes by the policies that were so successful during the previous Government's years in office and that have resulted in the statistics that the Secretary of State is always so happy to quote. However, those policies are under threat, because of the changes in advance corporation tax, the changes in the tax regime that mean that pensioners with incomes so low that they do not even come within the scope of income tax are losing the full benefit from the income from their savings and, of course, because of the planning blight caused by the perpetual changes to the pensions regime that the Government are imposing on the pensions industry.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman said that he would, in effect, do what the Government are doing on pensions. What about the winter fuel payment? Does he accept that the £100, which is not means-tested, should be paid? What is his policy on this important question?
  Mr. Willetts: We will consider the winter fuel payment as part of our wider pensioner package. What perplexes me—here I have some sympathy with the view of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—is how the Government jump between favouring universalism, saying that it is very important that everyone should get the winter fuel payment, and then the case for means testing. We have no plans to remove the winter fuel payment. However, we are also planning an increase in average pensioner incomes, to be achieved by policies that, above all, reward savings and funded pensions. Our central critique of the Government is that they rely on that success to justify what they are doing by way of the uprating for the basic pension but, at the same time, they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. They cannot carry on relying on the increases in occupational pensions and savings that are providing the statistics from which they quote.
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. However, he must realise the position. If everything was so rosy in the past, why would the best part of 5 million people—moderate earners, making between £10,000 and £20,000 a year—be working with no second pension provision whatever? Surely there has to be a policy to get those people into a viable second pension operation. The previous system did not work—the pensions industry passed those people by on the other side of the road.
  Mr. Willetts: Our concern is that the Government's stakeholder pension will not bring people in the income bracket that he describes into new pension provision that they would not otherwise have had. Instead, they will simply drive people out of existing occupational pension schemes into stakeholding. He will be able to announce to the House apparently large numbers of people taking
  34
  out stakeholder pensions but, as my earlier quote from the pensions industry suggests, that will be churning out of existing occupational pensions.
  Mr. Rooker: We will not count those.
  Mr. Willetts: I will hold the right hon. Gentleman to that; one of the widespread beliefs of people who care about what he is doing is that he will end up simply churning existing provision.
  The other issue is the interaction between the minimum income guarantee and pension planning. If the minimum income guarantee increases in line with earnings—I think that the figure is 4.9 per cent.—what is the sense of people on a very low income saving, possibly in extremely difficult financial circumstances, getting a stakeholder pension? It makes them no better off than they would have been if they had not saved before? I would welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box a second time if he could offer us a figure for how much people have to have saved in a stakeholder pension during their working life to receive an income that will float them off means-tested benefits. If people cannot save that amount of money, they will be no better off as a result of having taken out the stakeholder pension. That is the $64,000 question. The minimum income guarantee is a further extension of means-testing.
  Mr. Darling: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the state second pension, which is designed to help precisely those who are on low earnings throughout their lives because it enables them to accrue pensions at a substantially greater rate than at present, as well as helping moderate earners. What is his policy for the poorest pensioners? He has made it very clear that he would take away the minimum income guarantee, so that would reduce their income. What would he do for them?
  Mr. Willetts: The minimum income guarantee is a mirage. It is merely what I still think of as the pensioner premium in income support. The Secretary of State, like so many new Labour Ministers, talks as if it were some extraordinary innovation in social policy. When I was in government, I believed that pensioners are entitled to something like the pensioner premium in income support, and I still support that now. However, the Secretary of State has merely renamed—misnamed—that premium as the minimum income guarantee, while keeping all the old income support rules. The old problem of low take-up remains, but there is also a problem with the capital rules.
  Many pensioners who are not entitled to the minimum income guarantee have total incomes well below it. The Secretary of State doubtless receives the kind of letters that I receive from pensioners who are baffled when they see him popping up on television and radio to talk about the minimum income guarantee while they are struggling to make ends meet on incomes well below it. The main reason for that is the capital rule.
  Arguably, a well-designed capital rule would enable people to receive an income from capital roughly equal to their putative entitlement to the benefit of which they are being deprived. I asked the House of Commons Library to calculate, at current interest rates, how much a pensioner would need in bank or building society savings to yield an income equalling the current average income

  35
  support figure. How much would one need, given all that has happened to interest rates, to receive an income flow matching average income support?
  In 1998, a pensioner would have required £49,100 in savings to receive an income matching average income support entitlement. Many pensioners have savings between £8,000—the upper limit for the capital rule—and £49,100. They are clearly worse off, living on incomes below the minimum income guarantee. Many are irritated and surprised by the Secretary of State's grandiose rhetoric about a minimum income guarantee when the treatment of capital is an enormous hole at the centre of it. Many pensioners fall below the minimum income guarantee, and that position has not changed since 1990. We expect Ministers, after promising for years to review the situation, to take some action.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I am confused by the figures that the hon. Gentleman has offered. Clearly, anyone with that level of savings could more than make up the deficiency between the minimum income guarantee at £78.45 and the pension at £67.50. As the hon. Gentleman is clearly talking about a much larger deficit, will he clarify what additional income component he is describing?
  Mr. Willetts: Pensioners live in many different circumstances. Much will depend on basic state pension entitlement. The hon. Gentleman is assuming full entitlement to the contributory pension, which all too often is not the case. I am glad that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the Select Committee on Social Security are inquiring into a contributory principle problem that often strikes us in our constituency surgeries involving those whose incomes fall below full entitlement. My example relies on the average income support payment, and on how much someone would require in capital to achieve a matching income. That is the basis of the House of Commons Library figures.
  I should like to remind the Secretary of State of what Ministers have promised in previous uprating debates, going right back to 1998—before he or I held our posts. In February 1998, the then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), said:
  "I do not dissent from the view that there are problems with capital and disregards. In our review of benefits and the general review of the welfare state, capital and disregards will have to be considered".—[Official Report, 18 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 1148.]
  We heard a similar message in February 1999, when the right hon. Gentleman had become the Secretary of State:
  "All hon. Members will agree that, above any other source of complaints, pensioners tell us that they have saved all their lives but are penalised for it … I made it clear that the Government want to consider the matter."—[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 486.]
  The Government have been considering the matter for a long time. It is about time that those capital disregards were properly reviewed and uprated, in order to match them more closely to current interest rates. Alternatively, the Government could do something straightforward and
  36
  simple; they could stop calling the minimum income guarantee a minimum income guarantee, because plainly it is not one.
  The Secretary of State briefly touched on tax benefit integration and child poverty. He knows that we shall watch closely the implementation of the working families tax credit. The Government claim to believe in evidence-based policy, but I have never heard evidence from any Minister or ministerial adviser that paying a benefit of given value through the tax system instead of through the benefits system has any effect whatever on incentives.
  We shall be interested in whether the WFTC has any impact on the "wallet-purse" question—the distribution of income within the family. We shall also want to know what it means for the employers who are implementing the system. In Social Security questions, I was encouraged to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), the cast-iron assurance that the WFTC will be paid through the pay packet in April, although that does not sit easily with increasing reports from employers' organisations of the enormous practical problems of implementing the measure.
  I hope that Ministers will give also us their response to the Government's thinking on the subject as set out in the Treasury working paper, "Supporting Children through the Tax Benefit System", published in November 1999. Pages 39 and 40 of that document rather shoot Ministers' fox. They undermine the rhetoric about the essential importance of paying the WFTC through the pay packet.
  The Treasury's latest idea is to put that policy into reverse, by reverting to what the Treasury refers to as an integrated child credit—not to be confused with the children's tax credit—which, lo and behold, will be paid as a benefit to the caring parent. Having painfully pushed through the House the controversial proposal that family credit has to be renamed the working families tax credit and paid through the pay packet, the Government's latest piece of thinking is the bold suggestion that they should make a U-turn and revert to paying it as a benefit.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) looks baffled. I recommend that she read the Treasury document. The Treasury is working on the introduction of what it describes as an integrated child credit. However, I am not aware that we have heard any comment on that proposal from Social Security Ministers; we do not know whether they are also working on it, or whether they think that, having lost the WFTC to the Treasury and the tax system, they should regain the "integrated child credit".
  If Social Security Ministers believe the analysis in the Treasury working document as to the case for paying the credit as a benefit to the caring parent, most of the rhetoric that they deployed when they were putting the WFTC through the House is shot to ribbons. This will be the next U-turn in social policy; we shall watch closely to see what the Government are up to.
  We have heard some rather coy assurances from Ministers that the long-awaited Green Paper on housing and housing benefit will eventually appear. However, the trouble is that, while they are stonewalling in this place with those vague references to the Green Paper's publication, their spinners are busily spinning away. Last year, we were spun that there would be a radical change in housing benefit—another payment that was supposed

  37
  to be made through the pay packet. We are now being told—I think in today's Daily Telegraph—that the Government are considering spreading housing benefit entitlement further up the earnings scale. We shall be interested to hear from Ministers the meaning of the spread of means-tested benefits further up the income scale.
  The Secretary of State has been perpetrating a fraud in the complacency of his statements on benefit fraud. In his most recent press release, dated 28 January, which is headed, "Darling welcomes successes in fighting benefit fraud", he said:
  "Today's figures show that our tougher anti-fraud measures are beginning to bite."
  He concluded:
  "we are winning the fight against fraud."
  However, figures that came out on that very day, in a separate, accompanying press release, from the Government's own statistical service, show that the reduction in income support fraud and customer error—it is a tiny reduction—"is not statistically significant." There has also been a tiny change in jobseeker's allowance fraud and customer error, of which the statisticians say:
  "This reduction is not statistically significant".
  Therefore, we have changes in the level of fraud that are not statistically significant, according to the Government's own statistical service, which the Secretary of State welcomes as successes in fighting benefit fraud. That is the gap between Ministers' rhetoric on benefit fraud and the reality.
  The Secretary of State claimed—let me quote what he perhaps hopes will be his epitaph—
  "I do not want to be remembered as another Secretary of State who tinkered with the system. We are taking on vested interests."
  All the crucial and central questions in benefit reform are being ducked. The Secretary of State needs to address them, but conspicuously failed to so today. The central feature of this uprating is indeed more tinkering. We need something better than that. We need some progress and some vision, and we shall get neither until the right hon. Gentleman tackles the difficult questions about the future of pensions funding, the reality of tax credits and what is to be done about social security fraud—the questions which, I am afraid, he has ignored for far too long.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Patrick Hall: I am one of those who signed early-day motion 73, expressing the point of view that the 75p increase in the state retirement pension is inadequate. To me, it is self-evident that it is inadequate, and that is certainly the strongly held opinion of every pensioner to whom I have spoken on the subject.
  I have heard, and listened to, the arguments of pensioners in my constituency, and I have listened to the arguments of others on these matters. The Government prefer to focus on the whole package of measures that they have already introduced for pensioners. The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they wish to focus only on the 75p issue. It is a little difficult to know exactly what the Conservatives are doing on that matter because, until today, they would not give their view on the 75p increase. Now, there is grudging acceptance of it—they said that they would introduce it themselves—but they reject much of the wider package that the Government have introduced for pensioners.
  38
  That package—the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel payment, home energy efficiency grants and many other measures—is of benefit to pensioners. Indeed, I understand that the real cash value of those measures is greater than what it would have cost to restore the link between the basic state pension and average earnings. Not to recognise that whole package, not to recognise the Government's determination to tackle pensioner poverty, is to fail to engage constructively in the debate on pensions and pensioners; and to fail to engage in that debate is to do a disservice to pensioners.
  It seems to me that, nowadays, that is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are doing on that matter. Their motion in the Opposition day debate on 17 January, which simply reproduced the wording of the early-day motion on the 75p increase, represented a lost opportunity to examine the subject of pensions and pensioners' life styles in the round, in greater depth—a lost opportunity to be positive about these matters.
  As I have said, I wish to speak principally about the 75p increase. I am unhappy about that increase. I have said so publicly and in the context of considering the system as a whole—the wider package of where we are and where we are likely to go and whether there is a need to restore the link with earnings or, perhaps instead, create a prices index that is related to the reality of most pensioners' lives. That means, I suggest, looking at local authority charges for the sorts of services that many pensioners make use of more than other sections of the community. It means taking on board rent and council tax levels rather than mortgages, which form part of the retail prices index that is the basis of determining benefit increases. As I understand it, most pensioners do not have a mortgage—if they had one, they have paid it off. Such considerations should form part of the mature, rational debate on pensions, older people and how we value them that needs to develop.
  I very much hope that the Liberal Democrats will engage constructively in that debate. I did not vote for their one-line motion on 17 January, because they were clearly playing politics with an issue that deserves and requires serious attention in depth and in the round. I felt that the Government amendment on that occasion at least addressed much of the wider agenda. Today, it seems that it has been confirmed that the Liberal Democrats are ever more determined to play foolish gesture politics with serious issues. Having wasted the opportunity last month to be serious about pensions and pensioners, they are now about to vote against any increase in statutory sick pay, maternity pay, child benefit and disability benefits, income support and housing and council tax benefits as well as voting for a zero pension increase. That is unhelpful gesture politics which will not be understood or supported outside the House.
  Unlike the Liberal Democrats, I shall vote in support of those tens of thousands of people who are in receipt of the social security benefits to which they are entitled. However, in doing that, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to accept the sincerity of the views of the many pensioners in Bedford and Kempston to whom I have spoken, and whom I represent. They are aware that the recognition of pensioners is implicit in the minimum income guarantee, in the winter fuel payments and in the free television licences that are to come. However, I am convinced that they have a different conception of the role of the basic state pension from that

  39
  which seems to come across from the Government. Those pensioners see the state pension as something which they have contributed to, worked for, and earned. According to them, its existence is the mark of a civilised society, of a social contract that binds people together and of a society in which human beings are not thrown on to the scrap heap once they reach retirement.
  The Government say that the state retirement pension is the building block of pensioner income. Many people outside the House well understand that the state pension needs topping up by second pensions, occupational pensions and private pensions, too. It is well understood outside the House that the state pension does not—and probably never could—meet all the cash needs of people in retirement. However, it is understood that the state retirement pension is a crucial foundation stone and it must be a statutory foundation upon which the other elements of pensioner income can be securely constructed.
  The state pension is political as well as financial. The message transmitted to pensioners by the previous Conservative Government when they broke the link with earnings—that message has been conveyed down the years since and again today with the meagre 75p increase—was that the importance of the state pension is diminishing. Its value is withering and its strength as a foundation stone is weakening. Too many pensioners feel that they do not matter, and they are clearly worried.
  It is absolutely right that Members of the House articulate the views of those in the country and reflect on their concerns. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, who have in the past two and a half years made such a good start on addressing pensioner issues, will soon introduce proposals to put new life into the state retirement pension.
  4.35 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: The background to the debate is that, according to the Government Actuary's new report, the national insurance fund is in extremely good health. It has, to use a technical actuarial term, pots of money. It must be the healthiest bank account in Britain. At the end of next year, the fund will have £16 billion, which is double the amount that the law requires it to have to keep benefits going. There is £8 billion spare in the fund, and the Government can spare pensioners 75p a week. That is why we are opposing the uprating orders.
  The Secretary of State paid his customary compliment to the Liberal Democrats when he started his speech by discussing our policy. Clearly, we are the only opposition in town. He asked various rhetorical questions, and we seem to have witnessed the quickest broken promise in new Labour history because, when he was asked whether he would be staying to hear the answers, he assured us that he would, but he has already disappeared. When faced with the possibility of serious argument, the Secretary of State finds that he has other engagements.
  We heard in the Secretary of State's address that the Government are reforming the state earnings-related pension scheme, but their proposals mean that there will be no SERPS. There will be a state flat-rate pension scheme, called the state second pension. When present SERPS entitlements have been honoured, no new
  40
  entitlements will accrue. Yet Labour Members, who are keen to quote the Liberal Democrat manifesto—I understand why they want to do so—said in their manifesto that they would retain SERPS for those who wanted to remain members of the scheme. That is a clear contradiction of a manifesto promise.
  The Secretary of State also described the Government's measures for families with children and other groups. He suggested that, by voting against the motions, we are somehow seeking to scupper those measures. I shall make it absolutely clear: if we are successful in a Division tonight, we will assist the Government's business managers in bringing back motions before the end of this week to bring in all the necessary benefit increases, with improved increases for state pensions.
  These motions, as hon. Members well know, are unamendable. Were it possible to amend only one element of them, we would do so, but the procedures of the House do not allow us to do that. The only way that we can register our objection is to vote against each motion and offer to assist to bring it aback amended.
  The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) made a thoughtful, brave contribution because he articulated the feelings of several of his hon. Friends and of many pensioners in his constituency, and mine. The hon. Gentleman called the 75p increase "meagre" and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) called it "measly". We are all agreed about its inadequacy. As a new Labour Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Bedford showed courage by making his remarks when the Secretary of State was in the Chamber, and I congratulate him on having the courage to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman called on us to enter into debate constructively. I shall give him an example of an attempt by us to do that, which received no response from his Front-Bench colleagues. When we raised this issue three weeks ago, we said that the 1.1 per cent. benefits increase does not, as the hon. Gentleman said, reflect pensioner cost of living. We can argue whether we should use cost of living or earnings as a measure, and I shall come on to that. However, the figure does not even reflect the pensioner cost of living because of council services, which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned then, or rent and council tax rises.
  We suggested a pensioner price index that specifically includes all the things on which pensioners spend their money—a not unreasonable suggestion. Did we receive a constructive response from the Government? Did they mention or look at the idea? The answer is, not as far as we know.
  When we make constructive suggestions that are not especially expensive or involve throwing billions of pounds at the problem—the proposal would favour pensioners some years but not others—we are ignored. That is the difficulty of trying to enter into a constructive debate on the issue.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Havant, who thinks deeply about these issues. Indeed, one could almost call him one of the godfathers of some of our thinking on raising pensions for older pensioners. I am sure that he is proud of his offspring. I have been thinking through the logic of what he says Conservative policy will become—I accept that he does not have a policy yet, but that he has a set of directions in which he wants to move.

  41
  So far, Conservative policy is as follows: price indexation of the basic state pension—putting in the 75p that he said was measly—and more private provision.
  More private provision is irrelevant to those who are already above pension age since they cannot save any more. Therefore, they will receive only the 75p rise. I presume that there would not be an earnings-indexed income support line, because the hon. Member for Havant has consistently condemned the growing gap between the pension and the income support line. If he is to keep the pension pegged to prices and condemn the growing gap, he must raise the poverty line in line with prices. Presumably, therefore, only retail prices inflation would apply to today's poorest pensioners, and that is not even as good as what is offered by the Government in the orders. Although I accept that, in the medium term, he wants to encourage private provision, as, to some extent, do we, I do not understand his policy for present pensioners. I would happily take an intervention if he would like to say what it is.
  Why is there so much money in the national insurance fund; why is it overflowing? This year, national insurance receipts will exceed national insurance expenditure by £1.5 billion. Next year, according to the Government Actuary, the excess will be £2.9 billion. Those are extraordinarily large sums, taking the cumulative surplus to £16 billion by the end of next year, which is double the two months-worth of benefit payments required in statute. There needs to be a little money for a rainy day, but giving pensioners only 75p a week more when there is an extra £8 billion is inadequate.
  As well as the point about the very healthy national insurance fund, there has been a catalogue of delay and dithering at the heart of the Government's pensions policy in four areas. I have a lot of respect for the Pensions Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has had the decency to remain in the Chamber to listen to my speech, so I shall be as gentle with him as I can. We are waiting for action, and pensioners are asking what is going on yet, when we ask the Government, they say, "Something will be happening soon," or "There will be something this Parliament."
  The first area, which the hon. Member for Havant mentioned, is capital limits. We have heard excerpts of previous Secretaries of State. At Question Time, I quoted the present Secretary of State who said 12 months ago in this very debate about capital limits and the problem of pensioners who have life savings of £8,000 or more who receive nothing under the minimum income guarantee, that reform is "long overdue." Heaven help us when the Government think that a reform is not urgent if this is what they do when they think that one is.
  The Government have been telling us throughout the Parliament that such reform is long overdue, so perhaps something might be announced in the Budget. After all, and in case hon. Members missed it, the Financial Times said that it would be. I make a prediction on the record: there will be something in the Budget, but it will come into effect not in this April, but in April 2001. What is the significance of that date? First, it allows the Government to re-announce the policy seven times before next April and, secondly, it will come into effect just before the election.
  Mr. Rooker: Twelve times.
  Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman generously admits that there will be a monthly reannouncement.
  42
  Pensioners who have, say, £10,000 in the bank will be deprived of the so-called riches of the minimum income guarantee for another year while the Government spin their policy and get round to deciding what to do. Why should pensioners with life savings of just £8,000 be so deprived?
  The point is not just the absolute cut-off at £8,000, but the extraordinary assumption that, for every £250 of savings, pensioners may receive £1 a week in income. The Minister has the grace to nod at the absurdity. That is £52 a year on £250—more than 20 per cent. net interest. If anyone knows where we can get that rate, please let me know.
  Not only the capital thresholds, but the tariff income—the rate at which income is imputed—needs sorting out. I hope that the Government will not simply promise action in this Parliament, as the Minister did previously. I hope that they will not say that there will be an announcement in the Budget. I hope that the Minister will say that something can be done this April for those pensioners.
  Because of the capital rules, 650,000 pensioners living below the income support poverty line are deprived of the minimum income guarantee. I asked the Government last week to update those figures, and they undertook to let me know the answer. They do not know the present figure. It could have gone up, because the gap keeps increasing.
  There are so many pensioners living below the poverty line who would get the benefit of the pension rise. They are pensioners on less than £78 a week of current income, but they do not get the money because they have £10,000 in the bank.
  Mr. Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? If he has already covered it, I apologise. We are told that the Liberal Democrats would restore the link with earnings. How much would you raise the pension? Also, if you changed the capital limits and the tariff, how much would you—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying away from the correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Webb: I shall deal with both questions in the course of my remarks, but I shall certainly give way again if the hon. Gentleman feels that I have not answered them.
  The 650,000 people who miss out are the first group who would get the benefit in full if the pension rise were greater than 75p, as we believe it should be. They are not rich pensioners. They are not company directors who have just retired. They are poor pensioners who have a small nest egg. We are speaking of life savings of £8,000. That is not a sum with which any of us would be satisfied to reach our old age, yet that is the point at which we penalise pensioners.
  What should be done? There is no logical reason for an arbitrary upper capital limit of £8,000. Instead, a realistic income should be imputed from people's capital. If they have huge amounts of capital, a huge amount of income would be imputed, and they would not quality on income grounds. The arbitrary upper limit of £8,000 is not needed. In any case, people with significant amounts of capital have weekly incomes from other sources that put them well beyond the range.

  43
  What is needed is a sensible lower limit, so that pensioners with rather pitiful amounts of life savings are not troubled by the complexities of declaring how much they have in the building society—which is probably the money put by for their funeral, as in a constituency case that I had recently. There should be a sensible lower limit for administrative convenience and a sensible imputation of realistic amounts of income from savings. That is not an unreasonable expectation.
  Apart from the capital limits, on which there has been dither and delay, what about the SERPS entitlement of widows? That is another example of delay and dither. The parliamentary ombudsman is currently investigating whether maladministration occurred, in that people were not told of the cuts to widows' SERPS introduced by the previous Government, of which the present Government also failed to notify them.
  I contacted the ombudsman's office last week to ask where the report was. A report was promised in advance of the cut in widows pension entitlements originally planned for April. The ombudsman is waiting for a Government decision, which would make the report more complete. It is months since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 was amended, against the Government's will initially, to require them to do something about widows' SERPS.
  We have heard nothing. We read in the press that there are rows between the DSS and the Treasury about how much that will cost. The Treasury proposal of compensation for those who can prove that they made a telephone call in 1987 is absurd. I hope that the Minister is fighting with all his vigour on that issue.
  When will we hear? Pensioners in my constituency who feel that they were misled and mis-sold want to know what is happening. They have retired, some of them are in failing health, and they want security and certainty, but all we get is dither and delay. I hope that the Minister will tell us when an announcement will be made. The Government did not take the opportunity to do so during questions this afternoon. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do so later.
  At the very least, people who have already retired, or those who are so close to retirement age that they cannot amend their plans, should be fully protected. It would be wrong to tell someone who had already retired, and made the wrong decision through dodgy advice, that the cuts would be delayed for five years, so that if that person expired in the next five years, it would be all right, but if not, it would be tough. Protection for those who have retired, or are about to retire, must be the minimum that is required.
  The third example of dither and delay—
  Mr. Rooker: I am counting because the hon. Gentleman said four, and I was not sure how far we had got.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point about SERPS. The legislative framework for the 50 per cent. cut from April is in place. It has been included in all the planning for public expenditure and is in the Government Actuary's report because we have not yet made the final decisions. Any changes will therefore change the national insurance
  44
  fund figures dramatically. The hon. Gentleman has already spent that money earlier today when we considered pensions; he is now spending it for a second time. I am counting the number of times he spends the national insurance fund surplus.
  Mr. Webb: The Minister points out that surpluses cannot be spent more than once. Many people make that mistake, and I would not dream of making it. However, recurring surpluses can be spent each year. This year, there was a surplus of £1.5 billion; next year, there will be a surplus of nearly £3 billion. I shall return to the subject later, but the measures that we propose for the basic state pension would initially cost perhaps £500 million a year. That leaves a significant annual surplus, in excess of £1 billion, for which widows' SERPS should be top priority. As the Minister knows, the savings from widows' SERPS build slowly, and it takes some years before they accumulate into a large sum. Husbands and wives are worried now about what is happening.
  The third example of delay and dither is winter fuel payments for men aged between 60 and 64. I have some good news for the Minister. My research shows that, next year, he will be entitled to a payment from the social fund. He was born in June 1941 and, by winter 2001, he will be entitled to a social fund payment. Such is the Government's mastery of pensions strategy that the Minister is entitled to a social fund payment next year as a result of their policies. Yet the Government lecture us on targeting. Their fundamental inconsistency is obvious.
  The Government pay an untargeted £100 across the board; we advocate age-related additions to the basic pension that are much better targeted, yet the Government claim that our policies are not sufficiently well targeted. They cannot have it both ways. Men aged 60 to 64 will receive a winter fuel payment because the Government lost a court case before Christmas. The best part of a couple of months has elapsed, and men aged 60 to 64 are asking me how to get the money. I have to tell them that they must wait for the Government to launch an advertising campaign. I get a hollow laugh when I say that. The money will constitute summer fuel payments at this rate. I hope that the Minister will tell us when he winds up that there will be an announcement soon on how my constituents will receive the money that the Government promised.
  The hon. Member for Bedford made a fair point about the winter fuel payments and the whole package. When the Government had money to spend, they chose to do it through the winter fuel payment, not the basic state pension. The hon. Gentleman said that the basic state pension was withering and dying. I am not sure whether he used those words, but they sum up the spirit of his remarks.
  The winter fuel money has no statutory protection. By law, the pension, as a national insurance payment, must be statutorily uprated every year, at least in line with prices. However, that does not apply to the winter fuel payment. It has increased substantially to £100 but, next year and the subsequent year, it will continue to be the nice round number of £100. Once it has been established, and people get used to it, it will start to be eroded. There is no statutory protection for it. We have not voted for a winter fuel payments Act; the provision has no statutory protection through primary legislation. It is a social fund payment. Governments can introduce and drop such payments at the

  45
  drop of a hat. We have received assurances that the payments will be maintained for an indeterminate period. However, that is not the same as putting them on the same footing as the basic state pension.
  We have considered three examples of dither: capital limits, widows' SERPS and winter fuel. The last one involves the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign. We have been promised action for pensioners, but what did we get on take-up of income support? The Government needed to be seen to be doing something in their first two years while they were sticking to the Tory spending plans and I assume that a civil servant at the Department had the bright idea of carrying out research.
  I addressed the National Pensioners Convention a while ago and when I told 1,500 pensioners that the Government had commissioned research into why people do not take up income support they could not believe it. Do hon. Members know what that research found? That people find income support stigmatising and the forms off-putting and that entitlement is triggered by turning 75 or 80. We could have worked that out by reading the benefit rules. It took two years to reach those findings; we were promised a take-up campaign. It was due to start last April, unless I am very much mistaken, but the delay and dither of the Government's pension policy meant that nothing happened. We have had hints of an announcement today. Perhaps one will be made in the wind-up speech, but who knows? The Minister has so much else on his plate and so much else to dither about.
  Mr. Coaker: Everyone agrees that take-up is a serious matter, but does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that it is a bit more complicated than that? He should consider attendance allowance, which is non-means-tested. There is a take-up problem with that benefit as well.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that take-up of that benefit is a serious issue and there is no doubt that it is good that the Department has started to estimate and consider non-take-up, but the research—if I recall correctly—was almost exclusively into non-take-up of income support by pensioners. We did not need that research. As I used to make my living from social research, perhaps I should have said that it should have been undertaken alongside action.
  Mr. Chris Pond: The hon. Gentleman may be doing research again.
  Mr. Webb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
  To give a concrete example of action, half the pensioners who do not take up income support even though they are entitled to it are housing benefit or council tax benefit claimants. In other words, we know where they live. Why should it take the Government three years to launch an advertising campaign or a strategy when we have their names and addresses?
  Mr. Coaker: This is an interesting debate. Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to why pensioners do not seem to have a problem claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit, which are means-tested, but seem to have a problem claiming income support?
  Mr. Webb: Indeed. One of the main reasons is that most are council tenants. They have contact with officials
  46
  from the public authorities, who have an incentive to get them their entitlement as then the councils will have their rent paid. Local government has such an incentive, but central Government do not as they save hundreds of millions of pounds by not getting those people their money. I do not believe that that is deliberate and genuinely do not believe that the Government keep quiet, but they could do much more. They dither.
  What will happen eventually? I hope that there will be linkage between local authority data and income support and that pensioners who fill in housing benefit forms and are told that they are entitled to a full rent rebate will automatically receive letters telling them that they are entitled to income support. They would have provided the authorities with every bit of information needed to calculate their income support. So much more could have been done years ago, but the Government amble along.
  The classic case is the Secretary of State's ritual nonsense about the state second pension and the mythical person who receives £14 a year under SERPS and will receive £50 a year when the state second pension is introduced. When? In 2047. That is the pace of Government pension reform. I am not asking for the earth, just a bit of speed.
  Mr. Willetts: Like me, the hon. Gentleman follows Ministers' written answers on this subject very carefully. Does he agree that we need citizens charter standards to interpret the various ministerial statements? Widows' SERPS was to have been dealt with "shortly" back in October 1999 and there was to be an announcement on the winter fuel payments mechanisms "early next year" in December 1999. It would be nice to know what "early next year" and "shortly" mean in the Department of Social Security.
  Mr. Webb: I thank the hon. Gentleman.[Interruption] That is an interesting sedentary comment from the Minister: those words mean 7 February. That is intriguing.
  Mr. Rooker: I said that it is only 7 February.
  Mr. Webb: I apologise. In a moment of revelation, I thought that we were to have an announcement, but no.
  While we are on the theme of delay and dither, let me say that housing benefit reform is a classic example. I have lost track of when it was originally supposed to take place, but we now read in The Daily Telegraph that it will take place in July. Even then, it will not be a wholesale reform; it may take three Budgets to introduce it. For goodness sake, what do we pay officials in the Department to do? Surely the Government could tackle some of the issues rather than deferring them for another Parliament, which appears to be their strategy.
  Mr. Rooker: I did not want to say this publicly, but it is the second time the hon. Gentleman has had a go at the officials in my Department. The last time he did so during a debate he called them a bunch of bureaucratic anoraks. These are the people whom I personally asked, at the hon. Gentleman's request, to do a bit of extra work by answering some of his unofficial questions—questions that he could not get on to the Order Paper. I shall think twice about co-operating in that way in future.
  Mr. Webb: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not afford me any privilege that he would not afford

  47
  another Member; but I withdraw the attack on the officials, and restore the attack on the politicians who are responsible for the policy. The question is, "Why has this taken so long?" We have not had a serious answer to that question.
  At root, this is a debate about next April's benefits, of which the basic state pension is far the largest component. What should be done, given that the Government have an excess of billions of pounds in the national insurance fund? We think that the Government should do two things, as we made clear when the matter was debated a few weeks ago. First, all pensioners should receive an increase that reflects their true cost of living. That is a serious, constructive and relatively inexpensive suggestion, which we have made before but which the Minister has ignored. I hope that he will respond today.
  Mr. McWalter: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should uprate in line with the pensioner index rather than the standard index? It seems that he is. If the pensioner index was lower than the standard index, would he give pensioners less than 75p?
  Mr. Webb: That is a perfectly fair point. Each year, the Government would have to decide whether to use the pensioner price index or the all-items retail prices index. When I am Secretary of State for Social Security, I will opt for the higher figure.
  As I have said, the increase should reflect pensioners' true cost of living. We all know of pensioner costs that are not fully reflected in the retail prices index: local authority costs such as council tax and rent, for instance. The classic example, however, is the mortgage rate, which was falling in the year to September. Such a fall hits pensioners twice. First, it depresses the retail prices index without helping with pensioners' living costs, as most have no significant mortgage, if any mortgage at all. Secondly, it depresses pensioner incomes, which, to a greater or lesser extent, depend on interest rates. If interest rates fall, pensioners' savings incomes fall. Then the Government kick them in the teeth by saying, "As inflation has been low, we shall not give you a pension increase of any note."
  It is all very well to say that next year it will be different—that, as mortgage rates will rise next year, pensioners may receive a bit more. Pensioners must live on the 75p increase for a year; if the council tax eats all that up, what are they expected to live on? They will just have to wait: that is the Government's message to pensioners.
  As for the second thing that should happen, it is not a restoration of the earnings link. I want to make it clear that we are not saying that. We propose across-the-board increases in line with the true cost of living for all pensioners, and a "bigger than earnings link" increase for those over 75. We suggest that the across-the-board increase for older pensioners should be £3 for the over-75s and £5 for the over-80s, and that we should build on that increase.
  The Minister mentioned the help that I had received from his officials in the past. I have been uncharitable, and I withdraw what I said. Over the summer, along with the Secretary of State's assistant, those officials helped me
  48
  to estimate the effects of some of our policies. We were grateful for the opportunity to use the Government's simulation model to cost the policy of increasing the age addition to a serious amount that would grow over time, rather than retaining the pathetic 25p which is frozen in the orders. For the same cost as the state second pension that the Government propose to introduce, we could do vastly more for poorer pensioners, and less for the best off. I am not suggesting any more spending overall. This is not "tax and spend", but—I hate to use the "r" word—redistribution. It is about helping poorer pensioners.
  The problem with all the Government's plans is that they will take years to be implemented and will benefit only the newly retired—who, on average, are the best-off pensioners. Therefore, it will be even more decades before the money reaches the folk who are the poorest. By that time, probably three different parties will have entered and left government and either ripped up or changed the policy, so that we shall never achieve the objective of the policy. We need action that will have an impact now, and that action should be an across-the-board age addition.
  On average, older pensioners are the poorest—but we would not have to means test them to discover whether they are. For reasons that we know, older pensioners are more likely to be women. Older pensioners are also more likely to have retired longer ago, so that their savings will be more depleted and inflation will have eroded more of the real value of any assets. Additionally, lump-sum purchase on a house will have come out of their savings. Widows' entitlement, which many older pensioners receive, is also very poor. The list is endless. However, for those specific reasons, poverty is concentrated among older pensioners.
  Non-take-up of income support is another phenomenon that is concentrated among older pensioners. Two thirds of pensioners who do not claim income support are over 75. By paying across-the-board increases to older pensioners, we shall be getting money to the real poorest pensioners.
  The poorest pensioners are not the ones who claim income support, but the ones who could but do not. Although Liberal Democrat Members support putting money into income support—we do not have a problem with that as a way of helping those who receive it—we believe that that is not sufficient. Action on income support would target some of the poor, but not all of them.
  Our age addition strategy is costed. The cost of our proposals is £500 million, which is only a third of this year's current surplus in the national insurance fund and is barely a fifth of next year's surplus in the fund. Our proposals are not a matter of reckless tax and spend, but costed and measured, to reach the poorest pensioners.
  We need an end to dither and delay. We need action now for pensioners, and the 75p increase does not deliver that action.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: I am puzzled, having heard the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), about where the Liberal Democrats stand on social security issues. We have heard not only that they will vote against all the upratings, but that they will subsequently and generously co-operate with business managers to reintroduce all the bits of the motions of which they approve. It is a bit like saying that they will

  49
  run over the school crossing patrol, but will be the first to pick up and dust off the lollipop lady and call for an ambulance. That does not seem to be a terribly responsible approach to really rather serious issues. It also seems to be an example—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said—of playing politics with the living standards of people who are often in very serious straits.
  Before this debate, at Social Security Question Time, we had a discussion on progress towards meeting the Government's target of halving child poverty within 10 years and eliminating it within 20 years. We should recognise the significance of the establishment of that target—no previous Government have even acknowledged the existence of poverty in such a manner. Indeed, Secretaries of State in the previous Government told us that poverty did not exist at all. They turned a blind eye not only to those individuals' plight, but to their very existence. The previous Government refused to accept responsibility for tackling the problem.
  As the House well knows, during the Thatcher and Major years, a consequence of turning a blind eye to poverty was that the number of people living in poverty increased from 5 million to 14 million. One quarter of the population were living in poverty. Opposition spokesmen would undoubtedly deny those figures. Indeed—I am saying this slowly, just in case the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wishes to deny it—when the Government were elected, 14 million of our citizens were living in poverty and 4 million of those citizens were children.
  The Government have set themselves the challenge of dealing with that problem. I assume that Conservative Members' approach to the issue of poverty has changed and that they accept the figures that I have given. However, I shall give way willingly if the hon. Member for Havant wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Willetts: I am sorry, but by increasingly caricaturing the Conservatives' view, the hon. Gentleman has driven me to intervene. The figures that he cites are from the households below average income statistics, which, as he knows, are a relative measure of poverty and were rightly described by a Minister in the Government whom he supports as one picture of many that can be taken of poverty—one snapshot at one moment in time. If people care about poverty, they will want to look at a variety of indicators. That particular one is a dangerous basis for policy. I do not believe that even his Ministers want to use such a basis.
  Mr. Pond: That was the intervention that I was expecting and, indeed, hoping for—the hon. Gentleman ducks behind the suggestion that the measures are wrong and that we need to take a range of different measures before we can address the issues. The fact is that, whatever the measure chosen, the party that he represented refused to accept that poverty existed. If we take a consistent measure, whichever it is, from the huge range from which we could choose, it will be clear that poverty increased dramatically.
  We know that it is not only the poor who suffered through that process. Poverty is not only socially divisive but economically wasteful: it destroys people's ability to use their energies and talents for the common good.
  50
  That is why the Government's target of halving child poverty in 10 years and eliminating it in 20 is significant not only as a social policy objective but as an economic policy objective.
  That is why I welcome the proposed upratings, especially the focus on help to families with children and to the poorest pensioners. The ability of the Secretary of State and his team to pursue that target with any great success simply through benefit upratings has to be limited, however. The upratings can make a real contribution towards that target but will not in themselves enable us to reach the target.
  If spending extra on social security were a means of eliminating or reducing poverty, the Conservative party when in government would have had rather more success than it did, although that was not one of its objectives. We know that spending on social security increased dramatically under previous Governments, but that the number of people in poverty trebled under the Thatcher and Major Administrations. That is why we need to consider the discussions on benefit upratings in the context of the other Government policies to tackle poverty: most important, the creation of jobs—800,000 new jobs have been created since the Government took office—the impact of the new deal, especially on lone parents, people with disabilities, the younger and the long-term unemployed; and the national minimum wage.
  We heard last week that the Conservative party now supports the national minimum wage. For those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the National Minimum Wage Bill—which made parliamentary history, I understand, sitting for the longest period ever—and who listened to the Conservative party filibuster and try to kill the national minimum wage, hearing the shadow Chancellor tell us that it was all right now and that the Conservative party would keep it was pleasing in one sense—especially for the 2 million who had the threat hanging over them that, if there were a change of government, they would lose the wage—but irritating in another.
  We are hoping for an announcement—perhaps we will get it during the debate—that a similar U-turn has taken place on the working families tax credit and the child tax credit because the many people who depend on that—1,700 of them in my constituency—the families who are, on average, £24 a week better off, are suffering uncertainty about whether, if there were ever to be a change of government, that help would be removed, too. We need to view the debate in the context of the wider tax and national insurance contribution changes and the provision of affordable child care.
  One important element of the debate concerns capital limits. The hon. Member for Northavon argued that what may be most important about the limits is not the limits themselves, but the assumed income from the capital. I was pleased to receive a fairly positive response from my right hon. Friend the Minister—who did not give much away—and I know that the Government are looking at that matter seriously, as the assumed income is the most dangerous element.
  I am optimistic that the Government's target of achieving the reduction in child poverty, and in poverty generally, can be reached. It is a major challenge, as everyone knows, but we can meet it. The Government have made significant progress in that direction and the

  51
  uprating statement will help us further, as will the other policies to which I have referred. It is a moral, social and economic imperative that we should achieve that objective. Only one thing can stand in the way of our achievement of the objective of halving child poverty in 10 years and eliminating it in 20 years—a change of Government.
  5.16 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: One thing that is emerging this evening is that the Secretary of State clearly is not living up to his name—he is not the darling of the pensioners. I wish to express my personal and deep regret at the derisory increase of 75p per week for pensioners, for the reasons given by many hon. Members today.
  I am delighted that at least one successful amendment was passed during the debates on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—to abolish the dreaded 75-year rule on annuities for people who take out a stakeholder pension. I invite the Government this evening to extend that exemption to all pensioners: it would give tremendous satisfaction to many of my constituents if the Government would rule out the 75-year age limit once and for all.
  Mr. Rooker: I will take advice if what I am about to say is wrong, but it is my understanding that what the hon. Lady has said is quite wrong. The amendment was passed in the Lords, but was reversed in this House.
  Miss McIntosh: Am I right in understanding that the Government remain unsympathetic to abolishing the rule that all pensioners must take out annuities at 75, regardless of whether they are taking out a stakeholder pension or whether they are existing pensioners?
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier. The Inland Revenue is leading a review of the issue, to which the Department has input. However, the hon. Lady stated as a matter of fact that the Bill contained an amendment which the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 does not contain.
  Miss McIntosh: I stand corrected, but at least we managed to get the proposal into the Bill. We will have to try harder next time round.
  The Government must accept that, as long as the rule remains in place, the income of 75-year-olds will be reduced from the level for which they had planned. Surely that runs counter to what the Government have said today. The Secretary of State has said that the Government wish to encourage people to save. That alone would provide conclusive evidence that the 75-year rule on annuities should be abolished, as it is hampering people who are planning for their retirement.
  On the vexed question of winter fuel payments, the Minister of State—in answer to me on 10 January—said categorically that
  "everyone who is ordinarily resident in Great Britain and aged over 60 is eligible"—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 12.]
  and that that applied whether they worked or not. Some of my constituents find it embarrassing to apply, because officials discourage them from applying until the notice has been sent out, and there is unnecessary bureaucracy.
  52
  The Department's press release of 17 December says that help through winter fuel payments will be extended to everyone aged 60 or over, regardless of whether they are claiming a pension, but it appears on closer examination that not everyone of that age is so entitled. For example, not everyone in a residential care or nursing home is covered.
  Mr. Rooker: Or in prison.
  Miss McIntosh: I am coming to that.
  Those in homes are partly covered—280,000 claim some help through income support—but they would not be deemed eligible. The remainder, perhaps another 220,000, should get the payment at a reduced rate on the basis that they are sharing accommodation with other over-60-year-olds.
  Not everyone who has been in hospital for more than 12 months is included, regardless of whether they have maintained their own accommodation to which they would expect to return home, and for which they will presumably have to pay for heating in the cold months even if they are not living there at the time. Those people are excluded from winter fuel payments.
  Pensioners living abroad are certainly not included, as they are deemed not to be ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, which is perhaps fair. The estimated 1,000 people over 60 in prison are most definitely not included; they are not entitled to any social security benefits.
  The payments do not apply to everyone over 60. The catch is that people had to be over 60 on a certain date to qualify. The Benefits Agency is considering precisely what that date should be, but it will probably be about 20 September 1999. Does everyone get £100? No. The payment is supposed to be for a household containing a pensioner, so a one-pensioner household gets £100 and if there are two pensioners they are deemed to receive £50 each, but if there are more than two pensioners in a household, they all get £50. Married men who become eligible will get £50, but some couples could earn £150: if the wife was aged 60 or more and claiming a pension on 20 September last year but the husband was under 65, she will have got her £100.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Lady's concern for pensioners living at home with their parents and for expats on the Costa Brava is extremely touching, but do not she and her party oppose the very fact of the £100 bonus in any event?
  Miss McIntosh: We would like to be in keeping with the law of the land and, where that law pertains to the European Union, we would probably have introduced the legislation sooner and caused much less concern to the constituents who are caught by it.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) mentioned comments made by our newly appointed shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who also said last week that we face a serious brain drain. One category being directly affected by the rules at this time of year includes those people who are caught by another press release: IR35. My advice to constituents would be to subscribe to every single press release from every single Department to find out exactly how they will be covered by tax or social security provisions.

  53
  IR35 covers those who are by definition self-employed and do not have one permanent employer, but who—by the admission of the Paymaster General—will have slammed on to them for the first time a massive national insurance contribution. It would be deeply regrettable if that category of people were to up sticks and leave the United Kingdom because of IR35. Perhaps the Government will see fit to reverse their provisions this evening or in next month's Budget.
  Valerie Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Miss McIntosh: I am moving on now. The Secretary of State clearly stated this evening that it was the Government's wish to reduce child poverty, but only 30,000 of those lone parents who responded successfully to the Government's new deal for lone parents—only 5.9 per cent. of single parents invited to join the scheme—actually got jobs in the first full year, which ran from October 1998 to October 1999. Some 104,000 attended interviews, half of whom were mothers whose children were still too young but who had volunteered to join the scheme. That means that some 470,000 single parents on benefits with children over five are still eligible to join. I have heard no suggestions from the Government this evening that would reduce that figure, and the scheme has been singularly unsuccessful in achieving its aims.
  Mr. Pond: The latest figures suggest that 112,000 went for interview from October 1998, and that 89 per cent. decided to take up one of the options available and to participate in the new deal for lone parents. Does that not suggest that lone parents have a more generous approach to the new deal than does the hon. Lady?
  Miss McIntosh: My understanding is that I have given the most recent figures. As I mentioned earlier, more than 50,000 of those single parents whose children are still too young are desperate to get on the scheme, but they do not actually qualify.
  The Government have failed to address the problem of child poverty. The new deal has proved a failure at removing a category of people from welfare dependency and that is to be regretted. The orders laid before us this evening are unsatisfactory and do not go far enough.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said in her opening remarks that she opposed the increase of 75p in the basic state pension, because she disagrees with her Front-Bench colleagues on that point. They reaffirmed only a few minutes ago that that was not the policy of the Conservative party. I hope that the hon. Lady will point out that difference in any literature she sends to the pensioners in her constituency.
  As always, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made an interesting speech, but I was disappointed that he homed in on pensions and ignored some of the other uprating measures in the orders. The debate tonight has shown that the debate about social security is becoming more mature. The social security orders show the determination of the Government to move away from a
  54
  welfare state that encourages dependency to one that is more proactive and starts to tackle some of the problems of social exclusion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) made the important point that it is argued that the way to tackle poverty is to put £5 on this benefit or £8 on that benefit, which may give rise to significant short-term popularity. We cannot take people out of poverty simply by paying them more in benefits. In many respects, the payment of benefits is seen to be everything in the culture of the welfare state, and other policies have not been considered in the round. I realise that the amounts of benefit are important, but it is misguided to argue that they are the way to tackle poverty. We need a greater debate about welfare reform in general, and it is in that context that the uprating orders should be considered.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful and intelligent comment. For people of working age, what he says is obviously true. But for 80-year-old pensioners, welfare-to-work is irrelevant, and so are most things apart from cash income. The basic state income is not a handout but an entitlement. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a good mechanism for helping such people?
  Mr. Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair comment. My point is that the Government's policy of targeting the poorest pensioners for help is the right way forward, and addresses the issue of raising the income of people who need it. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, there are age-related additions to the minimum income guarantee. It is not a flat rate that is paid to people at the age of 65 and then remains the same—it rises. In my view, that answers the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to provide more income for today's pensioners.
  My general point is that the debate is about not just pensions but a whole range of other issues. We should not consider the social security uprating orders in isolation; the Government are introducing a range of reforms and measures to attack the issue. I refer to the new deal, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and a whole range of other measures to tackle social exclusion, reduce dependency and drive home the attack on poverty that is so important.
  This is a difficult debate to engage in, and no doubt many hon. Members who meet pensioners in their constituencies, as I do in mine, will agree. I believe that the Government's policy to target resources on the poorest pensioners is absolutely right. The problem with this debate is that it regards pensioners as a homogenous group of people. That is the myth that drives social policy in this area, and it is not true. Pensioners are not a homogenous group; they are not even, as was the case a few years ago, the poorest group in society. Some pensioners are rich and prosperous, there is a middle group and there are poor pensioners. We must ensure that we do something to address the needs of different groups of pensioners. The Government are attempting to do that, and this debate is starting to do it.
  For the more prosperous pensioners, the Government's attempts to help by providing tax cuts on their income and on much of their savings will produce a real increase in income. I remind the House that people who have large occupational pensions, or who have occupational pensions at all, have them at cost to the state. While they have been

  55
  accruing their occupational rights, they have paid lower rates of national insurance than other people, and so have their employers. That is quite right, because it has been part of an attempt to encourage people to have occupational pensions. We have made concessions for richer pensioners.
  The minimum income guarantee is about trying to help those who are particularly poor, many of whom are pensioners. I am sick of seeing poverty among pensioners. I passionately believe that it is not necessarily right to give an across-the-board increase to all pensioners, because I want more money that would go to rich pensioners to go instead to the poor. That argument is not popular, and many of us have been attacked for defending that principle. However, the new Labour Government were elected to help the poorest, and we do not deny our roots by arguing that case. It is fully consistent with the values of the Labour party to say that we must give more income to those who struggle desperately to make ends meet.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the huge increases of, for single pensioners, £8, and, for couples, £12.60. If that represents for poorer pensioners a bigger increase than they would have received from an across-the-board rise, I am in favour of it. That is absolutely right. I do not want to be seen as a sycophant, but I should add that we cannot do everything at once. The changes before us are part of a package, and I am convinced that the Government's forthcoming policy announcements will address justifiable concerns affecting the middle group of pensioners over the coming year.
  The hon. Member for Northavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said that we need to examine capital allowances. I am confident that the Government will produce proposals to do something about allowances which have not been changed since 1998. In addition, I am sure that the Government will consider disregards relating to small occupational pensions and their effects on the minimum income guarantee.
  It is surely right to target money on those in the most desperate poverty. I do not believe it wrong for a Labour Government to tell prosperous people who have benefited from occupational pensions and well-paid jobs that our priority is the poorest pensioner. We must get extra money to those who are trying desperately to make ends meet. If that means targeting help, that is what we must do.
  We should remind all pensioners of exactly what the Government have done. We have reduced value added tax on fuel; introduced winter fuel payments; restored free eye tests; and granted free television licences for those aged over 75. We must move away from the "Yes, but" culture that says, "Yes, you have done this, but what about that?" The Government are making real progress with pension reforms. They are trying to get more money to the poorest pensioners and to achieve a fairer deal for pensioners across the board.
  Over the year to come, we shall see real reductions in the prices that pensioners pay for gas, electricity and water, and they will make a real difference.
  The Government have a good story to tell on pensions; it may be a difficult one in some respects, but it is one of which we can be proud. There is nothing wrong with a
  56
  Labour Government saying that they stand up for the poorest people and that they are trying to target resources on them. That is true to the principles and values that the Labour party has held since it was formed.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Will my hon. Friend comment on the situation facing those pensioners whose income is not far above income support rates and who have a small occupational pension? I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, will have met such people; they are not the wealthy pensioners to whom he has referred. How should their concerns be addressed in the long term? Of course, they sometimes do not have a long time.
  Mr. Coaker: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, although I thought that I had addressed the fact that there is a middle group of pensioners for whom we need to consider such issues as capital allowances. We need to consider those matters because small occupational pensions take people just above income support, thus excluding them from entitlement to benefit. However, if we raise the point at which an occupational pension allows people to claim an income support top-up, another group of people will fall into that category. Nevertheless, the point is too low at present and the Government should consider the matter.
  I am confident that the Government will consider capital allowances and occupational pensions as part of their reform package. The fundamental thrust of my remarks is that, if the choice is whether or not a Labour Government should direct resources to the poorest pensioners—even if that means difficult decisions—it is right to give those resources. I do not support a flat-rate increase for every pensioner irrespective of wealth, property or income; I support ensuring that those at the bottom, who are desperately poor, have resources poured towards them so that we make a real difference to the poverty in which they have lived for years. As a Labour Government, remaining true to Labour principles, we can make a real difference to them.
  Other points relate to the radical nature of social security reform in its wider context. The Government Actuary's report is not a document that I usually read on Sunday nights, although I did so yesterday evening, which says a lot about me. The report is interesting; it describes many of the Government's reforms. For example:
  "Entitlement to Maternity Allowance has been extended to include employed pregnant women who earn between the maternity threshold … and the lower earnings limit."
  They were previously excluded from claiming the allowance.
  The document notes that maternity benefit for self-employed women will be increased by 15 per cent.
  "to bring their benefit in line with employed women."
  Such changes are being made throughout the social security system; they seem small, but they affect the quality of life for many people. They show what the Government have been doing.
  Under the uprating order, child benefit will be uprated from £14.40 to £15 for the first child, with an uprating of £10 for second and subsequent children. Is it not a sign of a radical Government, who are determined to do something for children, that the main benefit to support families, which is paid to mothers, has increased by 36 per cent. since we took power? That is a huge increase for families with children.

  57
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, if we add that increase to all the other changes and reforms that the Government are making, they show that the Government are ensuring that child poverty is attacked and that they are doing their utmost to eradicate it.
  It must be desperately disheartening for us all when we see children living in poverty and lacking the opportunities that we would want for all children. The child benefit reforms and the child care tax reforms will be made in April 2001. The sure start schemes and a variety of other things make an important statement about the way that we intend to attack child poverty and rid our society of that stigma.
  The hon. Member for Vale of York said that the new deal—another part of our welfare reform programme—was a failure. I do not think that it is a failure at all. I am proud to say that it is one of the most fundamental and radical reforms that any Government have made: to declare that, instead of abandoning people on the dole and forgetting all about them, we shall attack the problems that they face and engage with some of the people who have the most difficult problems, to bring them back into the work force.
  If we want people to be brought out of poverty, we must get people back into work, and tucked away in the document by the Government Actuary's Department are reforms to the national insurance scheme and the lower earnings limit to try to make work pay. If those reforms are placed alongside some of the other measures—such as the new 10p starting rate of income tax—they show that the Government are making real efforts to align the national insurance rates and national insurance thresholds with the rates at which people start to pay income tax. That is real radical reform—real change—to ensure that work pays and that the people who, for so long, have been socially excluded are brought back into the workplace.
  I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—as did the hon. Member for Vale of York and others—that the issue of SERPS remains. I hope that the Government will make an announcement on it in the near future, although I noted the contents of paragraph 7 on page 4 of the report by the Government Actuary's Department, which I was reading on Sunday night.
  I shall finish with a couple of other points. The first concerns the Conservative party position, which is incredible; I am sure that local Conservatives in my constituency and elsewhere are not aware that the official Conservative position on the basic state pension is exactly the same as ours. Indeed, the hon. Member for Vale of York is not even aware of the official position of the Conservative Front-Bench team. I am pleased that the Conservative position on the uprating of the basic state pension is exactly the same as the Labour Government's position. I hope that the fact is widely reported.
  Secondly, I refer to page 8 of the report by the Government Actuary's Department, to show how complex these issues are. It is all very well for people to say, "We will attack social security spending and reduce it." I appreciate that the document deals with national insurance benefit payments, but the vast majority of national insurance benefit payments and the vast majority of social security payments are to do with pensions; and anyone who talks about reducing social security spending is, by implication, attacking social security spending on pensioners and on pensions. It makes a good soundbite,
  58
  but the reality is that the vast majority of social security spending is spent on pensioners, and the bar graph on page 8 of the report shows that, although it sounds good as a piece of rhetoric, it is a ridiculous thing to say, given the economics of benefit payments and welfare reform.
  I conclude by repeating that today's debate is crucial, because there is a growing feeling—almost a consensus—that the welfare state as it exists is failing. It is failing because, if it is not reformed, the people who are poor today will be poor in another 10 years, their children will be poor and their grandchildren will be poor. If it is unpopular to say some of the things that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are saying—if it is unpopular to say some of the things that are needed to bring about reform—that unpopularity is a price worth paying to know that, in 10 or 20 years' time, some of those people who would have been poor will not be poor, as a result of the difficult decisions that we are taking today.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker); I know him well. He has made a good speech and his commitment on this subject is not in question. He spoke passionately about the need for the Government—in fact, all of us—to try to do better for people beyond retirement age who are on a low income; I support him in that. However, he faces a dilemma when he meets pension groups, and I understand and sympathise with him. They do not necessarily disagree with the need to target resources but pensioners tell me that they have paid national insurances contributions all their lives and that they were given an undertaking that they would be looked after. I do not wish to make a party political point—whom they blame is a matter for them—but they believe that the state undertaking has been broken. That is the nub of their argument.
  It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to be passionate about attacking the problems faced by those on low incomes, but the only discernable direction in which the Government are going is towards more means-testing of benefits. Means-tested benefits certainly include an aspect of targeting, but the hon. Gentleman knows enough about the subject to understand that all sorts of disadvantages—some covert and some blindingly obvious—are attached to a policy that is rooted in means-testing. In the long term, they are a massive disincentive to saving. If the hon. Gentleman is anything like me, he will have been made aware of that problem in the meetings that he has had with pensioners. Such benefits also have a negative effect on work incentives, they create poverty traps and, worst of all, take-up and eligibility are massive problems.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to be passionate about helping those who need help most. However, if the Government use the one-club strategy of means-tested benefits, they will come across real difficulties that, sooner or later, will have to be addressed. Nevertheless, I concede that he made a powerful contribution to the debate.
  I am very nervous about the fact that we do not spend enough time considering the national insurance contributory system. I know that that makes me sound a bit like old Labour, and I am sorry about that. The Social

  59
  Security Committee is considering the contributory system, and I know that it is not easy to modernise it. I do not underestimate the importance of the £100 winter payment for pensioners, because it is an important universal payment. However, the Government appear to be heading to more and more means-tested benefits and, by default, the House seems to be content to follow them. We must make sure that we do not do that without thinking about the issues carefully.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased that the Social Security Committee is examining the role of national insurance, but, while it is doing that, could it not examine the employment patterns that are emerging in this country? Very few people remain with a single employer for long and many women change employers frequently and often do not build up an occupational pension, a stakeholder pension or even sufficient national insurance contributions. The pensioners who retire today are, in some ways, the best-off that there have ever been, whereas some people in their 30s and 40s will, in 20 years time, be among the worst-off that there have ever been.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is a fair point. Indeed, earlier, the Secretary of State said that changing work patterns, part-time work and stints of employment sometimes make it more difficult to build up a contributions record. It is not as easy now as it used to be. However, the Select Committee will consider all these issues and will try to come up with ideas on how to modernise the contributory system.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I had to nip out for a couple of moments to make a telephone call. When I came back, I heard him make a point about the direction of Government policy, which he believes is almost wholly in the direction of means-testing. However, I ask him to consider other universal benefits as well as the £100 winter payment. For example, there has been the biggest-ever increase in child benefit, which is one of the most important universal benefits, and the state second pension will contract people in as though they were earning £9,000 a year. In many other areas, people are being contracted in to the national insurance system. Surely that suggests that the jury is out on whether the Government are moving in the direction of means-testing or universality.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The jury is out; I shall settle for that. The Select Committee will soon journey to Australia to study these issues. The Australian system has gone almost exclusively in the direction of means-testing, and I hope that our examination of the system there will inform our report. I hope that hon. Members will consider it seriously when it is published. This debate should be considered in the longer-term context of what is happening to the national insurance system.
  My other slight worry—again, the Select Committee has done some work on this—is about the wholesale introduction of tax credits. In many ways, there are positive aspects to them, but witnesses to the Select Committee inquiry expounded on the problems that they entail. They told us about problems such as whether money should be paid into the wallet or the purse and
  60
  they referred to the increased potential for fraud and collusion and to the difficulties of administration. The full extent of the difficulties will become apparent only from this April, when employers start paying the working families tax credit, and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was right to raise some questions about that. I share his doubts.
  The working families tax credit is only the start. We already know that there will be an earnings credit, an integrated child credit and I believe that we shall ultimately have some form of housing benefit tax credit. A whole panoply of reform and change is taking place, and I do not suggest that it is all bad. However, we must be careful that we understand where it will all lead.
  The general economic context is important to the debate. I recognise that much interdepartmental working has taking place since the election, and that is positive. The Government's emphasis on trying to encourage work is absolutely right, although I have quibbles about some details. The policy is working well, but that may have something to do with the economic cycle. If there is a downturn, it will be interesting to see whether—I hope it will—the policy continues to work and to be successful. However, the Government are right to focus heavily on trying to encourage people into work and to make work pay. We are all aware of what they have done in that regard.
  However, I want to add one important qualification. The adage is "Security for those who can't", and the Government have a long way to go before they persuade me that they are providing that security. I do not want to make too much of this point, but the emphasis that the Government have rightly put on getting people into work risks stigmatising those who can never work. There are many reasons why people cannot ever work, and they include chronic sickness and their geographical location. The labour market in Garscadden in downtown Glasgow is very different from that in Northampton or Reading. Welfare to work may operate well and supply-side measures may train people to become better qualified to compete in the labour market. However, if the labour market has collapsed, it is wrong to stigmatise those who cannot find work and suggest that they are not pulling their weight. We must be careful about that.
  If people who cannot take advantage of the world of work have to rely on the core level of income support benefits, the level of those benefits needs to be seriously considered. In that regard, my indefatigable noble Friend Earl Russell managed to obtain written answers to questions asked in the other place. They looked at income support as expressed as a percentage of average earnings for a variety of income groups. The figures will not be a surprise to the Minister or to the rest of the House, but they reinforce a point about the core level of benefits in relation to average earnings and about what people are expected to live on.
  A single person aged 18 to 24 is expected to live on 10.15 per cent. of average earnings. Another example is a single parent with one child under 11 who is expected to survive on 21.78 per cent. of average earnings. The highest figure is in the example of a couple with two children aged 13 and 16—expensive teenagers—who are expected to live on 37.76 per cent. of average earnings.
  It is perfectly reasonable to expect people who are in transition to go through a period when they live on a third of average earnings, even if they have expensive

  61
  teenagers. However, the figures for households with below-average earnings show that some families with children have been living at those benefit levels for seven years. Some 11 per cent. of families are in that position. Significant numbers of families are living for long periods at that level of income disadvantage compared with average earnings.
  What is income support for? If it is only to be a bridge to a better benefit, such as welfare to work, that is fine. One can survive on income support for six months or perhaps a year, but then the washing machine or another substantial item of household machinery goes wrong and has to be replaced. A downward spiral then begins, as the Acheson report and the earlier Black report demonstrated when they discussed the problem of levels of benefit leading to a bad diet and poor health and housing. I worry that the current core rates of income support for the long-term unemployed client group are inadequate, and we should carefully consider that matter.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend made an important point about the poverty of people who are on benefits for a long period. He will know that the old supplementary benefit system had a higher long-term rate. Does he accept that there is a problem in increasing people's benefits when they have stayed on benefits long enough to qualify for the higher rate? Does he have an answer to that paradox?
  Mr. Kirkwood: No. That is an enormous problem. If people get more money after they have been on benefits for five years, they may be tied more tightly into the benefits system. I am certainly not saying that any of this is easy.
  My hon. Friend made a sensible suggestion about introducing a special pensioner index. We should also consider more carefully the work done by the family budget unit. We should think about what a minimum income should be, because income support levels do not reflect the needs of a family. The family budget unit has used its own resources to do extremely valuable work and it has tried to work out what a modest but adequate income would be. I support that work, and I hope that the Government will study it.
  None of the official statistics properly reflect the level of indebtedness of many of the households that I come across. It is all very well to specify income levels on which people are expected to support themselves, but we must recognise that many people have store cards and credit cards and some regrettably are even in debt to loan sharks. Even with an average income, they would struggle to get through the next two or three years. They cope by working from week to week, on a cash basis, and by robbing Peter to pay Paul. To do that year in, year out is debilitating and causes immense stress. That is the principal reason for the high level of family break-up in this country, which is worse than that in other European nations. Not enough is being done to deal with that problem.
  I turn now to the promotion of entitlement to benefits. I wonder what it would cost to impose a duty on the Benefits Agency to maximise people's entitlement to benefit. I recognise that the administration is under a lot of pressure and that it has a big budget and an amazing task to do and that the staff do a very professional job in delivering benefits. However, claimants would be more
  62
  confident that they were dealing with people who were on their side if they knew that agency staff had a duty not merely to respond to questions about entitlement to a particular benefit, such as severe disablement allowance, but to point out potential entitlement to housing benefit or council tax benefit, if that were obvious to them.
  The Benefits Agency should have a statutory duty to use its best endeavours to ask questions of all claimants and to maximise their benefits. At the moment, that does not happen. I do not know what additional administrative costs would be involved, but if the agency were told to do that, it would have to do it. The House should seriously consider that proposal.
  I turn now to housing benefit reform. If one assumes that all the welfare-to-work reforms are right and are working as well as they can, housing benefit would then be the biggest outstanding hurdle in preventing most people from getting off benefit and into work. There is no easy solution, but the issue is urgent. Pressure groups and others who follow these matters are beginning to express dismay about the delay in the Government even suggesting options that we could consider.
  It is the Social Security Committee's intention to consider housing benefit. We would have much preferred to wait for the contents of the Green Paper, which would have given us something to work on, but we cannot. The publication date now seems indefinitely postponed, so we shall go ahead and do our best without the Green Paper.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased that the Select Committee will consider housing benefit. Will it look beyond the question of fraud and benefit tapers to the benefit's overall costs, including administrative costs, particularly in inner urban areas, where rents are sky high because of deregulation under the previous Government?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I confess that, coming from a relatively rural area, I was staggered to learn from some Labour members of the Select Committee about problems in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency and about rent levels. One could acquire a modest estate in Roxburghshire for some of the rents being paid for single room flats here in London.
  Mr. Corbyn: Give me the address.
  Mr. Kirkwood: If anyone is interested, I will provide contracts for estate agents after the debate.
  Housing benefit is a problem that needs to be addressed seriously, and I hope that the Select Committee report will make a positive contribution to that.
  Prompted by the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I remind the House in passing that the old supplementary benefit system used to contain an element to take into account water and sewerage charges. I do not know whether this is true for the rest of the country, but some of the increases in water charges in Scotland are swingeing, and there is no accommodation for that or for the costs of increased sewerage charges in the current income support system. We need to look into that.
  I am also coming to the conclusion that the council tax property bandings militate against the poor much more than they used to do. A recent report from the New Policy Institute starkly demonstrated that the incidence of council

  63
  tax benefit was prejudicing people on very low incomes in modest accommodation. We need to consider that problem.
  I shall not dwell on capital limits because my hon. Friend and others have referred to them. It is high time that the Government dealt with those limits, which penalise saving. They were last revised in 1988, so change is a long time coming. Earnings limits also cause me concern because they penalise work. I shall give the Minister two examples, which are always cropping up in my constituency surgery. The first is the therapeutic earnings limit for severe disablement allowance and incapacity benefit, which is now set at £58. That is too low if one believes that it is important to try to encourage people into work. That earnings limit could be increased modestly, but regularly. The same is true of the situation facing carers. The earnings limit for invalid care allowance is £50—below the lower earnings limit for the national insurance system. Surely increase to such earnings limits should be addressed in these orders.
  The parental leave proposal will have an important social impact. The orders do not directly address the issue, but the Select Committee reported on it. Before the inquiry, I was very sceptical about making such leave paid, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Government's proposal is likely to be useless and irrelevant without some form of payment. Payment would help enormously, bind family groups and assist in meeting some of the Government's other perfectly proper social targets. I hope that that will be considered urgently.
  Although I am intrinsically against rejecting orders such as these, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon. If I were Secretary of State—we are all playing Social Security Secretary in this debate—I could not in all conscience simply valorise these pension increases. I would double them because pensioners were led to expect a return for the national insurance contributions that they made. The Minister gave me a bit of criticism for being a little superficial about the £16 billion, but it is a lot of money. If we cannot increase pension upratings by more than 1.1 per cent. against the background of a massive £16.6 billion surplus, when will we ever give such increases a little consideration?
  Such consideration could have been justified by the argument that it is necessary to discharge the duty and liability that was undertaken under the national insurance scheme. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, if he divides the House, I shall—very unusually on this subject—be happy to follow him into the Lobby. These are wholly exceptional circumstances. It is impossible successfully to argue in front of a group of retired people that a 75p increase is right in the circumstances. The House should respond in the way in which my hon. Friend suggests.
  I should like to say a word about overseas pensioners. I know that the Minister of State receives the same e-mails as I do from Canada, Australia and other exotic places. When the Select Committee visits Australia, I have no doubt that we shall spend much of our time dodging pensioners whose pensions have not been uprated for many years.
  I am not advocating immediately finding the £400 million or £500 million that it would cost to put things right. However, it is contrary to natural justice to
  64
  leave such pensioners languishing without any uprating consideration. Something should be done—even if we give them only a small amount this year. I am arguing not for gesture politics but for a recognition of an honourable commitment that pensioners look to us to fulfil. I am disappointed that hon. Members who usually take an interest in these debates are not present this evening to continue to support that case.
  I am not saying that we are short of reform or that the Government are not doing anything but, as well as the delay to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon referred, there is piecemeal approach to social security policy, especially for those who cannot reasonably be expected to work. I want the Government seriously to consider that. I welcome public service agreements and all the other performance indicators that the Government have set out at length, because they will be helpful in trying to measure performance.
  I am generally IT-friendly, but even I am worried about the impact of ineffective computer systems on the delivery of benefit mechanisms. I do not need to tell the Minister that. The Child Support Agency computer system and NIRS2 are causing problems, and the working families tax credit might cause some computer problems as well. If implemented properly, computerisation can help, but much more work needs to be done.
  If the Minister takes anything from this debate from me, I hope that it is that those who cannot reasonably be expected to work should receive greater consideration. I would be happier if that consideration were undertaken in a coherent framework of modernisation of the national insurance contributory system.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I shall evaluate the orders from the perspective of those of my constituents who have a very strong sense that a major injustice has been visited on them, considering the extent to which it is fair of them to think that and what can be done about it. Their sense of injustice is, of course, partly because of the 75p uprating. Many have also contributed to an occupational pension and saved all their lives, but feel that they are getting precious little in return. One might add some stuff about long-term care and worries about how savings and occupational pensions will not protect pensioners in that difficult area.
  I differ significantly from the Liberal Democrats' stance on the 75p increase, although I was tempted by one idea that came out in debate across the Floor of the House. Pensioners seem worried not so much about the precise amount of the increase but that it represents an erosion of their living standard. Even if there were a pensioner index and that produced a 78p uprating, pensioners might not be satisfied with it, but they would not have such a sense of erosion—however small. Their perception is that they have contributed to the fund throughout their working lives but year on year it entitles them to—however little—less.
  The Government should seriously take on board such structural matters in the orders, although I realise that structural matters cannot be part of this debate. A separate pensioner index could address the sense of injustice, but it might lead some time down the road to upratings of less than the rate of inflation. I therefore agree with what eventually emerged in Liberal Democrat policy on

  65
  the hoof: we should take the greater of the two figures and allow pensioners to share in the country's improving wealth, but not if it led to an alarming rate that might generate inflation.
  From talking to my pensioner constituents, I have found that some would be perfectly happy with an increase of, say, £16—a nice big figure—even though it might result in inflation raging at the levels sometimes witnessed under the Conservative party in the late 1980s. The Government, in fact, are keeping inflation down for pensioners; they are maintaining the erstwhile purchasing value of pensioners' savings. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot lament the low increase and suggest a much bigger one without considering the inflationary consequences and the threat of derailment of a well-managed economy, from which pensioners benefit. That is important. If a marginal change in structure were accepted by the Government for future orders, we could tackle the feeling of anger on the part of some pensioners that the system leads to the unjustifiable lowering of their standard of living in some years.
  However, the Government have not left the matter in limbo. They have targeted the poorest pensioners by including the minimum income guarantee. We all know the difficulties involved in getting people to claim that. They feel reluctant to do so, and the barriers in the way of claiming it are substantial. The Government are committed to lowering those barriers and making it much easier for people to claim the minimum income guarantee.
  That could have been done more easily if the increase were a nice round figure. It is much more difficult to publicise a sum consisting of some pounds and some odd pence than a round sum such as 80 quid. Everyone can understand that. A simple headline figure, slightly larger than the Government propose, would assist publicity. People would focus on the £80, rather than on the 75p. That would get over the idea that a single pensioner cannot be expected to live on the new pension level of £67.50.
  A marginal change in the minimum income guarantee to a round figure that was easily publicised would help us all. We have all tried to get across to people what that figure is, how much difference it could make to their lives and what improvement it could provide.
  When dealing with some of the other anomalies in the system, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), who is no longer with us, mentioned three categories of pensioners—rich, in the middle or poor. That is not a sufficiently fine-grained distinction. I would divide them into four quartiles.
  Pensioners in the third and fourth quartiles have under-average earnings. It is important to deal with not only the poorest—those in the fourth quartile—but those with under-average earnings, who may have ploughed a great deal of energy and effort into trying to build up an occupational pension and savings, in the third quartile, where much of the feeling of injustice resides.
  That is where a huge number of anomalies in the current system exist. As we increase the minimum income guarantee—rightly—by more than the level of earnings and by more than the level of headline inflation, we nudge ever closer to the incomes of people who have put by all their lives and are now above income support levels, but have standards of living below income support levels.
  66
  If, under the new figures, the income of those pensioners is £80, they cannot claim income support, so in my patch, for example, they cannot claim a Dacorum travel card for cheaper travel on the buses, and various other benefits that follow from being on income support. The sense of injustice may be heightened, unless we take more specific account of those on modest occupational pensions.
  We have also heard about the threshold for savings. I know that that is under review. It must be addressed, as it compounds the sense that pensioners are being treated unjustly. From the Opposition Benches we heard a spectacular figure for the amount of savings needed to generate income support. A reasonable figure for savings is about £12,000, which would provide a top-up to the basic pension. The interest on £12,000 would take the income a little above income support level—not the £49,000 suggested from the Opposition Front Bench.
  That figure was arrived at by compounding all income support, not just income support for pensioners. That would produce an average of £60 a week, but it is not relevant to the present debate.
  We must recognise pensioners' sense of injustice and belief that they are not being treated fairly. In some ways, that sense of injustice is erroneously directed. If the increase is low, it is because we have kept inflation low and we have tried to allow pensioners to benefit from a well-managed economy. However, many other aspects of the system need change, such as the threshold and the provision for capital allowances.
  There is a perception among pensioners that they must go cap in hand to claim the income support top-up. We must get across the idea that those who receive that money deserve it and have earned it. We must make it clear that we understand that £67.50 is not full recompense for their contributions throughout their working life. We need to change people's attitude to that money, and we could do that through the publicity campaign that has been discussed, but such a campaign would be more successful if the headline figure were £80, not £78-odd.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will regard my remarks as constructive. I commend the many improvements in the orders. Some of the criticisms being levelled against us are unfair, but some of the underlying structures need careful fine-tuning if we are to avoid the sense among pensioners that the Government are willing to visit injustice upon them. That perception is unfair, and I hope that it will be dispelled by the time that the changes are introduced next year.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew George: I follow the constructive contribution of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) by drawing attention to the theme of the debate—targeting the poorest, and how best we can do that. That is largely a technical matter. We may disagree on policy, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not question the Government's intention.
  In my brief contribution, I shall deal with take-up, following an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), whom I welcome back to the debate. We are discussing not merely an increase of 75p a week in the basic state pension but, according to the Government Actuary's report, a low increase of 1.1 per cent. across the board—for example, in jobseeker's allowance.

  67
  Personal benefit for those aged 18 to 24 will increase from £40.70 to £41.35, an increase of 65p, and personal benefit for those aged 25 and over will increase by 80p. Incapacity benefit will increase by 65p. We have not done justice to the fact that there are groups other than pensioners who face relatively low increases in benefit income.
  The Government rightly want to find mechanisms to encourage people into work and off benefit. In the context of housing benefit, we are considering not simply those who are unemployed, but those who are in work on low incomes. They sometimes have the opportunity to do overtime, or to improve themselves, but the housing benefit system provides little incentive for them to do that. Several hon. Members have commented on the fact that the steepness of the tapers adds to severe social problems.
  My constituency includes people on some of the lowest incomes in the land. Many people are already employed, but find that taking up overtime is hardly worth their while. For example, a constituent recently told me that doing overtime as a school cleaner because of another member of staff's illness was hardly worth while. Newspapers report today that there is some debate between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury about the possibility of an announcement on tapers. Such an announcement would be welcome. It would be helpful to hon. Members who take a deep interest in the matter if the Minister could throw any light on the press speculation.
  I want to consider the take-up of disability benefits. A recent Government report shows an underspend in disability benefits of £754 million last year. That is greater than the effect of the cut in incapacity benefit for which the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 provides. Earlier, the hon. Member for Gedling referred to concern about the take-up of attendance allowance. Why is there no take-up campaign? The Government said that they were worried about the low take-up of income support generally. That applies especially to those who are elderly and disabled. Those who are eligible should claim attendance allowance. However, Government research shows that between 40 and 60 per cent. of eligible applicants claim. That means that a potentially large group does not. The figures are vague, but almost half of those who are eligible for attendance allowance do not claim it.
  It is worth stressing that we are considering not only the poorest of the poor but those who are especially socially excluded: those who have neither the income nor the ability to go out. A recent Government report drew attention to that. The Government claim that pensioners are a priority, and we agree. However, little is being done to encourage those who are elderly and disabled to take up attendance allowance. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point, and, if he can, commit the Government to future plans to tackle it.
  Mr. Rooker: I shall not talk about attendance allowance because the order does not cover it. Attendance allowance is not a national insurance benefit. However,
  68
  the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that it is not means-tested. The arguments about stigma therefore cannot apply to attendance allowance.
  Mr. George: I accept the Minister's intervention in the spirit in which it was intended. [Interruption.] I am stimulated to refer to attendance allowance because, as my hon. Friends are pointing out, the order refers to it. I stress that we are considering one of the most socially excluded groups in the country. I am sure that the Government agree that we should concentrate on that group and do all that we can to ensure that they are enabled to take up the benefits to which they are entitled. I hope that a Labour Government want to take action to remedy previous Governments' failures to deal with the matter.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman homed in on attendance allowance and was right to say that take-up is low. However, unlike pensions and other contributory benefits, and minimum income guarantee, which is means-tested, another group of benefits are not means-tested. The reasons for the low take-up cannot, therefore, be stigma and other reasons that are associated with minimum income guarantee. The reasons for the take-up of various benefits are different. We are considering a serious matter, which must be addressed, but stigma cannot be responsible for the low take-up of attendance allowance.
  Mr. George: I agree with the Minister. There is no reason to hang back on promoting attendance allowance. Department of Social Security research report 94, which was published in July last year and entitled "Disability in Great Britain", referred to a survey on the number of outings that disabled older people made. They were asked how many outings they had made in the past four weeks. The report said:
  "over 40 per cent. of the most severely disabled people (severity 9–10) and a quarter of disabled people aged 70 and over had not been out shopping, to visit family or friends or on any kind of excursion in the four weeks prior to interview. A quarter of more seriously disabled people said they would make more outings were help available or facilities better."
  That is a matter of shared concern. I am not criticising the Government; it is helpful that they undertook the research.
  The Government are clearly concerned about the report's findings. We are considering not only the poorest of the poor but the most socially excluded. We are discussing literal exclusion from society. Government action, especially a take-up campaign, would therefore be welcome. It would support carers and combat social exclusion.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am disappointed that there are not more hon. Members present; it seems that, on a Monday evening, the House of Commons is as empty as the millennium dome.
  I want to consider two matters: the effect of social security on poverty, and the uprating of pensions. I represent an inner-urban area that is variously described as chic, wealthy and the home of new Labour; and as a centre of poverty and unemployment. It might be all of those things. An inner-urban area with high rates of unemployment inevitably has high levels of poverty.

  69
  In some schools in my constituency, 70 per cent. of the children receive free school meals. That is possible only if parents are on income support.
  Statistics show that my constituency has one of the highest long-term unemployment levels in the United Kingdom. That is due to a combination of the loss of manufacturing industry and small workshop industries; to increases in IT-related industries; and to the fact that many people do not have appropriate skills for such jobs. It is advantageous for an employer to sell anything resembling a workshop or manufacturing unit anywhere in inner London for private housing development, which they can do at phenomenal prices. That is a product of the property boom, to which I shall return shortly. There is a paradox: there is a property boom and huge profits are being made from speculation, but that does not benefit local people on housing waiting lists and it helps to create high unemployment.
  The effect of social transformation in my area of inner London is not that different from the effect in many other areas around the inner-London ring, such as Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Camden, Lewisham and Lambeth. The poorest people cannot get council housing or housing association property because there is hardly any investment in them. Last year, the princely total of 200 new affordable rented properties were created in the whole borough. The housing waiting list is about 10,000. The transfer list is about 12,000. An unknown number of single people cannot even register to get on the council house waiting list in the first place.
  Younger people either have to pay high private rents to get a place to live or move out of the area. In turn, that creates a sense of isolation and anger among the elderly who no longer have extended family networks around them or the joy of meeting or seeing grandchildren frequently. They live increasingly isolated lives and one detects a degree of bitterness about what is happening in their community. I realise that the social security system cannot address that issue, but the debate is about social security, so I want to discuss it. The other aspects of Government policy that impinge on poverty have to be considered within the system.
  I am not altogether critical of a lot of what the Government have done in areas of poverty. The introduction of the minimum wage has had a good effect in my constituency, even though it is not one of the lowest-paid in the country. The working families tax credit has likewise had an enormous impact—a lot of people have benefited from it hugely—as have the single regeneration budget and the support provided through the new deal, which has enabled people who have been on benefits in the long term to return to work.
  However, I am worried about those who are removed from benefit altogether because they fail the actively seeking work test or a restart interview. I am disturbed that a large number of people are on no benefit whatever and have poor lives. They end up homeless or on the streets as they refuse to undertake training courses that they believe are inappropriate for them. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that in his winding-up speech. That is the downside of the effort to reduce the number of people on benefit, and it must be addressed seriously. People disappear from the statistics altogether because they are no longer on benefit, seeking work or claiming anything. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Social
  70
  Security Committee, is present, and I hope that his Committee—and the social exclusion unit—will take that on board and consider it seriously.
  I welcome the money being spent on the single regeneration budget, which is specifically targeted on inner-urban areas of great poverty where long-term unemployment is a problem and a large proportion of the population are on income support. In parenthesis, I stress to my right hon. Friend the Minister that that has to be accompanied by significantly greater public sector investment in good-quality rented housing—otherwise, all the problems that I have described simply will not go away.
  The order that we are asked to approve mentions housing benefit tapers. A few Members have referred to them and to the whole system of housing benefit. I was a local councillor when housing benefit was introduced and its administration was rather unfairly put on local government which, by and large, is not particularly well equipped to administer what is in effect a social security benefit. Indeed, if the experience in my own community and neighbouring London boroughs is anything to go by, the administration is something akin to abominable or appalling—depending on whether I am in a good or very good mood when I describe it. Indeed, the administration of a company named IT Net, which operates in Islington and Hackney, is so poor that a large number of people have been threatened with eviction because their rent is allegedly in arrears, although they are not in arrears at all. The incompetent delivery of housing benefit puts them in arrears and they are therefore threatened with eviction. Many such people have been evicted by that company on behalf of private sector landlords.
  I look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider a number of issues such as the cost to local authorities of administering housing benefit. Local authorities pay a direct penalty, as administration represents a cost unless they are fantastically efficient. If they are lucky, they may achieve a nil deficit. There is a positive disincentive to administering housing benefit in the way that it ought to be administered.
  I also want to refer to the sum that society spends on housing benefit, which is absolutely phenomenal. Very high rents apply in inner-London areas and possibly in the inner-urban areas of other cities. The normal council rent for a two-bedroom property might be about £70 or £80 a week, but a house sold under the right-to-buy scheme and let out privately could be rented out for £150, £200 or £300 a week. Often, that is paid by housing benefit. House A, which receives housing benefit, might cost £80 a week, but house B could cost us, the community, two or three times as much because the right to buy was exercised some years ago. Private rented one-bedroom flats cost £150 week, and houses £400 a week. Through the rent deregulation introduced by the Tories, the housing benefit system is creating property millionaires through public sector expenditure.
  I look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do something about that. He must be prepared seriously to consider the reintroduction of rent controls and the need for investment in good-quality public sector housing. We are pouring money into the pockets of landlords when we ought to be putting it into bricks and mortar to house people in desperate need. Those issues are extremely important.

  71
  I have spent many years working with the Islington Pensioners Forum and am pleased to have been able to do so. I work also with the Greater London Pensioners Association and the Greater London Forum for the Elderly, which meets quarterly in the House. When one considers history, one sees the great determination of 110 or 120 years ago which eventually led to the introduction of the state old-age pension in the Lloyd George Budget. [Interruption.] Before the Liberals get completely carried away, I have in my possession a book entitled "No Thanks to Lloyd George: the Introduction of the State Old-Age Pension", which was presented to me by the Highbury Pensioners Forum. Apparently, the old charlatan had to be driven to it at the last moment; he had not the slightest intention of doing it. I shall leave that for a Liberal Democrat history workshop. I should be happy to come along and discuss the whole question with them. We could have a fascinating debate.
  The old-age pension was introduced about 100 years ago—essentially as a result of pressure from radical groups such as Churches, trade unions and elements of the Liberal party—and began fairly modestly. As a proportion of average earnings, it fell at various times and at one point was worth very little indeed. The great reforms in the pension system occurred in 1975 when Barbara Castle and Brian O'Malley introduced a Bill that linked the state pension with earnings and recognised that a large number of people in work were not eligible to enter an occupational pension scheme because they were part-time, on short-term contracts, or working for a company that did not have such a scheme. SERPS was developed to take over from previous schemes that were meant to mop up those who were not covered.
  The incoming Tory Government inherited a good situation. By 1980, the state pension was rising in line with earnings and the number of people with access to either a low or a nil-contribution occupational pension was very high indeed. Former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe described the abolition of the link between the state pension and earnings in 1980 as his greatest achievement. A great achievement it certainly was: as a result of that single act, the state pension as a proportion of earnings has been reduced from about 24 per cent. in 1980–81 to about 14 per cent. at present—if my memory serves me correctly.
  A Bill that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—the former Prime Minister—helped to guide through the House as a junior Social Security Minister in 1986 falsely claimed that SERPS was unsustainable, and therefore must be revalued. The purpose of that Bill—which became the Social Security Act 1986—was to create a market for the private pensions industry.
  After 18 years of Tory Government, we have a state pension linked to prices rather than earnings, which has fallen dramatically in value. We have also seen a massive mis-selling of private pensions as a result of the 1986 legislation. I think there is a good deal of common ground between the Liberal Democrats and Labour: both parties believe that the situation is appalling, and that the poverty of many pensioners must be addressed.
  Pensioners whom I meet are extremely angry about their lot. They are angry about their poverty; they are angry about being told that they will receive an increase
  72
  of 70-odd pence this year; and they are angry—I think they are right to be so—about something else. They have contributed to national insurance-related benefits all their lives, and their generation created the welfare state consensus of the post-war period. They now feel that they are being sold something that they do not want: something that should be very different.
  My problem with the Government's pensions strategy does not lie in the adoption of the winter fuel allowance, or with the abolition of payment for eye tests. I welcome those moves. My problem lies in the Government's failure to recognise the high cost of living experienced by many elderly people. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) mentioned a pensioner index. I think that such an index should be adopted officially, because people who buy in small quantities tend to spend more in doing so. Moreover, hidden expenses are involved in the increased cost of many activities in which pensioners want to engage.
  In London, following the abolition of the Inner London education authority, adult education has been the victim of a holocaust, and that has been replicated in many other parts of the country. It now costs a great deal to undertake an adult education course. Most people must pay to go to day centres, or to engage a home carer. All those costs have been introduced by stealth over the past decade or so. It is time to recognise that, for many pensioners, life is prohibitively expensive. The day centres that were created for the benefit of specific people are often half empty, or indeed closed, because those people cannot afford to pay what are actually quite small charges.
  Mr. David Heath: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially about the need for a pensioner index. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister responds to that point; he did not do so the other day, when we debated the same issue.
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason for grievance is the fact that people do not differentiate between different parts of government? People who see national Government granting a 75p increase, and know that it will immediately be taken away by local government through either council tax or additional charges for services such as those described by the hon. Gentleman, perceive that as a con trick.
  Mr. Corbyn: Absolutely. After last year's pension increase, I attended my local pensioners forum. Having discussed the increase, the pensioners decided that the amount had already gone. Indeed, they calculated that they had been given a "negative rise", because of various other charges and council tax rises.
  Pensioners in every part of the country probably rely on local authority services more heavily than the rest of the population, through the very fact of their greater age and needs. Local authorities wishing to reduce the council tax rise that they must impose on the electorate as a whole are often quick to introduce high charges for marginal groups, in order to ameliorate their demand on society generally. In fact, increasing taxation overall is much fairer and cheaper than introducing charges that apply to specific groups.
  Let me make a final point about the Government's pensions strategy. I believe in a large state old age pension. I wish that the Government had chosen to revalue

  73
  and maintain SERPS, keeping in mind the vision of the 1970s, rather than adopting the idea of stakeholder pensions and the minimum income guarantee. I suspect that there is a problem. The Government believe in universal benefits: they believe in child benefit, the winter fuel allowance and the state pension, none of which are means-tested. In our debates on pensions, the Secretary of State has produced figures showing that many pensioners do not claim income support for various reasons, including poor advice and the stigma that they feel is involved. I suspect that, if we engage in a similar debate in 10 years' time, we shall hear a similar argument—on a larger scale—about the number of pensioners who do not take up the minimum income guarantee because they do not want to negotiate the hurdles involved in applying for it, or are unable to do so.
  We are dealing with a generation of people who are now retiring. Many of those people, particularly the men, are on occupational pension schemes, and are, if not well off, then better off than people who retired some years ago. The age profile of the pensioner community shows that the older they get, the poorer they get. The women are poor in the first place, and the oldest female pensioners are often the poorest.
  As for those who are now in their 30s, 40s and 50s, they change jobs frequently. Many are in no private scheme, no occupational scheme, no other scheme of any sort. Such people will rely on a state pension, plus any top-ups that they can get. In 20 years' time, a significant number of pensioners will rely heavily on means-tested benefits that are expensive to administer, inefficient in their direction and inefficient generally.
  We should instead consider a substantial increase in the basic state pension, and, in principle, a link with average earnings. If it is good enough to link the principle of the minimum income guarantee to average earnings, it ought to be good enough to do the same with the basic state pension. If we at least adopted that principle, pensioners would see that the state pension was beginning to increase in line with the wealth of the rest of the community. That is the vision that Barbara Castle and others had in the mid-1970s, and I think we should have the courage to have it now.
  A couple of Members have mentioned overseas pensions. When I was a member of the Social Security Committee in the last Parliament, we examined the whole question of British people living abroad who were eligible for a British pension. It depends where people live: it is a lottery. People move abroad, on or before retirement, for a number of reasons to do with home, family or other factors. There is nothing wrong with that. They have paid for, have worked for, and are eligible for, pensions in this country, and I see no reason for the pensions that they receive not to be linked to what is paid here.
  We expect Australia, which has a comprehensive welfare state, to support British pensioners. British pensioners living in South Africa, where there is no such comprehensive welfare state, do very badly. Canada, which has a comprehensive welfare state, gives pensioners strong support, but pensioners living in another country will not receive that support. I think that that is morally wrong, and that we should arrange for the current
  74
  state pension here to apply to British pensioners wherever they happen to be, provided that they are eligible to receive it.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I see the Secretary of State lurking behind the Speaker's Chair, but I hope that the Minister will respond to a question that I asked the Secretary of State earlier, which he did not answer.
  When I asked the Secretary of State my question, he said that we must use our resources carefully, and that they must be used in other ways. He did not, however, tell me why there should be a disparity between expatriates in some countries and expatriates in others. It is a logic that I do not understand.
  Mr. Corbyn: I do not think it fair to say that the Secretary of State is lurking behind the Speaker's Chair. He seems to be standing beside it with great confidence, and no doubt he will shortly come in and announce that he agrees with everything my hon. Friend and I are saying about the uprating of the overseas pension.
  The position is entirely illogical. Those who live in one country will receive the pension, while those living in another country will not. As I have said, people live in countries for a variety of family and related reasons, and I think that we should deal with the moral issue involved.
  The House has a chance to do far more for pensioners. As a start, we should agree to link the state pension with earnings again. That would give an awful lot of confidence to an awful lot of pensioners who feel hard done by. They are very angry about the minuscule increase being offered to them from April, and look to politicians of all parties to ensure that in future years they receive a decent increase.
  7 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: This debate, like most of our debates, has been not only wide-ranging, but very interesting—I am just grateful that I am not the one who will have to add up the sums requested today by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Those sums would make the sum provided for pensions—which is one third of the social security budget—look very meagre.
  I do not follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—who certainly committed himself to large sums—but would point out to him that, given the current population structure, his thinking on pensions would be unlikely to produce for him either a state or funded pension on which he could live happily for the rest of his life.
  We have been debating some complex but actually rather simple motions to approve the social security uprating orders. Conservative Members will not vote against the motions, and—although I am tempted to deal with some of the many suggestions made in the debate—I shall be brief in my comments. Moreover, I suspect that the Minister and I are still trying to get our heads round clauses 28 and 29 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which we shall start debating tomorrow in Committee. Some of the matters mentioned in the debate—such as the state second pension—are dealt with also in the Bill.
  Although I have not yet tabled them, there will also be amendments to the Bill on annuities and the 75-year rule. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that there needs to be substantial change to the rule.

  75
  I was sad to see that, on Friday, the Department of Social Security felt it necessary to slip out a consultation paper on indexation of annuities. The paper has not yet reached either the Vote Office or the Library, although it is available on the internet—which is perhaps where, in future, we shall receive our information, rather than receiving it in the usual manner in the House. Nevertheless, I give the Minister notice that the annuity issue will undoubtedly arise in our consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  As many hon. Members have said, pensioners believe that the 75p increase is measly. The Government have regularly made the point that pensioners have access to the minimum income guarantee. Nevertheless, the guarantee is merely a part of the income support system, but with a splendid new name. As hon. Members have said, support provided as part of the guarantee is means-tested. The guarantee is also not being taken up with great enthusiasm. I think that it is really a bit of a cruel trick to play on pensioners.
  I look forward to hearing the Government's proposals on how they will try to increase take-up. Although many attempts have been made on many occasions to improve take-up, no one has yet succeeded. Perhaps Ministers, in the Government's new world of spin doctors, will find the key and ensure increased take-up of the minimum income guarantee.
  I look forward also to hearing the Government's statement on widows' inheritance and the state earnings-related pension scheme. Earlier today, I was slightly surprised by the Minister's reply to my question on when a decision on those matters is likely to be made, and on whether we shall have to wait for a decision until 2002—when one will be made also on pensions—or might expect one a bit sooner.
  I shall not take up more of the House's time on the motions. As I said, on the pensions Bill, it is cold-towel time for the Minister and me. I reiterate, however, that Conservative Members will not vote against the motions.
  7.4 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I believe that—other than at today's Question Time—this has been the first time that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has replied to a debate since being given her new portfolio.
  Mrs. Lait: It was the first time in the House.
  Mr. Rooker: Yes. It has reminded me of when my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Orme first allowed me a run at the Dispatch Box. It was in a social security debate, but at a low-key moment, after 10 o'clock at night, so that it would not matter if things went wrong.
  We have had a very interesting debate. Although there is no way in which I shall be able to reply to all the points made by hon. Members, I shall try to reply to some of them.
  Some thoughtful speeches—some short and thoughtful, others long and thoughtful—have been made, and the Government have been asked many questions, not to
  76
  mention the four issues that were raised by Liberal Democrat Members, who will be voting against the uprating.
  I tell Liberal Democrat Members now that, when the general election comes, it will be no good complaining that every Labour candidate is highlighting how the Liberal Democrats voted at the end of this debate. Liberal Democrat Members will be voting against an increase in child benefit, in disability benefit and in pensions, and no amount of pontificating outside the Chamber—[Interruption.] No. In the heat of a general election, when Liberal Democrat Members try to explain to local journalists the rules and procedures of the House, it will not wash. The message will get across that they simply voted against the increases.
  I shall deal with the speeches in reverse order. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who—I know; he told me them—had extremely good reasons for not attending the early part of the debate, made a point on overseas pensioners and expatriates. The point was dealt with earlier today. I believe that £300 million was mentioned as the sum necessary to address the issue as some hon. Members would like it addressed. Frankly, we have other and better ways of spending £300 million. Before people leave the country, they fully know the rules on how pensions are uprated around the world. There is no secret about the countries with which we have international treaties. International treaties are the main factor, and there really should not be any argument about that.
  I made my second intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) because I felt that I owed him an apology for the way in which I made my first intervention, on his point on attendance allowance. I misunderstood the point that he was making. He was rightly raising the serious issue of attendance allowance take-up. All the evidence shows that take-up of the allowance by pensioners is not as great as research indicates that it should be. However, it is difficult to target attendance allowance, and we certainly could not run the same type of targeting campaign as we shall soon be running on the minimum income guarantee. For a start, attendance allowance is not means-tested. The reasons for low take-up in the two benefits are not the same.
  Ignorance is one element in low take-up of attendance allowance. Some pensioners may think, "I'm a pensioner; I can't get attendance allowance," but that is not correct. I have come across cases in which people in the medical profession think that pensioner patients are not eligible. It is simply not true.
  There is scope for working on take-up of attendance allowance—which is one way of getting money to the pensioner population. The allowance is not means-tested; based on circumstances, it is theirs as of right. I agree entirely that there is work to do on the issue.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is Chairman of the Social Security Committee, made a long and thoughtful speech—which is not a criticism. I shall not drop myself in problems, but at the end of his speech, he concentrated on earnings limits and gave two examples, one of which was the long-standing £50 earning limit for those receiving invalid care allowance.
  On Friday, I raised that very issue both with constituents, and—strangely enough, in the context of the national minimum wage—on a live radio phone-in, in

  77
  the midlands. A husband rang up about his wife, who was the carer, but was also doing a little job on the side that she wanted to continue doing. The caller said that many of the people with whom his wife worked benefited from the minimum wage. Although that is a real plus, ultimately, to continue receiving the allowance, the wife would have to cut her hours.
  With a £50 threshold, the danger is that one might have to cut hours to such an extent that an employer will say, "If you can work only 13 hours, don't bother coming in—it's not worth it." Earning limits for carers are a real issue.
  The Government wish to encourage carers, and we have long wished to enable people to remain in their own homes for longer than they have hitherto been able to. Accomplishing both those goals is part of the difficulty of giving an early response to the royal commission. Nevertheless, we shall give that response by this summer. Although there is nothing new in those comments on earnings limits, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire raised the issue, and it is an absolutely valid one.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) made a robust and honest speech. I should like to think that he might have done what I have done when faced with 200 or 300 quite angry and vociferous pensioners. I have said, "Hands up anyone here living on £66.75." To date, no one has put their hands up. I am talking about big groups, one of which had been addressed by my noble Friend Baroness Castle, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Jack Jones and Rodney Bickerstaffe; there were seven or eight of them. I was the last to do so.
  I made it a central point that we were targeting our resources on the poorest pensioners in the land. There is an issue about who is being missed out—hence the research. We cannot be certain about the figures. There is a broad spread of figures; they come from the general household survey. We do not know where those people are. It is not as precise as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) says. We have an idea, and that will be part of our take-up campaign.
  These people may, in the main, live in other people's households. The chances are that they will not be single and living alone in their own household; otherwise we would have, if you like, caught them by now, or they would have needed the extra help. That, too, will be part of our take-up campaign.
  Following the Benefits Agency work, we estimate that the figure is a little over 2 million. Those people will be targeted in three tranches anyway. There will be television and press advertising. We will make an early announcement about the way in which we intend to go forward; we certainly will make the announcement before the end of this month. There will then be a large Government-sponsored take-up campaign, with a telephone national line and television advertising.
  The work has been done, in the sense that we have seen the scripts and literature, with "minimum guarantee" on leaflets and drafts. At present, there are no posters or leaflets with minimum income guarantee on them. There are no documents, but there will be: we have seen the proofs. To that extent, we are on the verge of being able to launch that campaign. It is important that we get the money to the people who deserve it.
  78
  Several hon. Members raised the issue of winter fuel payments. Some said thanks, but not many. They said, "It is nice to have it, but it should have been on the pension." That was not the option. Everyone knows that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that we have to pay it every year from now on. That is a big advance. Payment went up fivefold. Because of European Court judgments, it will be paid to men and women aged 60. That will change progressively as the retirement age goes up to 65—we make no secret of that.
  The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) was carping again, basically. I was aware of the press cuttings that she was reading from. It is true that, in trying to put it across that winter fuel payments were not tied to being a pensioner—they are not following that court judgment; they are tied to the age of 60-plus—I made that bold statement about every person in the country. Okay, I did not say that people in prison and people who were not 60 before the relevant date in September were excluded. All right hon. and hon. Members should know that. If we had not done it in that way, they would make another point.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I will not. We had the cut-off point of the date in September because we guaranteed to get the winter fuel cash in hand before Christmas. I regret to say that, with the old technology that we have inherited, it takes us a long time to do it; we have to have a long run-in to do the work. This year's date will probably be a similar one.
  In the meantime, we have to do the work to find the people who, for the past two years, have missed out following the court judgment.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: I will in a moment. I want to finish the point about the winter fuel payment.
  We have to find those males aged 60-plus who did not have a spouse who was receiving the winter fuel payment; it is per household, not per person. We estimate that there are 1.5 million such males. Many will not be receiving any benefit. They will be at work. We do not have direct day-to-day contact with them, other than the fact that they pay national insurance contributions. We do not have a database from which to drum the information up, so it will take time to put together. Some of the 1.5 million-plus will have a spouse who received the £100. Obviously, the date of birth is relevant; it could have been before or after 20 September.
  The European Court judgment might have made it look a simple matter of paying everyone from 60, rather than at our state retirement ages, but life is not as simple as that. We will do our best to get the backdated payments of about £100—it could be £20, or £140 to £170—to those people as soon as possible. However, it is as important to get our database correct—so that they receive their winter fuel payments before Christmas this year—as it is to pay the arrears.
  Miss McIntosh: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that I am not known for carping in this place. I am trying to be helpful. What advice would

  79
  he give my constituents who have not been paid winter fuel payments for 1998, let alone 1999? Should they wait, or apply now?
  Mr. Rooker: If those people have not received the payment for last year and the year before, obviously something is seriously wrong, and we should be provided with the details. There has been a telephone helpline. There have been facilities for people to be able to do that. If the hon. Lady provides information, we will ensure that the matter is dealt with immediately. I have made the point about winter fuel payments because it was said that we were being lethargic in the way in which we were dealing with the matter.
  On capital limits, I repeat what the Secretary of State said. They will be reviewed in the current Parliament. We will make an announcement as quickly as possible. They will be reviewed more quickly than the period for which they have been frozen. The last time that there was an increase was 1990—from £6,000 to £8,000.
  On inherited SERPS, the definition of "shortly" and "as soon as possible" is not as long as a piece of string, because we are obliged to do the work. Obviously, there have been inquiries by the parliamentary commissioner as well. The decision is not far off as to which way we shall proceed, but I repeat, although I should not have to do so any more: no change will take place this April. The reduction to 50 per cent. will not occur this April, so there will be no change. We have already said that in the legislation that was passed last year.
  I do not think that it can be said that no decision is imminent on the major issues of winter fuel payment take-up, SERPS and the capital limits; decisions are imminent. We will announce them to the House as quickly as we can—that is what we will seek to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) made an extremely articulate speech, as others have, regarding the position of pensioners who feel hard done by because of the 75p increase. As I said at Social Security Question Time, the only people who will get the 75p will be those who receive only £66.75. Hon. Members might shake their heads. The fact is that net average pensioner income for a single person in 1997–98 was £132. We cannot ignore SERPS. As Opposition Members have rightly said, the build-ups of occupational pensions in the 1960s and 1970s, and of SERPS, which is part and parcel of the same thing, during the 1980s, have dramatically changed total pensioner incomes. It would be stupid to ignore the position. The increase follows on into those pensions, on top of the 75p addition to the £66.75. Of course that is the average figure, and averages can be misleading. However, we make no apology for targeting those who have not achieved anywhere near those averages, such as those who are on the means test of the minimum income guarantee. We must make sure that we do our best for them.
  Reference was made to the pensioner price index, as if there were not such an index. The Office for National Statistics still operates a pensioner price index, which reflects a basket of goods used by most pensioners. However, comparing the pensioner price index with the retail prices index over the past 20 years produces a significant reduction in the basic state pension of over £10 a week, so I do not think that we will be offering to use that index for the foreseeable future.
  80
  The pensioner price index excludes housing costs, including council tax. Pensioners on the minimum income guarantee, and just above it, can claim all or part of their housing costs or council tax. It is not as if they are deprived of help with their housing costs. Some will get all of their housing costs met, while others can get much of their costs met. I make no apology for the increases in the orders, which I commend to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 31.

  Division No. 64]

  [7.21 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corbett, Robin

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Crausby, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Battle, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darvill, Keith

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

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

  Benton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Best, Harold

  Dismore, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Doran, Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Casale, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grant, Bernie

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  81

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Meale, Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Norris, Dan

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pendry, Tom

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter L

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laxton, Bob

  Pond, Chris

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pope, Greg

  Levitt, Tom

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Linton, Martin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lock, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Love, Andrew

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Purchase, Ken

  McCabe, Steve

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Rammell, Bill

  Rapson, Syd

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Raynsford, Nick

  McDonnell, John

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McFall, John

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rogers, Allan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McNulty, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWalter, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Ruane, Chris

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  82

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar John

  White, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stringer, Graham

  Winnick, David

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wise Audrey

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wood Mike

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Brake, Tom

  Moore, Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Oaten, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burstow, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Cotter, Brian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tyler, Paul

  Feam, Ronnie

  Webb, Steve

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Willis, Phil

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Bob Russell and

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. David Heath.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (PENSIONS)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Rooker.]

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (Procedure)
  7.34 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move,
  That, if the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill be read a second time, no Order shall be made for the committal of the Bill and it shall be ordered to be read a third time upon a future day; and upon a Motion being made for Third Reading the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  I shall be happy to answer any questions that arise.
  Mr. David Lidington: As I understand the motion, it is to provide a special and accelerated procedure for our proceedings on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill later this week, and the intention is to comply with the provision of the Parliament Acts that the Bill, when it leaves the Commons, must be identical in virtually every respect to the Bill previously enacted here.
  The precedents for the motion are somewhat scarce. Unusually, my researches unearthed precedents set by Liberal Governments, which suggests that we are trespassing on what might mark the political boundary between history and archaeology.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Has my hon. Friend found any precedent for such a motion on a matter of conscience that goes to the heart of people's behaviour?
  Mr. Lidington: That is a good point. It is true that such a motion has been used previously to enact measures of intense party controversy and that it was employed on the War Crimes Bill in 1991—a measure that, although the subject of fierce controversy, was given a free vote in both Houses of Parliament—but I do not believe that there is a precedent for a Bill to be dealt with under the Parliament Acts that deals with a matter of personal moral and religious beliefs.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in a little more detail than he has yet been willing to do what the Government's motives are for using the Parliament Acts and not at least trying out the opinion of the newly reformed other place, and why they are employing this precise motion to give effect to those Parliament Act procedures.
  I was surprised that the Government, having told the House that the removal of the hereditary peers was essential to get rid of what they regarded as a tremendous injustice, should now apparently have so little confidence in their reformed Chamber that they are unwilling to put the Bill to the test of a vote in it.
  I question the need for the motion. The precedents are limited. In 1913 and 1914, Parliament Act motions of this kind were introduced for the Government of Ireland Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill and the Plural Voting Bill. It is perhaps worth noting that the incumbent Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, moved those motions; those were days when Prime Ministers were rather more keen on appearances at the Dispatch Box.
  84
  The motion provides that, after Second Reading, there will be no Committee stage and that, although there may be a motion for Third Reading—and my understanding is that it could be voted on—there will be no debate on that motion.
  Miss McIntosh: I have just been to the Public Bill Office to try to table an amendment to the Bill, and I was told that, if the motion is approved this evening, no hon. Member will be permitted to table one. That is deeply regrettable. The House will not be allowed the opportunity to consider an amendment to equalise the age of consent at 18, which would be entirely in keeping with European law.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady should not attempt to make a speech in an intervention.
  Mr. Lidington: Questions arise over the removal of the Committee stage and the possibility of debate on Third Reading. The Government's argument is that, in order to comply with the procedures laid down in the Parliament Acts, we cannot have a Committee stage. However, I find it strange that a Government with a majority of about 180 should be so nervous of the normal Committee procedure.
  The Government have plenty of weapons available. They have a comfortable majority and, although such Bills have always been decided—and will be decided this Thursday—on a free vote, there is a big majority in the House as now constituted for the principle behind the Bill. The Government also have available the normal procedures to manage business, including closure motions and guillotines.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's constitutional arguments. If we were to have a Committee stage during which—heaven forfend—Conservative Members attempted to filibuster and the Government had to move a closure motion, may I take it from what he has just said that the Conservatives would not then jump up and down and scream and shout about the curtailment of democracy?
  Mr. Lidington: On all proceedings in previous Sessions on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, the Conservative party has operated a free vote, without the application of party Whips. That applies to the motion tonight and would apply to any vote held on the substance of the Bill or any other procedural motions relating to it. In free votes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my Front-Bench colleagues take different views, depending on their personal opinions. That is how it should be with a Bill of this nature and that is how we will continue to operate.
  The Government's argument, as I have said, is that to comply with the Parliament Acts, it is necessary to have no Committee stage. Those arguments were made by the Liberal Government in 1913 and 1914, by the Labour Government in 1948 and by the Conservative Government in 1991. However, there is an alternative available to the Government that has not previously—as far as I am aware—been mentioned and that is explicitly provided for in section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911. That Act,

  85
  while it states clearly that the Bill sent from the House of Commons must be the same as that which was passed in the previous Session, also states that
  "the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House … suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords, and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords."
  The provision was designed to retain for the House of Commons the right to consider possible amendments to a Bill being brought forward under the Parliament Acts, without that compromising its ultimate rights to overrule the House of Lords and insist that the will of the Commons should prevail. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will tell us whether the Government will provide for what is sometimes termed the suggestions procedure to operate in respect of the Bill.
  The precedents show that no less a figure than Winston Churchill, at the time a Cabinet Minister in a Liberal Government, said:
  "The Suggestion stage is … to enable either small points which are oversights to be set right by general agreement or to enable suggestions of compromise to be put forward and debated. The root principle of the Parliament Act is that every Amendment which makes for agreement, and for a change in a Bill which tends to lessen disagreement, can be incorporated in the Bill without depriving it of the advantages of the … Parliament Act."—[Official Report, 23 June 1913; Vol. LIV, c. 843.]
  We should ponder carefully before we agree to a procedural motion that would considerably curtail the rights of every Back Bencher to debate the Bill and to suggest ways in which it could be improved. Of course, once Second Reading had taken place, any amendments would have to comply with the overall purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Keith Darvill: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the House has not already had sufficient time for debate on the Bill in the previous Session?
  Mr. Lidington: One thing that I have learned in my relatively brief time here is that almost every piece of legislation introduced by any Government benefits from debate and amendment. Too often, I have seen Governments introduce legislation, curtail debate by procedural devices and then, a couple of years later, discover that it is far from perfect. The courts have to try to sort it out or it has to be amended through further legislation.
  The motions that were debated in 1913 and 1949 said that suggestions should be made in the form of a motion on the Order Paper tabled between Second Reading and Third Reading. If we are not to have a Committee stage, it would still be possible for the House to follow the procedures laid down in the Parliament Acts, provided that there was a gap between Second and Third Readings. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain whether the Government intend to proceed to Third Reading on Thursday immediately after Second Reading or whether they will set a further day for the formal motion of Third Reading. If the suggested procedure is to be followed, who is to decide whether a particular motion is selected for the debate? Will it be the Government, will it be Madam Speaker, or will there be a discussion through the usual channels?
  86
  I am also concerned that the Government have decided against allowing any time for Third Reading. This was, as I have acknowledged, part of the 1991 resolution of the House, but the previous precedents for measures of this type in 1913, 1914 and 1949, while curtailing the possibility of amendments being moved in Committee, allowed the House time for a full debate and a Division on Third Reading as well as on Second Reading. So there is a difference between the way in which the Government are choosing to proceed this week and the way in which previous Governments have approached the powers given to them under the Parliament Acts.
  My conclusion is that the only explanation for the Government's conduct is that they are fearful and embarrassed about the prospect of their Bill being debated in detail and at proper length in the Chamber. It is a great pity that they should choose not to rely on the good sense of individual Members to debate this measure with the maturity and judgment that I think has characterised debate on the Bill. It is a pity that they should propose a procedural motion that severely restricts the right of the House of Commons to debate an important measure on which many of our constituents have strong opinions. The Government owe the House a more detailed and compelling explanation than Ministers have provided so far.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I share with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) the hope that there will be a fuller explanation from the Minister in a few minutes. I do not wish to delay him, so I shall be extremely brief.
  It was unfortunate that, instead of putting options to the Opposition parties, the Government decided to proceed with one option because, as has been said, there are several. One would have been a guillotine motion, and Liberal Democrats would have resisted that firmly as being inappropriate. I hope, too, that the Conservatives would have recognised that as inappropriate to this measure, which is an issue of conscience on which we all believe that a free vote is appropriate. It would have been helpful if we had been given the opportunity to consider the Parliament Act procedure under which suggested amendments can be brought forward without pre-judging whether the Act could be used. It is unfortunate that we do not have such an opportunity
  Issues still need to be discussed properly in both Houses, and I hope that there will be opportunities to do so. I hope that the debate on Second Reading will be as wide ranging as it should be. I hope in particular that Ministers will consider some of the issues that still cause concern, such as the abuse of a position of trust. There are anomalies that need to be cleared up. Even if they cannot be cleared up in the Bill, some assurance by the Minister introducing the Second Reading debate is desirable.
  We have reached a point where perception is as important as substance. The perception is that if this House, or the other place, puts major obstacles in the passage of the Bill, there will be a widespread view that Parliament is yet again dragging its heels over an issue on which there is a settled view. My colleagues and I have considered the precedents carefully, as has the hon. Member for Aylesbury. We accept that there is a good case for proceeding with this motion and we will therefore support it.
  7.54 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The motion tonight is a purely procedural one. The substance of the matter and the Bill to be considered on Second Reading on Thursday has been debated at length—exhaustively—with some good speeches from both sides and some that were, quite frankly, best forgotten. All in all, we have had an opportunity, time and again, to consider the substance of the debate and a settled view has been arrived at by the House, as hon. Members have said in this debate.
  Let me outline briefly why we have alighted on this procedure. It is important, in so doing, to look briefly at the Bill's unhappy history, particularly at the sorry account of the treatment of these proposals in another place. In accordance with the Government's agreement, reached on the cases before the European Court of Human Rights of Sutherland and Morris, the House was given an opportunity to consider the equalisation of the age of consent as an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill as long ago as 22 June 1998. Concern was voiced in that debate about the need to protect young people from abuse of trust. Nevertheless, the House agreed the amendment, on a free vote, by 336 votes to 129. However, on 22 July, the amendment was rejected, on a free vote, in another place. When the Bill returned to the House on 28 July, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that we would not press the amendment but would reintroduce the legislation in the 1998–99 Session. The House then agreed not to reinstate the amendment in that Bill.
  In accordance with that commitment, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was introduced on 16 December 1998, this time containing provisions on both the age of consent and on abuse of trust. The Bill was overwhelmingly supported by the House, on a free vote, on Second Reading, by 313 votes to 130. It was then considered in detail in Committee. There are some hon. Members present tonight who participated in that detailed and useful consideration, as a result of which an amendment was accepted which, if my memory serves me well, came initially from the Opposition. The Bill was considered in detail in Committee, including on the Floor of the House, for 12 hours and 56 minutes. On Third Reading, the Bill was passed by 281 votes to 82, and was sent to another place, where it was refused a Second Reading, again on a free vote, by 222 votes to 146.
  We subsequently concluded that it was right to give Parliament a further opportunity to consider the issue. In response to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) on 23 July, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government had, with the agreement of the applicants, sought a further extension of the European Court of Human Rights cases of Sutherland and Morris. As part of that application, we undertook to the court to reintroduce the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill this Session and said that, if necessary, the Parliament Acts would be used to secure its passage. That decision was reaffirmed in the Gracious Speech.
  I have listened to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), but tonight's motion can hardly have come as a surprise to him. The suggestion that this is in
  88
  some way a curtailment of the rights of Back Benchers does not bear examination. I think that, in the cold light of day, even he would accept that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have two simple factual questions for the Minister. Can he confirm that, if the Bill goes through this House on Thursday and goes to the other place, his colleagues there will have a free vote on Second Reading? Can he also confirm that the Lords will then be free to look, for the first time, at the abuse of positions of trust provisions if they want to?
  Mr. Boateng: These are all matters of conscience; they are matters for a free vote. It is not for me to speak of what will occur in the other place—that would be presumptuous.
  Mr. Tyler: Go on—why change the habits of a lifetime?
  Mr. Boateng: Do not tempt me—I must resist. The tradition has been that these should be seen as matters of conscience.
  In bringing the Bill back before Parliament, we have made it clear that we will resort to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 if another attempt is made in another place to reject the Bill. We do not do that lightly. We understand that beliefs on the age of consent are strongly held, and we respect them. However, the Parliament Acts exist for a reason—to resolve disputes between the two Houses, such as the present one, in which the will of the elected House has been repeatedly frustrated by the unelected Chamber.
  The view of the House of Commons has been clear on every occasion on which the issues of the Bill has been debated. If it receives on Thursday the same overwhelming endorsement that it won in the previous Session, the repeated expressed will of the elected representatives of the people must ultimately prevail, in a democracy, over that of the unelected Chamber.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he did not wish to be tempted, but I should like to draw him slightly forward because I proposed the amendment that the Government graciously accepted in the previous Session. Does he agree that the Bill is of precisely the type that could benefit if the other place agreed to hold a Committee stage, although, of course, the other place must not ultimately reject the Bill or delay its passage?
  Mr. Boateng: No, I shall not be tempted. My experience of the hon. Gentleman tells me that it unwise ever to be tempted by him on anything.
  Let me deal briefly with the constitutional principles surrounding use of the Parliament Acts. The hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that our use of the Acts was some sort of innovation. It is not so; the War Crimes Act 1991 was a similar issue of conscience and morality on which different views were honestly held and persuasive arguments made on both sides. In that case, the Conservative Administration saw no constitutional impediment to using the Parliament Acts to enforce the will

  89
  of the House of Commons to enact a Bill on which there had been a free vote in both Houses. It is the same with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the other House would be free to consider any amendment that we might choose to attach to the Bill, under what he described as the "suggestions" procedure. We see no need to offer suggested amendments. We take the view that the Bill was thoroughly considered and amended during the previous Session, and we see no need for further amendment. The House thought it appropriate to send the Bill to the other place, and we believe that we should send it again. Between that date and this, nothing has changed that would affect the provisions then agreed. Of course, it remains open to the House of Lords to suggest any amendment. The Bill would then return to this place for our consideration.
  Against that background, I commend the procedural motion. The principles of the Bill are clear. It was considered exhaustively by the House during the previous session. We spent 23 hours and 15 minutes considering it. We do not need the formality of Committee or Report stages; nor do we need another Third Reading debate. The motion provides that no order should be made for the Bill's committal in the event of its receiving a Second Reading, and that it should be read the Third time with the Question being put forthwith, and decided, if opposed,
  "after the expiration of time for opposed business."
  The Bill deals with serious issues, but those issues have been repeatedly and exhaustively aired. No new issues have been raised in the Bill, which is identical to that sent to the other place in the previous Session. However, the House will have the opportunity on Thursday to discuss the substantive issue and to give its opinion on the Bill. We shall hear a wide range of opinion on the matter. If, as I am sure that it will, the House continues to believe that the Bill should proceed, that should happen as soon as possible without any need for additional and fruitless stages. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, if the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill be read a second time, no Order shall be made for the committal of the Bill and it shall be ordered to be read a third time upon a future day; and upon a Motion being made for Third Reading the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

  Census
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [25 January],
  That the words in item 1 'indicating whether an individual form is being completed by that member', the words in item 2 'and relationship to householder or joint householder or to the first person mentioned in the return, and, as the case may be, where there are 5 or less persons in the household, the relationship to each of the previous persons mentioned in the return and where there are 6 or more persons in the household, the relationship of the sixth and subsequent persons to the two previously mentioned persons in the return', the words in item 6 'and if married whether first or subsequent subsisting marriage', items 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, the words in item 15 'or was on a Government sponsored training scheme', items 16, 18(c), 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of Schedule 2, and items 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 3 to the draft Census Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th January, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  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),

  COMPETITION
  That the draft Competition Act 1998 (Land and Vertical Agreements Exclusion) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
  That the draft Competition Act 1998 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  Aluminium Recycling
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  8.4 pm
  Ms Helen Southworth: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss both the effects of Treasury fiscal policy on the recycling of aluminium and concerns that the climate change levy may create a perverse incentive that makes aluminium recycling economically less competitive.
  In my constituency, Latchford recycling plant—Europe's first dedicated aluminium can recycling facility—clearly demonstrates that aluminium recycling is one of the success stories of greening business. Commissioned in 1991, with investment of £28 million, it has sufficient capacity to recycle every aluminium can in the United Kingdom. Since 1991, the plant's output has grown by 40 per cent., and it recycles more than 4.5 billion cans a year. It provides employment for 143 people in Warrington.
  At the other side of the constituency lies one of the UK's biggest landfill sites, a huge hole in the countryside that consumes waste from a wide area, including greater Manchester. Unsurprisingly, local residents do not like being neighbours to a landfill site. They want people to sort at source and to recycle their waste rather than dump it.
  Last year, a local community association charged an entry fee of one aluminium can for recycling at its summer fair, recognising the crucial relationship between aluminium's intrinsic value and the fact that recycling can release that value and reduce landfill waste. Around 4.2 billion aluminium drinks cans were sold in the UK in 1998. If every can used in the UK were recycled, 13.5 million fewer dustbins would go into landfill. We would also save 280,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
  Aluminium is the most widely used non-ferrous metal in the world. Annual production of primary aluminium amounts to 20 million tonnes, which gives some idea of the size of the global market. It has a wealth of applications from transport to packaging, and from construction to engineering.
  Perhaps the most important point is that aluminium enjoys significant environmental advantages in comparison with similar materials. The low weight of aluminium frames used in cars and other vehicles means that the energy required to power them is significantly lower than would be the case for most other metals. A life cycle analysis of aluminium—taking into account the product's environmental impacts from cradle to grave rather than just its manufacturing costs—shows that a vehicle with an aluminium chassis may be 100 kg lighter, meaning a reduction in fuel consumption of 0.6 litres for every 100 km travelled. A tonne of aluminium used in place of steel would save 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over the lifetime of a car.
  That environmental advantage was, no doubt, considered when the Government took their welcome decision to exempt energy use for electrolysis in primary aluminium smelting from the new climate change levy. By its nature, aluminium electrolysis has extremely limited scope for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. The Government's decision was an important step
  92
  towards safeguarding the competitiveness of the UK aluminium industry. Given the savings in energy that can result from use of aluminium rather than other metals, that was a wise decision, making environmental and economic sense.
  Generations of children know that the way to a "Blue Peter" badge lies in collecting aluminium milk bottle tops. Aluminium is infinitely recyclable, and it therefore has a high intrinsic value. Scrap metal can be refined or re-melted to make new aluminium products with virtually no degradation in quality. It can be recycled again and again, almost limitlessly.
  It is important to climate change that the energy required for secondary aluminium production amounts to just 5 per cent. of that needed for the primary product. Primary aluminium consumes 148,000 MJ of electricity per tonne of output. Secondary aluminium uses just 8,100 MJ for the same output. Recycling aluminium is a green activity.
  Secondary aluminium production has made enormous strides in the improvement of its energy efficiency. Part of that has been achieved simply by better housekeeping, but the industry has made a large investment in improving efficiency—£170 million over the past nine years. That has included sophisticated melting technology, new furnace design technology, burner design, energy recovery projects and fume arrestment equipment. Many producers have also been audited by bodies such as the energy technology support unit under the energy best practice programme.
  The industry plans to invest similar amounts over the next nine years, in order to make further efficiency improvements. It is a green industry with an environmental conscience.
  Most important, the industry has invested heavily not only in the infrastructure required to collect material for recycling, but in the educational programmes that encourage consumers to recycle—to change their normal practices. That has been at no cost to the taxpayer. It means that more aluminium is now recycled in Britain than ever before, in an increasingly energy efficient manner.
  In 1990, 503,000 tonnes of aluminium were recycled in the UK but, by 1998, as a result of the investment programme, the amount had increased to 858,300 tonnes—a 71 per cent. increase. To produce that amount of aluminium by recycling instead of by producing primary material effectively prevents 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission. That is a significant amount; not least because it is more than the whole UK annual commitment under the Kyoto protocol.
  Recycling rates are now as high as 90 per cent. in the transport sector and more than 70 per cent. in the building and construction sector. Even the packaging sector—the most important sector for my constituency—which has innate problems due to the logistics of recovering small quantities of used packaging from millions of households throughout the country, has now built up to a recycling rate of 36 per cent. for used drinks cans. That is the most recycled post-consumer beverage package in the UK.
  Higher rates of recycling mean that there is less demand for alumina and thus a correspondingly lower demand for bauxite ore. Recycling means that there is less need for bauxite to be mined in the first place, thus offering environmental protection. Nationally, aluminium

  93
  packaging recycling is a booming business in its own right. There are now five million recycling transactions every year. There are 50,000 collection groups nationally—20,000 of which are schools and colleges, which are recycling money back into their own operations. Britain has 400 aluminium recycling centres, as well as 120 collection programmes run by community groups. The industry provides jobs—at least 750 new jobs in aluminium packaging, collection and reprocessing in the past decade.
  Aluminium scrap has a high value. Collecting aluminium packaging to sell as scrap to secondary aluminium producers provides funds to numerous charities and local community groups—£10 million for local communities and charities every year. In 1998–99, the "Blue Peter" appeal collected 500 tonnes of aluminium, providing funds to build three new schools in Mozambique.
  Aluminium foil and can recycling has become a core activity for a growing number of social employment projects that provide skills and personal development training in a workshop setting. There are almost 40 projects providing aluminium recycling services for 70 local authority areas. Many of those are part of the new deal programme; not only do they produce valuable income, they give unemployed young people independence, self-esteem and structured work patterns and the opportunity to gain qualifications that lead to outside employment.
  Such projects combine environmental and social benefits and encourage the public to donate aluminium to benefit directly their local communities. It is no exaggeration to say that aluminium recycling proves that there can be a triple bottom line that works simultaneously in the economic, social and environmental spheres. For example, not only would the cans and foil currently recycled each year fill the dome, they would be worth more than £10 million to collectors. Perhaps more disconcertingly, we could still recycle another two domes-full—products worth £25 million are currently going into landfill.
  The competitiveness of secondary aluminium producers is finely balanced. The price of scrap metal is high and the infrastructure required to collect it is expensive. The costs of changing public behaviour to promote recycling are largely borne by the industry. Over the past 10 years, more than £40 million has been spent on the marketing, promotion and collection infrastructure in cans and foils alone.
  Recycled aluminium competes with primary aluminium in a market in which end prices are determined internationally. Currently, the cost of each is similar. As British primary aluminium electrolysis is made exempt from the climate change levy, recycled aluminium could be at a disadvantage. It is not only potentially anti-competitive, but illogical, to tax recycling as part of a levy whose stated purpose is to encourage energy saving and environmental best practice.
  Another key consideration is that scrap might be contaminated with paint, grease, oxides, plastics and so on. The more impurities that are present in the metal being recycled, the more energy is required to re-purify it. As the recycling of scrap metal increases, the greater proportion of impurities in the scrap means that it becomes more expensive to produce, and recycled aluminium becomes less competitive against aluminium produced from bauxite.
  94
  Companies aiming for stringent targets in energy consumption, under the negotiated agreements, are likely to refuse to process low-grade scraps, with low metal yield and contamination that must be removed—for example, coated foil. Those materials will end up as landfill—as waste. That is the precise opposite, environmentally, of what the climate change levy intends.
  The Government's decision to exempt the energy used by the electrolysis of primary aluminium is sensible and welcome; it safeguards the competitiveness of British industry within an overall framework of making the market work for the environment through incentivising energy efficiency. The Government's integrated climate change policies make them a pathfinder in European environmental policy, and we can justly be proud of that.
  At the same time, the Government have also shown that environmental policy can be sensitive to the needs of business and to the imperatives of competitiveness. The decision, announced in the pre-Budget statement, to increase the level of rebate to 80 per cent. for those businesses that have made negotiated agreements shows clearly that the Government's approach is environmentally and economically sensible, and was arrived at by listening to responsible industry voices.
  However, there is a danger that secondary aluminium will face a blow to its competitiveness by having to pay the climate change levy, while primary aluminium—due to the electrolysis exemption—receives a cost advantage. That situation would upset the fine balance of competitiveness between primary and secondary aluminium.
  It would be most inappropriate if the levy were inadvertently to penalise the aluminium recycling sector, which is one of the success stories of greening business. There is a real risk that the climate change levy could make the use of recycled aluminium more costly than that of primary aluminium and thus undermine the levy's environmental intentions.
  What might happen if secondary aluminium production is liable for the climate change levy, but electrolysis in primary aluminium smelting is not? Secondary aluminium would rapidly become less competitive than its primary counterpart. Demand for scrap metal in the UK would fall as the cost base increased. Aluminium scrap would then be exported to other countries.
  However, Britain would be exporting much more than scrap metal. Jobs in the secondary aluminium industry would also be exported and, given that a company producing 25,000 tonnes of aluminium ingot employs between 70 and 100 people, the number of jobs lost would be substantial. If companies have to relocate to places where energy costs are cheaper, Britain would also be exporting the tax revenues of those companies. The total annual value of the annual production of recycled aluminium from the UK's 60 reprocessing companies is £1.1 billion.
  Perhaps most ironically, Britain would be exporting the energy savings that can be made by the secondary aluminium industry. We have already seen how much less energy-intensive secondary aluminium production is than primary aluminium. If Britain inadvertently pushes secondary aluminium abroad because of the unintended effect of an environmental tax, we shall have made a grave error in terms of unemployment and lost a great opportunity

  95
  for energy savings that would count towards our Kyoto targets and our national contribution to safeguarding our planet's future.
  Secondary aluminium is an expanding industry. It fulfils a necessary and positive economic and environmental role. It is high-tech and saves energy, raw materials and waste to landfill. It provides 2,500 jobs and is investing for the future. It is an industry with added social value, allowing innumerable charities and community groups to raise vital funds.
  Aluminium recycling is an industry that Britain needs to encourage—and the best possible way to do that is to exempt the industry, and aluminium recycling, from the climate change levy.
  8.20 pm
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful and well-informed speech. I am aware of the tireless efforts that she has made to ensure that the importance of the United Kingdom aluminium industry and its products are properly recognised by the Government and others, especially through her role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the aluminium industry and through her membership of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I am also grateful to her for giving me advance notice of the issues that she has just brought to the attention of the House.
  The subject of the debate is important, as recycling is one of the key ways in which the metals industry can contribute to the greater goal of sustainable development. The Government are keen to work with the aluminium industry to find efficient ways of recycling this important material. The effective management of waste is central to achieving sustainable development. The Government are committed to achieving substantial increases in recycling rates. Our draft waste strategy, published last year, set out our goals of recycling or composting 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005 and, by the same date, reducing the amount of industrial and commercial waste that we landfill by 15 per cent. as compared with 1998 levels.
  Increasing recycling rates will help reduce the environmental impact of using primary raw materials and energy, and disposing of waste. It also offers a competitive opportunity to those businesses that can supply and use recycled materials.
  We have in place a number of measures to encourage increased recycling rates. The landfill tax encourages greater diversion of waste from landfill, and the standard rate is going up by £1 a tonne each year until a review in 2004. The producer responsibility initiative means that several industry sectors—including the packaging sector—are taking action to increase re-use, recovery and recycling rates. A Department of Trade and Industry recycling programme announced last October will tackle the market and technical barriers to increasing the use of recycled materials by manufacturing industry. Following that, the DTI and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are jointly developing proposals for a programme to promote more sustainable waste management and expand the market for secondary raw materials.
  96
  The Government are grateful to the UK aluminium industry for the commitment that it has shown in its negotiations with DETR on an agreement to reduce energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases. I understand that the Aluminium Federation is at the forefront of the energy-intensive sectors involved in these discussions, and that it expects to be one of the first trade associations to sign heads of agreement during the coming weeks. Once a full agreement has been concluded, eligible sites within the sector will be able to benefit from an 80 per cent. discount in the rate of the climate change levy.
  It is useful to have my hon. Friend's views on the climate change levy. I emphasise that the Government are seeking to design and implement the levy in a way that maximises the environmental benefits and safeguards competitiveness. We have been trying to work with business as much as possible on the design of the levy, and we have been listening to its views.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor responded to concerns expressed by business about the impact of the levy on competitiveness by announcing, in his 9 November pre-Budget report, a number of refinements to the original proposals. My right hon. Friend announced a discount of 80 per cent. for those sectors entering energy use agreements with the Government, and reconfirmed the exemption of electricity used in the primary smelting of aluminium. Those are moves to safeguard the competitiveness of energy-intensive sectors of industry exposed to international competitive pressures. However, there was much more in the pre-Budget report announcements for all sectors of business which, in the context of aluminium, means both primary and secondary producers.
  All sectors will benefit from the proposed reduction in the main rates of the levy from those published at the time of the 1999 Budget. All sectors will gain from the trebling of Government assistance to business for energy efficiency measures, including the introduction of a new system of enhanced capital allowances. All sectors can lower their levy liabilities by using electricity generated in good-quality heat-and-power plants or from new forms of renewable electricity.
  I acknowledge the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South expressed so eloquently about the impact of the climate change levy on aluminium recycling. I emphasise that we take that issue very seriously. We are working to ensure that the climate change levy should not cut across other environmental policy objectives. We certainly do not want to discourage aluminium recycling, which is one of the success stories of greening business, as my hon. Friend said. The Government are trying to deal with this issue in the context of the negotiated agreements. We are giving careful consideration to proposals on this issue which have been made by the Aluminium Federation.
  The question of eligibility for the climate change negotiated agreements has also been raised. Not all businesses engaged in aluminium recycling are eligible. We have said that eligibility will be determined on the basis of regulation under the European Union integrated pollution prevention and control directive. Installations covered by IPPC will be legally identifiable and subject to a regulatory requirement, in terms of having to operate in an energy-efficient manner, to which other non-IPPC sites will not be subject.

  97
  IPPC captures the main energy-intensive sectors of industry. However, the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report that the Government would still be prepared to consider suggestions from business for alternative approaches to IPPC, provided those targeted the discount on energy-intensive sectors exposed to international competition. However, any alternative proposals would have to meet certain criteria: they would have to have a clear rationale, provide legal certainty, have administrative simplicity and be consistent with EU state aid rules.
  I know that several industry trade associations have made representations on this issue—and that the Aluminium Federation is a party to one proposal, put forward jointly by a group of trade associations. We shall give fair consideration to all other suggestions received—in advance of the forthcoming Budget.
  However, I believe that it is important to make clear exactly what is at stake. The Government are offering the 80 per cent. levy to those in negotiated agreements but in return for commitment to challenging energy use targets, which will entail significant investments. The result should be environmental and competitiveness gains.
  The Alcan recycling plant, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, is a key part of the infrastructure in the UK for achieving the recovery and recycling targets in the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste. The directive requires us to recover 50 per cent. of all packaging waste and to recycle 25 per cent. in 2001. They are particularly challenging targets for us in the UK because we have started from a lower base than many of our European neighbours.
  We are committed to achieving the targets in the EC directive through the UK's packaging waste regulations. These form part of the UK's producer responsibility initiative, in which a number of sectors are taking action to increase their levels of re-use, recovery and recycling.
  In recent years, there has been increasing awareness that market failures may affect the expansion and development of the UK's recycling activities. New and proposed EU legislation on waste, and the review of the waste strategy for England and Wales, have highlighted the issue.
  The market development group set up by Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in July 1998 has investigated the barriers to expanding the markets for recycled goods. The group's key recommendation was that the identification and development of new markets for recycled goods should be taken forward as a priority measure. In the case of aluminium, though, the group found that the main barriers to increased recycling were the quality and quantity of the metal collected: more metal could be recycled if it could be collected economically. There did not appear to be any failure in demand; the key issue, therefore, was one of supply.
  In line with the commitment given in our draft waste strategy for England and Wales, the Government are now considering options for establishing a joint DETR-DTI sustainable waste action programme. The joint programme would promote an integrated approach to materials resource use and waste management.
  98
  Valuable lessons are being learned from the DTI's own one-year recycling programme, which is being seen as the precursor to the joint programme. The DTI programme expects to attract a number of worthwhile projects designed to create demand for recycled materials by overcoming technical and market barriers.
  Local authority waste collection authorities are under a duty to collect household waste, including recyclables. Many provide kerbside facilities to facilitate recycling and therefore encourage the public to recycle. Waste collection authorities are also under a duty to draw up and implement waste recycling plans. The DETR issued guidance in March 1998 on "Preparing and Revising Local Authority Recycling Strategies and Recycling Plans", and asked waste collection authorities to investigate whether their plans needed updating. Most authorities have undertaken the investigation and are revising their recycling plans.
  Waste disposal authorities have to provide recycling facilities in the form of civic amenity sites. The provision of such sites encourages residents to recycle. Historically, there has been an operational role for both private sector companies and the public sector in waste disposal.
  Waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities are being encouraged to work together on integrated waste management to promote recycling more effectively through the use of joint waste management strategies. The Government expect waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities to work as one in the delivery of waste management services—encouraging, for example, joint municipal waste strategies and joint waste management contracts under best value where appropriate.
  Co-operation and good communication between collection and disposal authorities, waste planners, the Environment Agency, industries and voluntary organisations provide maximum benefits from an integrated approach to municipal waste management. Local authorities also promote recycling through education—for example by giving presentations to schools. The Government also work with the local authority recycling advisory committee, which has a major influence on recycling, with meetings and activities taking place nationally and regionally.
  In summary, aluminium, like the other major non-ferrous metals, is infinitely recyclable and therefore well placed to make a valuable contribution to sustainability and a better quality of life for all. The Government will continue to work closely with the industry to ensure that policy continues to improve the recycling performance of aluminium. The Government are keen to keep up the momentum generated by these events so that the global benefits of continuing to use and reuse these metals are available for future generations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Heroin Addiction
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what support the Government gives to the work of the East-West Detox organisation in combating heroin addiction; and if she will make a statement. [108586]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The commissioning of services for drug misusers is essentially a matter for local agencies. The East-West Detox organisation receives no financial support from the Berkshire Health Authority. Health authorities and local authorities will receive an extra £70.5 million from 1999 to 2002 to commission and develop drug treatment services. The Government believe that a range of treatments should be available to allow drug misusers to benefit from those most appropriate to their needs and abstinence should be the primary aim of treatment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Criminal Tribunals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was his Department's financial contribution to(a) the International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia and (b) the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda, in each year since these bodies were established. [107424]

  Mr. Vaz
  The International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are funded by a combination of assessed contributions by UN member states and voluntary contributions. UK contributions are as follows:

  ICTY

  Year

  UN assessed (US$)

  1995

  1.1 million

  1996

  855,703

  1997

  1.2 million

  1998

  2.6 million

  1999

  5.1 million

  Voluntary contributions (£)

  1995

  258,400

  1996

  206,500

  1997

  500,000

  1998

  1.44 million

  19991

  204,500

  1 Not final

  2W

  ICTR

  Year

  UN assessed (US$)

  1995

  340,000

  1996

  685,108

  1997

  637,666

  1998

  2.8 million

  1999

  3.5 million

  Voluntary contributions (£)

  1996

  138,000

  1997

  56,000

  1998

  45,500

  1999

  185,000

  Japan (Radioactive Materials)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the sea shipment of plutonium MOX fuels and radioactive wastes from the United Kingdom to Japan from countries on the shipment route. [108693]

  Mr. Hain
  To date, we have received representations from the Governments of New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the Commonwealth Caribbean countries, as well as the Fijian-based Pacific Concerns Resources Centre Inc.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he held with the President of Indonesia during his visit to London about the loss of Indonesia's forest resource; and if he will make a statement. [108152]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development discussed the question of illegal logging with President Wahid during his recent visit to the UK.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings Her Majesty's Government(a) hosted and (b) arranged for Indonesia's Forestry Minister during his recent visit to London. [108153]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development called on President Wahid during his recent visit to the UK. The Indonesian Minister for Forestry and Plantation was present at the call.

PRIME MINISTER

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how much his Office spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the new year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payment; and if he will make a statement. [104475]
  3W
  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office, which for the purpose of this answer includes No.10, and the Government Millennium Centre have paid 53 millennium bonuses and will pay 26 special bonuses at a cost of £20,750.

  Millennium bonus

  Special bonus

  Maximum

  £150

  £750

  Received by

  19 staff

  8 staff

  Minimum

  £100

  £250

  Received by

  34 staff

  1 staff

  Millennium bonuses were paid to staff working for a minimum of six hours between 9 pm Friday 31 December and 9 am Saturday 1 January 2000.

  Special bonuses have been awarded to staff in recognition of the exceptional contribution they made throughout the preceding two years ensuring that any possible detrimental effects of the date change were identified and resolved before 1 January 2000.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Office, its agencies and associated public bodies since 22 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104680]

  The Prime Minister
  For the purpose of this question, this answer includes my Office and the Cabinet Office and its agencies.

  IT equipment, and vehicles in the fleet of the Government Car and Despatch Agency, are routinely replaced at the end of their useful life. The old equipment and vehicles are sold where it is appropriate and economic to do so.

  In addition to these replacement programmes, the Cabinet Office has sold a surplus property, Alencon Link in Basingstoke, for £1.3 million. A payment of £1.25 million has also been received, representing deferred sale proceeds following the privatisation of Chessington Computer Centre.

  Internal Histories
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason it is established practice not to disclose the titles of internal histories which are planned or in progress. [106161]

  The Prime Minister
  Decisions about the publication of information about internal Departmental histories are a matter for the Department concerned. It is not uncommon for such histories, or for projects in the Official Histories programme, to contain classified information or for their subject-matter to evolve as work proceeds. Publication of the studies and information about them is therefore better decided when studies are completed and can be assessed.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions each Cabinet Committee has met in the past year. [107829]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under section 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  Privy Council (Judicial Committee)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 545W, what assessment he has made of the compatibility between the United Kingdom's obligations to the Council of Europe and under other international undertakings and the United Kingdom Privy Council presiding over appeals in cases where the death sentence has been imposed following conviction in the High Court of an independent Commonwealth jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement. [108672]

  The Prime Minister
  In the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Privy Council is acting as part of the judicial structure of the independent state concerned, and not of the United Kingdom. There is no incompatibility with any of the United Kingdom's international obligations including those under Council of Europe instruments. Nevertheless, as I have made clear, the Government actively oppose the use of the death penalty by all states, including those from whose courts there is a right of appeal to the Privy Council.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2000,Official Report, columns 544–45W, on the Privy Council, if the Queen appoints any judges or members of the United Kingdom's Privy Council on the recommendation of her Ministers from countries other than the United Kingdom. [108675]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. It is, of course, not the United Kingdom Privy Council as such. Membership is also accorded to eminent people in some independent countries of the Commonwealth, of which Her Majesty is Queen.

  Baroness Thatcher
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has met Baroness Thatcher for discussions in the course of his official duties since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [108580]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of individuals and organisations.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on (a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance. [108961]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with convention, correspondence received by Departments from hon. Members is treated in confidence.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, columns 267–68W, concerning the drafting of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, if he will (a) place in the Library a copy of the letter he has sent to the two Chairmen of the Scrutiny Committees and (b) publish in the Official Report the names of organisations with which meetings have taken place, or correspondence has been conducted, and place copies of the correspondence in the Library. [108732]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the letters from the Minister of State for Europe in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to the Scrutiny Committees have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government will continue to have meetings with a wide range of individuals and organisations. These exchanges will be made public where appropriate.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the Government's response to (a) the proposals made by the Commission for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference and (b) documents submitted for that Conference by the European Union Institutions, member states and candidate states. [108734]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's position on all the issues likely to be raised at the intergovernmental conference will be set out in a White Paper to be published shortly.

  EU Defence
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 538W, and 1 February 2000, Official Report, column 544W, if he will place a synopsis of Mr. Liddle's speech in the Library. [108817]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  World Economic Forum
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of his attendance at the World Economic Forum at Davos. [108228]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 February 2000]: Not all bills have been received. However, the total cost to public funds of my attendance at the World Economic Forum is likely to be approximately £9,900.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list which Ministers of the Governments of (a) Austria, (b) Belgium, (c) Denmark, (d) Finland, (e) France, (f) Germany, (g) Greece, (h) Ireland, (i) Italy, (j) Luxembourg, (k) the Netherlands, (1) Portugal, (m) Spain and (n) Sweden he has met since 1 August 1999 and the date on which he met them. [108867]

  The Prime Minister
  I have met all EU Heads of State and some Ministers in multilateral fora since August. I have also held official discussions with the Prime Minister of Belgium on 30 November, the Prime Minister of 6W
  Finland on 6 October and 30 November, the Greek Minister for Development on 13 December, the Prime Minister of Italy on 20 November and the Prime Minister of Portugal on 29 November and 6 January. I also met the French President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Minister for Europe at the UK/French Summit on 25 November. There have been numerous meetings with the Taoiseach of Ireland in multilateral and bilateral fora. Most recently I had substantive discussions with him on 17 December and 3 February.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the status of Japanese contracts with the new Sellafield MOX plant. [106713]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: Details of BNFL's contracts with their customers for the Sellafield MOX Plant are commercially confidential. BNFL will continue to pursue Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel business in Japan, where the company is making major efforts to rebuild confidence.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if export credit for vessels designed for protection of a nation's maritime boundaries is treated by the Export Credits Guarantee Department as unproductive expenditure within the meaning used to define those credits which the Department refuses to guarantee. [108480]

  Mr. Caborn
  As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 11 January a unilateral UK ban on export credits in respect of "unproductive expenditure" to 63 of the world's poorest countries.

  Projects supported in future on these countries should be measured against the following indicative criteria:
  assist social and economic development; or
  be of maximum benefit to areas most affected by poverty; or
  tackle problem areas where private investment is not available; or
  wherever possible, earn foreign exchange; or
  encourage viable self-financing projects.

  These principles need not necessarily preclude ECGD support for the sale of defence or dual purpose equipment provided that such equipment is, for example, deemed essential for national security, or required to combat the drugs trade, piracy, smuggling etc. Support for projects must be cleared with the Department for International Development, who must be satisfied that the expenditure is consistent with the above.

  Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on jobs in the electricity industry of the cap on electricity distribution prices by the regulator; and if he will make a statement. [108975]
  7W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Decisions on the form and level of electricity price controls are a matter for the Director General of Gas and Electricity Markets. It is for the companies to decide how to meet the efficiency targets they have been set.

  Trade Development
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage British trade development and promotion abroad. [108507]

  Mr. Caborn
  I want an ever-growing number of firms to benefit from British Trade International, the new unified operation, which brings together DTI and FCO responsibilities for trade development and promotion. Support for exporters is part of the Government's programme, with business, to improve Britain's competitiveness. The National Strategy for International Trade Development and Promotion, published on 29 October 1999, demonstrates the exciting direction in which the new organisation is moving.

  Copies of the Strategy have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Paper Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from the paper industry about the consequences of the recent strength of the pound. [108230]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  None.

  Government clearly understand the concerns of businesses, particularly manufacturers in the paper industry and elsewhere trading within Europe, about the level of the pound. But we are determined to take a long-term view; it would be wrong to let short-term pressures lead back to policies which produced boom and bust in the past. Short-term fixes would be the biggest threat of all to industry, creating the illusion of temporary relief followed by the reality of long-term damage. The Government's economic policies are aimed at achieving sustained growth.

  Utilities Bill
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish draft guidance under Clauses 9, 13 and 90 of the Utilities Bill. [109176]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have today published preliminary drafts of the social and environmental guidance to the energy and telecoms regulators provided for under Clauses 9, 13 and 90 of the Utilities Bill. Copies of these drafts have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance. [108397]
  8W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Correspondence with Members of the House is treated in confidence unless the originating Member chooses to make it public.

  Coal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of(a) the cost per ton and (b) the total cost of supply in coal to retired miners from the cheapest foreign source. [107949].

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have not made such an estimate because I do not expect retired miners to be supplied with imported coal.

  Nuclear Accidents (Insurance)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the size of the insurance liability fund set aside to underwrite accidents at United Kingdom nuclear facilities; what authority manages the fund; and if any part of the fund is invested. [108681]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the operators of nuclear facilities in the UK are required to hold third party liability insurance to cover up to £140 million of damage resulting from accidents in nuclear installations. In the event of a severe nuclear accident in the UK, supplementary compensation would be made available in addition to this under the Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention, providing an amount of compensation totalling £300 million Special Drawing Rights of the IMF. We are currently considering substantial increases in the amount of compensation available under the Act.

  Insurance arrangements must be approved by the Secretary of State; operators without a Government indemnity purchase insurance from private sector insurers.

  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure fair competition between the United Kingdom's textile and clothing industry and that of competitor nations. [108661]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  As with other industries, the Government seek to promote fair competition between the United Kingdom and other textile and clothing industries through a wide range of national, European Union and international action.

  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will ensure that the appointee to the Chair of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has had scientific training; [108090]

  (2) why the position of Chair of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission was re-advertised; [108089]

  (3) when he will appoint the Chair of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. [108088]
  9W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have been asked to reply because the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission will report to me.

  The position of Chair of the Commission was re-advertised in order that we may choose from a wider range of candidates. Scientific training is not a prerequisite, but the person we are looking for must be able to understand what scientists are saying and to explain it clearly and simply in public. The appointment will be made as soon as possible.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  UNIDROIT Convention
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he has made a decision about whether the UK should become a signatory to the UNIDROIT convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. [109245]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  After a lengthy inter-departmental consultation, I have concluded that the UK should not become a signatory to the UNIDROIT convention due to conflicts with our current law. In order to implement the convention, changes to our limitation periods and to our personal property law would be required, resulting in a special regime for cultural objects and arguably a less generous position for original rightful owners of objects which are later stolen. I will, however, be considering the possible options for an alternative legislative approach which would share some of the objectives of the UNIDROIT Convention.

  West Yorkshire Theatres
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for each of the last five years, total public funding in(a) cash and (b) current prices for (i) the West Yorkshire Playhouse and (ii) regional theatres in West Yorkshire. [108211]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Grant-in-aid allocated by Yorkshire Arts to the West Yorkshire Playhouse, Wakefield Theatre Royal and Lawrence Batley Theatre is shown in the table.

  £

  Funding

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1994–95

  West Yorkshire Playhouse

  Cash

  840,800

  840,750

  840,750

  840,750

  790,800

  Real terms

  840,800

  868,185

  892,601

  921,349

  891,655

  Wakefield Theatre Royal

  Cash

  35,000

  29,500

  25,000

  12,000

  8,000

  Real terms

  35,000

  30,463

  26,542

  13,150

  9,020

  Lawrence Batley Theatre

  Cash

  35,000

  29,500

  28,000

  20,000

  —

  Real terms

  35,000

  30,463

  29,726

  21,917

  —

  Coaching (Children)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the effect of the Child Protection Act 1999 on coaching within children's sport. [106116]
  10W
  Kate Hoey
  The main effect of the Child Protection Act 1999 on coaching has been to raise awareness of the issues that need to be addressed by sport in this area. Sport England has established the Child Protection in Sport Task Force involving the National Coaching Foundation (NCF), the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR). The Task Force is working on a cross-sport action plan and met recently to discuss how best to take this forward.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to issue guidelines to the sports bodies responsible for coaching on best practice following enactment of the Child Protection Act 1999. [106115]

  Kate Hoey
  There is already a great deal of guidance available to sports bodies and coaches in this area. The National Coaching Foundation (NCF) have been working with the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in looking at guidelines since 1996. NCF Child Protection resources include the following:Protecting Children (1998)
  Protecting Disabled Children and Adults (1999)—Disability Sport England)
  Code of Ethics and Conduct for Sports Coaches
  Guidelines in Child Protection Policy and Implementation "Safe and Sound" leaflet (1999)

  As well as publications and resources targeted specifically at coaches, the NCF also offers consultancy, workshops for coaches, officials and volunteers in sport.

  The Child Protection in Sport Task Force established by Sport England will also be producing cross-sport action plan on child protection and sport.

  TV Licensing (Five-year Formula)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the statement in paragraph 5 of his Memorandum, Cm 4258, dated February 1999, that the review will not reconsider the current five-year formula for the level of the income fee until 2002, remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government. [108453]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 February 2000]: Although the formula was not included in the terms of reference, the independent review panel, chaired by Gavyn Davies, did consider the possibility of reopening the five-year formula and, in reaching our decisions, we are taking account of the panel's views on this.

  Lottery Funds
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to which existing lottery funds and which planned lottery programmes an application should be made for funding for dedicated premises for a pre-school group. [108448]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 4 February 2000]: An application for funding for dedicated premises for a pre-school group can be considered by the National Lottery Charities Board, provided the group is a

  11W
  charitable, philanthropic or benevolent body. The project may also be eligible for funding from other Lottery distributors, depending on its nature.

  School Sports
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the DfEE about using national sporting standards of achievements to develop school sport. [107968]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: My Department has regular discussions with the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) about a whole range of issues including the Sportsmark and Activemark recognition awards for secondary and primary schools.

  The recent appointment of Sue Campbell on secondment from the Youth Sport Trust will help to strengthen these links and build good practice between DCMS and DfEE on a number of issues relating to sport and physical education, including national sporting standards of achievement.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Driving Accidents
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many reportable injuries there were in 1998–99 as a result of driving accidents caused while at work. [107659]

  Mr. Hill
  Data specifically referring to "drivers at work" are not currently reported as part of the national injury road accidents survey. However, data on heavy goods vehicles and buses and coaches are recorded and the driver casualty data are shown in the table.

  HGV and bus/coach driver casualties1 by severity: GB 1998

  Severity

  Buses

  Lorries

  Fatal

  1

  52

  Serious

  68

  430

  Slight

  838

  2,462

  All

  907

  2,944

  1 Not necessarily incurred "at work"

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 278W, on driving licences, (a) when the more flexible arrangement to assist driving licence applicants will be announced and (b) how the arrangement will be publicised to applicants. [108069]

  Mr. Hill
  The new arrangements are still under consideration. I hope to be able to provide further details very shortly. Officials will discuss the appropriate publicity arrangements with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate once agreement has been reached on the way forward.

  Rail Freight and HGV Movements
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what change there has been in(a) rail freight usage and (b) heavy goods vehicle movements since 1 May 1997. [107863]

  Mr. Hill
  The changes in tonnes moved (billion tonne-kilometres) in Great Britain are as given in the table:

  Rail

  HGVs1

  Q2 1997

  4.1

  39.0

  Q3 19992

  4.5

  37.2

  Percentage change

  +9

  -5

  1 GB registered vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight

  2 Provisional figures

  Monthly figures are not available. The question has therefore been answered by taking the second quarter of 1997 as a base for the comparison.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that modifications to Directive 90/220 (Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms) do not suppress technological developments in developing countries. [108092]

  Mr. Meacher
  The purpose of Directive 90/220/EEC is to protect human health and the environment against any adverse effects which might arise from the deliberate release or placing on the market of genetically modified organisms.

  The Common Position on the revision of the Directive agreed by the Council on 9 December 1999 continues to reflect this purpose while increasing the efficiency and transparency of the decision making process under the Directive. It does not affect the operation of the Directive with regard to the technological developments in developing countries.

  However, such countries which are without domestic legislation relating to the import of genetically modified organisms will in the future be able to decide, on the basis of a specific risk assessment, whether to accept the import of genetically modified organisms. Provisions to do this are included in the United Nations Environment Programme Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted on 29 January.

  Quiet Lanes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many proposals for non-statutory quiet lanes have been included in provisional Local Transport Plans. [108208]

  Mr. Hill
  Authorities were encouraged to identify broad programmes rather than specific schemes in their Local Transport Plans. Accordingly, authorities looking to establish quiet lanes would not necessarily refer to specific proposals in their plans and our assessment has not attempted to identify the number of such proposals across the country.
  13W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many non-statutory quiet lanes had been introduced by 1 December in England. [108316]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not held centrally. The quiet roads concept, being promoted by the Countryside Agency, is supported by my Department. Pilot quiet roads schemes in Norfolk and Kent are under consideration and are due to be implemented over the next few months, with one in Devon later on this year. My Department is assisting in the pre-implementation, monitoring surveys, currently being undertaken in Norfolk and Kent.

  Vulnerable Road Users
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent surveys the Government have undertaken concerning intimidation of walkers, cyclists and horse-riders by fast-moving traffic. [108207]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government commission a wide range of research into traffic speed and road safety. Some of the studies include surveys of road users on the problems they experience, including seeking their views about fast moving traffic. As part of the monitoring of the Quiet Lanes project promoted by the Countryside Agency, my Department has commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to conduct telephone and roadside surveys of equestrians, pedestrians and cyclists. One of the questions to be asked is how much they are bothered by fast moving traffic. The surveys are due to take place in the Norfolk Quiet Lane area at the end of February and in the Kent Quiet Lane area in March.

  Local Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance has been given to district auditors about requiring local authorities to make preparations for (a) new local government structures and (b) the euro. [108282]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Audit Commission provides auditors it has appointed with a wide range of guidance about the implications, for their audit, of changes which affect local authorities. Such changes include local authority preparations for new local government structures and the euro.

  Connex Rail Strike
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of commuters who were affected by the Connex rail strike on Tuesday 25 January; [108369]

  (2) how many of the Connex trains that ran on Tuesday 25 January were delayed; [108368]

  (3) how many Connex train services were cancelled on Tuesday 25 January; and how many Connex trains ran on that day. [108381]

  Mr. Hill
  On a normal weekday Connex run approximately 3,500 trains. On 25 January they planned to run 449 trains under an emergency timetable, but actually ran 697. Due to the way in which the emergency 14W
  timetable was devised it is not possible to state how many of the trains which ran were delayed. Most of the 200,000 commuters who use Connex services were affected to a greater or lesser extent.

  Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Franchising Director will announce the successful bid under the Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme. [108777]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 January 2000,Official Report, columns, 132–33W.

  British Railways Board
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the criteria by which the British Railways Board decides on the sale of land. [108465]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 253W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the assets for which the British Railways Board has responsibility. [108467]

  Mr. Hill
  Following privatisation of the railways, the British Railways Board remains responsible primarily for the British Transport Police, residual property and certain residual liabilities.

  At 31 March 1999 tangible assets on the balance sheet totalled £32.0 million comprising buildings (£25.0 million), plant and equipment (£6.7 million) and investments (£0.3 million). Non-operational property totalling £103.6 million was held in current assets.

  In addition, the Board remains responsible for some 5,000 isolated engineering structures such as bridges, viaducts and tunnels.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the contacts which his Department had with the British Railways Board over the last 12 months; and what was the content of each contact. [108466]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers and officials in my Department have had numerous contacts with the British Railways Board (BRB) and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) (of which the BRB now forms part) covering a range of issues including advice to Ministers.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what applications for areas to become a parish or town council are outstanding. [108395]
  15W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the principal local authorities that have submitted recommendations to the Secretary of State for new parishes, either as a result of a review of parish arrangements in their area, or following receipt of a petition for a new parish, which are outstanding.

  Outstanding local authority recommendations submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the creation of parishes in their area, either as a result of a review or a petition

  Principal authority

  Area(s) of proposed new parish/parishes

  East Northamptonshire District Council

  Stanwick

  Rushden

  East Staffordshire District Council

  Stapenhill

  Waterside and Edgehill

  Winshill

  Uxbridge and Broadway

  Victoria and Snobhall

  Horninglow and Eton

  Burton

  Harlow District Council

  Church Langley

  High Peak Borough Council

  Glossop

  Chapel-en-le-Frith

  Kettering District Council

  Barton Seagrave

  Local authorities that have since 1997 submitted recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Enviroment, Transport and the Regions for the creation of new parishes within their area, either as a result of review or petition

  Principal Authority

  Area(s) which applied for parish status

  Outcome

  1997–98

  Isle of Wight

  East Cowes

  1 new parish created

  New parishes constituted on 1 April 1998

  1

  1998–99

  Colchester Borough Council

  Myland

  1 new parish created

  East Hampshire District Council

  Beech

  1 new parish created

  East Lindsey District Council

  Saltfleetby

  1 new parish created

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  Beverley

  Cottingham

  2 new parishes created

  Forest Heath District Council

  Beck Row

  Kenny Hill

  Exning

  4 new parishes created

  Newmarket

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Headland

  1 new parish created

  Leeds City Council

  Allerton Bywater

  Horsforth

  2 new parishes created

  Lewes District Council

  Seaford

  1 new parish created

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Collier Street

  1 new parish created

  New Forest District Council

  Godshill

  1 new parish created

  Portsmouth City Council

  Southsea

  1 new parish created

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Eastfield

  1 new parish created

  Tameside Metropolitan Council

  Mossley

  1 new parish created

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Kings Hill

  1 new parish created

  West Lancashire District Council

  Hilldale

  1 new parish created

  New parishes constituted on 1 April 1999

  1999–2000

  Birmingham City Council

  New Frankley in Birmingham

  1 new parish created

  Bradford City Council

  Haworth, Cross Roads and Stanbury

  1 new parish created

  Braintree District Council

  Great Notley

  1 new parish created

  Cannock Chase District Council

  Hednesford

  1 new parish created

  Cherwell District Council

  Banbury

  1 new parish created

  Cotswold District Council

  Upper Rissington

  1 new parish created

  County of Herefordshire District Council

  Belmont Rural

  Hereford

  2 new parishes created

  16W

  Outstanding local authority recommendations submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the creation of parishes in their area, either as a result of a review or a petition

  Principal authority

  Area(s) of proposed new parish/parishes

  Milton Keynes Council

  Central Milton Keynes

  Fenny Stratford and Water Eaton

  West Bletchley

  New Bradwell

  Simpson

  Stony Stratford

  Wolverton and Greenleys

  Kents Hill, Monkston and

  Brinklow

  Newcastle-under-Lyme District Council

  Silverdale

  North Somerset District Council

  St. Georges

  Swale District Council

  Minster

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the areas that have applied to become a parish or town council in each of the last three years; and what was the outcome of each application. [108396]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The list shows the principal local authorities that have submitted recommendations to the Secretary of State for new parishes, either as a result of a review of parish arrangements in their area, or following receipt of a petition for a new parish.
  17W

  Local authorities that have since 1997 submitted recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the creation of new parishes within their area, either as a result of review or petition

  Principal Authority

  Area(s) which applied for parish status

  Outcome

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  Bridlington

  Anlaby with Anlaby Common

  Kirk Ella

  Willerby

  4 new parishes created

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  Claygate

  1 new parish created

  Erewash Borough Council

  Sawley

  1 new parish created

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Cliffords Mesne

  1 new parish created

  Gorsley and Kilcot

  1 proposed parish

  rejected

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Vigo

  1 new parish created

  Leeds City Council

  Morley

  1 new parish created

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Ashurst Wood

  Hassocks

  2 new parishes created

  North Somerset District Council

  Weston-super-Mare

  1 new parish created

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Maltby

  1 new parish created

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Hightown

  1 new parish created

  South Bedfordshire District Council

  Chalton

  1 new parish created

  South Northamptonshire

  Overthorpe

  1 new parish created

  Stafford Borough Council

  Stowe-by-Chartley

  1 new parish created

  Tandridge District Council

  Caterham-on-the-Hill

  Caterham Valley

  Chaldon

  Dormansland

  Lingfield

  Outwood

  Warlingham

  Whyteleafe

  Woldingham

  9 new parishes created

  Wear Valley District Council

  Witton-le Wear

  Dene Valley

  2 new parishes created

  Welwyn Hatfield District Council

  Woolmer Valley

  1 new parish created

  West Berkshire District Council

  Holybrook

  1 new parish created

  West Lindsey District Council

  Brookenby

  1 new parish created

  New parishes to be constituted on 1 April 2000

  39

  Swindon and Wiltshire Structure Plan
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that no parties to the examination in public of amendments to the Swindon and Wiltshire structure plan exert undue influence on the proceedings. [108154]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The panel of the examination in public which was held last year was appointed by the Secretary of State and is independent of any parties interested in the plan. Examinations in public are carried out in accordance with well-known procedures in a strictly impartial and open manner.

  It is the responsibility of the relevant local authorities to ensure that the process of preparing structure plans is carried out fairly and is consistent with national Planning Policy Guidance.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the extent of influence by developers on the examination in public of the amendments to the Swindon and Wiltshire structure plan. [108155]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None.

  Local Bypasses
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will respond to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire's18W
  request for a meeting with the Minister for Transport to discuss the criteria used by his Department to assess bids for local bypasses. [109007]

  Mr. Hill
  I replied to the hon. Member on 4 February.

  National Bus Pensions
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the distribution of the National Bus Company Pension Fund settlement. [109056]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government reached a settlement with the Trustees of the NBC Pension Fund in July last year. Responsibility for deciding on, and implementing, the distribution of the settlement now rests entirely with the NBC pension trustees who are independent of the Government. However, I have written to the Trustees to express my deep concern about the time it is taking to resolve this issue. I understand that the Trustees intend to make initial payments to some 8,000 older pensioners in March and April. They are urgently investigating the feasibility of making an initial payment to other pensioners as soon as possible.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to amend his Departmental Expenditure Limits and running costs limits for 1999–2000. [109270]
  19W
  Mr. Prescott
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class III, Votes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Departmental Expenditure Limits for 1999–2000 will change as follows. All references to the take-up of end-year flexibility refer to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's announcement of 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 393W.

  (a) The DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £168,685,000 from £10,235,305,000 to £10,403,990,000. This increase reflects the net impact of a take-up of end-year flexibility of £66,168,000; net transfers into the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit of £27,517,000 and a call on the DEL Reserve of £75,000,000. The changes are set out in greater detail below.

  (i) The changes for Class III, Vote 1 are as follows: £304,000 will be transferred to the Housing Corporation from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security, administration) for homelessness administration costs previously carried by that department's Resettlement Unit; and the take-up of end-year flexibility of £689,000 for support to local authorities for Estate Renewal Challenge Fund projects. Transfers will be made of £1,500,000 to Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) for Youth Inclusion Programme spending by the Youth Justice Board; £155,000 to Class II, Vote I (Department of Health, Hospital, community health, family and related services, England) for health authority costs incurred in respect of the Rough Sleepers Unit Victoria pilot project; and £2,000,000 to Class III, Vote 4 (Local government, England) for Audit Commission 'Best Value in Housing' inspection work. There will also be inter-vote transfers of £4,504,000 to Class III, Vote 7 (Other executive agencies) for The Rent Service Executive Agency; £750,000 to Class III, Vote 5 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration) out of departmental running costs held on this vote; and transfers from the non-voted element of the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit of £1,000,000 for capital projects by the Housing Corporation and £300,000 for grant in aid to Regional Development Agencies in respect of Derelict Land Grant.

  (ii) The changes for Class III, Vote 2 are as follows: a transfer of £113,000 to Class XIV, Vote 1 (Welsh Office, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales and payments to the National Assembly for Wales) for a travel awareness campaign; an increase of £1,830,000 in respect of the re-classification as expenditure within the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit of Licence fee refunds to goods vehicle and public service vehicle operators and drivers; and a net increase of £1,000 for revised forecasts of expenditure and receipts associated with the Statistics, censuses and surveys programme. There will also be an inter-vote transfer of £500,000 to Class III, Vote 6 (Transport industries) for the start-up costs of London minicab licensing.

  (iii) The changes for Class III Vote 3 are as follows: the take-up of end-year flexibility of £2,441,000 for the Energy Saving Trust's work on the Powershift Project (£300,000); for costs incurred on sustainable goods and services initiatives following the wind-up of the UK Ecolabelling Board (£118,000); to meet additional obligations under international environmental treaties (£333,000); for grant
  20W
  in aid payments to British Waterways (£340,000); for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (£1,350,000); a transfer of £335,000 to Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) and of £150,000 to Class XIV, Vote 1 (Welsh Office, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales and payments to the National Assembly for Wales) for environmental publicity work. In addition there are increases of grant in aid to the Environment Agency of £2,303,000 funded by a transfer from the non-Voted element of DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit; and a transfer of £1,655,000 from the non-Voted element of DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit and a transfer from the DETR Departmental Unallocated Provision of £900,000 for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme.

  (iv) The changes for Class III, Vote 5 are as follows: take-up of £1,000,000 gross running cost and £3,500,000 other current provision from end-year flexibility entitlement for the Health and Safety Commission grant in aid; a transfer to Class XI, Vote 1 (Department for Culture, Media and Sport: programme expenditure and administration) of £592,000 gross running cost provision for the management and maintenance costs of Marlborough House; a transfer to Class XIV, Vote 1 (Welsh Office, Office of the Secretary of State for Wales and payments to the National Assembly for Wales) of £50,000 gross running cost provision in respect of publicity costs for energy conservation; a transfer to Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) of £60,000 gross running cost provision towards the cost of the Teenage Pregnancy Unit; a transfer to Class X, Vote 2 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) of £107,000 for minor occupier costs; and a transfer to Class III, Vote 4 (Local government, England) on the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit of provision from gross running costs of £100,000 and other current of £350,000 for mapping costs. There will also be inter-vote transfers within the DETR gross running cost limit of provision from Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, and countryside and wildlife, England) of £750,000, Class III, Vote 7 (Other executive agencies) of £8,500,000, and from Class III, Vote 8 (Highways Agency) of £3,500,000; and a transfer to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on Class III, Vote 7 (Other executive agencies) of £44,000 gross running cost provision towards the salary and travel costs of an agency employee. Gross running cost provision and appropriations in aid provision have also both been increased; by £3,250,000 for increased expenditure and the subsequent recovery of VAT on contracted out services; and by £700,000 for the rent and other associated costs paid by the Greater London Authority Implementation Team in respect of Romney House.

  (v) The changes for Class III, Vote 6 are as follows: an agreed claim on the Reserve of £75,000,000 for London Transport; a transfer of £35,000,000 from Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) in respect of Bus Fuel Duty rebates; a transfer of £6,000,000 from the non-Voted element of the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit in respect of the Docklands Light Railway; a transfer of £2,600,000 to the Office of the Rail Regulator Departmental Expenditure Limit (Class III, Vote 11); and the take-up of £17,600,000 end-year flexibility by Docklands Light Railway (£12,000,000), Civil Aviation Services (£3,000,000) and London Transport (£2,600,000). There will also be

  21W
  inter-vote transfers of: £500,000 from Class III, Vote 2 (Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety) in respect of Minicab licensing start-up costs; £59,000 to Class III, Vote 7 (Other executive agencies). In addition to these changes Voted DEL provision for London Transport and British Rail will increase by £1,050,000 and £19,600,000 respectively, offset by equivalent decreases in the non-Voted DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit associated with Vote 6.

  (vi) The changes to Class III, Vote 7 are as follows: a transfer of £93,000 from Class X, Vote 2 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food); to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for engine testing on fishing vessels and the take-up of end-year flexibility of £10,061,000 for: the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for stationing an additional emergency towing vessel in the Fair Isle (£561,000); to offset a shortfall arising as a consequence of the revaluation of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Trading Fund Executive Agency (£8,500,000); a loan to the Vehicle Inspectorate to enable them to cover investment costs arising from revised rules relating to single vehicle approvals (£1,000,000); There will also be inter-vote transfers of: £44,000 from Class III, Vote 5 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration) to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to cover half of the salary and travel costs of a shared employee who works primarily at the International Maritime Organisation; £59,000 from Class III, Vote 6 (Transport industries) to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to cover expenditure for Formal Safety Assessment for Bulk Carriers; £4,504,000 from Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, and countryside and wildlife, England) to the Rent Service Executive Agency for the development of new IT systems; £8,500,000 gross running cost provision to Class III, Vote 5 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration); and £1,500,000 from the DETR Departmental Unallocated Provision to the Planning Inspectorate to cover a receipts shortfall.

  (vii) The change for Class III, Vote 8 is a reduction of £3,500,000 to reflect a transfer of running costs provision to Class III, Vote 5 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration).

  (viii) The change for Class III Vote 9 is the take-up of £14,520,000 end-year flexibility to cover the cost of introducing Graduated VED.

  (ix) The change for Class III, Vote 10 is a token increase of £1,000 to allow an increase in gross expenditure, to be offset by the Appropriation in Aid of additional receipts, to reflect the performance of the Train Operating Companies.

  (x) As a consequence of the changes to Class III, Votes 1,5,7,8 and 9 the DETR gross running cost limit has been increased by £21,874,000 from £649,195,000 to £671,069,000. These changes total; £750,000 reduction for Rent Assessment Panels (Class III, Vote 1): £9,969,000 increase for Central Administration, £1,209,000 increase for Government Offices in the Regions and £726,000 increase for PSA Services (all Class III, Vote 5); £353,000 increase for the Marine Coastguard Executive Agency, £250,000 reduction for the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency and £8,500,000 reduction for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre (all Class III, Vote 7); £3,500,000 reduction for the Highways Executive Agency (Class III, Vote 8); and £22,617,000 increase for the Driver Vehicle
  22W
  Licensing Executive Agency (Class III, Vote 9). The Health and Safety Executive gross running cost limit has been increased by £1,000,000 from £169,898,000 to £170,898,000.

  (xi) Provision within the non-Voted element of the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be decreased by £19,551,000 from £1,716,805,000 to £1,697,254,000. This reflects a transfer of: £1,300,000 to Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, and countryside and wildlife, England) for capital projects by the Housing Corporation and grant in aid to Regional Development Agencies; £3,958,000 to Class III Vote 3 (Environmental protection and water) for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme and grant in aid to the Environment Agency; £20,650,000 to Class III, Vote 6 (Transport industries) for London Transport and British Rail. It also includes transfers from the DETR Departmental Unallocated Provision of £900,000 to Class III, Vote 3 (Environmental protection and water) for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; £1,500,000 to Class III, Vote 7 (Other executive agencies) for the Planning Inspectorate; and £7,600,000 to Class III Vote 4 (Local government, England) on the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit for preparation costs of the Greater London Authority and associated bodies. Non-voted provision will be increased by the take-up of end-year flexibility of £15,848,000 for National Air Traffic Services and £509,000 for the Civil Aviation Authority to fund capital investment.

  The net increase in the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by transfers to the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit, Office of the Rail Regulator Departmental Expenditure Limit, Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limit, Department of Health Departmental Expenditure Limit, Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit, Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit, Department of Culture, Media and Sport Departmental Expenditure Limit; from the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit, Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Departmental Expenditure; and by a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  (b) The DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £7,170,000 from £34,211,567,000 to £34,218,737,000. This increase is the net effect of a take-up of end-year flexibility of £3,120,000, transfers from the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit of £10,050,000, and a transfer of £6,000,000 to the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit. The changes are set out in greater detail below.

  (i) The changes for Class III, Vote 4 are as follows: transfers of £2,000,000 from Class III, Vote 1 (Housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy, and countryside and wildlife, England) for Audit Commission 'Best Value in Housing' inspection work and £450,000 from Class III, Vote 5 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration) for mapping costs arising from periodic electoral reviews by the Local Government Commission; a transfer of £7,600,000 from the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit Departmental Unallocated Provision for preparation costs of the Greater London Authority and associated

  23W
  bodies, including publicity; and a transfer of £7,800,000 to a new non-Voted programme, within the Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit, for returning officers' expenses in the London elections of May 2000.

  (ii) Provision within the non-Voted element of the Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £4,920,000 from £366,986,000 to £371,906,000. This reflects a take-up of end-year flexibility of £3,120,000 for the Local Authority Capital Challenge programme; a transfer of £7,800,000 from Class III, Vote 4 for returning officers' expenses in the London elections of May 2000; and a transfer of £6,000,000 to the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Docklands Light Railway.

  The net increase in the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by transfers from the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit and by a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  (c) The Office of the Rail Regulator Departmental Expenditure Limit will increase by £2,634,000 from £1,134,000 to £3,768,000. This increase for Class III, Vote 11 will be partly effected by the take-up of £34,000 of end-year flexibility. The remainder of the increase is the result of a transfer of £2,600,000 from Class III, Vote 6 (Transport industries) on the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit. The running cost limit for ORR will be increased by £2,208,000 from £10,033,000 to £12,241,000.

  The increase in the Office of the Rail Regulator Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by a transfer from the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit and a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Operation Lancet
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action the Crown Prosecution Service has taken regarding files on Operation Lancet forwarded by the Cleveland Police to Treasury Counsel. [108768]

  The Solicitor-General
  A large number of files relating to serious allegations of police misconduct have been forwarded by Operation Lancet to the Crown Prosecution Service for review to decide whether or not any prosecutions should be brought. Treasury Counsel has been instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service to advise. The Crown Prosecution Service and Treasury Counsel have undertaken a considerable amount of work in respect of these files. Further work on this complex matter is necessary before any decisions can be taken.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Crown Prosecution Service will reach a decision on the files regarding Operation Lancet. [108806]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has received a large number of files from Operation Lancet relating to many and complex serious 24W
  allegations of police misconduct. Further files are expected. Decisions will be taken as soon as is properly possible. It is anticipated that decisions will begin to be taken during the course of the next two or three months.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Bug
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the main recipients of Government expenditure on dealing with the millennium bug. [107508]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The main Government expenditure on dealing with the Millennium Bug was on departmental programmes to check, fix and test systems. Central Government Departments and agencies spent an estimated £380 million on tackling the Bug in their own systems. Detailed information about each department's programme expenditure is not held centrally.

  Action 2000's budget to raise awareness and encourage action in the private sector and to ensure no material disruption across the national infrastructure forms the main expenditure on the Government's central programme. Action 2000 is a private company, set up by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1998, which receives grant from both the DTI and the Cabinet Office totalling approximately £58.4 million.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list those principal individuals and organisations who gave her advice on the dangers of the millennium bug. [107494]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have received information and advice on the risks posed by the millennium bug from a considerable number of individuals and organisations in both the public and private sectors and from the governments of other countries, as well as representations from a variety of pressure groups. The advice has been both written and oral and based largely on the direct experience within these organisations of problems they have themselves experienced. I have also, of course, had advice from the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office on further action which should be pursued.

  My principal advisers on this issue have been Dr. Iain Anderson, Don Cruickshank, Gywnneth Flower and Action 2000, the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and the Year 2000 Team in the Cabinet Office.

  EU Charter of Human Rights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 8 December 1999 to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, (Mr. Borrow)Official Report, column 532W, on the European Union Charter of Human Rights, if she will state (a) by what means the delegates were appointed and what consultations were undertaken concerning the appointments, (b) by what means and to whom the delegates will report and (c) if draft papers containing proposals by the European Union to the delegates will be available to hon. Members prior to their consideration by the drafting body. [105125]
  25W
  Mrs. Beckett
  Delegates were appointed after appropriate consultations through the usual channels.

  The Cologne and Tampere European Council Conclusions set out the procedures for drafting and delivering the Charter. The Charter Drafting Body will produce its draft report and seek endorsement from the European Council.

  The Charter drafting process is designed to be transparent. The Charter website, which will contain the various working documents can be reached through hhtp://ue.eu.int.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EU Documents
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many EU documents have been considered by the European Legislation in each year since 1 May 1997; and for how many hours those committees sat during that period. [108217]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The number of documents considered by the European Legislation and Scrutiny Committees are listed in the sessional returns for the relevant sessions: (1997–98) HC142, and (1998–99) HC1. Information on the length of sittings is not recorded.

  Official Report
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many copies of the Official Report were printed during the 1998–99 session; at what (a) total and (b) unit cost; how many copies were sold; and what was the total revenue generated. [106976]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 26 January 2000]: A total of 397,486 copies of the Official Report daily part, comprising 154 issues, were printed during the 1998–99 session at a total cost of £658,167. That provides a unit cost of about £1.65. Sales to Parliament were paid for by the two Houses under a bulk charge arrangement which, in addition to the cost of copies supplied, covered all aspects of the printing process. House of Commons subscribers accounted for 47,432 copies and 168,000 copies were supplied to the two Houses under the direct delivery arrangements for distribution to Members and other uses within the House. Sales to customers outside Parliament amounted to 182,054 copies, a substantial proportion of which were sold to public libraries, loca authorities and educational authorities at discounts of up to 50 per cent. off the cover price of £5. Information about the total revenue generated is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Staff
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons, how many House of Commons Clerks are employed by the House of Commons Commission; and how many of those are of ethnic minority origin. [106980]
  26W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 26 January 2000]: There are presently 73 clerks in the Department of the Clerk of the House. Of these approximately 85 per cent. have supplied information on their ethnic origin. Fewer than five of these are non-white.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the current establishment of employees of the House of Commons Commission; and what percentage are of ethnic minority origin. [106979]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 26 January 2000]: The Commission currently employs 1,421 members of staff. Of these 1,073 (just over 75 per cent.) have completed ethnic monitoring forms. The table shows the percentage who say they have an ethnic minority origin.

  Ethnic minority origin

  Number of staff on whom information about ethnic origin is held

  Number of staff in group as percentage of those on whom information is held

  White

  960

  89.5

  Asian

  31

  2.9

  Black

  72

  6.7

  Other

  10

  0.9

  Total

  1,073

  100

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Global Free Trade
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to include in the next development White Paper the target of achieving global free trade by 2020. [109240]

  Clare Short
  We will be covering trade issues in the next Development White Paper. Trade is important for developing countries as a way of helping to generate the economic growth necessary for poverty eradication. The Government support the early launch of a comprehensive round of trade negotiations aimed at a substantive package to remove trade barriers and to promote growth in the world economy.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 337–38W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by her Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108198]

  Clare Short
  Our standard research contract makes no provision for veto over publication but does require contractors to obtain our agreement before communicating with the media. In 1999 no such requests were received by departments who commissioned research and therefore no requests were refused.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British civilians were(a) seconded

  27W
  and (b) contracted to Her Majesty's Forces in the war theatre during the Gulf War; if they came under military discipline; and what insurance arrangements were made on their behalf by Her Majesty's Government. [107284]

  Mr. Spellar
  Civilians, including foreign nationals, based in the UK and overseas, played a vital role in supporting British Forces during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict, but the precise number seconded (that is attached to British Forces) has not been determined. However, a review of Ministry of Defence (MOD) records shows that on 22 February 1991, 931 MOD civilian staff were reported as being in the Gulf theatre, but not all were working in direct support of British Forces. Of these, 785 were members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. In addition, there were a significant number of civilian contractors' employees working in direct support of British Forces in the Gulf theatre. My Department conservatively estimates that the number of civilian contractors' employees involved would have been in excess of 1,000 people.

  All civilians (including contractors) serving with any part of British Forces who were on active service would have been subject to military discipline.

  The MOD does not normally purchase insurance. In accordance with Treasury guidelines and in common with other Government Departments, the MOD underwrites its own financial risks and pays claims for compensation directly out of current expenditure. When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the MOD has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so. No insurance would have been purchased by the MOD covering British civilians seconded or contracted to British Forces during the Gulf conflict. This would be a matter for the employing organisations and the individuals themselves. The MOD would expect the cost of any insurance to be reflected in the contract price.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time members of the armed forces were stationed in Northern Ireland on 31 January 1998, 31 January 1999 and 31 January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [108109]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of members of the Armed Forces serving in Northern Ireland are set out in the table:

  Strength as at1

  31 January 1998

  31 January 1999

  31 December 19992

  Army (General Service)

  9,840

  9,063

  8,697

  Royal Air Force

  1,152

  1,150

  1,133

  Royal Navy

  321

  182

  179

  Royal Irish Regiment3

  2,703

  2,627

  2,511

  Royal Irish Regiment4

  1,967

  1,923

  1,799

  Total

  15,983

  14,945

  14,319

  1 Excludes those forces fully committed to Northern Ireland but rear-based on the mainland

  2 Strengths given for December 1999 as the January 2000 figure is not yet available

  3 Home Service full-time

  4 Home Service part-time

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the NATO recommended minimum flying times for(a) rotary pilots, (b) multi-transport pilots and (c) fast jet pilots; what percentage of RAF pilots in each of these categories met or exceeded NATO recommendations in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [107545]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: The NATO recommended minimum flying times are in the table:

  Pilots

  Flying times (hours per year)

  Rotary

  Not defined

  Multi engine

  240

  Fast jet (readiness 1–3)

  180

  Fast jet (readiness 4)

  160

  Information relating to the percentage of RAF pilots who met or exceeded NATO recommended hours is not held in the format requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, the average hours per crew in the fast jet (not defined by readiness states) multi-engine and rotary categories for each of the last five years are shown in the table, indicating in broad terms that the NATO minimum figures have been comfortably exceeded in each year.

  Aircraft category

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Rotary

  345

  389

  382

  354

  319

  Multi engine

  361

  448

  462

  479

  451

  Fast jet

  239

  236

  235

  238

  211

  Army (Welfare Services)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he would(a) list the MoD funding received by the Army Welfare Service as separate from the Personal Welfare Service in each year between and including financial year 1996–97 and the current financial year, (b) provide an explanation of the remit and function of the AWS, (c) list the MoD funding received by the Personal Welfare Service as separate from the Army Welfare Service in each year between and including financial year 1996–97 and the current financial year, (d) provide an explanation of the remit and function of the PWS and (e) provide an explanation for the change in the combined AWS/PWS budget allocation and spend between financial year 1998–99 and 1999–00. [108094]

  Mr. Spellar
  Although the Army Welfare Service (AWS) has been operating since 1996, records of total expenditure have only been recorded since centralising funding was established on 1 April 1999. Expenditure for the AWS before 1999–2000 therefore could only be provided at disproportionate cost. A breakdown of funding between the AWS and the Personal Welfare Service (PWS) is provided for 1999–2000. Figures for 1996–97 to 1998–99 are for the PWS in Northern Ireland only.
  29W

  Year/Organisation

  Spend

  Allocation

  1996–97

  PWS

  87,165

  88,000

  1997–98

  PWS

  87,368

  90,000

  1998–99

  PWS

  88,002

  90,000

  1999–2000

  AWS

  5,941,000

  6,528,000

  PWS

  181,000

  199,000

  1 Spend to date

  The AWS's mission is to provide a comprehensive, professionally based and confidential welfare support service responsive to the needs of individuals, the chain of command and statutory requirements, in order to maximise the operational effectiveness of service men and women.

  The AWS provides support for soldiers and their families in recognition of the greater turbulence, and a lack of the wider family support resulting from military service. The AWS supports Commanding Officers by developing a long term static welfare infrastructure at garrison and station level through which units can move with the assurance of expert welfare assistance and advice that is complementary to, and integrated with, civil agencies whose help can be drawn upon when required.

  MoD policy adopts and reflects UK national legislation for its Service community overseas. In the welfare area this means that the AWS, using the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) Forces Help personnel, is given the same statutory responsibilities with regard to the protection of children as those of local authority social service departments. The AWS also uses other specialist agencies, such as RELATE and HomeStart, to provide specific assistance.

  The PWS provides comparable services in Northern Ireland.

  Imphal Barracks
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the annual cost of maintenance of The Keep at Imphal barracks, York; and what estimate he has made of the cost of renovation; [108665]

  (2) what area of Portakabin office accommodation will be hired at Imphal barracks, York; for what reason; and at what cost; [108668]

  (3) what (a) area and (b) proportion of custom-built office accommodation at Imphal barracks, York, will be used for document storage. [108669]

  Mr. Spellar
  The average annual cost of maintenance per year of The Keep at Imphal Barracks is some £600. In financial year 1998–99, however, exceptional work totalling £18,800 was carried out to repair the roof and re-point brickwork. There are no plans to renovate it.

  There is no requirement to hire portakabins for use as office accommodation, as the existing office accommodation available within the Garrison is sufficient to meet our needs.
  30W
  At present, there is no area of office accommodation at Imphal Barracks set aside for document storage. The relocation of the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) to the Barracks in April 2000, however, will also involve the setting up of the DVA Library, estimated at 535 metres square, which will represent approximately 2.65 per cent. of the total office accommodation within the Barracks.

  National Ignition Facility (US)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy of investing in the US National Ignition Facility; [107734]

  (2) how much the Government (a) have invested and (b) are planning to invest in the US National Ignition Facility. [107735]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision to invest in the US National Ignition Facility (NIF) was announced by my predecessor in June last year. The currently projected UK total investment is some £100 million over a period of 10 years. Of this, expenditure of some £11 million has been approved so far to fund measures aimed at increasing the laser shot rate, and initial feasibility work related to the second target chamber. Decisions on future UK investment will depend largely on the outcome of the feasibility study, which will also take into account the US Government's assessment of the status of the NIF project.

  Credit Ratings
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often the credit rating of companies supplying services to his Department is checked. [107752]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the period of a contract, the Department will only carry out checks if it has reason to believe that any of its contractors may be in financial trouble.

  Fuel Allocations
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many driving hours per year were provided for in Army fuel allocations for (a) Warrior variants, (b) Challenger 1, (c) Challenger 2, (d) Saxon variants, (e) AVF 430 variants, (f) Sabre, (g) Striker, (h) Scimitar, (i) Spartan, (j) Sultan, (k) Samaritan and (1) Samson in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [107551]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: The information is not available in the required format and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Driver hours are not used as an allocation currency for fuel. Overall activity levels for the vehicles in question are based, in all cases, on annual track mileage allocations for each vehicle type. Specific exercise activity levels are, in turn, determined against these allocations through the annual planning cycle and in-year management process. Fuel is allocated through this planning process based on comparisons of previous activity levels with future plans.

  Satellite Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the introduction of space-based infra-red satellite systems; and if he will make a statement. [108419]
  31W
  Mr. Hoon
  None. But matters relating to the Space Based Infra Red System are the subject of regular discussions between my officials and their US counterparts.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1999,Official Report, columns 454–55W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108203]

  Dr. Moonie
  MOD approval is required for any proposed publication of research findings, or any open discussion of such findings, between contractors and third parties, including journalists. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with a presumption that approval will be given unless security, commercial or other overriding reasons dictate otherwise.

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents there were in which deceased air crew were found guilty of gross negligence in aircraft that were not fitted with cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders since 1980; and what proportion of accidents involving military aircraft this represented. [108491]

  Mr. Spellar
  There was one such accident: the RAF Chinook HC2 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. This represents one such finding in approximately 550 military aircraft accidents.

  Iraq
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 2000,Official Report, column 165W, on Iraq, how many British aircraft came under fire before dropping their laser-guided bombs. [108433]

  Mr. Hoon
  On the morning of 28 November 1999, coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no fly zone came under fire from Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery. During a further patrol later that day, coalition aircraft were again fired at by Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery. Coalition aircraft responded in self-defence by attacking one fire control radar and two batteries of anti-aircraft artillery. I am withholding information on the number of aircraft involved in specific incidents under Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) discussions were held and (b) agreements were reached during his recent meeting in Washington with his US counterpart. [108685]

  Mr. Hoon
  I had a wide-ranging discussion covering matters of mutual interest with Defense Secretary Cohen during my recent visit to Washington.

  Old Ranges, Shoeburyness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2000,32W
  Official Report, column 383W, on how many occasions he has used Exemption 7 of the Code of Access to Government Information in the past 12 months; and for what reason he used it in relation to the sale of the Old Ranges in Shoeburyness. [108226]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Of 3,097 Parliamentary Questions answered in the past 12 months, information was withheld under Exemption 7 of the Code of Access to Government Information on 5 occasions. This exemption was used in relation to the sale of Old Ranges in Shoeburyness to protect commercially sensitive information which could have prejudiced negotiations with the prospective purchaser.

  RAF (Aircraft Accidents)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF aircraft crashed in United Kingdom airspace in 1999. [108359]

  Dr. Moonie
  Eight.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason there were more crashes of RAF aircraft in 1999 than in 1998 and 1997; and if he will make a statement. [108360]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of RAF aircraft accidents in 1999 went against the trend in the accident rate, which has been one of overall decline over the past 10 years. Fluctuations in this trend have occurred before, and we will be looking carefully to see whether there is any significance in last year's pattern of accidents. Initial investigations into the accidents have shown no common causal link.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate an inquiry into the reasons for the higher incidence of crashes of RAF aircraft in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [108362]

  Dr. Moonie
  As is normal practice, a RAF Board of Inquiry has been convened to carry out a full investigation and establish the cause of each crash. Once all the Inquiries have been completed, their reports will be scrutinised in depth to see whether any overall causal link may be established. Initial investigations indicate no common cause.

  RAF Pilot Training
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the quality of training of RAF pilots; and if he will make a statement. [108361]

  Mr. Spellar
  Assessment of the standards of training of RAF pilots is a continuous process. Pass rates are examined to ensure that they are correctly set in order that only suitable candidates graduate to the next stage of training and, eventually, to the front-line. Course syllabi are subject to review by both staff and students at the end of each course.

  Last year the RAF adopted the Integrated Training Quality Management System; this assesses the efficacy of the flying training system by questioning pilots at each stage of the training on the suitability of the preceding course in preparing them for the next stage of training.
  33W
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were spent on training RAF pilots in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000 and are planned for (e) 2000–01 and (f) 2001–02. [108363]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF (Aircraft Maintenance)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were spent on the maintenance of RAF aircraft in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; and what sums are planned for this purpose in (e) 2000–01 and (f) 2001–02. [108364]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for part of the Defence Medical Services to use the former Staff College buildings at Camberley; and if he will make a statement. [108774]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are presently examining a number of options for the future location of headquarters elements of the Army Medical Services. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Defence Catering Organisation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the headquarters of the proposed Defence Catering Organisation will be moved to York; and how many (a) military and (b) civilian staff will be employed there. [108670]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Catering Group will be located at Ensleigh, near Bath.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Ministers in his Department met members and officials on the United States Government between 2 May 1997 and 1 January 1998; on what dates and at which locations; and which (a) Ministers and (b) US counterparts and officials attended each meeting. [103181]

  Dr. Moonie
  [pursuant to the reply, 10 January 2000, c. 86W]: I regret that one detail contained in the response was inaccurate. The appointment held by the hon. Joe Reeder, who was met by the Minister for Defence Procurement in the UK on 1 July 1998, should have read, the Under Secretary of the Army and not Secretary of the Navy, as stated.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is the policy of the Government to continue the New Deal beyond 2002; and if he will make a statement. [107794]
  34W
  Ms Jowell
  The different New Deal programmes we have put in place are all helping people move from welfare to work. Almost 180,000 young people have moved into work from the New Deal for young unemployed people; nearly 30,000 have found work from the New Deal for people aged 25+, and more than 28,000 people have found work from the New Deal for lone parents. We are also offering help through the New Deal for disabled people, New Deal for partners and New Deal for 50+.

  The precise shape of this government's welfare to work programme for the new Parliament will be settled as part of the spending review 2000.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities inspected by Ofsted during the autumn term 1999. [109011]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Local Education Authorities inspected by Ofsted and the Audit Commission during the autumn term 1999 were as follows:

  Barnet

  Bristol

  Derbyshire

  Doncaster

  Greenwich

  Halton

  Hertfordshire

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Lewisham

  Oxfordshire

  Plymouth

  Rotherham

  Salford

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  Southwark

  Walsall

  Worcestershire

  Leeds LEA
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of responses to the survey of schools undertaken in connection with the Ofsted inspection of Leeds Local Education Authority rated the Local Education Authority's strategy and services as satisfactory or better. [109010]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Libraries.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the implementation of the Social Exclusion Unit report on truancy and school exclusion. [108515]
  35W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our latest assessment is set out in the First Annual Report of the Ministerial Task Force on Truancy and School Exclusion, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 39W, on departmental research contracts, if he will place in the Library a copy of standard research contracts used by his Department (a) between May 1997 and October 1998 and (b) after October 1998. [107104]

  Mr. Wicks
  A copy of the standard research contracts used by the Department(a) between May 1997 and October 1998 and (b) after October 1998 shall be placed in the Library by 17 February 2000.

  Educational Achievement
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of 19-year-olds had at least one level two qualification or equivalent at each autumn quarter in each of the last three years. [108357]

  Mr. Wicks
  The proportion of 19 to 21-year-olds in England with at least one level two qualification or equivalent, as measured by the Labour Force Survey, was 72.3 per cent. in 1997, 73.9 per cent. in 1998 and 74.9 per cent. in 1999.

  Learning to Succeed
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a detailed

  UCAS UK-domiciled applicants and acceptances to Oxford University by previous educational establishment

  Year of entry

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Applicants

  Independent

  3,399

  39

  3,501

  42

  3,393

  42

  3,361

  42

  3,416

  42

  Comprehensive

  2,108

  24

  1,973

  24

  1,963

  24

  1,945

  24

  1,967

  24

  Sixth Form College

  808

  9

  677

  8

  747

  9

  747

  9

  714

  9

  Grammar

  1,000

  12

  924

  11

  921

  11

  925

  12

  1,004

  12

  FE college

  645

  7

  593

  7

  515

  6

  502

  6

  454

  6

  Other2

  649

  8

  598

  7

  498

  6

  526

  7

  532

  7

  Total

  8,609

  100

  8,266

  100

  8,037

  100

  8,006

  100

  8,087

  100

  Accepted applicants

  Independent

  1,424

  50

  1,494

  51

  1,500

  51

  1,477

  49

  1,431

  48

  Comprehensive

  613

  22

  617

  21

  613

  21

  684

  22

  647

  22

  Sixth Form College

  226

  8

  201

  7

  219

  7

  275

  9

  253

  9

  Grammar

  344

  12

  391

  13

  384

  13

  364

  2

  396

  13

  FE college

  122

  4

  116

  4

  104

  4

  94

  3

  102

  3

  Other2

  119

  4

  129

  4

  122

  4

  150

  5

  135

  5

  Total

  2,848

  100

  2,948

  100

  2,942

  100

  3,044

  100

  2,964

  100

  UCAS UK-domiciled applicants and acceptances to Cambridge University by previous educational establishment

  Year of entry

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Applicants

  Independent

  3,413

  37

  3,603

  37

  3,764

  37

  3,518

  37

  3,491

  36

  Comprehensive

  2,581

  28

  2,600

  27

  2,797

  28

  2,613

  28

  2,739

  28

  36W
  analysis of the anticipated net administration savings arising from the restructuring proposals of Learning to Succeed, Cm. 4392. [107644]

  Mr. Wicks
  The new arrangements for learning and skills will cut through the present duplication and bureaucracy and will secure savings of at least £50 million a year across post 16 learning, which will be invested in improving the quality of learning. The savings come from two main sources. Nearly £15 million will be saved because Government Offices for the regions will no longer need to contract with 72 TECs. The remainder will come partly from operating through fewer local branches—47 instead of 72, and partly from operating through more efficient systems, with less negotiation and contracting.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce the names of the chairperson and members of the Learning and Skills Council. [107643]

  Mr. Wicks
  In the Learning and Skills Council Prospectus, we published the timetable for appointments to the Learning and Skills Council. However, we are currently reviewing the timetable and I will write to the hon. Member with further details shortly.

  Oxbridge Intakes
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) total number and (b) percentage share of (x) applicants and (y) successful applicants to (i) Oxford and (ii) Cambridge universities from (1) private schools, (2) state comprehensive schools, (3) sixth form colleges, (4) state grammar schools and (5) general further education colleges in each of the last five years. [106982]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information is given in the tables.
  37W

  UCAS UK-domiciled applicants and acceptances to Cambridge University by previous educational establishment

  Year of entry

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Sixth Form College

  821

  9

  919

  9

  947

  9

  875

  9

  915

  9

  Grammar

  1,112

  12

  1,238

  13

  1,261

  13

  1,293

  14

  1,410

  14

  FE college

  721

  8

  642

  7

  648

  6

  511

  5

  518

  5

  Other2

  673

  7

  716

  7

  658

  7

  667

  7

  752

  8

  Total

  9,321

  100

  9,718

  100

  10,075

  100

  9,477

  100

  9,825

  100

  Accepted applicants

  Independent

  1,359

  45

  1,223

  44

  1,338

  45

  1,345

  45

  1,286

  43

  Comprehensive

  701

  23

  657

  24

  711

  24

  701

  24

  736

  25

  Sixth Form College

  231

  8

  241

  9

  262

  9

  259

  9

  238

  8

  Grammar

  405

  14

  410

  15

  404

  13

  434

  15

  469

  16

  FE college

  127

  4

  100

  4

  129

  4

  91

  3

  91

  3

  Other2

  166

  6

  136

  5

  157

  5

  152

  5

  165

  6

  Total

  2,989

  100

  2,767

  100

  3,001

  100

  2,982

  100

  2,985

  100

  Recruitment and Retention
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has held with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on their most recent analysis of recruitment and retention problems in the higher education sector. [107876]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time to discuss a variety of issues of interest to the higher education sector. He last met them on 25 January.

  Teaching Staff (TUPE Regulations)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the application of TUPE as it affects existing employees of(a) TECs and (b) the FEFC; and what steps he is taking to encourage a smooth transition of essential staff to the new local learning and skills councils. [107646]

  Mr. Wicks
  In respect of TECs, their functions are being split several ways; some will transfer to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), some to the Employment Service and some to other bodies. We expect a significant proportion of TEC staff to transfer under TUPE to these organisations. In respect of the FEFC, some functions transfer to the LSC, some to the Adult Learning Inspectorate and some to OFSTED. Again we expect the majority of staff to transfer under TUPE to these organisations.

  We are working closely with partner organisations to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements.

  Independent State Schools Partnership
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of state school pupils receiving lessons from independent school teachers as a result of the Independent State Schools Partnership scheme. [108573]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We estimate that over 18,000 pupils in maintained schools and 12,000 pupils in independent schools have been involved in the Independent/State School Partnership scheme so far.
  38W
  Many of the partnerships also focus on staff development, through joint INSET training, sharing ideas on curriculum development and classroom observation. Some involve joint teaching, particularly in minority subject areas, to provide a broader curriculum for pupils and a wider experience base for teachers in both sectors; but information is not collected specifically on the number of state school pupils taught by independent school staff.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) state schools and (b) independent schools participating in the Independent State Schools Partnership scheme. [108574]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are around 300 state and independent schools participating in the Independent/State School Partnerships Scheme. These schools are listed in the Department's Press Notices 241/98 and 200/99, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much(a) has been spent and (b) was planned to be spent in support of the Independent State Schools Partnership scheme in each year since its inception. [108575]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Actual expenditure in support of the Independent/State School Partnerships scheme is given in the table, together with the originally announced planned expenditure which was later supplemented in the light of the response to the scheme:

  £

  Financial year

  Actual expenditure1

  Planned expenditure1

  1998–99

  600,000

  500,000

  1999–2000

  925,000

  675,000

  2000–01

  n/a

  675,000

  1Including £250,000 joint funding from the Sutton Trust in 1998–99 and £100,000 in each of 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the total acreage of playing fields sold by schools in each year since 1990. [108119]
  39W
  Jacqui Smith
  The tables list, by local education authority, the total area (in acres) of sports pitches that the Secretary of State has given approval to sell since Section 77 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 took effect on 1 October 1998. Before that date, this information was not collected by the Department.

  Section 77 protects school playing fields by requiring local authorities to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before they dispose, or change the use, of any school playing fields. Before approving any application, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that:

  a. any sale proceeds are used to enhance sports or education facilities;

  b. the sports pitch needs of the school, and neighbouring schools, are met;

  c. there is no loss of sports facilities to the community; and

  d. there has been adequate consultation on the proposed disposal.

  1 October 1998–31 December 1998

  Acres

  Local education authority

  Sports pitch and approved for sale

  Bristol

  17.16

  Bury

  0.31

  Calderdale

  3.75

  Cheshire

  1.60

  Halton

  0.53

  Hillingdon

  0.07

  North Somerset

  4.74

  Warwickshire

  1.65

  Wirral

  1.73

  1 January 1999–31 December 1999

  Acres

  Local education authority

  Sports pitch and approved for sale

  Bedfordshire

  6.67

  Bolton

  4.58

  Buckinghamshire

  2.47

  Cheshire

  6.05

  Coventry

  0.16

  Croydon

  3.80

  Derbyshire

  19.58

  Devon

  3.60

  Durham

  8.15

  Enfield

  2.12

  Essex

  3.70

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.54

  Hertfordshire

  9.88

  Kent

  2.94

  Lancashire

  21.43

  Leeds

  1.23

  Milton Keynes

  7.65

  Newcastle

  28.00

  North Tyneside

  1.06

  North Yorkshire

  2.05

  Northumberland

  4.62

  Oxfordshire

  8.15

  Rochdale

  2.96

  Sheffield

  0.62

  Staffordshire

  0.30

  Surrey

  18.25

  Wakefield

  6.91

  Walsall

  3.26

  Warwickshire

  1.26

  West Sussex

  7.98

  Wigan

  5.12

  New Deal (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that have been created in Blyth Valley as a result of the New Deal. [106825]

  Ms Jowell
  New Deal is not a job creation scheme. It is designed to help unemployed people improve their skills and compete effectively for vacancies. The latest figures to the end of October 1999 show that this policy is working; in the Blyth Valley constituency, 329 people have found employment through the New Deal (275 young people under the New Deal for young people and 54 people through the New Deal for long term unemployed adults).

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the destination of those who have left the New Deal for those aged 18 to 24 years (a) at the time at which they left the New Deal, (b) 13 weeks after leaving the New Deal and (c) 26 weeks after leaving the New Deal, for the parliamentary constituency of Blyth Valley. [106826]

  Ms Jowell
  The table summarises the immediate destinations of the 392 young people who have left the New Deal in Blyth Valley. In addition to those recorded as leaving for unsubsidised employment, many of those recorded as leaving for unknown destinations will have found work but not told the Employment Service. In fact, a recent survey found that of those leaving for unknown destinations from the Gateway stage of New Deal, 57 per cent. entered paid employment.

  Young people who return to claim Jobseeker's Allowance within 13 weeks of leaving New Deal are not regarded as having left the New Deal. By definition, the leavers in the table below have not returned to Jobseeker's Allowance within 13 weeks.

  In Blyth Valley, evaluation shows that 80 per cent. of young people had not returned to claim Jobseeker's Allowance within 26 weeks.

  Immediate destination on leaving New Deal cumulative to end October 1999

  Blyth Valley

  Sustained unsubsidised jobs

  180

  Other benefits

  85

  Other known destinations

  46

  Unknown destinations

  81

  Nuclear Engineering
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the nuclear engineering courses available at higher education institutions in England. [108232]

  Mr. Wicks
  At present there are two postgraduate courses in nuclear engineering. These are at the University of Birmingham and the Royal Naval College. It is understood that the nuclear industry also provides its own specially designed training programmes for suitable graduates, enabling them to meet the required standards in the field.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce ethnic monitoring in relation to academic and academic-related staff working in higher education institutions. [108276]

  Mr. Wicks
  As independent bodies, higher education institutions appoint their own staff. Like other employers, they are responsible for implementing equal opportunities legislation and fair employment policies. My right hon. Friend has asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England to ensure that all higher education institutions have equal opportunity policy statements and that they are accountable for their implementation. He has also asked the Council to encourage institutions to give proper emphasis to racial equality in their policy statements.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many higher education institutions in the United Kingdom have a racial equality policy. [108278]

  Mr. Wicks
  Most higher education institutions have equal opportunity policy statements which cover racial equality but the latest research which drew upon a sample of 123 responses from HEIs showed that one third had specific racial equality policies.

  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives his Department has set in place to develop training opportunities for students interested in pursuing careers in the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry; and if he will make a statement. [108659]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Secretary of State and I announced on 3 February a major new advice, guidance and support service for all 13 to 19-year-olds, called the Connexions Service. This will be a universal service but with intensive help for those in greatest need. It will be at the heart of the Government's strategy to prepare all young people for a successful adult and working life.

  My Department also works through the two relevant employer-led National Training Organisations (National Textile Training Organisation (NTTO) and CAPITB, the NTO for the Clothing Sector). CAPITB has placed particular importance on providing high quality careers guidance and actively supports the placement of graduates with employers. Following the restructuring of the

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 2 or above key stage 1 test/tasks and teacher assessments in 1999

  Test/Tasks

  Teacher Assessments

  Reading

  Writing

  Spelling

  Mathematics

  Aggregate

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Leeds

  83

  83

  75

  86

  327

  83

  86

  86

  Liverpool

  82

  82

  70

  85

  319

  81

  85

  85

  Sheffield

  78

  81

  68

  86

  313

  79

  83

  84

  Hull

  74

  76

  63

  83

  296

  74

  81

  82

  Islington

  74

  73

  60

  81

  288

  75

  80

  79

  Hackney

  71

  72

  58

  79

  280

  71

  77

  75

  42W
  industry both NTOs are refocusing their attention on meeting skill gaps at technologist, management and technician levels.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives his Department has taken to improve (a) the marketing skills of the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry and (b) employment opportunities within the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry. [108660]

  Mr. Wicks
  The National Training Organisations for the Textile and Clothing industries (NTTO and CAPITB) are refocusing their work in line with the restructuring of the industries, both bodies having recognised that although the demand for traditional skills is declining there is increased demand for specialist skills. Competitive success depends on the development of such skills with marketing very much to the fore. My Department is encouraging the National Textile Training Organisation and CAPITB, the National Training Organisation for the Clothing and Apparel industries, to develop Skills Foresight for their industries. Skills Foresight involves the collection of skills intelligence in a conscious and planned manner, engaging directly with employers. My Department will help the employer-led NTOs to use this intelligence as the basis for Workforce Development Plans, reviewing the study of education and training to meet the ends identified by Skills Foresight, establishing the necessary partnership arrangements needed to ensure the skill needs of employers and individuals are met and ensuring their plans link to the expected strategies of the Learning and Skills Councils, nationally and locally. In addition the Government support the Apparel and Textile Challenge whose activities include developing marketing skills among textiles and clothing suppliers. We also support the raising of the profile and marketing of "generic brands" such as Scottish Cashmere.

  Pupil Attainment
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list in rank order, for the latest year for which information is available, pupil attainment for (i) Key Stage 1, (ii) Key Stage 2, (iii) Key Stage 3, (iv) Key Stage 4, (v) GCSE and (vi) A levels for the following local education authorities (i) Leeds, (ii) Sheffield, (iii) Liverpool, (iv) Islington, (v) Hackney and (vi) Hull. [109009]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information for 1999 is shown in the table. For the Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 results, the Local Education Authorities have been ranked using the sum across subjects of the percentage of pupils attaining the given levels in the tests/tasks. There is no measure of pupil attainment for Key Stage 4.
  43W

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above key stage 2 tests and teacher assessments in 1999

  Test/Tasks

  Teacher Assessments

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Aggregate

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Leeds

  72

  71

  81

  224

  65

  68

  73

  Islington

  65

  65

  73

  203

  62

  66

  71

  Sheffield

  63

  65

  73

  201

  61

  65

  71

  Liverpool

  64

  62

  71

  197

  63

  64

  70

  Hull

  58

  61

  72

  191

  55

  60

  66

  Hackney

  53

  55

  59

  167

  53

  56

  58

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 5 or above key stage 3 tests and teacher assessments in 1999

  Tests

  Teacher Assessments

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Aggregate

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Leeds

  61

  59

  51

  171

  58

  61

  57

  Sheffield

  59

  57

  50

  166

  55

  56

  54

  Liverpool

  55

  50

  43

  148

  55

  53

  49

  Hull

  42

  44

  38

  124

  41

  46

  39

  Hackney

  46

  40

  29

  115

  45

  47

  38

  Islington

  45

  38

  30

  113

  42

  44

  37

  Pupils aged 15 gaining 5 + GCSE A*-C or the GNVQ equivalent in 1999

  Percentage 5 A*-C GCSE/GNQV

  Leeds

  39.4

  Sheffield

  37.6

  Liverpool

  32.4

  Hackney

  27.8

  Islington

  27.4

  Hull

  23.4

  Average point score per student aged 16–18 entered for 2 or more GCE A/AS examinations in 1999

  Average score per candidate

  Leeds

  18.5

  Sheffield

  18.4

  Liverpool

  16.7

  Hull

  14.0

  Islington

  12.0

  Hackney

  11.4

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Policing Powers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to the police to impose crowd control and safety measures on the organisers of popular events which are held on private land; and what plans he has to strengthen them. [108112]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no specific police powers relating to crowd control or safety for events on private land. For an organised entertainment event where there are no trespassers, the local authority for the area would be the lead body to ensure public safety, and fire and police services would also be consulted with regard to both safety and emergency planning. Once this consultation has been completed, the local authority can issue a Public Entertainments Licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

  There are no plans to amend the legislation.
  44W
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take measures to enable the police to remove more promptly motor vehicles which have been abandoned on(a) public and (b) private land; and if he will make a statement. [108113]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The enforcement of road traffic law is an operational matter for chief officers of police. The legislative provisions governing the removal of vehicles are contained in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 and the Disposal of Vehicle Regulations 1986. Under the 1986 Regulations, the police have powers to remove vehicles abandoned without lawful authority which are left in breach of local traffic regulation orders or left where they are causing an obstruction or likely to cause a danger. In these circumstances, removal would be arranged as soon as possible.

  Where vehicles are not illegally parked but otherwise appear to be abandoned, the responsibility for removing and ultimately disposing of them rests with local authorities. The police do not have the power to remove abandoned vehicles from private land.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number and percentage of ethnic minority officers in each of the 18 specialist departments within the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement. [108185]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that there are four Specialist Departments within the Metropolitan police, comprising over 50 branches. The numbers and percentages of ethnic minority officers in each specialist department is shown in the table.

  Department

  Ethnic minority officers

  Percentage

  Specialist Operations (SO)

  84

  3.17

  Headquarters Department (CO)

  20

  2.25

  Deputy Commissioners

  Command Department (DCC)

  5

  1.79

  Personnel (P)

  28

  4.0

  Stop and Search (Dover)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) articulated lorries, (b) commercial vans and (c) private motor cars were stopped and searched on arrival at Dover in 1999. [108175]

  Mrs. Roche
  The immigration service does not keep records of the searches of individual vehicles it conducts. However, immigration service staff based at Dover dealt with 8,878 clandestine illegal entrants who had arrived through the port of Dover in 1999.

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of conducting the Macpherson inquiry; and what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing its recommendations. [108218]

  Mr. Straw
  The final costs of the inquiry have yet to be determined as there are outstanding bills for settlement in terms of legal fees. However, the costs incurred to date are as follows:

  Pay and allowances

  £

  Inquiry Team, Advisers and civil servants

  667,000

  Accommodation and Associated Costs

  710,000

  Legal Representation and Treasury Solicitors Costs

  2,084,000

  Miscellaneous Running Costs

  777,000

  This provides a total cost to date of £4.238 million. I explained in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on 23 July 1999, Official Report, column 729W, the Metropolitan police service are, in accordance with section 49(5) of the Police Act 1996, meeting the full costs of setting up and establishing the inquiry, together with all costs which directly accrued from Part 1 of the inquiry relating to the police investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. These costs amount to £3.1 million to date of the total costs. The costs of Part 2 of the inquiry, on the future handling of racially motivated crime, will be met by the Home Office as the findings were of more general application.

  Arrangements had been made to reimburse the costs arising from the need of 18 families and individuals to be moved by Greenwich Council or to sell their houses as a result of the inquiry's error in publishing Appendix 11 of the inquiry's report in full. The final amount is not yet known but is likely to be about £350,000, which is significantly less than the estimate given in that earlier reply.

  I made it clear in the Action Plan I published in March 1999 in response to the inquiry's report that the changes required by the inquiry will work only if they are systemic and implemented within the mainstream of the police service at every level. We have recognised the need for proper investment in the police service to help achieve
  46W
  that, which is why we are investing an extra £1.24 billion in policing over three years following the comprehensive spending review. Several of the changes called for by the report, including some of the most far-reaching, require further study or piloting before they can be implemented on a national basis. It is not, therefore, possible at present to give an overall figure for the costs of implementing the report's recommendations.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of dealing with asylum seeking was in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and what the budgeted and estimated figures are for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01 respectively. [108159]

  Mrs. Roche
  Figures and estimates are available for the cost of providing support to asylum seekers and the cost of operating the immigration and nationality directorate, which includes dealing with asylum seekers.

  In 1997–98, the total cost of operating the immigration and nationality directorate was £215 million. A further £375 million was provided for supporting asylum seekers by the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. In 1998–99, the total cost of operating the immigration and nationality directorate was £209 million. A further £470 million was provided by the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health for the support of asylum seekers.

  Responsibility for the budget for supporting asylum seekers transferred to the Home Office from April 1999. It is anticipated that the total cost of operating the immigration and nationality directorate and supporting asylum seekers for the financial year 1999–2000 will be in the region of around £800 million. Estimating costs for 2000–01 is subject to a large number of variables such as the level of new asylum applications, the speed of processing claims and the resources directed at processing cases and other work. Those estimates are currently under review.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to increase the funding for police constabularies broken down by each constabulary in England and Wales. [108286]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), on 27 January 2000,Official Report, columns 241–42W, the funding allocations for police authorities in England for 2000–01. Allocations for 2000–01 for each police authority in England and Wales are set out in the table.

  Funding for police authorities will increase by £202 million to a total of £7,415.3 million in 2000–01. In addition, the Government are making available £35 million in 2000–01 as part of the crime fighting fund to recruit 5,000 police officers over and above the number forces would otherwise have recruited over the three years from April 2000. Additional funding will be available in the following two years. All forces will receive a share.
  47W

  £ million

  Police authority

  1999–2000 allocation1

  2000–2001 allocation1

  English Shire forces

  Avon and Somerset

  168.4

  173.7

  Bedfordshire

  61.4

  64.1

  Cambridgeshire

  74.8

  77.2

  Cheshire

  109.0

  111.9

  Cleveland

  81.7

  84.7

  Cumbria

  60.1

  62.2

  Derbyshire

  102.1

  105.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  174.3

  178.9

  Dorset

  70.1

  72.4

  Durham

  81.3

  83.9

  Essex

  163.0

  174.8

  Gloucestershire

  62.4

  63.5

  Hampshire

  194.5

  202.7

  Hertfordshire

  100.0

  117.2

  Humberside

  113.0

  116.9

  Kent

  183.1

  191.2

  Lancashire

  178.2

  185.3

  Leicestershire

  102.3

  105.6

  Linconshire

  63.4

  65.4

  Norfolk

  83.4

  86.5

  North Yorkshire

  77.6

  79.7

  Northamptonshire

  65.3

  67.7

  Nottinghamshire

  126.3

  130.0

  Staffordshire

  113.0

  116.8

  Suffolk

  68.6

  70.9

  Surrey

  91.9

  112.8

  Sussex

  166.4

  172.4

  Thames Valley

  224.6

  231.7

  Warwickshire

  52.2

  54.3

  West Mercia

  113.0

  117.2

  Wiltshire

  64.9

  66.7

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  375.7

  386.1

  Merseyside

  236.3

  242.3

  Northumbria

  213.0

  218.4

  South Yorkshire

  171.3

  177.2

  West Midlands

  380.6

  392.7

  West Yorkshire

  286.3

  297.1

  London forces

  Metropolitan police2,4

  1,743.9

  1,731.2

  City of London3

  55.4

  56.4

  English Total

  6,852.8

  7,045.1

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  51.7

  53.2

  Gwent

  69.7

  71.9

  North Wales

  75.5

  77.5

  South Wales

  163.8

  167.6

  Welsh Total

  360.8

  370.2

  Total

  7,213.6

  7,415.3

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The Allocation is the sum of: Police Grant, Transitional Grant, Police SSA, Capital Finance SSA, SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant.

  2 Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service. It does include its Special Payment.

  3 Figure for the City includes Police SSA. Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (eg Capital Financing) and Central Support Protection Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  48W
  4 These authorities will be affected by the changes to police force boundaries around London on 1 April 2000. To provide comparison, indicative 1999–2000 totals for these authorities as on the new boundaries are Essex: £169.8 million, Hertfordshire: £114.3 million, Surrey: £113.6 million and Metropolitan Police: £1,701.9 million.

  Mike Tyson
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will break down the costs of policing related to Mike Tyson's visit to (a) London and (b) Manchester, indicating the sources from which the costs were met. [108379]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan and Greater Manchester Police forces inform me that manpower costs of policing the visit of Mike Tyson were met within current resources. The Metropolitan police estimate net additional costs of approximately £9,700 for Mr. Tyson's visit to Brixton. Greater Manchester police charged costs of £21,713 in respect of policing the boxing match and venue to the event organisers, Manchester Evening News Arena.

  Travel Documents
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set a target date for clearing the outstanding travel document applications made between January and August 1999. [108210]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are aiming to clear this backlog by the end of August this year.

  HMP Blantyre House
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what options he has considered for the future use of HMP Blantyre House; and when he will make an announcement. [108417]

  Mr. Boateng
  As a key part of the Government's wide-ranging reforms of the youth justice system the Prison Service is developing a distinct estate for under-18-year-old boys. This forms part of a wider strategy, overseen by the new Youth Justice Board, to improve the coherence of the juvenile secure estate and drive up standards. Initially the estate will consist of 13 establishments, but the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board have drawn up a strategy for securing further improvements in due course.

  One area targeted for improvement is the provision of places in London and the south-east. To ensure that boys from the region can be held closer to home, the option of including Blantyre House within the under-18 estate has been considered. However, the proposal is contingent upon the availability of resources and trends in the prison population and it is not possible to say when a final decision will be taken. In determining Blantyre House's future, the Prison Service will seek to weigh up all the competing strategic needs. This will include the role that Blantyre House currently fulfils as a resettlement establishment.

  Police Indices Formula
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the Police Indices Formula. [107590]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Negotiating Board is responsible for considering all matters concerned with police pay and allowances. There are no plans currently to review the pay formula.

  The formula for calculating the annual pay award for the federated ranks of the police service has been in use since 1994, and is intended to keep police pay in line with inflation. The pay award for 1997 was 3.5 per cent, for 1998, 4.0 per cent. and for 1999, 3.6 per cent, paid from September each year.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is regarding the number of members with medical qualifications on the Animal Procedures Committee. [108233]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no specific policy in relation to the number of members of the Animal Procedures Committee with medical qualifications. The legislation requires that at least two thirds of the Committee's members be persons who hold full registration as a medical practitioner or veterinary surgeon or have qualifications or experience in an approved biological subject, and the Government fully recognise the importance of this requirement.

  Operation Lancet
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what decision has been made by Treasury Counsel regarding files on the Operation Lancet inquiry held by Cleveland police force; [108769]

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police on the action they have taken regarding Operation Lancet files which were returned by Treasury Counsel on 6 December 1999. [108805]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Chief Constable has been informed that Treasury Counsel has provided advice to the Crown Prosecution Service on a number of files from Operation Lancet and that these files are now receiving final consideration at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Headquarters. The Chief Constable is currently considering the disciplinary issues arising from the investigation.

  Harvey Hector
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department between which dates Harvey Hector was held in the custody of CIB3; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [108075]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that Mr. Hector Harvey was arrested on 3 August 1998 for armed robbery. On his first appearance at court on 5 August 1998 he was remanded into police custody. He was subsequently remanded into the custody of Complaints Investigation Branch Number 3 (CIB3) under section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 50W
  1991, as amended by section 41 and schedule 1 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, to assist in the investigation of further robberies and other criminal acts.

  Christopher John Paddle
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the circumstances of the shooting of Metropolitan police officer Christopher John Paddle on 16 April 1993. [108076]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me that Constable Paddle was accidentally shot in the hand while on an operation to arrest a team of armed robbers.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the complaint by Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Paddle made to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on 19 January 1998 was not acted upon until February 1999; and if he will make a statement. [108077]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that following an incident in January 1998, solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Paddle wrote to the Metropolitan police seeking the return of property. Following lengthy correspondence between the solicitors and the Metropolitan police, Mrs. Paddle made a formal complaint, which was received on 23 February 1999.

  SAL 2 Forms
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of forged SAL 2 forms in circulation. [107951]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is impossible to make a reliable estimate of the number of forged or counterfeit SAL 2 forms in circulation.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation there has been between his Department and HM Treasury concerning the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [108087]

  Mr. Straw
  Her Majesty's Treasury were consulted as part of the normal procedure for reaching collective agreement on policy changes, including the financial implications for the criminal justice system.

  Police and Fire Service Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce plans to change the way pensions for police and fire service personnel are allocated and funded; and if he will make a statement. [108084]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following major reviews of the Police Pension Scheme and the Fire Service Pension Scheme, I am currently considering what long-term changes, if any, are required to the funding arrangements for the two schemes. I hope to publish specific proposals in the spring. Any such proposals will be subject to consultation—in particular with the Police Negotiating Board and the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Committee.

  Police Recruits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total cost to police forces of employing 5,000 additional recruits; what is his estimate of the total cost of retaining 5,000 officers for a year; and if he will make a statement. [108086]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Forces will be recruiting 5,000 officers over a three-year period. The cost of employing a police officer and retaining an officer for a year will vary between forces.

  The estimated annual cost to police forces of 5,000 police constables would be around £150 million.

SCOTLAND

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the new year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104499]

  Dr. Reid
  The maximum level of bonus paid to staff in my Department for working over the new year period was £250. The minimum level was £150. One member of staff received a bonus of £250 plus overtime payments for hours actually worked and two members of staff received £150.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those properties held by his Department and agencies responsible to him which are(a) wholly and (b) mainly unoccupied at present, giving locations and when they became so unoccupied in each case. [105310]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has no unoccupied properties.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Provision
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to help people on low incomes make provision for their retirement. [107202]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our plans to reform SERPS through the introduction of the State Second Pension are set out in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. This was introduced to this House on 1 December 1999 and is currently subject to the usual Parliamentary processes.

  The State Second Pension will help low and moderate earners, together with carers and some long-term disabled people with broken work records, to build up increased pension entitlement.
  52W
  Low earners will receive a dramatic boost to their additional pension entitlement which will more than double under State Second Pension. Moderate earners will also benefit, including those who choose to contract out of the State scheme.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans to launch a take-up campaign for those pensioners entitled to the minimum income guarantee. [107204]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee. We will announce details of a national programme shortly.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact on savings by low earners of the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. [107210]

  Mr. Bayley
  We made a commitment in the Pensions Green Paper to "better reward" savers. We will bring forward our proposals later in this Parliament.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the level of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners and to include a clawback element. [107203]

  Mr. Rooker
  The minimum income guarantee will be increased in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament. We have no plans to taper the guarantee.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he intends to promulgate stakeholder pensions. [107205]

  Mr. Rooker
  Publicity campaigns will be used to communicate the benefits of stakeholder pensions and how to contact providers, while the annual pension statement will help to make people aware of the need to save.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to help pensioners with small second incomes who do not qualify for benefits. [107206]

  Mr. Rooker
  We made a commitment in the pensions Green Paper to "better reward" those individuals who have made provision for their retirement. We will bring forward proposals during this Parliament.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will report on progress in tackling housing benefit fraud. [107207]
  53W
  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to taking tough action to combat Housing Benefit fraud. We have:reformed the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme for local authorities to ensure they can be rewarded for detecting and prosecuting cases of fraud;
  made an additional £100 million available over the next three years to encourage them to adopt the Verification Framework, which, through a series of checks throughout the period of a benefit claim, will help make Housing Benefit administration more secure;
  invited all local authorities to participate in the Royal Mail "do not redirect" initiative which prevents benefit claimants from using Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to make false claims to benefit from multiple addresses. Already, around 250 local authorities are operating this scheme and many more are preparing to implement it;
  made £4 million available to install computer terminals in local authorities which provide access to the Department's benefit systems. We are now looking to extend this initiative to include exchanging information electronically between local authorities and the Department, providing further scope to prevent fraud and error occurring in the first place.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on trends in payments of jobseeker's allowance to those aged 18 to 24 years(a) between 1993 and 1996 and (b) since January 1998. [107208]

  Angela Eagle
  Expenditure on payments of Jobseeker's Allowance to those aged 18–24 years has fallen slightly more quickly in the period since 1997 than it did during the period 1993–96. The same is true of the numbers of 18–24-year-olds in receipt of JSA and of the proportion of the total number of JSA recipients who are aged 18–24.

  Disability Benefits
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the numbers of persons on disability benefits whose entitlement has been cancelled in the last year. [107209]

  Mr. Bayley
  About 160,000 awards of Disability Living Allowance and 275,000 awards of Attendance Allowance stopped in 1999. These benefits provide help with extra costs which arise from disablement, and awards stop in a range of circumstances, including when people's condition improves, they go to live abroad, or they die, or enter long-term residential care.

  Child Support Agency
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new arrangements for contact between the public and the Child Support Agency at a local level will begin operating; and if he will make a statement. [107211]

  Angela Eagle
  The CSA is currently rolling out a programme of face-to-face customer service across the country. This will be completed by March this year, when there will be 600 staff in 86 locations providing face-to-face interviews.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on his proposed reforms of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [107221]
  54W
  Angela Eagle
  We have received widespread support for our proposed reforms. The legislation, giving effect to these reforms, is currently before the House.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 375–76W, if he will make a statement on the Child Support Reforms New Rules Implementation Project, including the progress to date and the amount which has been spent. [106803]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security gave my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on 31 January 2000,Official Report, columns 465M–66W.

  The Child Support Agency has so far incurred expenditure of around £800,000 on implementing the new child support rules.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress made with establishing the computer system designed to provide a link between the Child Support Agency and Income Support systems; and if he will estimate the amount spent on this aspect of the Affinity Project to date. [106774]

  Angela Eagle
  Discussions are ongoing between the Department and the Affinity Consortium to agree the detailed business specification for Child Support Reform, including enhanced links between the Child Support and Income Support systems, with a view to agreeing a contract for a new computer system. An announcement about the contract will be made in due course. The cost of developing and implementing the computer system to link Child Support and Income Support will form part of this contract.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each Child Support Agency centre in the years 1993 to 1999(a) in how many cases an inspector was appointed under section 15 of the Child Support Act 1991 as a result of information coming to light of the section 18 review procedure; (b) in how many cases an inspector was appointed as a result of direction by a tribunal; (c) in how many cases a tribunal direction to appoint an inspector was not acted upon; and for the cases in which inspectors were appointed what were the average sums recovered and audited to (i) parents with care and (ii) Her Majesty's Treasury for each of the above years. [107952]

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

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Stewart, dated January 2000:
  I am replying to Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  The information requested is not currently held. However, as part of the Child Support Reforms fraud is a major issue and tough sanctions are proposed for those parents who deliberately supply false information.
  Dealing with fraud allows us to play a full part in the Government's plans for tackling fraud and incorrectness, in a way that fits in with our priorities and the Government's proposed reform.

  55W
  CSA is developing a child support programme review (to determine the level of fraud) and an anti-fraud strategy which will work hand in hand with the Agency's improvements to service delivery.
  The Agency intends, as part of the CSR reforms, to appoint full time inspectors and issue penalty notices to uncooperative parents and employers. It will also introduce a fraud training and awareness package for all CSA staff., along with clear operational procedures.
  The current sanctions available to the Agency will be reviewed and a Head of Security will be appointed together with a small team of highly skilled staff to develop and continue the security strategy.
  To ensure that the security strategy is working, we propose to seek assurance through internal audit, external assistance by BFI and by benchmarking security with other organisations.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking with other Government Departments to meet the Government's objective of eliminating child poverty. [107213]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are making real progress in tackling poverty. We are the first Government to be committed to eradicating child poverty in a generation, and halving it within 10 years.

  In all, we will provide an additional £6 billion a year in new tax and benefit measures for families with children by the end of this parliament. 800,000 children will be lifted above half average income through measures in the last two Budgets. All families will be, on average, £740 a year better off.

  Later this year we will be publishing our second annual report on tackling poverty and social exclusion, monitoring progress so far.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with banks regarding the proposed transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer between 2003–05. [107214]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 494W.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that every man and woman who reaches retirement age during the course of each winter will be entitled to a fuel payment. [107215]

  Angela Eagle
  We want to ensure that people receive their payments in good time to contribute towards winter fuel bills. To ensure the payment process is completed in time it is necessary to put in place a qualifying week during which eligible people can be identified.

  Under these arrangements, those who reach their 60th birthday after the qualifying week will not receive a payment until the following winter. Our policy of making payments at the earliest opportunity ensures that the very
  56W
  elderly, who will include the vast majority of those who are most frail, have their payment in their hands when they need it.

  Benefits Payment (Norwich)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to speed up the payment of benefits to claimants in Norwich. [107216]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no specific plans to speed up the payment of benefit to claimants in Norwich. The Benefits Agency has published targets for the clearance of benefits and every effort is made to clear claims within that period. There are, however, always a number of cases where further investigation is required and payment of the full rate of benefit cannot be made from the date of entitlement.

  Published clearance targets for claims to contributory benefits are as follows:
  Retirement Pension—60 days
  Incapacity Benefit—30 days
  Job Seekers Allowance—21 days

  Minimum Income Guarantee (North-west)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of north-west pensioners who are entitled to but not claiming the minimum income guarantee. [107217]

  Mr. Bayley
  Estimates of numbers of pensioners entitled to but not claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee are not available at regional level.

  Benefit Withdrawal
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what safeguards he will introduce to protect the welfare of the dependants of those who have had their benefit withdrawn. [107218]

  Angela Eagle
  Under proposals contained in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, offenders who are referred back to Court for an alleged breach of a Probation Order, Community Service Order or a Combination Order will be subject to a benefit sanction. The measure will initially be piloted in England and Wales; during the pilots the period of the sanction will be four weeks.

  In the case of Jobseeker's Allowance and certain Training Allowances, benefit will be withdrawn. The welfare of the claimant and any dependants will be safeguarded by hardship payments. These will be available for vulnerable groups and others at risk of hardship. The conditions for receiving a hardship payment will be broadly similar to those currently applied to people who are subject to an employment sanction. Income Support will not be withdrawn, but will be reduced by 40 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the single person's adult rate, depending on their circumstances.

  The best safeguard for dependants is for the offender to comply with the terms of the community sentence. Providing there is no breach of the sentence, then no benefit sanction will be applied and the question of hardship payments will not arise.

  Single Room Rent Restrictions
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in the past 12 months from(a) voluntary organisations and (b) others on the impact of single room rent restrictions on young people aged under 25 years. [107219]

  Angela Eagle
  The representations we have received from voluntary organisations and others suggest that the single room rent restriction is causing localised difficulties for some young people under 25 years in that the accommodation to which the restriction relates is not readily available.

  ONE Service Pilots
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implementation of the ONE Service pilots. [107220]

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the ONE Service pilots. [107222]

  Angela Eagle
  The ONE service is a radical new initiative designed to streamline the operation of the benefit system and help claimants move from welfare into work. The first four ONE pilots were launched in June last year and a further eight commenced in November.

  The changeover to the new system was achieved with minimum disruption to services and all of the pilots are settling in well. While it is too early to measure the degree of success we have had in helping people move into sustainable employment, the improved level of customer service and the focus on individual needs have been well received by our clients.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance is paid directly to those in residential care and not into the bank account of organisations running residential homes. [107223]

  Mr. Bayley
  Benefits Agency (BA) normal practice is to ensure that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance is paid directly to the beneficiary, and that remains the case whether a person lives at home or in residential care.

  Regulations provide, however, that if a person is unable to act, for example because of senility or mental illness, the Secretary of State can appoint a suitable person, the Appointee, to act on that person's behalf. In such cases, the Appointee will be empowered to receive and deal with, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, any sums of mobility component payable to the beneficiary. BA instructions allow a proprietor of a residential care home to be made Appointee but only if no other suitable person (for example, a relative) can be found.

  Miners (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the proposed clawback of benefits relating to the compensation payments being made to miners and miners' widows. [107224]
  58W
  Mr. Bayley
  No. The provisions of the compensation recovery scheme apply to miners and miners' widows in the same way as they do for other victims of accident, injury or disease. The compensation recovery scheme is intended to ensure that victims do not receive double compensation for the same need.

  Compensation paid in respect of loss of past earnings, cost of past care or loss of past mobility is therefore reduced to take account of benefits paid, but only for a maximum period of five years from the date of claim to benefit in respect of the disease. Whether miners see a reduction in the amount of compensation they actually receive, therefore, will depend on the make-up of their compensation payment. However, compensation awarded to miners and miners' widows in respect of pain and suffering will be paid at the full amount awarded under the terms of the handling agreement and is not subject to any deduction.

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the New Year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104485]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Automated Credit Transfer System
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that recipients who collect their benefits on a weekly basis will be able to continue to do so when Automated Credit Transfer is introduced in 2003; [108418]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the decision to pay benefits through Automated Credit Transfer. [108416]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is one of a number of issues to be considered on the move to payments by Automated Credit Transfer. No decisions have yet been taken, but we will ensure that the new arrangements from 2003 continue to meet people's needs.

  On recent representations, I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 28 January 2000, Official Report, column 372W.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he has taken to ensure the accuracy of benefits payments made through the automated credit transfer system; and if he will make a statement; [107963]

  (2) what is the total amount by which benefits have been (a) overpaid and (b) underpaid in error using the automated credit transfer system in the last full year for which records are available; [108056]
  59W
  (3) what is the annual administrative cost of making benefit payments through the automated credit transfer system; and what proportion of that cost relates to the administrative cost of correcting payments made in error; [107962]

  (4) how many people were (a) overpaid and (b) underpaid benefits in error by his Department using the automated credit transfer system in the last full year for which records are available. [107964]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: The administrative cost of making benefit payments through automated credit transfer (ACT) is a small fraction of the cost of other methods. For example, it costs 49p every time an order book foil is presented, and 79p per giro cashed, against 1p for each ACT payment. We expect savings in administrative costs of £400 million a year when ACT becomes the norm.

  Under and over-payment of benefit may occur for a number of reasons. I am aware of only one occasion (involving nearly 112,000 customers being overpaid a total of about £10.5 million) where the ACT process itself has been the cause of under or over-payment. The Benefits Agency is taking urgent steps to recover the money and to ensure it does not happen again.

  Social Fund (Funeral Expenses)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the rules governing payments for funeral expenses from the Social Fund to make them easier to understand and to implement. [108439]

  Angela Eagle
  The Funeral Payment scheme was revised in April 1997 to make it easier to understand and to increase the level of help available to eligible people. The previous provision was complex, making it difficult for claimants to work out how much was allowable for individual items which were specified in regulations, and this led to inconsistent decision making. Further changes were made in November 1997 and again in January of this year. The latest revision has reduced the complexity of the scheme further by setting out more clearly the arrangements for meeting burial and cremation charges.

  Under current legislation, therefore, where an eligible person is deemed to have good reason for taking responsibility for funeral expenses, the scheme allows for the fees levied by the burial authorities and crematoria (in so far as it is necessary to incur them), specified travel expenses and up to £600 for any other funeral expenses. We do not plan any further reforms in the immediate future but will continue to review the policy periodically.

  Armed Services Pensions
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if those in receipt of an armed services pension are entitled to unemployment and other benefits; and if he will make a statement. [108739]

  Angela Eagle
  Armed services pensions are taken into account in the benefits system in the same way as any other occupational pension.
  60W
  Occupational pensions are taken fully into account in income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Working Families Tax Credit also takes occupational pensions fully into account.

  Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance is reduced on a penny-for-penny basis for any amount of pension received in excess of £50 a week.

  Incapacity Benefit is not currently affected by occupational pensions. However, from April 2001, any occupational pension above £85 a week will affect entitlement for new claimants. The amount of benefit payable will be reduced by 50p for each £1 of pension received above £85.

  Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many Benefits Agency claimants were overpaid(a) benefit and (b) income support in each of the last 12 months; and how many of these claimants have repaid that (i) benefit and (ii) income support in full; [108643]

  (2) how much (a) benefit and (b) income support was overpaid in each of the last 12 months; and how much of this (i) benefit and (ii) income support was recovered from claimants; [108642]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the annual administrative costs of recovering unpaid (a) benefit and (b) income support per claimant; and how much was spent by the Benefits Agency recovering overpaid (i) benefit and (ii) income support in each of the last 12 months; [108644]

  (4) what is his policy in respect of recovering overpaid benefit from claimants overpaid by (a) over £5.00 and (b) under £5.00; [108645]

  (5) what methods are used by the Benefits Agency to recover overpaid benefit from claimants who do not repay such benefit voluntarily; and in what percentage of overpayment cases these methods are used. [108646]

  Angela Eagle
  Administration of benefits and recovery of overpayments is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mark Fisher to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 4 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked Peter Mathison to respond to your recent questions about overpaid benefits. As he is unavailable I am replying on his behalf.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) aims to obtain the recovery of overpayments as quickly and efficiently as possible by the most cost-effective method, without causing hardship, and in accordance with Government Accounting and Departmental Policy.
  The BA spent £44m on recovering overpayments in the period April to December 1999. A monthly breakdown of this figure is set out in the attached appendix. Some of the information is not available in the format requested. For example, the BA does not break this down by benefit or by the number of overpayments recovered. Prior to April 1999, the BA did not separately identify costs relating purely to overpayment recovery across the whole BA.
  The BA captures information on the value of recoveries made. The number of overpayments arising during 1998/99 totalled just over one million, and 707,000 have been raised so far this year. A

  61W
  monthly breakdown of the recovery figures for the last 12 months is attached, they also provide a breakdown showing Income Support (IS) and all benefits (including IS) as you have requested.
  The BA does not normally seek repayment of overpayments less than £25. This is based on cost-effectiveness and in line with Government Accounting. However, there may be occasions when this is not adhered to, for example, when the overpayment has been quickly identified and the sum to be recovered is still likely to be held by the claimant and easily recoverable.
  The BA recovers overpayments by deductions from ongoing benefits, instalments, by a lump sum, or by civil proceedings. Typically, the BA will firstly invite repayment and in the vast majority of cases, recovery is implemented by mutual agreement between the debtor and the BA.
  Where the debtor remains in receipt of benefit and is not in a position to repay the overpayment immediately, recovery is normally pursued by deduction from ongoing benefit entitlement. This deduction can also be imposed compulsorily if no offer of repayment is forthcoming. Deductions from benefit, whether voluntary or compulsory, account for 74% of the overpayments currently being recovered.
  Where customers are not in receipt of any benefit, repayments will be expected. A person's failure to respond to an invitation to repay (or making an unreasonable offer) could lead the BA to

  Appendix A

  January 1999

  February 1999

  March 1999

  April 1999

  May 1999

  June 1999

  July 1999

  Total number new recovery OPs in month (IS)

  27,123

  26,630

  30,777

  18,567

  18,281

  21,877

  22,266

  Total number new recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  56,966

  58,612

  65,771

  45,059

  43,379

  51,070

  49,601

  Value of new recovery OPs in month (IS)

  £18,795,578

  £18,737,449

  £22,131,924

  £13,447,701

  £12,600,292

  £14,728,335

  £14,754,107

  Value of new recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  £33,294,104

  £33,589,813

  £37,199,443

  £23,982,129

  £22,195,461

  £25,180,629

  £25,467,597

  Total number new non-recovery OPs in month (IS)

  20,339

  22,045

  24,800

  17,554

  19,761

  23,760

  19,561

  Total number new non-recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  26,778

  28,099

  29,198

  22,047

  22,408

  24,825

  21,004

  Value of new non-recovery OPs in month (IS)

  £5,591,023

  £6,182,900

  £6,961,243

  £4,986,998

  £5,457,898

  £6,464,630

  £5,488,999

  Value of new non-recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  £5,734,980

  £5,672,743

  £5,181,333

  £4,356,669

  £4,303,023

  £4,946,916

  £4,881,638

  Value of Recoveries (IS)

  £10,398,441

  £11,310,508

  £12,936,673

  £11,604,654

  £11,371,316

  £13,273,713

  £11,978,626

  Total Value of Recoveries (All Benefits)

  £13,497,835

  £14,757,275

  £16,479,909

  £15,475,968

  £14,825,677

  £16,818,919

  £15,315,710

  Overpayment Recovery Costs (All Benefits)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  £4,721,919

  £4,684,713

  £4,847,579

  £4,787,460

  Appendix A

  August 1999

  September 1999

  October 1999

  November 1999

  December 1999

  Total

  Total number new recovery OPs in month (IS)

  19,434

  21,918

  21,616

  23,987

  16,483

  268,959

  Total number new recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  44,354

  50,362

  49,992

  54,602

  35,520

  605,288

  Value of new recovery OPs in month (IS)

  £13,507,006

  £15,013,895

  £14,698,705

  £15,726,724

  £10,876,725

  £185,018,441

  Value of new recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  £22,366,215

  £25,009,507

  £25,793,776

  £26,768,767

  £17,864,733

  £318,712,173

  Total number new non-recovery OPs in month (IS)

  18,013

  18,523

  15,083

  20,114

  14,800

  234,353

  Total number new non-recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  22,285

  22,138

  22,810

  21,079

  15,546

  278,217

  Value of new non-recovery OPs in month (IS)

  £5,119,030

  £5,310,799

  £4,415,309

  £5,669,686

  £4,292,804

  £65,941,319

  Value of new non-recovery OPs in month (All Benefits)

  £4,252,299

  £4,397,912

  £4,695,007

  £3,863,935

  £2,705,772

  £54,992,228

  Value of Recoveries (IS)

  £12,381,124

  £12,178,512

  £11,982,626

  £13,126,183

  £11,594,655

  £144,137,031

  Total Value of Recoveries (All Benefits)

  £15,615,466

  £15,587,541

  £15,181,118

  £16,712,401

  £14,612,603

  £184,880,422

  Overpayment Recovery Costs (All Benefits)

  £5,494,698

  £4,502,158

  £4,886,722

  £5,538,471

  £5,222,073

  £44,685,793

  62W
  consider seeking recovery through a civil action. The threshold for acceptance for civil action is currently £150. There is a six year time limit on proceedings.
  6.5% of overpayments currently being recovered have been subject to civil proceedings. The remaining are being recovered by other voluntary arrangements.
  Policy on civil proceedings to recover overpayments is that litigation is not pursued where the debtor remains in receipt of benefit. For those not in receipt of benefit, litigation is pursued as a last resort where voluntary arrangements are unsuccessful or break down.
  Recovery procedures follow guidance as provided in Government Accounting, where the recovery is likely to be detrimental to the health and/or welfare of the debtor or a member of their family, the Secretary of State has the power to exercise discretion and abandon recovery.
  Recovery of an overpayment arising as a result of an official error is pursued if the overpayment is identified quickly and it is reasonable to expect the customer to have been aware of the overpayment. Duplicate payments are classed as over provisions of benefit and are recoverable under common law. The Secretary of State has a duty to seek recovery of such overpayments where it is cost effective to do so.

  I hope this is helpful.

HEALTH

  Ronkswood, Worcester
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of providing temporary operating theatres at the NHS site at Ronkswood, Worcester. [104035]

  Yvette Cooper
  The cost of providing additional theatre capacity at the Ronkswood site of the Worcester Royal Infirmary National Health Service Trust is £491,000, forming part of an overall development of £1,699,000. The development, which enables certain services to be transferred from the Castle Street site in Worcester, will generate savings of £1,728,000 over a three-year period, thereby paying back the capital investment.

  The development addresses a number of clinical safety issues, including the current separation of accident and emergency and trauma services at the Worcester Royal Infirmary, and the need for 24-hour anaesthetic cover and on-site paediatric cover.

  Preventive Medicine
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate(a) NHS expenditure on cholesterol-lowering statins, on nicotine replacement therapy and on all smoking-cessation treatment for the three years of the Comprehensive Spending Review and (b) the cost-effectiveness in cost per discounted quality-adjusted life-year saved for treatment with statins, for nicotine-replacement therapy and for the range of smoking-cessation treatments. [104640]

  Yvette Cooper
  The estimated expenditure on cholesterol lowering statins for the three years of the Comprehensive Spending Review were as follows:1999: £200 million
  2000: £245 million
  2001: £275 million.

  In "Smoking Kills", published in December 1998, the Government announced that up to £60 million would be invested over three years in National Health Service services to help smokers to quit. £10 million has been invested in smoking cessation services in Health Action Zones in 1999–2000. No decision has yet been made about budgets for 2000–01 and 2001–02. It has been estimated that around 12.5 per cent. of the overall smoking cessation budget will be spent on one week's free nicotine replacement therapy for poorer smokers.

  Estimates of cost effectiveness of these therapies exist in the literature, though not in the precise form requested. Copies of the following literature will be made available in the Library:
  Parrott S, Godfrey C, Raw M, West R, McNeill A. Guidance for commissioners on the cost effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions. Thorax 1998;53 (Suppl 5, Part 2).
  Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G, McCabe C, Payne N, Pickin M, Sheldon T.A, Lampe F, Sampson F, Ward S, Wannamethee G. What role for statins? A review and economic model. Health Technology Assessment 1999; Vol. 3: No. 19.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of the introduction of the minimum wage in the current and each of the next three financial years. [106793]

  Mr. Denham
  The introduction of the national minimum wage will add between £2–3 million to the National Health Service paybill from 1 April 1999.

  Patients (Transfers)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were transferred from private hospitals to NHS hospitals in the last three years; [107430]

  (2) how many deaths occurred in NHS hospitals of patients transferred from private hospitals in the last three years. [107431]

  Ms Stuart
  The information available is set out in the table:

  Source of admission

  Admissions

  Deaths

  1995–96

  Non-NHS institution1

  21,160

  1,345

  1996–972

  Non-NHS hospitals1

  5,153

  298

  1997–983

  Non-NHS hospitals1

  6,978

  414

  1 In 1995–96 the code for 'non-National Health Service institution' included non-NHS hospitals, nursing homes, health care and residential institutions.

  2 In 1996–97 the category was sub-divided so that admissions from non-NHS hospitals formed a single classification.

  3 Figures for 1997–98 are provisional and no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in data.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have ceased to treat NHS patients in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [107727]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are a number of reasons why dentists leave the General Dental Services (GDS) including retirement and career breaks. The 1998–99 figures are inflated by the transfer of some dentists from the GDS to some Personal Dental Service pilots.

  The available information for the number of dentists leaving the GDS for the years 1994–95 to 1998–99 is shown in the table.

  Number of dentists who left the GDS from 1994–95 to 1998–99

  England

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Principals

  764

  744

  692

  738

  761

  Assistants

  46

  54

  64

  85

  106

  Vocational trainees

  84

  22

  78

  77

  105

  Total

  894

  820

  834

  900

  972

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims were made against the NHS for clinical negligence in each of the last three years. [108174]

  Ms Stuart
  Historically, data on the number of claims made have not been collected centrally. Costs of clinical negligence claims are as follows:1995–96: £173 million
  1996–97: £235 million
  1997–98: £144 million.

  It should be noted, however, that changes to accounting practice required by the National Audit Office mean that these data are not directly comparable.

  Scientists
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 14 December 1999,Official Report, column 35WH, how many trainee biomedical scientists have received a 26 per cent. pay rise. [108305]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) on 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 453W.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each year since 1989–90 the amount in (a) cash and (b) real terms allocated to each NHS region (i) in total and (ii) on a per capita basis; [107408]

  (2) if he will list for each year since 1989–90 the amount in (a) cash and (b) real terms provided to each health authority in the west midlands (i) in total and (ii) on a per capita basis. [107407]

  Table A: Major capital schemes—approved since May 1997

  NHSRO

  Approximate capital value (£ million)

  PFI schemes reached financial close with work started on site

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  SE

  94

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  N and Y

  65

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  SE

  45

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  East

  144

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  N and Y

  61

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  London

  93

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  N and Y

  65

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  NW

  66

  Bromley Healthcare NHS Trust

  London

  118

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  London

  54

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  WM

  87

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  WM

  64

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  N and Y

  41

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  N and Y

  122

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  SW

  96

  Kings Healthcare NHS Trust

  London

  64

  Total PFI schemes reached financial close with work started on site (16)

  1,277

  PFI schemes approved but not yet started on site

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  London

  274

  St. Georges Hospital NHS Trust

  London

  44

  66W
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the Hospital and Community Health Services revenue allocation (a) for each health authority, (b) per head of population and (c) in each health authority in total, for each of the last five years. [107263]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Health authorities have existed in their current form since 1 April 1996. Allocations are calculated in respect of individual health authorities based on the health authority weighted capitation formula. Prior to 1 April 1996 allocations were made to regional health authorities.

  Tables showing the allocation, the allocation per crude head of population and the allocation per weighted head of population in cash real terms have been placed in the Library. The allocations for 2000–01 are not comparable with those for 1996–97 to 1998–99, which cover hospital and community hospital services only. 1999–2000 was the first year of unified allocations, which cover HCHS, prescribing and discretionary general medical services.

  Includes increase for targeted funding for health authorities with health action zones.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are for (a) hospital building and (b) total capital spending on the NHS over the period of the Comprehensive Spending Review. [108163]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in tables A and B.

  Table A:
  Shows all major private finance initiative and public hospital development schemes that are currently either:

  (a) approved and work has started on site, or

  (b) under financial procurement.

  Table B:
  Shows total planned spending in the National Health Service over the period of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
  67W

  Table A: Major capital schemes—approved since May 1997

  NHSRO

  Approximate capital value (£ million)

  Barts and The London NHS Trust

  London

  462

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust and Manchester Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  NW

  250

  Dudley Priority Hospitals NHS Trust

  WM

  68

  West Berkshire Priority Care NHS Trust

  SE

  29

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  N and Y

  124

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust and Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

  WM

  181

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  London

  33

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust

  N and Y

  125

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  SE

  71

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust

  London

  148

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  SE

  75

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Healthcare

  NW

  61

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS trust

  Trent

  177

  Total PFI schemes approved but work not yet started on site (15)

  2,122

  Total PFI

  3,399

  Publicly funded schemes with work started on site

  Rochdale Health Care NHS trust

  NW

  24

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital NHS Trust

  SE

  74

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Trent

  24

  Guys and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  London

  50

  Total

  172

  Publicly funded schemes approved but not started on site

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  N and Y

  20

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  SW

  25

  Total

  45

  Total publicly funded

  217

  Total major capital investment given go ahead

  3,616

  Notes:

  1. For schemes still in early stages of development, estimates are based on highest costed option.

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  3. The capital value of PFI schemes are approximate and defined as:

  Total capital cost to the private sector includes the cost of land construction, equipment and professional fees but excludes VAT, rolled up interest and financing costs such as bank arrangement fees, bank due diligence fees, banks' lawyers fees and third party equity costs. As PFI procures a service rather than the underlying asset, capital values shown are necessarily estimates.

  Table B: Build up of CSR programme

  £ million

  Year 1 1999–2000

  Year 2 2000–01

  Year 3 2001–02

  1. Net HCHS Capital—Exchequer

  1,413

  1,726

  2,012

  2. Plus Total Receipts

  337

  363

  351

  3. Gross HCHS Capital

  1,750

  2,089

  2,363

  4. Other NHS Capital

  27

  16

  16

  5. Gross NHS Capital

  1,776

  2,105

  2,379

  6. PFI

  400

  710

  790

  7. Total Capital Investment

  2,176

  2,815

  3,169

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the (a) weighted and (b) unweighted average spending by EU countries as a proportion of gross domestic product on public-funded and private-funded health systems has been for the last 20 years; and if he will set out the basis for the figures. [108303]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected by the Department. It is collected by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and can be obtained from the OECD 1999 health database.
  68W
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of spending on the NHS at current prices in each of the last 20 years. [108304]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 630W.

  Care Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the (a) mean and (b) median rate per 1,000 people aged 65 years and over in England of households receiving (i) intensive home care and (ii) community-based care for each of the last two years. [108346]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: The information available is in the table. The community based services which have been included are home help/care services, meals services and day centres. Information is only available on number of households for home help/care services.
  69W

  Rates of "intensive1" home care and other "community-based2" care for England

  Rates per 1,000 people aged 65 and over

  1997

  1998

  Mean rate

  Median of rates

  Mean rate

  Median of rates

  Households receiving "intensive" home help/care

  15.4

  15.6

  17.6

  19.1

  All households receiving home help/care

  61.5

  58.3

  57.0

  55.5

  People receiving meals at home, aged 65+

  22.8

  23.6

  20.6

  20.5

  Attendances/attendees at day centres3 of those aged 65+

  21.3

  19.6

  14.9

  14.6

  1 Intensive home help/home care is defined as households receiving six or more visits and total contact of five or more hours in a week.

  2 Community based services has been defined as those receiving home help/care, meals in their own homes and those attending day centres.

  3 In 1997, the number of attendances at day centres was collected. In 1998, there was a change in definition to collect attendees at day centres. Therefore figures for 1998 are not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Note:

  Survey week, September

  Smoking
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people in England aged 16 years and over smoked in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [108342]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: The available information is given in the table:

  Prevalence of smoking cigarettes among adults aged 16 and over, England

  Year

  Percentage

  1996–97

  28

  1998–99

  27

  Notes:

  1 The data are rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  2 The sample size for England was 13,381 in 1996–97 and 12,295 in 1998–99.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics: Living in Britain: Results from the 1996 and 1998 General Household Surveys

  Amputations (Ethics)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the BMA concerning the ethics of amputating healthy limbs as a way of addressing a mental health problem. [108577]

  Mr. Hutton
  No discussions have taken place with the British Medical Association concerning the ethics of amputating healthy limbs as a way of addressing a mental health problem.

  Doctors' decisions about treatment and care for a patient are based on a thorough assessment of the individual's condition, taking account of the patient's needs and wishes, the evidence base for the effectiveness of treatment, and the resources available.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is the Government's intention that the support of a primary care group and its constituent general practitioners will be required by the Secretary of State before he approves its progression to primary care trust status. [108870]

  Mr. Denham
  Each application for Primary Care Trust (PCT) status will be carefully considered against the national criteria published in Health Service Circular `FISC 1999/167'. This guidance makes clear that those wishing to form PCTs should demonstrate broad local 70W
  support and include the relevant Primary Care Group, constituent general practitioners, community and practice nurses, other clinical professional staff and partner organisations in their consultations.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 565W, on waiting lists, for what reason he did not list the weeks in which information on waiting lists would be published in the next 12 months. [108764]

  Mr. Denham
  Because it is not usual practice under this Government or the previous Government for the Department to announce publication dates of official statistics more than one month in advance.

  GP Training
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop continuing medical training and education for general practitioners. [108509]

  Mr. Denham
  Continuing professional development (CPD) in general practice is important. Learning must be lifelong and cannot cease at the end of formal training. To provide the best possible service to their patients general practitioners should keep up to date with advances in patient care and continually review and improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. We are considering proposals for developing CPD in primary care, building on the many examples of good work already being done by GPs and extending these principles to all primary care staff.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of trends in the number of HIV/AIDS related deaths; and if he will make a statement. [108513]

  Yvette Cooper
  An estimate of the trend in HIV/AIDS related deaths has been made by looking at the number of deaths reported by the end of the year in which they occurred for the last decade. Since 1990 the number of HIV/AIDS related deaths rose each year until 1994 and then declined so that in 1998 they were less than a third of those in the mid-1990s. This decrease was maintained in 1999, but without further decline from the 1998 number of deaths.

  Prison Health Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop prison health care. [108511]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have accepted the recommendations made in the report on 'The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care' published last year'. Two new joint Prison Service/National Health Service Executive units are being established: a prison healthcare task force and a prison health policy unit to help support and lead the reform of prison healthcare.

  Prisons and health authorities are being asked to examine together the health needs of prisoners, identify appropriate services to meet those needs and effective ways of delivery. This work is being co-ordinated by the Prison Health Task Force, supported by Prison Service Area Managers and the NHS regional offices, and early pilots are underway in 12 prisons. More generally ten joint Prison Service/NHS Executive regional seminars were held in the past three months to help reinforce links and support joint planning.
  1 'The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care: Report by the Joint Prison Service and National Health Service Executive Working Group'. Department of Health, March 1999.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to combat mental health problems amongst the homeless. [108510]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to fund services through the Homeless Mentally Ill Initiative in line with the principles of the Government's national strategy for rough sleeping.

  We are making available £9.6 million for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 to provide services for homeless people with mental health problems in London. An additional £1 million is being provided in 2000–01 to support additional specialist mental health workers and housing and resettlement services to support the launch of our strategy to reduce rough sleeping in England by two thirds by 2002.

  21 areas outside London with rough sleeping problems are receiving funding of £4.5 million over 1999–2000 to 2001–02 for local authorities to provide social care services for the homeless mentally ill. This is mainly in the form of specialist mental health support workers who work as part of a team doing outreach work and undertaking assessments of needs.

  The needs of the homeless mentally ill will also be addressed through the Mental Health National Service Framework. Standard one of the Framework relates to health promotion and specifically highlights the homeless as one of the vulnerable population groups whose mental health, local authorities and health authorities should seek to improve.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the proliferation of spongiform encephalopathies. [108508]
  72W
  Yvette Cooper
  Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) is the most common form of spongiform encephalopathy in people, with an incidence in the United Kingdom and world-wide of approximately one per million of the population, per year. For variant CJD—the form of CJD linked to exposure to the BSE agent—a total of 52 definite or probable cases have so far been confirmed in the UK. The Department publish data on the incidence of all types of CJD in a monthly press release. The next one will be issued Monday 7 February. Copies will be available in the Library.

  There are on-going assessments of spongiform encephalopathies made by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and its sub-committees.

  Blood
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of blood provision within the National Health Service. [108512]

  Mr. Denham
  Progressively over the last two years the blood service has become more integrated into the National Health Service, building a partnership to ensure a high standard of patient care. There has been steady recruitment of donors, an ongoing modernisation of donor services and a reliable supply of blood.

  To ensure that there continues to be an adequate and safe supply of blood used effectively in first class transfusion practice, we required NHS trusts to ensure from March 1999 that hospital transfusion committees were in place to oversee all aspects of blood transfusion. We also required them to have agreed by March 2000 local transfusion protocols to ensure the safest and most effective use of blood and we will audit the outcome.

  NHS Patients (Forms)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received about NHS patients needing major surgery using forms El11 and E112 to obtain faster treatment. [108778]

  Ms Stuart
  Form El 1 1 provides entitlement to immediately necessary treatment for conditions arising during a temporary visit to another European Economic Area Member state. Only a minority of emergency treatments involve major surgery. Referrals specifically for treatment of pre-existing conditions require Form E112, and each application is considered individually by the patient's health authority and by the Department. The criteria for a successful application are based on medial and social considerations. Full information is given in the Department's leaflet "Health Advice for Travellers", copies of which are available in the Library. We have received no recent representation on the subject.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 630W, if he will list the values of UK total gross NHS expenditure which underlie his estimates of UK total gross NHS expenditure as a percentage of GDP. [108989]
  73W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  United Kingdom total gross NHS expenditure in cash terms

  1978–79

  8,103

  1979–80

  9,633

  1980–81

  12,486

  1981–82

  14,041

  1982–83

  15,304

  1983–84

  16,265

  1984–85

  17,479

  1985–86

  18,496

  1986–87

  19,863

  1987–88

  21,829

  1988–89

  24,283

  1989–90

  26,208

  1990–91

  29,178

  1991–92

  33,048

  1992–93

  36,233

  1993–94

  38,227

  1994–95

  40,432

  1995–96

  42,326

  1996–97

  43,921

  1997–98

  46,240

  1998–99

  48,795

  1999–2000

  52,645

  2000–01

  55,744

  2001–02

  59,099

  Note:

  Figures are not directly comparable over the period due to classification changes

TREASURY

  Bank of England (Profits)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what profit the Bank of England made on its(a) foreign exchange and (b) gold dealings in each of the last three years. [108447]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 February 2000]: The 1997–98 accounts of the Exchange Equalisation Account, the account at the Bank of England which holds the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves, published on 26 January, provides details of the return earned by the Treasury on the foreign currency reserves. This was the first time the Exchange Equalisation Account has ever been published. The accounts for 1998–99 will be published once the National Audit Office have completed their audit.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families have benefited from the working families tax credit in(a) Staffordshire, Moorlands, (b) North Staffordshire and (c) Staffordshire. [107190]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates for the number of families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit are not yet available on a constituency or county basis, but will be available shortly.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage take-up of the disabled persons tax credit. [107186]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Disabled Person's Tax Credit has been advertised through a number of different media in order to attract attention in various ways.

  A national press campaign began in October, with a national radio campaign in November. Both gave a freephone number for further information.

  This was supported by providing a free supply of information leaflets and posters to over 21,000 welfare organisations such as Citizen's Advice Bureaux, disability and welfare groups.

  An audio tape and video were produced featuring DPTC and these were distributed free through RNIB and RNID.

  Ten ministerial roadshows promoted DPTC to delegates from local welfare organisations throughout October.

  Leaflets and a video about DPTC also featured in main post offices throughout October.

  Tax Inquiries (Belgium)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the backlog of information to be provided by the Inland Revenue about the affairs of named United Kingdom taxpayers requested by the Belgian tax authorities; [108375]

  (2) what arrangements exist for the provision of information by the Inland Revenue about the tax affairs of United Kingdom taxpayers to the Belgian tax authorities; and under what powers this is done. [108376]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Inland Revenue procedures for dealing with requests for information received from other fiscal authorities are set out in the report of the National Audit Office "Exchange of Information on Direct Taxation within the European Union" of November 1997. A copy of this report is available in the Library of the House. The UK exchanges taxpayer information under the provisions of the EC Mutual Assistance Directive, as given effect under section 77, Finance Act 1978, and under the terms of the Double Taxation Agreement with Belgium, as given effect under section 788, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals who qualified for retirement relief from capital gains tax made chargeable gains of less than £250,000 for capital gains tax purposes in tax years(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96 and (e)1996–97. [108804]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated number of individuals who claimed capital gains tax retirement relief of less than £250,000 for the years 1992–93 to 1996–97 is given in the table.
  75W

  Year

  Estimated number of retirement relief claims less than £250,000

  1992–93

  2,750

  1993–94

  4,500

  1994–95

  3,750

  1995–96

  5,750

  1996–97

  9,750

  Foreign Earnings
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals qualified for the foreign earnings deduction for income tax purposes in tax years (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96 and (e) 1996–97. [108802]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information has only been available since Self Assessment was introduced in 1996–97. About 35,000 people received a foreign earnings deduction for this year.

  Company Car Drivers (Insurance)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a duty on insurance premiums for company car drivers; and if he will make a statement. [108382]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to introduce a duty on insurance premiums for company car drivers.

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal advice he has received on the application of a derogation under the 6 VAT Directive to exempt church repairs from VAT or allow a lower rate of VAT on such repairs. [108187]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Derogations are normally permitted only to simplify the procedure for charging VAT or to prevent tax evasion or avoidance. It would therefore be inappropriate to seek a derogation for church repairs. EC law does not permit an exemption or a reduced rate for church repairs.

  Tax Competition
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the (a) OECD report on offshore centres of tax competition and (b) code of conduct paper discussed at ECOFIN on 29 November 1999; and if he will make a statement. [108280]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A copy of the OECD report "Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Issue" has already been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  The Code of Conduct states that it is for ECOFIN to decide whether to publish the final report. The UK is pressing for the report to be published.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 398–400W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108192]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not sought to control or veto contacts between contracted researchers and journalists, before or after publication, but does require that the researchers provide advance notice and/or brief details of the interview. For further details the hon. Member should consult the copies of the standard form of contract placed in the Library as indicated in my written answer of 4 February 2000,Official Report, column 764W.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates since 16 December 1999 on which he(a) met and (b) spoke by telephone with the French Minister of Agriculture and Fish. [108426]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: I met the French Agriculture Minister on 24 January at a meeting of the EU Agriculture Council.

  Farming (Berkshire)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of pig units in Berkshire in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [108422]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Information on the number of holdings with pigs is provided in the table.

  Number of main holdings in Berkshire with pigs

  Year

  Holdings with pigs

  1996

  74

  1997

  76

  1998

  79

  1999

  70

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Suicide Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the rates of suicides among(a) farmers and (b) vets in each of the last 10 years. [108503]
  77W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 February 2000]: The number of suicides and deaths from undetermined injury between 1988–98 is set out in the table.

  Deaths from suicide and undetermined injury 1988–98 Men and women aged 16–74 at death

  Year of Occurrence

  Farmers, orticulturalists, and farm managers

  Other agricultural employees

  Veterinarians

  1988

  60

  36

  3

  1989

  45

  32

  6

  1990

  49

  33

  6

  1991

  54

  31

  5

  1992

  47

  32

  2

  1993

  50

  35

  3

  1994

  44

  29

  2

  1995

  41

  17

  5

  1996

  36

  35

  2

  1997

  42

  25

  3

  1998

  54

  25

  6

  Note:

  Data for 1999 will be available later in the year

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Farm Acreages
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average acreage of land of a farm in England and Wales in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [108172]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Number and area of main holdings in England and Wales: June 1999

  Number/area

  Total Number of Holdings (thousand)

  175.2

  Total Area (thousand hectares)

  10,644

  Average Farm Size (hectares)

  60.7

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what point ownership of a cow over 30 months old transfers to the Intervention Board under the over-30-months scheme in the case where a livestock market is used as a collection centre and animals are tagged by the Board at that centre. [108130]

  Ms Quin
  For the purpose of the Over-30-months scheme the Intervention Board does not take ownership of the cattle until they are presented for slaughter, and it is at this point that eligibility for compensation is determined. Producers have the option of submitting animals into the scheme directly to abattoirs on a deadweight basis, or via auction markets who act as agents for producers in submitting animals into the scheme on a liveweight basis. At auction markets animals undergo preliminary eligibility checks, in particular weighing. A further tag is inserted in the animal's ear at this stage for ease of identification purposes only.
  78W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operational and cost consequences for farmers and the livestock trade in the north-west of the decision by the Intervention Board to withdraw the Nottingham processing company from the over 30 months scheme. [105297]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: Sufficient Over-30-months Scheme (OTMS) slaughtering capacity has been contracted from the abattoirs at Oldham, Great Harwood and Ulverston, such that there will be little, if any effect on the farming community in the north-west as a consequence of the non-award of an OTMS slaughtering contract to the Nottingham abattoir.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the financial checks which are made on companies competing for over 30 months scheme contracts. [105293]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), on 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 9W.

  Meat and Bonemeal
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the location of each site where meat and bone meal is stored prior to incineration and the tonnage stored at each of these sites. [107933]

  Ms Quin
  At 31 December 1999 stocks of meat and bone meal produced from the rendering of animals under the Over-30-Month Scheme and Selective Cull Scheme were estimated at 459,712 tonnes. The material is stored at 15 locations in the UK as shown in the table.

  Store location

  Tonnage as at 31 December 1999

  Preston, Lancashire

  21,447

  Longton, Lancashire

  35,040

  Chorley, Lancashire

  29,690

  Liverpool, Merseyside

  54,269

  Widnes, Cheshire

  2,535

  Bankston Heath, Lincolnshire

  92,841

  Childs Ercall, Shropshire

  9,991

  Woodbury Salterton, Devon

  11,677

  Wrangton, Devon

  49,224

  Glenrothes, Fife

  49,798

  Kirknewton, Midlothian

  22,314

  Newtownabbey, County Antrim

  11,822

  Castledawson, Londonderry

  23,882

  Ballinderry, County Antrim

  10,329

  Newtonstewart, County Tyrone

  34,853

  Total

  459,712

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding EU grants for exceptional occurrences within the pig industry; and what action he has taken. [R] [107472]

  Ms Quin
  We have received no representations and there are no such EU grants. MAFF Ministers continue to follow closely developments in the pig sector.
  79W
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the European Agriculture Commissioner regarding payments to the pig industry to offset the cost of exceptional occurrences resulting from BSE in cattle. [R] [107471]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend has many discussions with Mr. Fischler on all manner of topics. The Minister and I last discussed state aid in the pig sector with Mr. Fischler in the margins of the Agriculture Council on Monday 24 January.

  Red Tape Review
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will implement the recommendations of the Pooley report. [R] [107473]

  Ms Quin
  As indicated in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith), 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 570W, we have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Government's response to the report of the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group. This indicates that we have accepted most of the recommendations in the report. Some of these can be implemented straight away but others will require discussions in Brussels with the EU Commission and others (including the industry) before they can be fully implemented. Nevertheless, it is our intention that this should be done as speedily as possible. From April most of the recommendations will be for the Food Standards Agency to carry forward.

  Farming (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 188W, if he will list the amounts received by each of the 10 largest recipients of CAP payments made to farms in Worcestershire for the calendar year 1998. [107513]

  Ms Quin
  The amounts received by the 10 largest recipients of CAP payments in Worcestershire for the calendar year 1998 were:

  £295,311.52

  £212,553.75

  £209,935.30

  £164,103.59

  £135,969.63

  £133,134.44

  £125,069.15

  £113,926.16

  £113,579.34

  £112,654.25.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the climate change levy on the horticulture sector; and if he will publish the results. [107236]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: It is not possible to say what the likely impact of the levy on the horticulture sector will be. That will depend on a number of factors including future energy consumption and what use the sector makes of electricity generated
  80W
  from 'new' renewable sources of energy or in 'good quality' combined heat and power plants. The use the sector makes of the proposed system of enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments will also have an impact. The horticultural industry, in common with other industries, will also benefit from the lower overall rates of the levy announced by the Chancellor in his pre-Budget report statement.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of written parliamentary questions to him received a response within (a) two weeks and (b) one month in the last year for which figures are available. [106988]

  Mr. Morley
  In the 1999 calendar year, 1,117 parliamentary questions were tabled to my right hon. Friend the Minister for written answer. From the date of their initial appearance in the Order Paper, 72 per cent. received a response within two weeks and 15 per cent. received a response within one month.

  Cattle Tuberculosis
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle Tuberculosis will publish its second report. [109244]

  Ms Quin
  I am pleased to tell the House that the second report by the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle Tuberculosis is published today. The report sets out progress made so far on the wide-ranging research measures being taken to combat cattle TB as well as plans for work to be undertaken in the future. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Easter Floods (1998)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Environment Agency has made in implementing its action plan in response to the independent report on the Easter 1998 floods. [109243]

  Mr. Morley
  While there were no further specific actions timed for completion by the end of December 1999, the Environment Agency has nevertheless kept the Ministry informed of progress up to that date.

  For flood forecasting, all of the Environment Agency's regions are working on delivering the first phase of their hydrometric monitoring network improvement programmes by April 2000.

  The work relating to flood warning is progressing well. The National Flood Warning Centre is established and the necessary relationships with other national bodies are being actively developed.

  Flood risk maps have been produced and were disseminated to local planning authorities and emergency planners in September 1999. The Agency is using the

  81W
  maps to identify high-risk properties on a consistent basis to aid targeting of direct warnings and public awareness material. Local authorities are using the maps for both development control and emergency planning purposes. The information in the maps will be made publicly available so that people can make informed decisions about flood risks.

  The Agency has further improved liaison arrangements with local authorities and emergency services, at both local and national level to ensure effective response to flooding incidents.

  A flood warning public awareness campaign commenced in October. Plans are being developed for revised flood warning codes to be introduced in September 2000, with appropriate publicity.
  82W
  Visual inspection of all flood defences continues against a deadline of April 2000. The Agency has set up meetings to resolve isolated problems where local authorities have not always been able to identify the location of defences on ordinary watercourses.

  The Agency continues its work in implementing the recommendations in the independent report on its management and skills.

  I am pleased to note the Agency's continuing progress in implementing the Easter Floods report, contributing to achievement of the Ministerial priority of a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response.

  I shall ensure that the House is updated on progress in implementing the final phases of the Action Plan, including the introduction of new flood warning codes in September 2000.

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

Court Closures
Lord Phillips of Sudburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, when consideration is being given to closure of a court, they will require an estimate to be made of the extra travel costs and time to its users of having to attend a more distant alternative.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the noble Lords Question suggests that the Government take court closure decisions. That is not true of magistrates' court closures, which I believe are the noble Lord's principal concern. Magistrates' court premises are not government property; they are provided by local authorities. Decisions as to whether to close them Exe taken locally by the relevant Magistrates' Courts Committee (the MCC), not the Government. The role of the Lord Chancellor is only that the local paying authorities have a right of appeal to him against closure. Travel considerations are important factors, among others, that are taken into account in the local decision as to whether to close.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, although the noble and learned Lord has stated the arrangements, does he agree that none the less it is very much in the interests of justice in this country that magistrates' courts are where people need them? If the noble and learned Lord cannot at present take much of a hand in decisions as to closure, will he consider exerting his influence in future in view of the importance of magistrates' courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, not every magistrates' court deserves a preservation society. Most of the magistrates' court closures in recent years took place because their facilities were substandard or because they were satellite courts, for example parts of local council chambers which lacked essential facilities: secure accommodation; waiting areas for victims and witnesses away from defendants; consultation rooms; and access for the disabled. There was insufficient local demand for some courts. Some courts lacked reasonable staff accommodation or were unsound for structural reasons which were uneconomic to rectify. There is a huge variety of distinct reasons for closure.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, can the Lord Chancellor tell the House what progress, if any, is being made in consultations between his department and the Magistrates' Association in issuing national guidelines
386
to assist those members of magistrates' courts committees who have the difficult and delicate task of coming to a decision on whether or not a court should close?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, comprehensive guidance has been issued by the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. That guidance addresses all the factors that competent MCCs will address when considering closures. I have endorsed that guidance. Typically, in deciding appeals against closures I consider: the quality of existing courthouses and the facilities that they offer; the level of work currently handled; accessibility for all court users: and the extra distance that some users may have to travel to attend court and the time taken to complete the relevant return journey.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell the House the number of appeals, and their percentage, against closure of magistrates' courts that have come before him and been allowed since he became Lord Chancellor?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, since becoming Lord Chancellor in May 1997 there have been 48 appeals against the closure of magistrates' courts. Most closure decisions taken by MCCs reflect a well-judged assessment of the needs of their areas. Therefore, most appeals fail but four have succeeded. I respect, but do not rubber-stamp, local decisions. By contrast, only two appeals were allowed in the five years between 1992 and 1st May 1997.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord provide some information about the future of Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, bearing in mind that it is a purpose-built court and that Marlborough Street, which is part of South Westminster Bench, has already been closed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a detailed question to which I prefer to reply in writing, if I may.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in considering any proposals for the closure of Crown Courts in north and mid-Wales and Cheshire, for which the noble and learned Lord is responsible, will he bear in mind the frequent exchange of cases between courts in those areas, the very sound partnership which has existed there for many decades and, in that context, the continuing value of the Wales and Chester circuit?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am well aware of all those considerations. Currently, there are no proposals to close any Crown Court centre.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that one way to stem the closure of magistrates' courts is to provide them with far more work by reducing the number of cases that go to the Crown Court for trial?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, from one standpoint the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill to

387
which my noble friend refers underscores the confidence of government in the quality of justice provided by magistrates.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain the Government's thinking on access to services for rural dwellers? I believe that the Government encourage the health service and GPs to use premises such as village halls, which may not be perfect, for surgeries. However, perfect accommodation seems paramount in the legal service. When 75 per cent of parishes still do not have a daily bus service, a local service must surely count for more than the perfection of the accommodation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, such considerations are taken into account. The typical distance and travelling time being set by MCCs are within 20 miles of population centres and one hour's travelling time for the majority of the population. However, noble Lords will wish due weight to be given to the need to have modern courts with modern facilities, with secure arrangements for witnesses and victims and access for the disabled.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What position they take on the amendment of the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty in the light of revived proposals in the United States for an anti-missile defence system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government continue to value the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and wish to see it preserved. The United Kingdom is not, however, a party to the treaty. The question of any amendments to it is a matter for the United States and Russia. We hope that the discussions now in progress between those countries will ultimately reach a successful conclusion.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that the United Kingdom is inevitably involved because of the pursuit of the upgrading of early warning systems in particular in Yorkshire at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill?
Secondly, does the noble Baroness agree that a national anti-missile defence system for the United States or any other member of NATO has the most profound implications for the cohesion of NATO, and the Anti-Ballistic missile Treaty which remains one of the few pillars of arms control in the world? Will she agree, therefore, that there should be a major debate on this crucial issue within NATO and, if possible,
388
separately with Russia after the elections, to ensure that we do not worsen the present instability in the world?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety. However, she will know that we are not directly involved at present. America has not made a decision to proceed with the matter, and we have to await its consideration of the issue. The Anti-Ballistic missile Treaty is a matter of real importance to us all. We continue to talk to America and Russia about the stance they take in relation to that matter. It is a matter for the Americans and Russians. We shall, of course, play our supportive part.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the whole purpose of antiballistic missile defences is to make the world, or even America, safer, it would be highly counter-productive to alarm Russia into retarding or reducing its arms control programme? Does the noble Baroness know of anyone who can explain that simple truth to the hawks in Congress?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Russians and Americans are well aware of the delicacy of these issues. Our American partners are clear that they wish to continue to uphold the treaty. They are in negotiations with the Russians to see whether some amendment to that treaty can be made. Your Lordships will know that the treaty has been amended on two occasions without difficulty. We are hopeful that this could be a third such occasion, should it prove necessary.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister referred to the delicacy of the situation. Can the noble Baroness tell the House anything about the objections by other states in Europe to the construction of facilities, in particular at Menwith Hill, which are alleged to be part of the American anti-ballistic missile system? Has she noted President Chirac's criticisms of the American attempt to develop such a system? Does the Minister think that it would be highly divisive in Europe if the UK were to go ahead in assisting the US to construct that system?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I repeat that no such request has as yet been made of Her Majesty's Government. If and when a request is made, Her Majesty's Government will have to give it proper attention.
As your Lordships will know, Menwith Hill is a site for the European ground relay system for the new US space-based infra-red system. That new system will provide early warning of any ballistic missile launches, replacing the ageing defence support programme. The space-based infra-red system is needed irrespective of any national missile defence system and is being pursued as a separate project. As the noble Lord mentions, it would be capable of providing early warning of ballistic missile launches to a national

389
missile defence system should the US decide to deploy such a system. I repeat: no such request has been made. That matter is not before us at the moment.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people will be pleased that she takes the view that, because, we are not party to the treaty, we have no position in it? Will the noble Baroness confirm that while the United States can deploy a ballistic missile defence system even under the present ABM system, it wants an amendment to the treaty in order to construct a better one? Would not that be desirable? Finally, will the Minister confirm that if the Americans do not gain an amendment to the treaty, they are likely to withdraw from it, having given the requisite six months' notice? Would not that be worse than amending the treaty?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety, but all of these issues are speculative. At the moment, the Americans and the Russians understand the importance of the treaty and are working within a framework which would enable it to be maintained. What is at issue is amendment, nothing more.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, given Russian warnings that there will be dire consequences if the US continues the development of a national anti-missile defence, what action are the Government taking together with NATO and our EU partners to prevent irreparable damage to the global system of nuclear arms control?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government's position on nuclear arms control is clear. We are working hard with al} our partners to reduce the threat which it poses and we continue to urge both America and Russia to work collaboratively in relation to the current difficulty.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the Government take the opportunity to represent what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, described as the "dire consequences" in their input to the NATO review of arms control, which was decided on at the Washington Summit last year, and is being carried out by the special political committee and presented to defence Ministers in December this year?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already said that the concerns and the delicacy of the issue are well understood by ourselves and all our partners. We continue to urge all parties to continue to respond responsibly in relation to the difficult
390
challenges which face them. I reiterate that as yet the Americans have not taken the decision to have an NMD. We must have a certain degree of proportion in dealing with this matter.

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
2.51 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the entry into force of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention on 27th March.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the United Kingdom, as one of the depositary governments of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, is considering with our two other co-depositaries, the United States and Russia, how best to mark this important anniversary. We are also taking into account the views of the other states which are party to the convention currently involved in the negotiations on a protocol to strengthen the BTWC. Completion of a legally binding protocol is a key arms control objective for the United Kingdom as it will fill the last remaining major gap in arms control provisions covering weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on penetrating to the point of my Question. The most welcome form of celebration would be the conclusion of an effective verification protocol. Will she convey to the Government my congratulations on their patience and persistence in working for that purpose?
Is it not the case that, unless a draft is in place by the middle of this year, the prospect of securing endorsement at the forthcoming review conference might slip away? Does my noble friend agree that in the eyes of future generations the next two or three years may be seen as the make or break point in the whole disarmament conference, if indeed there are any future generations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the next two years will be very important. A possible 11 weeks of negotiations remain this year and the successful conclusion of an effective and legally binding protocol would undoubtedly be the most appropriate way to commemorate the anniversary year.
The UK is playing a leading role in the negotiations, where we are responsible for compliance measures— the core of the future protocol. We hope to see substantive progress towards completion by the end of 2000. Consistent with the importance we attach to the negotiations, the UK has offered to host the signing ceremony of the future protocol in London.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that there is no reason to celebrate at all when

391
any A-level student in this field today can develop and use something far more lethal than the present weapons; for example, by injecting an egg with a nasty substance, then throwing it at a public figure at a meeting, instead of an innocent éclair? That could have a devastating result. What thought have HMG given to this terrible threat of havoc that could be caused by wicked pressure groups or terrorists in this field?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, there is a cause to celebrate if the protocol can be brought into being. The international community has been seized of this issue for more than 100 years and we have struggled together to bring it to a successful conclusion. As we inch closer to that end, I respectfully suggest to Members of your Lordships' House that that is a great cause for celebration. We know that the development of these weapons is extremely complex and it is the Government's view that the bringing together of international opinion will do much to make this a safer world for future generations.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches fully support the Minister. In the context of the control of biological and toxic weapons, can she say where we are in relation to the move to re-establish the inspectorates in Iraq?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should like to write to the noble Baroness on that specific question. As she will know, we are making progress, but as I am not precisely seized of the position I shall write to her.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, returning to the vital question of the satisfactory completion of the protocol, can my noble friend say whether, generally speaking, she is optimistic or otherwise?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are optimistic. Her Majesty's Government have worked hard, as have previous governments. In the past five years, Britain has lead the way in relation to the protocol. We are very close to a mature protocol with which our partners will feel happy. Challenges remain and they are well-known, but we are optimistic that they may be able to be overcome by the end of 2000.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the Minister give an example in order to justify the claim in paragraph 129 of the defence White Paper that the UK is playing a major role in negotiations to establish effective verification measures to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, during our presidency we took up the issue with great vigour. We have continued to lead on it and to make sure that every opportunity is taken with our international partners to direct their attention to a fruitful outcome for the protocol. We continue to remain in the lead and hope that it will be signed in London.

The Salisbury Convention
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowayasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to review the Salisbury Convention in advance of any response to the report of the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, no. As I said in response to a similar Question from the noble Lord on 15th December, the Government see no need to change the conventions under which this House operates during the lifetime of the transitional House. The Salisbury/Addison Convention gives effect to the important principle of the difference between this House and the other place, which is elected on a universal franchise.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the Question again and for her Answer. As Leader of the House, and in the light of the findings in paragraphs 421 to 425 of the Wakeham Report, will she now acknowledge that the Salisbury Convention is in a state of suspended animation and ripe for review? Furthermore, will she now, without further ado, refer the matter to the Procedure Committee or to a committee set up as proposed by recommendation 21?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in reply to the noble Lord when he asked the Question on an earlier occasion, I acknowledge that procedures in your Lordships' House are a matter for the whole House and not for the Government. However, he asked me for the Government's view and I hope that I replied accurately, as I hope to do today.
The recommendation of the Royal Commission in this area seems to me to underline what I have been saying. Its proposal and the arguments put forward for the composition of a new second Chamber stated that—I am sure the noble Lord and I have read the same paragraphs in the Commission's report— something like the Salisbury Convention should continue to regulate the relationship between the two Houses. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I do not wish to cherry-pick, as it were, the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission. As he will be aware, we hope to arrange an early debate on this subject.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, would I be correct to assume that we are unlikely to see much in the way of practical work as a result of the Wakeham Commission either this year or even next year? In those circumstances, does my noble friend agree that, while I have no wish to see any form of cherry-picking, one or two recommendations in the report might be worth considering in advance of any final conclusion? I have in mind recommendation 125 which suggests that we might look at increasing the resources made available

393
to your Lordships' House to allow improvements to be made for Members to do their jobs properly? Will my noble friend consider that point?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that that recommendation is one of the most popular in your Lordships' House. However, I had suspected that my noble friend might raise the question of resources for individual committees of your Lordships' House. However, I note that he refrained from doing so.
As I said in answer to a previous Question, of course there are, I believe, 132 recommendations in the Wakeham report, all of which require an extremely responsible and considered approach along with careful discussion. That is what it is hoped we shall undertake when we have a debate on the whole subject. Although my noble friend said that lie does not think that anything practical will happen, I believe that the first step in the practical process will be our debate, which we hope to arrange shortly.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has said. Some of the non-legislative aspects of the report of the Royal Commission should be brought into effect sooner rather than later. However, first, can the Minister let me know, perhaps by letter, what matters are still outstanding from the Labour Party's manifesto that she would regard as ones to which the Salisbury doctrine should be applied? Secondly, only recently this House threw out the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill which had nothing whatever to do with the manifesto. Having done that, the noble Baroness immediately and without hesitation rose to say that the Government would not listen to the views of this House. Does that suggest that the Salisbury Convention has been overtaken by the Downing Street convention; that is, never to accept anything stated by this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord may have missed our recent discussions in the course of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, where the Government listened, proposed amendments, and were then congratulated by all sides of the House for responding in exactly the way that this House had requested. I must tell the noble Lord that while of course the Government are prepared to listen and reconsider—as we did on that occasion—ultimately the Government, through the elected Chamber, have the right to prevail. That is the Government's right, even on some Bills for which advance warning may have been given in general terms, as was the case here because the Government gave notice that they intended to review the whole of the criminal justice process in the 1997 manifesto. Thus, where appropriate, the views of the elected majority should prevail.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House whether she accepts that, while the Salisbury Convention should no doubt stand at present, if, after the next election, whichever succeeding government choose not to proceed towards stage two, the entire relationship between the two Houses, including the Salisbury Convention, may then have to be reconsidered?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is aware that the Salisbury Convention does not relate to the relationship between this House and the Government but to the relative powers and authority of the two Houses. The noble Lord may be right to say that if there is any change to the relationship which results in a different set-up from that currently in place, such matters may need to be revisited. However, I shall repeat what I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; namely, that, looking at the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, it is clear that he does not envisage such a situation. Indeed, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the terms of reference under which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was operating when he chaired the Royal Commission included the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the preeminent Chamber of Parliament.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the original agreement was not a convention in the constitutional sense, but merely an agreement made in 1945 between the then Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness's predecessor, the then Labour Leader of the House, to try to ensure that there was not a constitutional crisis in view of the large majority at that time enjoyed by the Labour Party in the other place and the large majority then enjoyed by the Conservative Party in this House? Would the noble Baroness further agree that since then there has been a consensus that such a thing as the Salisbury Convention does exist, but that a certain amount of argument has taken place over how it is defined? On several occasions I have attempted to define exactly what is the convention, but in spite of my best efforts, there remain some doubts as to what comprises its detail. Does the noble Baroness agree that it is in the detail that possible difficulties may arise? In view of that, does the noble Baroness think it would be worth our while to attempt to nail down precisely what the Salisbury Convention does envisage? Furthermore, would it be worth having conversations through the usual channels to see whether the two sides agree?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, no one is more authoritative than the noble Viscount in defining the precise understanding both of the spirit and the letter of the original Salisbury/Addison Convention, as it has come to be known. As I have said in answer to other questions, I believe that it is relevant to look at this point in the context of the full long-term reform of this House as proposed by Lord Wakeham. He may

395
well produce a basis upon which cross-party discussions on all such issues may productively be brought forward.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, is seeking to ask a Business Question rather than to protract discussions on the previous Question.

Business: Road Works, Parliament Square
3.7 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like briefly to remind the Government Chief Whip of a sessional order which requires the chief of police to take care that, during each Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House are kept free and open.
I do not intend to delay the House, but we now have in existence a legion of people who consider themselves free to scatter cones across and dig holes in the streets of this city more or less at pleasure, thereby disrupting and disturbing people who wish nothing so much as to move around freely. Now these infernal people have turned their attention to Parliament Square. I wonder whether the Government Chief Whip could marshal the huge influence that he has at his command in order to stop such a nuisance going on?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for giving me notice that he intended to raise this matter. As the noble Lord has said, at the beginning of every Session the House orders the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to take care that passages through the streets leading to this House are kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of noble Lords to and from this House. That order was laid and communicated to the Commissioner in the usual manner by Black Rod on 17th November last year.
These precautions are taken every year. They are held to refer to demonstrations, disturbances and lobbies which might purposely obstruct Members of either House from going about their business. The order has never been taken to refer to any lawful and necessary activity in the public interest, such as roadworks.
I acknowledge that the works which are going on outside have had an adverse impact on traffic, which many noble Lords have found frustrating. However, I do not believe that they can be said to amount to a stoppage in the street. The traffic is moving, albeit slowly, and pedestrian access is unimpeded. However, strictly speaking, this is not a matter for me but for the House authorities—in this case, Black Rod, and your
396
Lordships may feel that it is inappropriate to invoke the sessional order that deals with the situation. I should also point out that a notice regarding the roadworks was placed on the Peers' notice board on 10th January.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that those roadworks are to continue for six weeks and that for some period during those six weeks Parliament Square is to be closed?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was not aware of that but, again, I believe that that is a matter not for me but for the House authorities.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how Members are to get to the House during the period of closure?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that there are alternative ways to reach this House other than via Parliament Square. I use them every day.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is there sense in the view that, when possible, Parliament Square and Westminster Bridge should not both be disrupted simultaneously?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is an extremely good idea and I am sure that that, too, should be communicated to the House authorities.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 68 [Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality]:
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn The Lord Bishop of Blackburn moved Amendment No. 364B:
Page 41, line 25, leave out ("ceases to have effect") and insert ("is amended as follows.
(2) For the sidenote substitute "Principles relating to sex education".

397
(3) For subsections (1) to (3) substitute—
"(1) The local education authority shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where sex education is given to any registered pupils at a maintained school, it is given having regard to the following principles—

(a) that marriage should be promoted as the fundamental building block of society and of family life and as the proper context for the nurture of children, and

(b) that pupils are entitled to develop without being subjected to—

(i) any physical or verbal abuse about sexual orientation, or

(ii) the encouragement of sexual activity."

(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) for "(1)(b)" substitute "(1)";

(b) for the words from "means" to the end substitute "has the meaning assigned by section 20(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.".").

The right reverend Prelate said: I beg to move this amendment at the beginning of what I expect to be a keenly argued debate on Clause 68. I do so because, whatever the rights and wrongs of Section 28, of which we shall no doubt hear much this afternoon, there is a very real concern about the effect that its repeal will have on schools. It is feared that they will be free to promote homosexuality. On the other hand, there is a real desire to have a sound, generally accepted basis for sex and relationships education.
Most of the comments that I have managed to read—and my postbag has been large—have been concerned with the, effect that the repeal of Section 28 will have on schools. As chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, I move my amendment after detailed consultations with the chairman and officers of the Catholic Education Service. I am glad to have the support in principle of the leading article in last week's edition of the Catholic weekly, The Tablet.
My amendment is intended to put an end to the present confusion, which was trotted out even on Saturday morning on the radio by the presenter of "Yesterday in Parliament", and to make life easier for those charged with delivering SRE; namely, the teachers in our schools. Clearly, there is much confusion about the legal standing of Section 28 so far as concerns schools. It was passed in 1988 to prevent local authorities promoting homosexuality. In those days, local authorities had a direct responsibility for the curriculum in most maintained schools, other than church aided schools. Therefore, Section 28 achieved what those who wish to retain it, rightly, in my view, desired. However, education legislation has moved on and has changed the position of the LEAs with regard to schools. One of my difficulties this afternoon is having to deal with what is primarily an education responsibility in the context of this Bill, which is concerned with local government.
Since 1988 the national curriculum for schools has been introduced and education Acts passed which have placed what we are concerned about firmly in the hands of the governing bodies of the schools. In a situation in which parental choice largely decides
398
which schools flourish—at least numerically in pupil numbers—it seems hard to conceive of school governors pursuing a policy which promotes homosexuality. However, I hope that they will take every step to prevent bullying based on sexual orientation. In other words, whatever happens to Section 28, the desire of the vast majority—the so-called "silent majority"—of parents and, indeed, of society at large for SRE to be based on heterosexual marriage as the norm will not be met. The confusion will remain.
However, I am well aware and, indeed, fully share the concern of those in this House and outside who say that, irrespective of the legal position under which our schools now operate, the Government's desire and intention to repeal Section 28 will send out signs and signals. As a Christian leader I believe that signs and signals are most important. The signs and signals in this case are that homosexual relationships have parity with heterosexual relationships and marriage, as understood and practised for generations as the Christian tradition has understood that.
Some believe—and I believe that the Government must listen to this for it is a widespread concern—that if Section 28 is repealed then all safeguards go and "anything goes", as they say. My amendment seeks to prevent just that and to put an end to uncertainty in the classroom and, it is hoped, to remove some of the fears which exist as to future developments. In his reply to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the comments of the Chief Inspector of Schools last Thursday (Hansard, col. 348), the Minister reminded the House that plans by the Department for Education and Employment are well advanced to issue guidance to schools to replace circular 5/94. The Churches have been and are actively involved in that consultation. As part of that process, last week the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England Board of Education issued a list of things they would expect in such guidance, including as point 3:
"Traditional marriage should be promoted as the fundamental building block of society and of family life and as the proper context for the nurture of children".
Our correspondence with the Secretary of State— this is reinforced by statements in the media over the weekend—leads me to believe that our concerns representing those millions of parents and teachers are now being heard. The Secretary of State, David Blunkett, has made it clear that young people should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority reached agreement on shared values in our society, which included the importance of marriage. The PSHE framework, which has been published, for the first time refers to the importance of marriage. That has been widely welcomed in the country. I understand that Ofsted will inspect PSHE and SRE provision. Those are steps that I greatly welcome.
However, as I have been forcefully reminded again and again, the guidance has still to be produced, agreed and published. Trusting soul though one would expect me to be, sitting on these Benches, I am not that trusting. I am not prepared to leave things absolutely

399
to chance, to see Section 28 repealed with no guarantees as to what will emerge, or to leave a continuing vacuum of confusion for the schools and their teachers to face. Hence, the effect of my amendment will be that LEAs, as much as it lies within their power, can promote marriage as the fundamental building block of society and family life and for the nurture of the nation's children.
I have tabled a similar amendment in what I believe to be a more proper place—namely, the Learning and Skills Bill—which will impose on governing bodies and head teachers of all schools the duties imposed on local authorities by this amendment. Together, they ensure the provision of sex education of the kind that I believe the vast majority of British people will welcome.
Nevertheless, I have been accused that by tabling my amendment I have let down the silent majority. I believe that the reverse is the case and that my amendment will give statutory force to what will be the principle underlying the guidance circular. That is what is required. I am asking for similar treatment in England to that given by the Scottish Parliament; namely, the undertaking by the First Minister in Scotland that the,
"package of safeguards and its proposals for revising guidelines'',
will be published before the final vote is taken.
Finally, although all schools are already required to have a policy to deal with bullying, I do not want my amendment to be seen as in any way supporting bullying on the grounds of sexual orientation. I know enough about bullying on grounds of religious faith and practice to realise how serious that is, hence my proposed subsection (3)(b)(i). My proposed subsection (3)(b)(ii) seeks to prevent the act of promotion of heterosexual or homosexual activity among children and young people. That has caused great anxiety to parents, teachers, youth workers and social workers.
Much more could be said in support of this amendment, but I believe that, together with my proposed amendment to the Learning and Skills Bill, this amendment will have a far more positive and far-reaching effect in our schools than the negative and ineffective section it seeks to replace.
Lord Whitty: In view of the fact that we face a rather difficult afternoon, it may be for the convenience to the House if I give at an early stage an indication of how the Government intend to respond in this debate to the proposals of the right reverend Prelate under this amendment, and perhaps reflect slightly forward into other debates we shall have this afternoon.
First, I thank the right reverend Prelate for raising these issues and indeed other noble Lords who have tabled amendments and who are genuinely trying to find a way out of what would otherwise be a very difficult situation. Also, I thank the right reverend Prelate for the manner in which he has proposed this first amendment. I would hope that the rational and
400
unemotive tone—but nevertheless profound concern—with which he has expressed the amendment can be reflected throughout the rest of the afternoon.
I also agree with much of the substance of what the right reverend Prelate has said, and indeed with much of the substance of his amendment. Hitherto, we have taken the view, and still do, that one of the most important things, in order to remove the emotion from this debate, is to remove Section 28, which his amendment would achieve, and to provide a more balanced way of approaching sex education in schools. We have taken the general view that these are delicate, difficult and sensitive issues and therefore are best dealt with by guidance rather than trying to encapsulate all these matters on the face of the Bill.
As the right reverend Prelate said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is currently engaged in very detailed discussions with the Churches and other faiths on this issue. However, I realise that that guidance may not be quite sufficient to reassure people. Therefore I would hope that the right reverend Prelate and others who support his amendment would recognise that some further discussions are needed on this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education stands ready to talk to the right reverend Prelate and other colleagues to take this further and to see what should be the balance between primary legislation and guidance in order to reassure people.
The central problem is that most of the concerns expressed relate to schools, whereas Section 28 does not really apply to schools. We are here debating this in a local government Bill context, whereas most of the issues relate to education. The issue of the repeal of Section 28 ought, logically, to be separate from the safeguards that are in place to ensure that children receive appropriate sex and relationships education in schools. Unfortunately they have become enmeshed in the whole of this debate. Therefore I sympathise fully with much of what the right reverend Prelate has said. I also have some sympathy with parts of other amendments which are tabled—particularly the amendment much later on in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and others. As I say, I am very grateful that these dimensions are on the agenda today, rather than being dealt with in the kind of polarised argument which has been foreseen in the press. I would therefore hope that, rather than press this amendment today, the right reverend Prelate will accept that we need to discuss this further. We hope that in those discussions before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, we shall have reached an understanding as to what is appropriate for primary legislation and what is appropriate for guidance and perhaps secondary legislation.

401
I reserve the right to reply at the end of this debate if other issues have been raised, but I thought it would be helpful to the House to see the way in which the Government are approaching not only this amendment, but the other amendments tabled today.
Lord Quirk: Perhaps I may quote from the speech made by the Prime Minister on 19th January. He was explaining the Government's position on this issue. He said it was,
"not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life".—[Official Report, Commons. 19/1/00; col. 840.]
There, it seemed to me, spoke not only a wise Prime Minister, but a wise and caring parent who understands that the country teems, as the right reverend Prelate has said, with caring parents who greatly fear what may happen when clever, determined, committed and indeed well-resourced pressure groups take advantage of the obvious inference that, if something is declared to be no longer forbidden, it is by the same token plainly permitted.
This would put us in a worse position than before the section in question—worded ill-advisedly, in my view—was introduced in 1988. It was written in to forbid something which, so far as I was aware at that time, no one seriously believed was permissible; namely, the active promotion of homosexuality by publicly-funded bodies.
The Prime Minister says specifically that Her Majesty's Government do not want the promotion of homosexuality. And fortunately he is at one not only with those caring parents I mentioned, but with the homosexual organisation Stonewall itself. I was reassured this weekend to read its document dated February 2000, which is pretty recent. on this matter. I quote from page 2:
"Indoctrination, whether it be political, religious or sexual, has no place in maintained schools … No lesbian or gay man is advocating the promotion of homosexuality"
And thus, the document notes, and again I quote:
"a prohibition on indoctrination is not in itself wrong".
So it should not be difficult to find a wide consensus around the right reverend Prelate's amendment, if indeed not one of the other amendments before us today which, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has indicated, seek to avoid the inference—which those I have quoted agree should be avoided—that it would henceforth be permissible to promote homosexuality. We can surely satisfy the millions who already feel threatened, indeed betrayed, by some of the measure and proposals from Her Majesty's Government in the past couple of years.
Threatened, betrayed and indeed mystified. The health of the entire population, and of children in particular, is receiving welcome attention by government—as witness the forthcoming Food Standards Agency, the increased restriction on tobacco advertising, the work of the so-called drugs czar. and action to protect us all from CJD, salmonella and GM foods.
402
Of course, in a free society we should all be free to take risks with any activity that is legal, from smoking to bunjee jumping. Smoking is a good example, because with smoking no one is left in any doubt as to what is dangerous and why, and as to what are the risks.
So it is a puzzle to me, and I think to many outside this House, that issues of sexual health and sexual education are seriously neglected. One only has to contemplate our remarkable figures, a European record in this particular sport at least, on teenage, and indeed pre-teenage, pregnancies to feel that there is something grievously amiss with our health education and perhaps to wonder why our sex education has become so solidly fixated upon AIDS. AIDS is a terrible threat in all conscience, but one which needs to be put in the context of a broader, more balanced and more fundamental tackling of sex education.
So I should have liked the right reverend Prelate's amendment to make some allusion to sexual health in this connection.
3.30 p.m.
Lord St John of Fawsley: I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on a most useful contribution to this debate and on changing the whole atmosphere of the debate—something which very few people can achieve. I congratulate him also on a Jesuitical manoeuvre by which he seems to have come at the head of the agenda from some place which was originally much lower down. But, in view of his contribution, I believe that I can say that in this case the ends have justified the means. I thank also the Minister for the positive and constructive reply which he has given to the right reverend Prelate and which perhaps opens the way forward for the majority in this House.
I am extremely sad to see that a Whip has been imposed on this matter in this Chamber. If this Chamber is to mean anything, it must be free to discuss matters without the pressure of Whips and political parties. We do not want to turn ourselves into another version of the other place. I expressed that view to our Chief Whip about a week or so ago and I look forward to receiving a reply. Perhaps he was foolish enough to commit it to the post.
All discussion on this matter has been bedevilled by a confusion between the concepts of law and morals. Morals and law are connected but they are distinct. That is a view I put forward in my book Law and Morals, published in 1968 and therefore out of print. However, I remind the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that he described it in a review as a "small masterpiece". I have no objection to the noun!
Before I look at the detail of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, perhaps I may make plain my own position on this issue. It has been the consistent position of the universal Christian Church that all sexual acts outside marriage are wrong. There is no difference in that regard between heterosexual and homosexual acts. I subscribe to that tradition and it certainly rules out such fantasies as homosexual marriages in church.

403
It may seem harsh but that is the teaching of the Church. It is difficult because not everybody can, or desires to, live a celibate life. But those problems are best dealt with in the secrecy of the confessional or in private counselling and not in the glare of the public forum. I hope that whatever the result of this debate, it will not hinder those who are working in that field in bringing comfort to those who are in difficulty.
When one turns to the law, the position is quite different. There is no single Christian position on the law. There is no single Catholic position on the law. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has spoken out on that matter. He takes a mechanistic view of the natural law which I certainly do not share. To venture even higher, there is another, his eminence Cardinal Winning of Glasgow, who has spoken out in an unappetising way with which I certainly, as a Catholic, do not agree. I regret very much that the moderate voice of Cardinal Hume is no longer to be heard to guide us in these perplexing and difficult problems.
But there are two principles with regard to the law. First, we must recognise that the law can have only a limited effect, which is what the right reverend Prelate's amendment achieves. Certainly, it must have precision and clarity of language. On both those tests, Clause 28 fails and even the right reverend Prelate's amendment causes some doubts. Therefore, I very much welcome the thought of conversations going on between interested parties to achieve a more precise form of language. After all, what on earth does the phrase "building block" mean?
But there is all the difference between the teaching in a school of perverse sexual actions on an amoral basis and seeking in a school to help those who experience what is common enough in adolescence and at other ages; namely, a strong attraction to members of the same sex.
Those people need understanding and help and they need to be counselled. But what is important in any relationship is love and friendship, much more than sex. That is what teachers can do and that is what they are inhibited from doing by the present law. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
Therefore, I believe that this matter is not ideally regulated by law. It should be left to guidelines by local authorities, ministers, Churches and teachers. When I was Minister of State for Education, I had the heavy responsibility of dealing with the moral discipline of teachers. It was an extremely heavy burden indeed. There were not many cases but one felt the weight of the responsibility on one's shoulders. But it was extraordinarily rare that such cases arose. The vast majority of teachers are responsible, ethical men and women. They do not abuse their position, either personally or intellectually. Their concern is that all the children committed to their care shall have the right to a full and free development.
The Government are quite right to seek to get rid of this legislation in that respect. It is totally unnecessary. The right reverend Prelate has given us a lead which I certainly would be prepared to follow. My noble friend
404
Lady Young has done so much to promote the cause of religion in this House. I supported her very strongly when she sought to insert into the education Bill a measure which provided that education should be mainly Christian. In the light of the right reverend Prelate's amendment, perhaps my noble friend Lady Young will agree to withdraw her amendment. Indeed, we might then be getting somewhere. Of course, I do not want to promote homosexuality in schools, or indeed anywhere else, but I want to promote tolerance, understanding and help for the young people concerned, just as I have consistently sought to support racial and religious equality and opportunity throughout my political life.
The Earl of Longford: After 30 years, it is unusual to be quoted as having praised noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord referred to my having praised his book. It is a small masterpiece. Undoubtedly, the noble Lord is one of the most gifted speakers in this House. Today, I am afraid that I have to say something about him that was said by the grandfather of the present noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—another famous Conservative Cabinet Minister—that he is "too clever by half". If noble Lords really believe in the cause that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, believes in—I had hoped that she would speak first—they will not go along with that.
My reaction to homosexuals is simple enough, and I speak as one who has promoted "homosexualism", if you like, among the gay lobby. Forty years ago, when I promoted the Wolfenden report—no one else would touch it—the late Lord Boothby referred to me as the unpaid leader of the homosexual lobby. That report was in favour of homosexuals not being prosecuted if they were over the age of 21.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord has just said, homosexuality is against Christian rules, as is any sex outside marriage. Homosexuality can have terrible, tragic results. Whatever else it does, it deprives people of the supreme joy of marriage and children. Helping a young person to become a homosexual means that he will never be married and never have children. That is a terrible burden to inflict on a child, although it is no worse than the behaviour of a heterosexual man who has five mistresses. I do not say that one is worse than the other. They are both against the rules. They are both sinful.
I turn to sexual leanings. We cannot condemn people for their leanings, although leanings can be resisted. I know a young man who has terrible leanings towards girls between the ages of six and 14. He resists them. We have to ask our homosexual friends to resist their leanings.
Next I turn to homosexual behaviour. Any homosexual activity is criminal. Wherever the line is drawn—21, 18 or 16—some homosexual activity is criminal and at that point we must remember that these people are human beings. I speak with little confidence. Recently, in visiting prisons, I have made two much valued and good friends, one serving 10 years for attempted buggery and the other serving 15 years for buggery. One is a Doctor of Divinity and

405
a Doctor of Psychology; the other is taking three degrees. When one of them shortly becomes a Roman Catholic I am honoured to think that I shall have my hand on his shoulder. So I am no enemy of homosexuals. However, when they break the Christian rules they have to be penalised.
Will the measure, suggested by the right reverend Prelate, or anybody else, make it any more likely that young people with homosexual leanings will be homosexuals for lire? In the end, one cannot be sure about any such matter, but I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She is not infallible, any more than anybody else, but I shall back her.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: 11 thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for what he said. He, above all, is a man of great principle. He has stood by his principles in every debate in which I have heard him speak.
However, I refer to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I agree with him. This debate should be without emotion. One of the great difficulties about so long-running a debate is that those of us who hold to a different view are regarded as being completely intolerant, if not something worse. I have been called a number of names. In politics one expects,
"to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune",
and I do not complain. However, the noble Lord should understand the true meaning of "tolerance": being able to listen and appreciate points of view which are different from those that other people hold. That does not alter the fact that one can be friends with people with whom one disagrees. We would all be helped by not misusing the word "tolerance" so that we can discuss the matter rationally, as I hope we shall.
Before I turn to the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, it may be helpful to remind the Committee why Section 28 was ever introduced. Section 28 applies to local authorities; it does not apply directly to schools or to teachers. Back in 1988 local authorities—not schools—were spending large sums of money promoting homosexuality. Furthermore, local authorities were seeking to require schools to promote homosexuality and some of us have seen some of the appalling material given out to children at that time. Section 28 protected schools from an overbearing local authority.
Section 28 was introduced only after the failure of two other measures. The first was Section 46 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, requiring LEAs to take reasonable steps to secure that sex education has,
"due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
That has since been consolidated into Section 403 of the Education Act 1996.
The second provision was Department of Education circular 11/87, paragraph 22, which advised that,
"there is no place in any school in any circumstances for teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour or presents it as the norm".
406
Because of the failure of those two pieces of legislation, Section 28 was enacted. It has been effective in stopping local authorities promoting homosexuality in schools. It is only right to set that out.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I can ask her a question of which have given her notice. If I should say, with the knowledge of the local authority, to a school audience that I believe that homosexuals are entitled to equal legal, civil and moral respect, would that be a breach of Section 28 or not? I would also value the advice of the Minister together with that of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General whom I see sitting beside him.
Baroness Young: I am sure that I am not qualified to give a legal opinion on almost any subject. My answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that we are not talking about adults. How adults conduct themselves in a free society is a matter for adults. This debate concerns children—children in schools. It concerns children who, in my opinion, ought not to be treated as if they were adults. Adults are in a position to make an informed choice about alternative lifestyles about which children cannot possibly have the experience to judge. That is my answer to the question.
Lord Marsh: I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening; this is a clear and serious point. The issue for many of us—I agree totally with what the noble Baroness said—is whether it applies to heterosexual as well as homosexual activities.
Baroness Young: I shall try and give an equally clear answer to the noble Lord. I have said publicly on many occasions that, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I believe that marriage is best; that marriage is the right way to live.
The right reverend Prelate did not say this, but I believe also that there is no moral equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. As a teacher and a parent I feel that we need to set in front of children an ideal by which they should live. They may not live up to it; I do not live up to ideals either. But I have an idea of how I ought to live. That is what we should strive for. That is what we should put in front of children. To say to children that there are alternatives in life which are equally valid is not right. One needs to be careful what one says to vulnerable children growing up uncertain of the way. What one says to adults and what adults do is a completely different matter and the two points should not he confused.
Perhaps I may comment in some detail on Amendment No. 364B. As I indicated, I believe that marriage is the best way to live. I am entirely in support of including marriage in any guidelines and putting those at the centre of any policy. If the Government are considering guidelines, I hope that they will do that. I have yet to hear any Minister, except Mr Blunkett, say that. Other Ministers seem to say something different. It will he interesting to know the Government's view.

407
A genuine difficulty that I have with the amendment is that the main part of it encourages local education authorities to promote marriage, but does not prevent them promoting homosexual relationships. As we know, in law a prohibition is always much stronger and clearer than a positive duty. It constitutes a clear threshold which we must not cross. It is easier to see when a threshold has been crossed than to see when a positive duty has not been fulfilled.
I do not believe for one moment that the overwhelming majority of governors or teachers will do any of the things set out in the new subsection (3)(b) of the amendment. But its other weakness is that it covers only schools; it does not cover youth organisations or the many activities of local authorities where people would still be free to promote homosexuality. Furthermore, one cannot be sure that some would not promote it in some circumstances.
The reason for the complication is that a positive duty is not exclusive. To be exclusive, the duty would have to be drafted in such a tight way that few would find it acceptable; that is to say, by saying that marriage was the only context for raising children. There are of course a number of drafting difficulties. The word "fundamental" is not defined. Marriage may be,
"the fundamental building block of society",
but it does not follow from the wording that it is the only building block. Marriage may be fundamental in the sense of being primary, but homosexual couples could also be a secondary or alternative building block; nor is the word "family" defined. However, I do not argue the case on those points because drafting issues can be corrected. But I cannot support the amendment as it stands because it does not meet the case.
I wish to say something about bullying, which will undoubtedly be central to the debate. The amendment makes reference to it. I take the view that bullying is always wrong, whatever the cause. I do not believe that there is a single teacher who would not do all that he or she could to stop it. But it is difficult to stop. The Education Act lays down clearly that there is a duty on governors and head teachers to prevent it. It is an absolute duty and if teachers breach it, they may be disciplined. So there is no doubt where their duty lies.
It is difficult to see where the law could be tightened up on the subject of bullying. It says,
"The head teacher shall determine measures (which may include the making of rules and provision for enforcing them) to be taken with a view to [among other things] encouraging good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils".
That means, in particular, preventing all forms of bullying among pupils. The law could not be firmer or clearer on that matter. So we are all agreed upon it.
I hoped that when the Chief Inspector of Schools made his statement to the Sunday Telegraph one week ago, it would have been welcomed by this Chamber as a reassurance as to what is happening in schools. I confess to having been appalled by the derogatory remarks made last Thursday in Question Time about
408
one of the most distinguished men in education today; a man who was originally employed by the Conservative government; one who is clearly regarded as being so good as to be re-employed by Mr Blunkett; and one who has probably done more than almost anybody else to raise standards in schools. He said, on the basis of inspections of thousands of schools in this country,
"I do not see that teachers are constrained in teaching with these issues [bullying]. The fact that they are not allowed to promote homosexuality does not prevent them from delivering effective teaching on these issues. Furthermore, my own experience is that there is no evidence that Section 28 has had a negative influence on teachers' ability to deal with homophobic bullying. No head teacher has raised with me, in all the many school visits that I have made, Section 28 as a cause of concern".
He is a man who has probably had more experience of visiting schools than anybody else in the country and he makes an unequivocal statement. I stand by what he says. I have no reason to suppose that it is not true.
I may come back to this debate at a later stage, because it may be more helpful to speak to all the amendments at the same time. Though I entirely respect what the right reverend Prelate said in relation to marriage, for the reasons that I have given I shall be unable to support him should he press his amendment to a Division.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I have great sympathy with the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and in my brief remarks I shall leave the detailed arguments on Section 28 to others.
Section 28 needs repealing. It is a clumsy piece of legislation; it is not clear and it is not precise. No local authority has ever been charged with being in breach of it and no court has ever defined how it should apply. It is a totally unworkable piece of legislation, but it has been damaging in effect. As the right reverend Prelate said, sometimes symbols have a greater detrimental effect than reality. If Section 28 is retained, it will be in direct conflict with such important measures as citizenship education in schools, the eradication of social exclusion and the implementation of a public health policy, and therefore it needs to be removed.
I turn to the amendment. Like my noble friend the Minister, I believe that the words of the right reverend Prelate reflect many of the issues and concerns that we need to deal with in both guidance and legislation. As my noble friend said, it is crucial that the discussions and the consultations should continue. I am sure that we can then reach common ground, which must ultimately be achieved so that the provision of sexual education is not neglected. That is what most parents want; and that is what most young people want. In a recent Channel 4 poll, conducted on 3rd February, 70 per cent of 15 to 24 year-olds thought that Section 28 should be repealed. It is those young people's lives that we are discussing and it is those young people to whom we should be listening.

409
It is unfortunate that what should have been a mature debate about a civilised society, recognising diversity and determining ways of eradicating discrimination, has, in some quarters, been conducted in a tone of hysteria that itself promotes homophobic views and encourages prejudices and harassments. The debate so far has generated more heat than light, at a time when light was what was required. What also appears to be clear from some of the press reports over the weekend is the fact that there are some people who do not want to see that light—who want to keep a restraint on local government, who ignore the need for equality and democracy, who have no desire to achieve equality of treatment for all young people and who do not want clarity for teachers and parents over what can and cannot be discussed. It is that clarity that we must have: the confusion has to be removed. I believe that the amendment brings us nearer to establishing the principles upon which that clarity can be achieved.
It is important for us to have guidance that applies to governors, head teachers, social workers and youth workers. It should not be principally directed at schools. We must have guidance that is understandable and workable and which is detailed and sensitive to the needs of all; guidance which can be built into legislation, not in detail but by placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to produce guidance on sex and relationships education in schools and which will assist school governors in the work that they have to do, taking into account local circumstances. I give way to the noble Lord.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful. The noble Baroness talks about guidance. However, call it codes of practice, rules, or what you will, it has absolutely no legal efficacy unless it is triggered by a clause in primary legislation. We have not seen the draft and have not heard about any clause to give it any legal efficacy. Until we know where we are going, I think that we had better go a little quietly on rules or guidance. I wonder whether the noble Baroness agrees.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. It is important for us to have discussion on the principles that we want to see in that guidance. I want to talk about those principles. I also said that, within legislation, there should be a statutory duty placed on the Secretary of State to produce guidance on sex and relationships education. I shall now describe what I believe those principles ought to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, highlighted, there has to be an understanding in the guidance that indoctrination, whether political, religious or sexual, has no place in maintained state schools.
All young people should be taught from an early age to understand differences and the importance of trust and respect for all, regardless of their sexuality, race, colour or religion. They also need to be taught the importance and the nature of marriage, of parenting and of stable relationships—principles that are already laid down in the new "Healthy Schools" initiative and
410
not, as the noble Baroness suggested, never mentioned anywhere. It is equally important that included in the guidance are the values of delaying sexual activity and the dangers inherent in promiscuity and risk-taking behaviour. All young people should be given accurate information on sexual relationships, regardless of their sexuality, if they are to make sensible and informed decisions about their future.
Similarly, young people should be made aware of the teachings of religious faiths on the questions around sexuality. I believe that such a firm ethical framework would be more reassuring for parents, teachers and pupils than four lines in a piece of legislation. It would give teachers and relevant local authority staff the authority to advise and to offer information and support to all young people and so enable them to address specific incidents of homophobic bullying by making it absolutely clear, as the amendment does, that all pupils have the right to develop without being subject to physical or verbal abuse because of their sexual orientation.
In conclusion, Section 28 as it stands legitimises discrimination against one section of society. It asserts that gay men and lesbians are second-class people and that their relationships are pretended. There would, rightly, be outrage if the law were to define any other section of the community in this way. For more than a decade it has been an affront to the basic human rights of a section of the population. That also applies to children, because they have rights as well as adults. To me, and to many others, Section 28 is an iniquitous piece of legislation that needs removing from the statute book. In the 21st century all sections of society are entitled to equal treatment. That can be achieved by well-produced, inclusive guidance and safeguards that can be implemented by being built into legislation. I believe that the principles behind this amendment move us some way towards achieving that aim. I hope that the discussion can continue.
Baroness Hamwee: Like other—
Lord Moran: My Lords—
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I really do think that this is the opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to speak.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the noble and learned Lord. Like other speakers, I should like to pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I shall largely confine my remarks at this stage to supporting the discussions he advocated. However, like other Members of the Committee, I reserve the right to come back as the debate widens.
To put it at its lowest, I regard Section 28 as being unhelpful. It is a symbolic provision, which I find very offensive and one which I believe has done nothing to heal rifts in our society. It is an unhelpful provision, not least because the term "promote" is so difficult to interpret; indeed, "to inform" is not "to promote". I do

411
not advocate the promotion of homosexuality; I do not advocate the promotion of sexual experience by young children in any fashion.
As the right reverend Prelate said, we need to explore the place of primary legislation in these issues. For example, what is the responsibility of local education authorities and what is the responsibility of schools? Whatever the outcome of our discussions today, I hope that teachers will feel that they end the day with more support than they currently believe they have.
The relationship with other existing legislation is a matter that needs more consideration than we are able to give it this afternoon. I mention only the section in the 1996 Act which says that where sexual education is given it should be given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and to the value of family life. That says a lot to me, but I am not sure by how much it should be bettered or expanded in primary legislation. Like others, I prefer to see guidelines and guidance— provisions which can acknowledge the sensitivities of the subject. Just to take one aspect of this difficult issue, there are many kinds of family. I do not think that anyone has yet mentioned single-parent families. They constitute a group who find themselves lumped together with others in an unhelpful fashion, as I have said previously.
If we are to rely on guidance, like the right reverend Prelate, I would prefer to see it and not accept it "sight unseen". The suggestion of the right reverend Prelate is a useful, helpful and constructive way forward. I may return to the issue. I know that some of my noble friends have feelings at least as strong as mine. However, I exercise self-discipline in the hope that that of itself will take the discussion forward.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Moran: A number of us have been working for many days to try to devise a reasonable solution to this contentious problem. We have tabled successive amendments in good time so that noble Lords should have a proper opportunity to consider them. We have sought to improve them over time.
It is unfortunate that the right reverend Prelate, without a word to any of us so far as I know, should have introduced a revised amendment at the very last moment. It was printed first thing this morning and none of us has had time to consider it properly. It is ingeniously worded so as to be listed before those already tabled. This has given rise to a suspicion that it is perhaps a ploy to divide and frustrate those who have sought to preserve the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality and that it is, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, said, a Jesuitical manoeuvre. I hope that suspicion is unfounded.
It is in itself not a bad amendment, although I think it less good than ours. For example, I believe that it covers only schools whereas ours covers all local authority responsibilities. The attitude of the Church of England, reportedly involved in behind-the-scenes
412
discussions with Ministers, seems somewhat equivocal on this whole issue. It contrasts sharply with the attitude of the Muslim Council of Britain, which says:
"Any teaching in schools which presents homosexual practice as equivalent to marriage or in a morally neutral way is deeply offensive to Muslims … We believe that the repeal of Section 28 profoundly undermines the institution of the family and will damage the fabric of our society".
The marginal note on Clause 68 of the printed Bill describes it as,
"Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality".
Clearly, if you disagree with the prohibition of such promotion, you consider it allowable and acceptable. Anyone therefore who votes in favour of Clause 68 and leaves it unamended must logically favour the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. There is no getting away from that. Whatever the Government may say or do, their initiative will inevitably be seen by the public as indicating that they favour the promotion of homosexuality.
We now see many concessions to the homosexual lobby: the renewed effort to reduce the age of consent to 16; the failure to ask, like some other European countries, for a derogation from the acceptance of homosexuality in the Armed Forces; and even, next Saturday, a "gay day" at the Dome, which has caused at least one school to cancel its planned visit. I find it hard to believe that most of the Government's supporters, in this House and elsewhere, really want the Government to promote homosexuality.
I am sure that the Government must have been surprised by the strength of public reaction to their proposal, first in Scotland and now in England and Wales, and in the stand taken by so many religious leaders. It must be a powerful cause that persuades the Chief Rabbi and the Muslim Council of Britain to take the same line.
For me, far and away the most important aspect of this question is the need to safeguard children. Protecting the innocent, young and vulnerable is, as I see it, a fundamental duty of our Parliament. We have all been appalled by the numerous cases of abuse of children in care in north Wales and elsewhere. Not all abuse is carried out by homosexuals but a good deal of it is—by paedophiles who target defenceless children. Those who distribute the disgusting publications and videos, some examples of which Peers have been able to see and which are financed by taxpayers and ratepayers, are similarly targeting the young.
How can we put things right? The Government say that they will introduce new guidelines for schools. This is welcome. Mr Blunkett is clearly doing his utmost, for which we should all be grateful. But guidelines do not have the force of law and are no substitute for what is in an Act of Parliament. Stonewall has proposed that there should be statutory guidance for schools. On the face of it that seems reasonable, but I have doubts about whether guidelines produced by the present Government, sympathetic as they are to the homosexual lobby, would be worded in a way that was acceptable to

413
most parents, different faiths and the public as a whole. And even statutory guidelines would, I think, be weaker than a section of an Act of Parliament.
Section 28 is far from perfect. It has been argued that it is ineffective because there have been no prosecutions under it. However, I quote just one of the scores of letters I have received. It is from a Liberal Democrat, no less, a former director of education who is now a registered inspector of schools and has long experience of inner -city schools. He states:
"Section 28 greatly strengthens the hand of officers. If they have a proposal before them from a Council committee which clearly promotes homosexuality then if reason and common sense fail the officer can appeal to Section 28. Councillors know that officers cannot he made to act against the legal advice they have received".
His letter continues:
"Section 28 puts a very reasonable brake on a situation which, but for the law, could pt out of control. Section 28 has in no way inhibited responsible sex education in schools. The argument that Section 28 has been responsible for encouraging bullying in schools is simply ridiculous. Every teacher has a basic professional duty to tackle the problem of bullying however it is caused. In my entire professional career I have never encountered a single case of pupils being bullied because they are homosexual. Sadly I cannot say the same about bullying on other grounds."
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is simple and has been widely supported. I had the privilege of working with the noble Baroness against the previous government's misconceived move to banish fault from divorce and make it easier under the Family Law Bill, as it then was. Now she is leading the campaign to preserve Section 28. It used to be said of some men that they were good people to go tiger shooting with. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is a good person to go campaigning with.
The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, to which I have added my name, is an alternative approach, which some may prefer. It has the merits of including a reference to the need to support marriage, which is, I think, most important. It does not specifically mention homosexuality. It would cover all forms of perversion, and not merely homosexuality. It offers an opportunity to put matters right if the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, should fail.
Although most of its substance is acceptable, in the light of what I have said I shall not support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, not least because for this Chamber to go on record, even by implication, as approving the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities would be deplorable and would damage our standing with the public. We should be failing the parents of children throughout the country. I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and if that fails I hope that the Committee will support our amendment.
Lord Davies of Coity: It was not so long ago that I spoke in this Chamber opposing the reduction in the age of consent. The view that I take on the issue before us today is the same as I took then; that is, to protect the interests of young people and children and to do nothing whatever to increase the level of risk to which
414
they are exposed, even if that risk is small and acknowledging that there will be no effect on the vast majority whether Section 28 is in place or not.
My one regret is that whereas on the question on the age of consent the Government allowed a free vote, on this issue they have not. That regret applies equally in respect of the party opposite whose action—despite it having "Whipped" in a way that coincides with how I shall vote—I believe to be wrong. I say that because I believe this to be a question of conscience, a moral issue and not a political one.
I know that there are those who claim that this is a political issue. They are entitled to that view. However, I do not share it. It came as a great surprise to me when the Government—whom I unequivocally support, and for whom I did as much as I could to bring to power— decided, very late on, to apply a three-line Whip, probably, in part at least, influenced by the fact that the Conservative Party had already taken the decision to apply a three-line Whip.
It is not my intention to repeat the arguments I advanced previously, important as I feel they are. I want to draw the attention of the Committee, very briefly, to a few points which I feel are directly relevant to Section 28.
Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 states that where sex education is given it should be,
"in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
I agree with that—I believe that the vast majority of people agree with that—and nothing in Section 28 cuts across that approach.
I understand that the proposed new guidance will clearly set out that children should be taught about the importance and nature of marriage and family life in bringing up children. I welcome that. But, again, nothing in Section 28 prevents that. One would have thought that it reinforces it. I also understand that the guidance will stress that marriage and the family are the key building blocks of the community and of society; it will also make clear that it is not the job of teachers to promote a particular sexual orientation, that teachers will not be promoting homosexual relationships. Finally, the guidance will ensure that teachers are in a position to offer information and support to all young people as they develop into adults and to address incidents of homophobic bullying. I agree with all of that—but I cannot see the justification for repealing Section 28 in the process.
I feel that, whether or not we like it, we cannot ignore the perception that the British people have of the issue and of what they understand Section 28 reflects. The British people that we represent see the issue as this: those who seek the repeal of Section 28 support the promotion of homosexuality, whereas those who oppose the repeal of Section 28 are against the promotion of homosexuality. Of course we know that, as in most things, the issue is not as simple and as clear-cut as that—but I believe that that is the perception of most people. I fear that to ignore that

415
perception can work only to the disadvantage of the Government, of whom I want to see in power for at least—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Since the question of the beliefs and perceptions of the public has arisen, does the noble Lord think that the role of this House is to follow public opinion or to lead, educate and inform it?
Lord Davies of Coity: I certainly do not believe that it is necessary to follow public opinion in all cases, but I believe that it would be unwise to ignore it. I do not think that we hold a monopoly in terms of people's knowledge and feelings on issues of morality and conscience.
Because most people believe that protection is afforded by Section 28, its removal can only damage respect for the Labour Government. The message being sent out by proposing the repeal of Section 28 can only be a negative one for the Government. That I do not want to see. Like most noble Lords—many of whom are my noble friends—I have received an enormous mailbag on this issue, much of it from those we consider to be pillars of our society—teachers, headmasters, clergy, solicitors, and one letter from a director of education, to whom reference has already been made. These people are not considered to be cranks. They are rational, stable people with legitimate fears and concerns—and they plead with us to leave Section 28 as it is.
But the letters are not only from those to whom I have referred; they come also from mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers. They all utter the same cry: "Do nothing to put our youngsters at further risk. Take no action that may ultimately confuse children before they become aware of their sexuality".
We are told that the repeal of Section 28 will not lead to the promotion of homosexuality. If that is so, why remove it? Section 28 is there only to prevent the promotion of homosexuality in our schools.
The arguments in support of the repeal of Section 28 do not seem to me to address the fears of most people—including me—that once the provision is removed, the possibility of increasing risk for young people and children will be greater, even though that risk will affect only a small minority.
Finally, if the removal of Section 28 is as straightforward and uncomplicated as is sometimes claimed, why is there a need for guidance notes? Further, why propose a change in the legislation before finalising those guidance notes?
Over the long 18 years that I have played a part in helping to make the Labour Party electable—despite many of its warts and sometimes misconceived and misguided policy decisions—I knew and I still know that the basic values and principles of the Labour Government are right. The compassionate belief in people, which is the hallmark of a Labour Government, reflects my profound feeling. But in this
416
I think they are wrong. I have not so far voted against a Labour Government—but in this matter I shall vote for Amendment No. 365.
Lord Waddington: I should very much—
Earl Russell: May I—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have a certain amount of time available to us. Shall we begin with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, followed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, followed by the Cross Benches?
Lord Waddington: I shall try to be very brief. I should very much have liked today to have supported the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn— not least because I live in his diocese. I greatly respect his judgment and I know him to be a wise, compassionate and sensible man. However, if one judges his amendment by its capacity to stop the circulation by local authorities of the pernicious material that we have seen recently—and which was on display in Committee Room 3A on two days last week and is again on display today—and by its capacity to stop local authorities targeting children with material which suggests that the homosexual lifestyle is quite acceptable, the amendment will be entirely ineffective, not least of course because the amendment deals with local education authorities and Section 28 puts a prohibition on local authorities.
Some have argued, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, today, that, because there have been no prosecutions, Section 28 has been ineffective. That is not the view of the homosexual rights campaigner, Mr Peter Tatchell, who said in an article a couple of years ago that he had identified at least 35 instances of self-censorship by local authorities which had been afraid of prosecution under Section 28. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, quoted from a letter from a Mr Derek Esp, formerly the director of education for Lincolnshire and Liberal Democrat vice-chairman of Somerset education committee. He could not have put the matter more clearly. He said:
"Section 28 came about because some local authorities were using their powers to encourage schools to promote homosexuality. Since … Section 28 was introduced this problem has greatly diminished. Section 28 greatly strengthens the hands of (local government) officers. If they have a proposal before them from a Council Committee which clearly promotes homosexuality, then if reason and common sense fail the officer can appeal to Section 28".
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: As he has been quoted several times, in the interests of clarity I should point out, first, that Mr Derek Esp, while he is a Liberal Democrat, is not vice-chairman of the education authority in Somerset; and, secondly, that in their guidance the officers of his own authority currently say that educational services have sometimes been unclear as to what they can offer to young people because of the Local Government Act 1988, Section 28. So although Mr Esp may express an individual view, he is not speaking for his authority.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: I am not greatly concerned about the particular posts held by Mr Derek Esp. What he said was plain common sense and, therefore, I was not surprised when he said it.
The amendment of the right reverend Prelate will not stop the dissemination of the offensive material we have seen. It will not be as effective as Section 28 in deterring local authorities from disseminating that material. I do not see how that can be denied. For instance, there will be nothing to prevent local authorities from producing material directed at children and placing it in children's sections of libraries. Such material may tell them that sodomy is all right if people are born that way and that while marriage is the fundamental building block of society, it may not be right for them and that they may prefer a homosexual relationship. There will be nothing whatever to prevent a local authority from emulating the Avon health authority by publishing material encouraging young children,
"to experiment with boys and girls to see who [they] feel comfortable with".
There will be nothing to prevent a local authority from emulating the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority and publishing, for the benefit of children, a guide to the etiquette of cruising and cottaging. For that matter, I must say with the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate that there will be nothing to prevent a local authority from giving different meanings to the words "marriage" and "family" from the ones understood by the great majority of people. After all, government spokesmen have often asserted that the word "family" must be redefined to meet changing social conditions.
I ask, with respect, that we address the real issue. The real issue is that we have a duty to ensure that young boys, who are often confused about sexual matters and may go through a phase, often transitory, of being attracted to other males, are not made the target of homosexual propaganda. It is quite wrong that such boys should be told—here I use the words of a lady who wrote to me—that,
"any sexual choice is equal to the next, like buying a brand of footwear".
It is quite wrong that they should be taught— whether in a formal sex education class or outside; perhaps in a library book—that a homosexual relationship is equally as valid and normal as a heterosexual one and that sodomy is perfectly acceptable behaviour. There are two obvious reasons why that is wrong, which have already been mentioned by one or two Members of the Committee. First, such teaching runs entirely counter to the teaching of all the main religions in the world and contradicts the belief of the great majority of people who can see from their own knowledge of anatomy and biology that sodomy is an unnatural act. Secondly, to teach young people that a homosexual relationship is as normal and valid as a heterosexual one is to conceal from them the appalling health risks involved in homosexual behaviour in general and sodomy in particular.
418
Of course it is wrong to be intolerant of homosexuals as individuals. That must be said because, as my noble friend Lady Young mentioned, the word "intolerance" is so often wrongly used. But it is surely right to be intolerant of those prepared to make the target of propaganda children who are far too young to appreciate the implications of a decision to involve themselves in homosexual behaviour. Some of the material now being circulated is quite appalling. How on earth can it be right to teach children to,
"experiment with boys and girls to see who you feel most comfortable with"?
That advice, contained in a video funded by the Avon health authority, is an argument not for repealing Section 28 but for extending its scope. It would certainly not be banned as a result of the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. How can it be right for the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority to fund a guide to the etiquette of cruising and cottaging; that is, actually to encourage promiscuous sex? I believed that health authorities were in the business of promoting health, not disease.
Last month, Mr Blunkett announced that new guidelines would be produced by the department as a substitute for Section 28. However, not only can guidance be ignored, but the wording hinted at would not have begun to tackle the mischief. I gather that although it would rule out proselytising in favour of homosexual behaviour, it would not be the vehicle for the deliberate promotion of any sexual orientation. Of course, that means that far from teachers being under a duty to point out that a homosexual lifestyle is not morally equivalent to marriage, they would be required, while paying lip service to the importance of marriage, to play their part in the Government's campaign to undermine its special status.
Some arguments have been advanced in support of the repeal of Section 28, not least by the Prime Minister himself, which do not hold water for a moment. I am not going to go over the business of bullying and the argument that Section 28 prevents people from teaching the facts of life. To say so runs entirely contrary to the guidance published by the department in its own circular. Mr Esp says from his experience that,
"The argument that Section 28 has been responsible for encouraging bullying in schools is simply ridiculous. Every teacher has a basic professional duty to tackle the problem of bullying however it is caused. In my entire professional career I have never encountered a single case of pupils being bullied because they are homosexual".
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Has the noble Lord received the guidance from the Royal College of Nursing which gives clear examples of school nurses who, under the present law, find themselves greatly at a disadvantage in trying to help pupils to deal with bullying and other problems?
Lord Waddington: I assure the noble Baroness that the argument that Section 28 has stopped teachers from dealing with bullying was completely exploded

419
by research Commissioned by Stonewall itself. There were hundreds of respondents to its survey, but not a single one identified Section 28 as a factor in bullying.
Finally, more and more aggressive demands are coming from the gay community—demands for gay marriage and the rights of gay people to adopt children. Far from the gay community being an oppressed minority, there is what a gay writer recently described as "a gay triumphalism" in public life. Anyone who dares question attacks by the gay community on conventional morality is accused of ugly prejudice or worse. A statement was attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in the press today. I must tell him that the moral bullies are on the other side of the argument. I therefore congratulate my noble friend on her leadership in the matter and on her courage. When the time comes, I shall certainly support her amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: Before the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, sits down, will he agree with me that the video that he quoted—which is often quoted—is not in fact a video for schools? It is a training video for professionals who may or may not, if they wish, buy it. It is not for children.
Lord Waddington: It is a video which tells professionals what they should tell children. That is the gravamen of the charge. The noble Baroness knows that.
Earl Russell: When I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I am reminded of a remark by Sidney Smith:
"I wish I were as certain of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything".
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for replying with her regular honesty and courtesy to my intervention. I am extremely grateful. She is an honourable opponent and one with whom I am happy to engage in debate. Her answer, as I understood it, was that she really was not sure. It is an honourable answer. I believe that it is correct. It goes a long way towards making my point.
Baroness Young: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I was making the point that how adults behave in a free society is a matter for adults but that what happens to children in school is a different matter. There is a responsibility on adults, who in school stand in loco parentis, as to what they say to children and what they proselytise.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. I had noted the point in her original remarks. But my original example posited the case in which I had said these things while speaking in a school. That was my intention. These are things I would be perfectly happy to say in a school, and I would defend myself to the noble Baroness inside this Chamber or outside.
420
I feel a good deal of sympathy with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who has made a serious effort to be helpful to the Committee. He is probably feeling rather like Cardinal Pole, who attempted to produce a formula on justification acceptable both to Catholics and Protestants and found it damned instantly and simultaneously by Luther and the Pope. I am very sorry to add to that process, but there is one thing I regret seeing in the right reverend Prelate's amendment. I refer to the continuation of this troublesome word "promote". I have read the debate that took place when Clause 28 was first before the House. It was six weeks before I took my seat. My noble friend Lord Falkland remarked that,
"it is just not possible (and I dare say we shall argue the point) to understand what is meant by the word 'promote"'.—.[Official Report,1/2/88; col. 867.]
That was truly a prophetic remark. I understand that the doctrine of Pepper v. Hart applies in this case. I have looked at what the Minister had to say. He said, at col. 890:
"But we think that 'promote' has a clear meaning. If one promotes something, one is deliberately doing something to give what is promoted a more favourable treatment, a more favourable status from wider acceptance, than other things or than that thing hitherto".
What the status of "that thing hitherto" was depends upon whom we are listening too. If we listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, we get a different status from that we get from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. Which of those a court should take as the status hitherto is a wide open question.
I have two points to make about promoting—one specifically in relation to marriage and the other in relation to Section 28. In relation to marriage, I yield to none in my praise for the institution. I have myself been married only for 37 years, which in the marriage stakes in this House makes me a veritable novice. But I may say, as one of the junior Members of your Lordships' House, that I am not yet old enough to have done any better. I hope to be given time. I hope the right reverend Prelate will respect my intention in saying that I agree with Saint Augustine that the corruption of the best is the worst. Just because I think marriage is such a good thing, I think it is a bad thing for anyone to enter into it for anything other than a genuine calling to enter into that state.
When I was an undergraduate, some of us occasionally used to ask older people, "Should I marry so-and-so or not?" The answer we almost always received was, "When in doubt, don't." When we start talking about promoting marriage, we are encouraging the idea that being married is more respectable than any other state; even possibly that advancement may fall from it. That may well encourage people to enter into the state of marriage who have no genuine calling to that state. That can lead only to unhappiness. In the whole of this unhappy story, there are few, if any, people for whom I feel more sympathy than Mrs Tom Driberg, who entered into marriage, I understand, in the genuine belief that she

421
was entering into a normal marriage. If the promotion of marriage leads to something like that, we ought to approach it with a certain caution.
As to promotion of homosexuality, that causes confusion, as I think was indicated mostly clearly in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, because it lumps together two things which in his view are very, very similar—so mach so that they can be conflated— but in mine are as different as light from darkness. What started the argument was the belief that people are going about trying to recruit people to a particular way of sexual behaviour. I do not think that any Member of the Committee would defend that. What some people might wish to add to it is the argument that people should not be going about recruiting for a heterosexual lifestyle either. We have here a real difference in assumptions about physiology as well as about morals. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, used the word "prefer" in relation to a homosexual lifestyle. I am not particularly comfortable with the word "lifestyle". I agree with my California colleague who said that academics are not rich enough to afford a lifestyle. But in any case it implies choice.
Choice is precisely what I see as a doubtful concept. The way I see it, whether one is homosexual or heterosexual is much more akin to whether one is right-handed or left-handed than to whether one is Liberal, Labour or Conservative. One is a matter of choice; the other is something about which one may be in doubt for some time. My eldest son was in doubt for three or four years as to whether he was right-handed or left-handed. He did not choose to be left-handed. I left him to work out by using his hands, to borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, with which he felt most comfortable. I believe that I did right. If I had pushed him into using one with which he was not comfortable, even if it had been, as I believe being right-handed is. something to which the world is much more adjusted and therefore is much easier for people, I do not think that I would have done a good thing. If promotion means going about trying to convert people to homosexuality, that is useless. The vast majority of teenagers are more attached to the opposite sex than to anything else on earth. If I should go about trying to convert them to doing otherwise and got away with a raspberry, I would be lucky.
The other meaning is something quite different. If that is the meaning of the clause, I think it is useless. But I would say of it, as the lower House sometimes says of us, that either the clause is useless or else it is pernicious. If one believes, as I do, that most people do not have a choice about their sexual orientation, one must believe that, whatever is their sexual orientation, they should make as good a job of living that way as they possibly can. If one is to do that, one must be entitled to the respect of being an equal citizen—equal before the law and equal in moral esteem. If one is to be denied that, one finds that life is very difficult indeed. Precisely what annoys most homosexuals about the section is that they see it as being a badge of inequality.
422
Frankly, if they had listened to today's debate, I do not think that they would be particularly likely to change their minds.
People may, as has happened to me, have pupils come to them and say that they are homosexual and who seek advice on whether to admit it, come out, and live honestly according to their conscience. Simply as one human being to another, I want to be able to tell them that I do not think that there is anything morally wrong in their being what they are, that they should make the best of it and hold their heads high. If there is any possibility—as there clearly is—that Section 28 might in some circumstances criminalise me for giving that advice, it may be selfish of me, but I naturally view that prospect with a certain misgiving.
On 3rd December last year I addressed a school sixth form on the history of Liberalism. I made it very clear that I was not wearing my academic hat. At the end of the meeting, one of the boys asked me what I thought was Paddy Ashdown's chief legacy to the party. Having said something about Bosnia with which I shall not detain the Committee, I said that one of his great contributions was fixing this party in its commitment to legal and moral equality for homosexuals. I did not mention "moral" because I do not believe it to be a matter for politicians. It occurred to me afterwards to wonder whether I had offended against the intention of Section 28. I could not have done so literally: I was speaking in an independent school. But if the motive is, as we are told, the protection of children, why should children in independent schools be thought not to be in need of protection when other children are? It does not make very much sense to me.
Secondly, I had not told those at the school what I intended to say, but they might have thought, if they invited me, that I might be liable to say sonic such thing. So far as I can see, it is a wide open question whether, if I had done that in a maintained school with the knowledge of the local authority, I should have infringed Section 28. I take exception to the idea of being criminalised for stating the manifesto policy of my party. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will advise the Minister on this matter by the end of the debate. I gave him notice of this question a good many weeks ago. Until a case comes to court, there is doubt as to what might happen.
I even heard, a few days ago, of someone leaving a maintained comprehensive school six years ago who had taught Shakespeare at A-level and had been told that it was impossible to discuss any question of a homosexual relationship in regard to any of Shakespeare's work. How the Sonnets can be discussed without that question being considered is beyond me. That teacher was told that Section 28 prohibited such discussion. I agree that there have been no prosecutions, but the provision has spread a great deal of alarm and despondency—and to no useful purpose.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: Unlike most members of the Committee, I have the advantage of having taught sex education. For some years I was a

423
religious education teacher in a comprehensive school and sex education was part of the syllabus. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to describe a typical class of 30 pupils who are 13 to 14 years old. In that mixed class, there will be between three and nine pupils who are seriously questioning their sexual orientation. There will be 12 who will already have had sexual encounters of one kind or another. About half will still be living with both their natural parents. Of the remaining pupils, some will be living with a parent who is in a second or third marriage; some parents will have a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend; some pupils will be living with a single parent; and some may be living with a homosexual couple. It is likely that one of the girls in the class will already have had an abortion, and that there will have been one incident of sexual abuse by an adult family member.
To describe a typical lesson, as you enter the classroom, open on the teacher's desk in front of you will be an extremely obscene pornographic picture, with the class sitting with some amusement to see how you are going to react and they will ask what you think of it. There will then be the most unruly and obnoxious child imaginable who, with an air of complete innocence which in other circumstances would win a Bafta award, will mention an anatomical term and ask you to explain what it means.
Sex education is not done in a vacuum. It takes place in a classroom where, I suggest, children have already had more experience of practices of various kinds of sexuality—from television, from pornographic material including that on the Internet, and from sniggering in the classroom—than many of us have had in the whole of our lives. It is those children who must be helped. We are dealing our children short if all that we are telling them is that if they do not live up to the absolute ideal of Christian marriage, they, their parents or the people whom they trust are therefore condemned absolutely. There must be clearer guidelines within our education system. We are failing pupils if we do not allow them to ask questions. If questions are asked, it is up to the teacher to do his or her best to answer them honestly and with integrity.
It is the case that there are some teachers who, because of Section 28, fear the answer that they might give. Some teachers' unions have advised teachers who have asked for guidance to avoid any kind of discussion about homosexuality in the classroom. There are gifted homosexual teachers and there are celibate teachers without commitment who are vulnerable and who have been blackmailed because of the stance that they have sometimes taken in allowing questions to be addressed within that setting.
Local education authorities are not the only ones to provide the material that gets into the hands of children. There needs to be proper material for use by teachers. I suggest that there needs to be better education in teacher training establishments to enable teachers to handle this kind of material in the proper way. A teacher needs freedom without fear. Of course, there needs to be restraint, and any teacher worth his
424
or her salt understands that. Most educational establishments can be trusted to know when there is abuse of a system.
We must be sensitive to the family patterns in which people are brought up. Relationships and sexuality need to be informed by a proper exploration of moral values on all kinds of relationships and every kind of sexuality. That needs to apply across the board in terms of relationships. Tolerance and respect for diversity is also an expression of the moral values that need to be taught in our schools. Section 28 has been used to legitimise prejudice and to frighten teachers into inaction when proper discussion would have been appropriate.
Perhaps I may say a word about bullying. I agree with all that has been said in this debate. Any school worth its salt can deal with bullying, and should be doing so. It is foolish to pretend that it does not exist. But I am much more concerned, not with the hurt that one pupil can cause to another by bullying, but with the hurt that a pupil can do to himself or herself by the undermining of self-esteem and self-respect. Everyone who has sexual feelings that sometimes frighten him or her needs to have a place where such feelings can be safely explored and considered, and where every child has a right to respect for his or her feeling at the time. Even if they do not go on to consider that as a life choice, they need to have help.
Perhaps I may refer to my experience as a school governor. It is the responsibility of school governors to outline the sex education policies of a school and, presumably, to check that they are followed throughout the school. Most governors would have an indication, particularly now that parents are part of school governing bodies, of what is happening in the classrooms of the school.
I turn to the Local Government Bill, which is what the Committee is discussing this afternoon. Members of the Committee will have received, as I have, information to the effect that local authorities have interpreted the ability to provide information, money or materials in various ways. The Local Government Bill contains appropriate provisions for the setting of standards, with safeguards and committees to oversee them. I believe that there is no need for Section 28 and we should trust our teachers, governing bodies and local authorities, all of whom are as capable as we are of judging moral values. We should let them get on with it. I ask whether, if Section 28 is retained, we can answer in the affirmative the question relating to the Convention on Human Rights that we are required to answer when any Bill passes through this House.
5 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I should like—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that it is the turn of the Labour Benches. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Alli speaks next, followed by the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Alli: I reserve my right to come back later in the debate. In the past 12 months, three times this House has asked "Why?" and three times the Bishops' Benches have prayed for victims and their families. Three times the noble Baroness has enjoined us to thank the emergency services. We ask why one man should plant a bomb containing six-inch nails designed to maim and kill in the middle of the Afro-Caribbean community. Why should he plant another bomb in the middle of the Bengali community of Brick Lane and a third in the middle of the gay community of Soho? How can such evil exist in our fellow citizens? We should reflect carefully on those questions, because some of the answers that we seek lie somewhere in the debate tonight.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness that this is a debate about morality. For me, it is about the morality of hate. I believe that hate exists because we teach our children to hate and divide them by the use of moral codes. When one tells a child that marriage is the only form of relationship that is acceptable, what conclusion will it draw about other forms of relationships when its concept of reality is restricted to right and wrong? What judgment about equality can that child be expected to make? I should like to read an extract from a letter written by a 15 year-old who has first-hand knowledge of what that judgment means:
"I am very depressed, and very alone … I used to be a perfect pupil getting high credit marks, but because of the bullying my marks have fallen. I can't tell anyone I wish I was dead—just to have some peace. I am so tired—tired of living and tired of this so-called 'life'. Because of the stress I can hardly eat and I have started taking lots of painkillers … Nobody knows I am gay—I have no-one to turn to and have no support from anyone. My life has been nothing but a bad headache … Some say we are all free people but we must question: are we really free? Is it so wrong being gay?"
I do not believe that any child should have to suffer that level of indignity. The repeal of Section 28 is a true test of our moral courage. If we teach our children that gay, black, Asian or Jewish young men and women are moral outsiders, how can we expect them to grow up without prejudice and hate? This debate is about a small number of people whose belief is so strong that they want all of us I o abide by their moral codes, and they will use any method to make us do it. It is an unrepresentative and narrow view of how religion should govern our lives. That view relies on those people deciding who are the good and bad people and their belief that sex outside marriage, the wearing of condoms to protect against AIDS and divorce and remarriage are bad. That is a complex set of rules and not everyone can live up to it.
What do these people do in our name or in the name of protecting children? They find the weakest section of society that no one wants to protect and set a moral army against it. They accuse teachers of wanting to seduce children into homosexuality and use the most precious bond between a parent and child—love—to instil fear; and they use our education system to spread inequality and intolerance throughout the land. I say to my friends and colleagues that to begin a speech with kind words such as, "I am not prejudiced", or, "I accept the rights or gay people but", or, "I will do
426
anything to stop the bullying of gay young men and women", and then to oppose the repeal of Section 28, cannot remove the responsibility for the legacy of hate.
We are the guardians of the minority and are representative of no-one. We are charged with upholding our country's tradition to fight to protect the freedom of our citizens. I love this country because it fights injustice. I am proud of the flag which flies above this House because it is a symbol of freedom. We have a moral responsibility to fight hate and the crimes that flow from it. If one wants to know how to answer the questions asked after those bombings, one must have moral courage and not teach children to hate. I am glad that the Government Front Bench has decided to consider the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate. It is better to take people with us than to seek to divide. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and allow the Government, along with the right reverend Prelate, to consider what can he brought forward.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: The last time we debated—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We had agreed that the right reverend Prelate should come next.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: As a fairly new Member of this House, I speak with some reticence. One or two observations have been made about marriage. I begin by reminding the Committee that the law of our country is very clear as to what marriage is. Marriage is a giving relationship between one man and one woman who so consent for life, and exclusively so. That is the doctrine of marriage as embedded in the law of our country. If there were any proposals to change it these Benches would be even fuller than they are today.
Perhaps the issue before us is not quite as important as some Members of the Committee have made it out to be. We should lower the temperature a little in debating this matter. I suggest that the issue is not primarily about lesbian and gay relationships but the quality of government, especially local government, in the context of this Bill. When one starts to address that matter some very important moral questions arise in relation to the practice of law-making and the character and content of our law. One aspect of this House that has impressed me since I joined it is its capacity to rise above sectional matters in the interests of the quality of the law of our country. We are primarily a law-making body. We are not here to ensure the re-election of a Labour Government. We are here to legislate for our people and to ensure that that legislation is of a quality worthy of the rule of law in our country. That is the most important moral principle at stake.
It is easy to see how, occasionally, governments, parliaments and local authorities yield to the interests of lobby groups. The temptation is then before us to legislate for those interests. But the law needs to be dispassionate and detached. It must apply equally to all of us; and it must be applied with great care.

427
One of the problems is that Section 28 draws the law of our country into a sexual dispute. It is vital that the law is equitable in its reference to citizens. Irrespective of the judgments we make about people's personal lifestyles and choices, the law has a duty to refer to all citizens with the respect required by their God-given dignity. The law has a special duty to protect those who are vulnerable from any form of discrimination. We need carefully to consider that moral principle when we legislate at any level.
The law should resist the temptation, however justified some of us may believe it, to use language about people in terms which those people find difficult to accept. It is important that the law is not one group telling another group how its relationship is viewed. Section 28 does that. It has been badly drafted. It is not one of the best pieces of legislation on the statute book. It is difficult to remove Section 28 from the statute book without giving the wrong messages to the community.
Having heard the quality and range of the debate today, I believe that my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has done us a great service. He sought to ensure that legislators such as ourselves, in local government, or school governors are reminded of their dispassionate duty to uphold the values of the fabric of our society involving our personal and domestic relationships. The drafting of the amendment may not be right. There is time to sort that out. The amendment offers a provision which draws all sections of the community together. That is the provision's strength and value.
That seems a proper role for the Church to perform in this Chamber. We should be helped greatly if the Government were to describe expeditiously their intentions. People are right to say that these matters should not enter the statute book until the Government have made clear their intentions. There is time to do that. I encourage the Committee to support my colleague today. The amendment preserves the dispassionate integrity of the law and offers a way to move forward together on these matters.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether it would be possible to think for a moment about the debate, some of which has been enormously interesting. We have heard of the experiences of the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson. I am glad to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity—it is not for the first time, although I have not always agreed with him—who says that he will vote for the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young when it is moved.
We know that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has strong views on these issues. I was sorry to hear him say that children are taught to hate and to have prejudices. With the greatest respect, I do not think that that is right in most cases. It is a matter about which people feel very strongly, and one on which I have received the biggest postbag that I have ever had on any issue. People are worried.
428
Perhaps we may remind ourselves of the issue: the repeal of Section 28. What does Section 28 say? It states:
"A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality".
It continues:
"A local authority shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
I find it hard to understand why people disagree with that. There is a world of difference between what the law says and the difficulties that people encounter, whether in schools, families, the Church, or elsewhere. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, said that guidance and guidelines are important. Guidelines may be important but they are only guidelines; they are not the law. The law makes it perfectly clear that one should not promote homosexuality. I find that a perfectly reasonable provision in an Act of Parliament.
I agree with my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley that all sorts of people have all sorts of complications; and those should be considered in private, with their parents or teachers—in his case, the confessional. I dare say he goes there often—and has good reason to do so! It is not right to say, "Because people want to do this, therefore it must be natural and good". In an article in a newspaper, Tom Kemp asked,
"'What about adultery, paedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality?'… Are they all natural and good … because there are people who want to practise them? No, human sexuality cannot be divorced from morality. and it would be wrong for teachers to suggest to their pupils that it can be".
The bullying argument is impressive but, with the greatest respect, it has nothing to do with the provision of the clause. Bullying is wrong whatever the causes.
Until about 10 years ago I had never heard of the word "homophobic". If you do not like something you are given a really nasty name like homophobic. That is not particularly helpful. It is not only what people are taught in their schools: they absorb by a process of osmosis. As noble Lords will recall from their schooldays—and if I remember correctly—osmosis occurs when two liquids are separated by a barrier and the contents of one move over into the contents of the other without anyone interfering. That is very much so as regards schools. Some people think that I went to Eton—I do not know whether that is a compliment or an insult—but I did not. I went to a school at Winchester. Every Saturday evening we went to chapel. We sang Psalm 122,
"I was glad when they said unto me.
Let us go into the house of the Lord".
It was most moving and remained in everyone's memory.
I had the privilege of being a Minister in the Home Office when it produced a new common format passport to deal with the Common Market. When I was asked whether I would like one of the early numbers, I said, "Yes, 007 please". I was told that I could not have it because the Foreign Secretary

429
already had it. So I chose 122, which was for psalm 122. That was what I absorbed, I like to think among other things, during my time at school.
It is not just what the law says, it is the way it is implemented and inculcated into people—
Baroness Crawley: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He spoke of the importance of what people absorb—the osmosis. Is it not the case that if a law provides that homosexuality cannot be promoted—we have discussed the meaning of "promotion"—young people will absorb from it the fact there is a section of people in society about whom they, adults, parents and social workers cannot talk and who are different? Do they not absorb the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, difference can eventually lead to hate?
Earl Ferrers: I am afraid that I totally disagree with the noble Baroness. It does not mean to say that if something is not promoted it cannot be discussed. It does not mean to say that people cannot be counselled about it and that it cannot be explained. But it should not be promoted. That is the issue that we are discussing as regards the section and I hope that the Committee will feel that it is not appropriate to remove it.
Lord Brett: I bring to the debate not only the fact that I am a new Member, but also the fact that I have two young daughters in state schools. I share the concerns of many about their education and I have a knowledge of my own education. There is a sensitive and real feeling about the issue in the world at large.
That was brought home to me some 14 years ago when I was General Secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists and my union announced on its notice-board that the gay and lesbian groups would be able to have a contact address. We were inundated with accusations that we were promoting a homosexual lifestyle and received a considerable postbag from people who were most upset.
Ten years ago I decided that we should do something about that because we had a problem with gay members who found difficulties at work. I wrote a piece for my journal, which I reproduced yesterday to remind myself, entitled, "Discrimination and prejudice". In that article, I explained my upbringing as a working-class Catholic boy in Lancashire, going to a Catholic school and reaching the age of almost 20 before I knew that homosexuality existed. I also pointed out that my parents reminded me that notices stating "No Catholics or Irish need apply" were posted outside factories in Lancashire as late as the 1920s. I went on to say that for that reason I believed that without promoting a gay lifestyle we should give our gay and lesbian members the opportunity to have their problems dealt with at work sympathetically. With that, I dispatched the journal to 100,000 members and we did not have too much of a problem. There was one of two reasons for that; either my words of wisdom were satisfying or, more likely, no one read it.
430
However, some months later, one of my branch secretaries from the Ministry of Defence in the west of Scotland came into headquarters and said to me, "Bill, that article you wrote in the Bulletin has caused a furore. We have had threats of resignation and threats of motions of censure. People are very upset. Most of all, they are upset because they supported you and nominated you for General Secretary". I said, "Come on, they can't be that homophobic, even in the Ministry of Defence". "Oh", he said, "it's not just that, Bill, they didn't know you were a Catholic".
The message is that ignorance is an ally of discrimination. I believe that I am a caring parent—it is for your Lordships' to judge whether I am wise; know that as regards moral values my wife and I can educate our daughters at home. However, I cannot say the same for every child in their classes. I should like a teacher sensibly and sensitively to deal with a difficult situation. I can see nothing in Section 28 that has improved that situation.
With due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and amendments to be debated, I believe that the right reverend Prelate's proposals for guidelines is the most sensitive way of dealing with the issue. I should not be able to support any of the amendments because I believe that there are better ways. I am sure that no Member of the Committee intends to give the impression of homophobia, but, if not homophobia, a lack of understanding has come across in some of today's speeches.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As some Members of the Committee may have observed, I have taken the opportunity to speak to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that there is another amendment and suggest that some of the contributions we have heard were more appropriate to that. I do not want to shut anyone out and of course it is not a matter for me but for the House. However, perhaps I may suggest that we hear a contribution from the Conservative Front Bench, followed by a contribution from my noble friend the Minister and then the right reverend Prelate making whatever remarks he thinks appropriate. Then at least the noble Baroness's amendment can be fully discussed. Of course, all Members who want to speak to this amendment will, with a certain amount of discreet tailoring and amendment, be able to speak to her amendment. Is that acceptable to the House?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elton: On that point, the noble and learned Lord has assumed that we shall continue to debate the subject if the amendment is pressed and carried. It would therefore be most helpful to know the right reverend Prelate's intention. His speech left us in doubt about what he proposes to do with his amendment at the end of the debate.
Lord Hooson: Were we not encouraged to discuss more than one amendment? The Minister who spoke earlier referred to the amendment in the name of the

431
noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as being an amendment also to consider. I should have thought that at this stage it would be as well broadly to discuss all the amendments because I understand that the Government Front Bench are encouraging not a vote today but reflection.
Baroness Blatch: I support the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. A number of us believe that the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, who is always helpful, has come rather late in the day. I understand that almost all speakers have spoken wider than Amendment No. 364B. I thought that that would be helpful because if we are allowed to continue in that vein it would be possible when we discuss Amendment No. 365 to say that we have had the debate and that we are talking only about the distinctions between one amendment and another.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that the noble Baroness is right, I was a little late intervening, but that was because so many of your Lordships wanted to speak and it seemed premature and discourteous to raise the question. However, I said that I had spoken privately to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in an endeavour to be helpful. As always, I am in your Lordships' hands, but some of the speeches have not remained focused on this amendment. It seemed to me that if the noble Baroness had gone to some trouble— which she plainly has, whether one agrees with her views or not—she ought to have the opportunity to have a debate on her amendment. But it is a matter entirely for your Lordships and I do not know whether the noble Baroness has a view.
Baroness Young: The noble and learned Lord and I had a brief conversation. I told him that I thought that perhaps for the convenience of the Committee we could begin to draw the debate on the right reverend Prelate's amendment towards a conclusion and go on to call a number of other amendments. I thought that I would speak briefly to my amendment and cover some of the points that I should like to have made but have not, and then answer some of the very important points that have been raised. If the Committee were agreeable, that seems to be a helpful way to proceed. I should certainly be agreeable to it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I am still feeling a little lost on this matter. I wish to make only one speech, which is an all-purpose statement that I shall be able to make to almost any amendment. I assumed that we were behaving properly and debating the amendment tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate. If the right reverend Prelate is proposing to divide the Committee, I shall make my speech to his amendment. However, if he is not going
432
to divide the Committee, I should prefer to wait for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, at which point I shall be able to be really nasty.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I should have preferred to make this little intervention in summing up after the Minister had spoken, but I hope that I can be of help to the Committee.
I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and I believe that we have broadened discussion on this subject in a sensitive way. However, it would be wrong of me to divide the Committee. I listened carefully to the Minister's words at the beginning of our deliberations and I firmly believe that it is right that consultation should continue with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and not be curtailed at this point. That is an important part of what needs to be done here and I think that it would be insensitive of me to divide the Committee at this point. For that reason, it is not my intention to do so.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, I should like to put a small point to him about his amendment. Clearly the right reverend Prelate intends to consider the matter further and he may well return to it at a later stage. However, I am concerned about subsection (1)(b)(i) because it seems to me only sensible and right to end the sentence in the subsection at,
"any physical or verbal abuse".
I do not understand why the subsection goes on to mention "sexual orientation". I believe that the right reverend Prelate would agree with me that there are many other reasons connected with sex education on which this kind of physical or verbal abuse could be perpetrated.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I did refer more widely to bullying in my opening speech. However, the noble Baroness has reminded me that I should have explained this point in more detail—I am still a novice. It is my intention to return to this subject at Report stage if the matter is not followed through in a way I or those who have been advising me think appropriate or desirable. This issue may certainly be reconsidered at that stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have now had clarification from the right reverend Prelate and we have heard the contribution that the noble Baroness wished to make. However, I am not sure what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, now has in mind. However, I invite the Committee to hear the Front Bench contributions and to listen to any concluding remarks from the right reverend Prelate. Then we could move on to the important amendments that still remain to be discussed. I wonder whether that meets with the approval of noble Lords.
Baroness Blatch: I am in some difficulty because I had been led to believe that we were to speak in more general terms to these amendments. For that reason, I will now confine my comments to the amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
We have had the advantage of meeting earlier today and I am only sorry that the right reverend Prelate was not able to say that. I believe it is important that the Committee knows, what discussions have taken place and the fact that the right reverend Prelate has worked fairly closely with the Government on his amendment and has now made it clear that those discussions are to continue. However, it is important to examine the amendment and to point out, for the purposes of those continuing discussions, some of its restrictions. First, as has already been mentioned, it applies only to local education authorities, not to schools, teachers or to the classroom itself. Local education authorities are not responsible for what goes on in the classroom other than by exhortation.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, pointed out in an excellent speech, the amendment conflicts with Section 403 of the Education Act 1996. That legislation puts responsibility on governors and teachers, the local education authority, the governing body and the headteacher to,
"take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where sex education is given to any registered pupils at a maintained school, it is given in such a manner as to encourage those pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life".
The point just made by my noble friend stressed that there is a particular issue over the definition of "family" in the amendment of the right reverend Prelate in sub-paragraph (1)(a) where it states,
"that marriage should be promoted as the fundamental building block".
The point has already been made that there is a particular issue here about the definition of "family". Furthermore, in sub-paragraph (1)(b) it states,
"that pupils are entitled to develop without being subjected to—
(i) any physical or verbal abuse about sexual orientation".
That will leave an enormous confusion in the minds of teachers, who may well find that they encounter very poor behaviour on the part of children that is wholly unacceptable both to a teacher and under the sex education policy of the school. Where a teacher remonstrates with a pupil about this, that would become an illegal action on the part of a teacher. It is important to note that when the words,
"any physical or verbal abuse",
are laid down in statute, it will mean that any mild remonstration on the part of anyone dealing with children in a classroom situation could present problems. For those reasons, there are a number of issues concerning the technical acceptability of this amendment.
I must tell noble Lords that, at the end of the day, Clause 28 on the statute book prevents and prohibits the promotion of homosexuality. As I understand it, if that disappears then it becomes a permissible activity. Therefore no amount of guidance or amendment
434
along the lines suggested by the right reverend Prelate will prevent the flow of materials and advice that we know is waiting to flood into the lives of our young people.
Lord Whitty: I apologise if my initial remarks misled the Committee into thinking that we were holding a general debate. However, in practice that is what has happened, but it is now necessary to move on to the other amendments. Therefore my present remarks will be directed specifically to the amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
I believe that some very wise remarks have been made in the course of the debate. I should like in particular to draw the attention of the Committee to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, and to those of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley. We should bear their words in mind as we proceed with these issues.
The original drafting of Section 28 was an extremely rapid event which did not go through the normal wise and considered process of parliamentary counsel, but rather was a response to a fear—I accept that it was a genuine fear—among politicians. It was not drafted in the usual way for legislation both in this House and in another place. Its continuing effects have led to ambiguity and worse: it has led to fear among teachers and social workers of what they might be accused of, were they to proceed with normal advice to some of their pupils, and indeed to adults.
The wording proposed by the right reverend Prelate is an enormous improvement on Section 28 and therefore I should say that in many ways the Government sympathise with much of what the right reverend Prelate is attempting to achieve here. For example, we agree wholeheartedly that children should be taught about the importance of marriage, of family life and of bringing up children and that it is not the job of teachers to promote a particular sexual orientation. Sex and relationships education should be carried out within a social and moral context and taught in a caring situation that stresses self-esteem, mutual respect, responsibility and the importance of family life. The crude wording of Section 28 cuts right across that.
However, it is also the responsibility of teachers to deal with the real world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, pointed out, in the real world many children will already have faced moral dilemmas and pressures—along with the concerns and queries those problems raise—in their own family lives through their siblings, their parents, their friends, neighbours and colleagues. Those questions must be answered and be dealt with by teachers, social workers and youth workers. At present, the shadow of Section 28 prevents them doing so.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware of a survey carried out by Stonewall of a large number of teachers who were asked what inhibiting factors prevented them from dealing effectively with bullying? Not one of them invoked Section 28. They invoked lack of policy,

435
inexperienced staff, governor disapproval, parental disapproval, pupil disapproval, teacher disapproval and other staff disapproval, but no one said that Section 28 was an inhibiting factor.
Lord Whitty: That same Stonewall study indicates clearly that teachers do not have adequate guidance because of the existence of Section 28. That same study shows that nearly half of teachers have experienced homophobic bullying in their schools and do not have the means to deal with it. That same study indicates that there is a serious failure to tackle homophobic bullying in our schools. We should be dealing with that.
Earl Russell: Does the Minister agree that to label any group of people as "unequal" and then to say that they should not be bullied is a contradiction in terms?
Lord Whitty: I agree with the noble Earl in that respect. Whatever one's lifestyle (if I may use that term), it is a matter of civil rights. It is not a matter of discrimination and should not be a matter for the law. However, I believe that we shall return to that issue in the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
The problem relating to this amendment is that people believe that there will be a vacuum if we remove Section 28. There is not a vacuum at present due to Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, to which the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have referred. That requires that, where sex education is given, teachers and schools must take all reasonable steps to ensure that it is given in a manner which encourages pupils to have regard to moral considerations and to the values of family life. That is the duty of the governing body in which parents play a full part and from which, indeed, if parents do not agree with the form of sex education conducted in their schools, they have the right to withdraw. Therefore, there is already provision in education legislation for that vacuum to be filled. We are now in the process of revising that guidance.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is using specific arguments and it is important that they should be properly countered, if possible. In a document entitled School Sex Education: Why, What and How? A Guide for Teachers—therefore, it was a teaching document—the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, produced a matrix whereby schools could deal with sex education outside the national curriculum right across all subjects— biology, English, health education, history, home economics, geography, religious education, tutorial time, languages, physical education, social studies, etc—to get round the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex education because they cannot withdraw them from those subjects.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: That simply proves the point that sex education and the whole approach to sex needs to be placed in a broader context. However, parents have that right where there is a specific sex education session, as the noble Baroness well knows. Of course, it is important that schools do not see sex, sex education and health education connected with sex as being entirely isolated from the rest of life. That is part of the problem with Section 28. We must put it in a social and behavioural context and not leave it "ghetto-ised" in an area where discrimination and the detrimental effect of attitudes towards particular groups of pupils and, indeed, adults will develop.
As I was about to say, we are in the process of revising that guidance. The right reverend Prelate kindly referred to the discussions which he has already held with my colleague Ministers on those revisions. That discussion will continue. As I indicated earlier, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is happy to become involved in that process with the representatives of the churches and of other faiths and with others who are concerned with sex education. We have indicated that we shall consult further on this matter and that, among other things, we shall consult on whether the spirit of the right reverend Prelate's amendment is best dealt with in primary legislation or guidance, or in a balance of the two. If we accept the spirit of much of what he says, we are therefore prepared to see whether the guidance can be given greater coherence and greater force in whatever area we proceed.
I make one other point at this stage. At the beginning of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that this issue deals with children and not adults. Of course, the powers of local authorities deal not just with children but with other social services. Much of the material which has been used, I believe erroneously as background to the debate, is in fact directed at adults. Some noble Lords may feel that some of it is appropriate; others may consider that it is of great benefit to the advice and counselling services which I believe local authorities should be providing to the gay community and to those who feel that they have some doubts about their sexuality.
Were we to maintain Section 28 in its present form, the issue would be not only its indirect effect on children—and it is indirect because Section 28 does not deal with that—but its effect on adults and social services, on youth workers for the older group, and on local authority services as a whole. That is where I believe that the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, comes in. If we define something which is legal in a way which allows local authorities to discriminate against a particular group, that is an infringement of the civil rights of that group and an infringement of the egalitarian and fair provision of local authority services to that group. Therefore, we enter a wider debate. I believed that I should put down that marker now because the matter is not simply about children; it is about society as a whole. We should recognise that society as a whole includes the gay community,

437
whether or not we approve of its behaviour, and it includes a lot of people who depart from the ideal of marriage.
The law in this area has an obligation to treat adults equally and to treat children fairly so that they understand the complicated world into which they are moving. I believe that the way forward will be to engage in wider discussions on this issue, to decide whether we can put a form of words on the statute book which will be appropriate and whether we can agree on the basis of guidance. I hope that we shall be able to reach a consensus later during the progress of this Bill. Therefore, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for indicating that he is prepared to withdraw his amendment at this stage. I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has not indicated similarly that she will withdraw at this stage. We shall now proceed to the other amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I want to make two brief comments before I withdraw the amendment. My First point is addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, concerning the placing of this amendment at the top of the list. I am an innocent abroad in these matters and I had no power to decide where the amendment was placed. Therefore, I object totally to the remarks about "dirty tricks", and so on. I hope that those will be withdrawn. I began to table the amendment as early as last Tuesday but, for technical reasons, amendments had to be made to the amendment itself. That accounts in some measure for the delay.
Secondly, I should like to address the remarks made towards the end of the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the amendment not applying to schools. That is the reason why I tabled a similar amendment in the Learning and Skills Bill, which will be taken later this week.
With those brief remarks and with my thanks to everyone who has supported the amendment in what they have said and to those who have shown understanding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux Lord Randall of St Budeaux moved Amendment No. 364C:
Page 41, line 26, at end insert—
("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not come into force until guidelines produced by the Secretary of State on the teaching of sex education in maintained schools have been laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to say a few words about what the amendment states. First, if Section 28 is repealed, it will not come into force until the guidelines proposed by the Government on the teaching of sex education in schools have been approved by this Parliament—that is both Houses. The aim of that is to encourage the Government to take steps to protect the interests of children when it comes to the teaching of sex education. This is an extremely complex issue. I believe that it is most important that we get it right; otherwise, we shall risk
438
the interests of young children. I am convinced that every Member of the Committee will agree with me on that.
Perhaps I may also say that I appreciate the stance of my noble friend, Lord Whitty, which is to remain very open about the matter. It is very encouraging that the Government wish to respond to the deep concerns that exist. I would like to put forward a procedural amendment to the legislation. In other words, I want to make a case for Parliament to approve the way in which the guidelines are produced and to approve their contents.
I recall my early days in Parliament. The 1970s and 1980s were ghastly times when we had the promotion of homosexuality in our country. It was very high profile. I know that what happened caused great concern to the British public. However, at the same time we had the encouragement of the equality of homosexuals in society. I think that was good because it showed that the British people are tolerant. Although people snipe at that kind of statement, I believe that over the years there has been a change of direction. That is good.
Looking back, there was a lot of single-issue politics flying around. Some of it was good; some of it was nothing other than unscrupulous. Much of it became linked with the Labour Party, the so-called "Loony Left", and it hurt us very much. I am glad that that has now all gone. I think that the public did not have the confidence to elect us because of it. The consequences were quite important. The then government of the day introduced Section 28 in legislation. It was a very interventionist action for the government of the day. At the same time there was a feeling in the House that something had to be done. Subsequently we had Section 28. Now we have the argument that, really, it is not that effective. Listening to today's fascinating debate one can see that there is still confusion and a lot of muddle. I am part of the muddled group in this Chamber.
What is the position now? There has been good progress in relation to homosexual equality. There is a challenge to this House to make sure that we continue down the route of maintaining that tolerance. At the same time we have some people who want to change marriage. They want to replace it with ideas of, perhaps, "loving relationships". There is a situation where you have two men bringing up a little girl. Frankly, I do not know what the consequences will be for that little girl without the normal influence of a mother. If one sees the matter in terms of the interests of the children, I do not think that one will go very far wrong.
At the same time as the homosexual equality drift— and there is a lot of good in that—we still have the question of the promotion of homosexuality to children. It is happening now. It is a matter of serious concern. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was very interesting. He referred to CDs that had been prepared for circulation around the country. Exactly how they would have been used, I am not certain. It was said, certainly in the Sunday Times,

439
that they had gone to something like 150 schools. That cannot be right. I know a number of colleagues on this side of the Chamber who were shocked by it.
However, the Government's line is to follow a highly interventionist policy. I am not sure that anything else can be done. The Government are now setting the guidelines that have been referred to. Also those guidelines will be operating very much in a decentralised school environment, with decisions being made at those schools and by the governors.
However, I ask myself how the powers of the schools balance with the views of the parents. That is a very difficult question. I believe it must be a matter of considerable debate to get the balance right. Otherwise fear will exist and we shall not have succeeded as a Parliament.
I respect the teaching profession. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, who spoke about what is happening from a practical point of view was very interesting and enlightening. I give one example of a young boy, just five, who, over the last three or four weeks at school, has had four introductions to divorce. He came home from school, clinging on to his mother, saying "Mum and Dad, you are not going to get divorced, are you?" In the evening he called for his dad to come to his bedroom and kiss him good night. These signs show how difficult an issue this is; sometimes even the most professional teacher can get it wrong. That does not discourage me from my admiration for the teaching profession.
The Government are now considering the guidelines. I am glad that the Prime Minister is involved. I know him well; he is a decent man. I trust David Blunkett too. But if the Government get this wrong, I believe there will be a loss of confidence on the part of parents, and, more importantly, damage to the interests of children.
What is the way forward? First, we all need to recognise, including the Government, that we are dealing with a very complex issue. I feel sure that the sex education provided in, for example, Hull, which I know very well as I represented it for many years, would probably be very different from that provided in the south east where my main home now is. It may be affected by the socio-economic conditions and the skill level of teachers. We are dealing here with something that has inadequate definitions and with a set of guidelines which may become very complicated.
Secondly, the Government need to get the guidelines right. I referred to that earlier. It is easy to be flippant, but I believe that being flippant would be equivalent to being irresponsible. Before Section 28 is repealed, the Government's guidelines should be debated fully, and amended, in both Houses of Parliament. That is important. The reasons are not strong. It is not the same as having primary legislation. I believe, however, that the authority of Parliament would give the guidelines more prestige and that enforcement would be easier and probably more effective. Parliament would share responsibility with the Government and would have to take matters seriously. We need to
440
remember that some of the more unscrupulous single-issue groups still exist—those which existed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They will maintain pressure. That adds to the complexity of it all.
For those reasons, I believe that the amendment I tabled to make sure that there is a full debate on the issue would be in the interests of the well-being of this country. Accordingly, I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I make clear from these Benches that I am in a minority among my colleagues in having been uncertain about the right course to pursue. The more I have listened to this extremely interesting debate, the more I have appreciated how much there is to consider. It is one thing to have sex education; it is another to have the promotion of sexual behaviour, whether that is homosexual or heterosexual behaviour. There are many matters which must be considered.
I do not have the slightest doubt what the word "promote" means, but I looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary. Among the huge assortment of definitions or alternatives provided are: to move forward; to advance; to instigate; to further the growth or development; to progress or establish; to help forward. Those are only a few of the definitions given.
Section 28 was a bad provision to introduce. The word "promote" should not have been used and it should not have been discriminatory. If I am asked whether I have any objection to the provisions in Section 28, I would say that I do not think that there should be the promotion of homosexual activity, either among young children in schools or young people. Equally, as a parent and as a responsible citizen, I should not be in favour of the promotion of heterosexual activity either among children. A great mistake was made because people were concerned with a few zealots.
Throughout my professional life time, I have seen a great change in attitude towards homosexuality. I prosecuted and defended any number of homosexuals in my young days at the Bar. I saw some dreadful scenes of unhappiness and listened to some dreadful stories. I had to be persuaded that I had a black spot as regards my approach to homosexuals. I had to appreciate that there was a difficulty. My noble friend Lord Russell referred to the difference between someone who chooses a course of life and someone who is impelled, by forces which he cannot control, to another course of life.
As Queen's Counsel, when I was defending quite a distinguished man on a charge of murder, I was the first counsel successfully to raise the question and persuade a court that the defence of provocation was available to a homosexual. Looking at the Act, it had never occurred to people before that it could apply to a homosexual. I have become a little more enlightened as regards these matters but I realise that there are always zealots about. Those people will go over the top, given any kind of excuse.

441
On the other hand, you cannot introduce such a divisive provision as Section 28 and get away with it. I have pondered a great deal because, as I say, taken literally, I should support it. But in the overall context, I discover that I cannot do so.
I agree entirely with the noble Lords, Lord St John of Fawsley and Lord Davies of Coity, when they say how disturbed they are that a three-line Whip has been imposed today. Of all the Bills to have come before us in recent times, the one least deserving the imposition of a three-line Whip is this one. If this Chamber is to fulfil a function which is different from that of the other Chamber, it must be able to have a frank debate and provide an honest view without regard to government Whips.
Lord Elton: I assure the noble Lord that in this party, the imposition of a Whip means that more people vote but it does not determine the direction in which they do so.
Lord Hooson: Over the years I have been here, the noble Lord could have fooled me.
It seems to me that the issue which now arises is whether we should get rid of Section 28 or whether it should be replaced by something else. Attractive amendments have been tabled. Some of those we can appreciate fully now and some we shall appreciate more fully as the debate develops. The noble Lord, Lord Whiny, was right to suggest to us at the start that we should debate the general background to the amendments before dealing with the serious business of deciding whether or not to vote on them thereafter.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, is right. We cannot really consider whether we get rid of Section 28 before we know what the guidelines are to contain. We cannot yet consider whether we should amend Section 28, replace it with something or leave a blank and get rid of it without any amendment. All those matters are in the melting pot. We have just begun this very serious debate. At this time I feel that the Government are right in their approach. We are feeling our way towards what I hope will be a sensible consensus.
Lord Hylton: have considerable sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lord who moved the amendment. Nevertheless, I suggest that the proposal is not wide enough because it clearly does not cover young people in youth clubs or, indeed, children in the care of local authorities. That is why I am looking forward to our reaching the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman.
Lord Elton: It is generally accepted on the other side of the Chamber and among many on this side that Section 28 has its weaknesses. But nobody has yet convinced me that a satisfactory alternative has been found.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, suggested that the abolition of Clause 28 should not come into effect until it is replaced by suitable guidelines. But if we accept that, we accept that it is
442
guidelines only, and guidelines which apply only to teaching in schools, and guidelines which apply only to teaching in maintained schools which are affected.
This is a very difficult subject on which to make a very short speech, which is what I intend to do, so bear with me. First, I do not wish to be put in the position of someone who is thought to be rabidly hostile to gay people. I am not. I have good friends, real friends, who are homosexual. That does not mean that I believe that their chosen path, in preference to another, should be put to people who are undecided as to their future. I believe that the same applies to heterosexual activity.
We live in a society in which unconventional sexual behaviour of every sort is becoming more and more acceptable to the greater and greater damage of our young people. The value of love is suffering. We have started to speak as though there is no distinction between sexual activity and a loving relationship. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the greatest friendships that have existed have been celibate friendships between people of the same sex, be they men or women. Those types of friendships are not wrong or dishonourable, but glorious.
The legislation and morality are concerned with the physical expression of such friendships. As human beings are biological as well as spiritual creatures, physical behaviour affects emotional and spiritual relationships. That is why any sexual activity outside marriage is a diminution of the possible happiness of the individual. If individuals are of a homosexual disposition, matters are made more difficult for them because they cannot attain what many of us believe is the greatest happiness available. They should not he punished for that. They should be supported in their difficulty.
However, individuals should not be faced with this problem before a certain age. My difficulty with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is that it takes no account of how that can be avoided in any forum other than schools, and in particular schools at that. We need to rethink, carefully and broadly, the legislation to see how we can protect young people of all sexual dispositions from becoming the subject of recruitment by promoters of any particular sexual orientation before they are of a proper age to make the decision for themselves.
That has to be done against the fascinating and illuminating background put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow. She showed your Lordships the horrific difficulties that the changes that have taken place in our society since I was a school child—indeed since I was a school teacher — have placed on school teachers who have the responsibility of guiding young people. I am not convinced that guidelines for teachers alone will be enough. We need a society that brings about a continuum throughout all activities. It is no good teaching one thing in schools and another thing in boys' clubs or girls' clubs or, better still, mixed clubs. The matter has to be considered as a whole. One set of guidelines on its own is not good, nor is an unmatching set of guidelines in different areas of legislation.

443
I am not satisfied, nor do I believe that it is possible, that the right solution to this matter can be produced, cut and dried, before the Bill is put on the statute book. We are faced with a similar position to that of the reform of the House of Lords. We are being asked to abolish one thing before being told what will replace it. We should not make the same mistake twice. The only way to get round this difficulty is not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which is a marginal improvement, but to await the amendment of my noble friend and keep matters where they are until we have decided where we want to be.
To some people that may be offensive because they read into it a message which is not intended to be there. It should be possible to support this course of action without being painted as someone who is hysterical or bigoted or can see no merit in someone's closest friends because they happen to be homosexual. I hope that your Lordships will realise that what is offered is not an emotional or bigoted course, but a reasonable one: to wait for the right solution rather than to rush into the wrong one.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: It has been suggested that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has been "a little Jesuitical". We learnt from a former and, in my book, esteemed Prime Minister that,
"A week is a long time in politics".
It seems to me that it could be an even longer time until we have an agreed framework that is better than the situation that Section 28 preserves. For that reason I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Elton. In my own diocese we are familiar with the scenario that the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, placed before us. In terms of realpolitik, I am not prepared to give up in Section 28 what I would describe as a stabilising landmark. Many teachers in my patch, with whom I have talked at length, find that section to be a stabilising benchmark. I am not prepared to give it up while the future is unknown. For that reason I strongly support the spirit as well as the content of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said.
Lord Mishcon: My mind goes back, as I had the liberty of telling the House recently, to the days, 45 years ago, when I served on the Wolfenden Committee. I cannot help but reflect how opinion has moved over the years. The committee recommended— I was happy to associate myself humbly with the recommendation—that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal act. My experience on that committee was quite extraordinary. Professors appeared before us asking to be called by an initial rather than their name. They told us how they had been blackmailed in academic circles as a result of being homosexual. Others who came before us described how their lives had been ruined by the gossip that had gone around in their neighbourhood.
444
The recommendation was correct. As I look back, it seems extraordinary that it took us years to persuade Members of Parliament to pass a law in accordance with our recommendation. Those of us who tried to see that legislation took the place of our recommendation were told by Members of Parliament, "We daren't go with you to legislate on this matter as tremendous numbers of our constituents will be up in arms". Those who held marginal seats said, "We shall no longer be Members of Parliament after the next election if we follow the line of your recommendation". Members of Parliament were wrong then.
With deep regret, I believe that those Members of Parliament who feel that there should be a straightforward repeal of Section 28 without anything to take its place misunderstand the mood of our people. I do not believe that they want a straightforward repeal of Section 28 without something very substantial put in its place.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he see any force in the argument that matters of human rights should not be settled simply by majority opinion?
Lord Mishcon: I have not as much experience as the noble Earl, but I have known of many cases affecting human rights that were settled by majority vote. Quite honestly, I see no other way of coming to a parliamentary decision.
As I was saying, the mood of the people is misunderstood by those—I do not include my noble friend Lord Whitty in this category—who merely say, "Repeal Section 28 and put nothing in its place to protect our young people". That is not the public view. It may be said that I have no right to analyse the public view any more than anybody else. But like other Members of the Committee, I have received so many letters over the past few months that I begin to think of myself as important. And those letters have all been one way: "Of course we understand; of course we are tolerant; of course we appreciate that there but for the grace of God go I; but please protect our young people". These are dangerous enough days. Television produces comedy shows late at night—in my view the producers should be ashamed of themselves— consisting of sexual behaviour and so forth without ascribing any dignity to it whatever.
I come to this conclusion. We must not leave our legislation on the basis that those who look up the Local Government Act see the new Section 68 standing alone:
"Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality".
One can imagine ordinary members of the public reading that section and taking for granted that Parliament decided no longer to oppose the promotion of homosexuality. I turn to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who spoke so wisely and in such understanding terms, and say that we must get this right. I do not share the view that we must wait for debate after debate before we can come up with something sensible to carry out the majority view, if

445
the noble Earl will forgive me. Consultation has already taken place. Let us hope that a clause comes before us on the Government's initiative echoing the views expressed in this debate and those which will be expressed in consultation afterward.
No Member of the Committee made a speech criticising homosexuality. We are all trying to understand and all are conscious of human rights. But I hope that on Report the Government will bring forward an amendment to Section 28 to correct the situation.
Baroness Blatch: I support warmly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who speaks for many people on all sides of the Committee. Also, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall; he has done the Committee a service tonight, mainly because the principal point behind the amendment is that we must not take executive or parliamentary action on this sensitive issue without deep thought.
This is an issue which has touched thousands of people throughout the country—parents, teachers, governors and others, including homosexuals. There was a moving article today in the Daily Mail, which has run an excellent campaign, saying that this provision will do, no service to the interests of homosexuals. Therefore the principle of think first, know what we intend to replace the provision with before repealing it, is one that I support.
I have difficulty with the clause on two grounds. First, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am concerned about removing a provision and not replacing it with art active prohibition on promoting homosexuality in our schools and to young people outside the school gate, in youth clubs and in other voluntary groups. Secondly, there is a difference between guidance and guidelines. Guidance has statutory backing and force. A local authority and/or schools and colleges which are drafting policy must have, by law, regard to statutory guidelines. But they do not have to follow their advice. If they are challenged in court, it is not for the specific activity they undertook or the expenditure they made; they are only challenged procedurally—whether in drawing up their policy or in taking a specific action they had regard to the guidelines.
It is easy to circumvent that position. Any local authority can say, "Yes, we considered the guidelines. We had a discussion about them. But on balance we still did what we wanted to do". Therefore, if the Government insist on repealing Section 28, we must wait to find out what will fill the vacuum. We must insist that something goes into statute that prevents the positive promotion of homosexuality to our young people.
Baroness Ludford: I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, is seeking to be helpful. But I oppose this amendment and strongly support the straightforward repeal of Section 28, being unpersuaded of the need for further statutory guidance.
446
As has been mentioned this evening, there are already strong legal safeguards in the Education Act 1996 against unsuitable teaching. It provides that all sex education must be given with,
"due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life2.
It requires local authorities to have in place complaints systems so that parents can complain about unreasonable behaviour by the authority or governing body; and it gives reserve powers to the Secretary of State to act if LEAs or governors are acting unreasonably or are defaulting on their statutory duties. I do not understand why that does not provide a sufficient framework.
Section 28 produces an inhibiting effect on teachers, who believe that they must avoid teaching about homosexuality or intervening to stop homophobic bullying. A study was reported today by the London University Institute of Education which found,
"an atmosphere of confusion and fear",
discouraging staff from intervening to stop homophobic abuse. Eighty-two per cent of teachers say that such abuse occurs and 62 per cent say that Section 28 makes it difficult to meet the needs of lesbian and gay pupils.
We will no doubt hear further from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but, if she will allow, in a press interview she gave last week she said,
"I am quite certain I am speaking for the overwhelming majority of parents in this country who feel very strongly that they do not want their children taught about homosexuality in schools".
There is a big difference between being "taught" and "promoting" homosexuality. The retention of Section 28 gives a signal of not caring about the young people who think they may be gay; not caring about removing their isolation and fear; not caring about creating a climate of understanding and tolerance. Some people are parents of such young people.
This campaign to retain Section 28 rests on the assumption that it is possible to convert someone to being gay. I do not believe that; I believe that sexuality is innate: one day people discover or perhaps acknowledge it and there is nothing that they can do about it, even if they wanted to. I do not want promotion of any particular type of sexual behaviour, only of knowledge, commitment, love—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and respect.
I can scarcely understand the fear that has been generated, this paranoia that there is a proselytising horde waiting to covert the approximately 90 per cent heterosexual majority. As a heterosexual married woman who does not feel that Section 28 threatens her marriage—indeed, I can assure Members of the Committee that that notion is laughable; there are many other pressures but not that one!—I will vote firmly, if given the chance, to repeal Section 28 tonight. I am glad that we will have the opportunity to do so. The opponents of repeal claim to be acting for moral

447
reasons. I feel that I am too: in my case, the morality of equal respect, acceptance and tolerance and the right not to be frightened, bullied or intimidated.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Perhaps I may begin by apologising to my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who I see is no longer in his place, for not giving way. I hope that my contribution will make up for my inexperience in the task. I have had the privilege of discussing with my noble friend Lord Randall for some days the issues raised in his amendment. My noble friend is aware that I am very interested in these matters because, among other things, I am the chairman of the governors of a state school.
I preface my remarks, which I will confine largely to the issue of the amendment, by saying that I support all those noble Lords who have expressed the desire that our debate be rational and calm. In doing so, I humbly ask that we be watchful of remarks which suggest that, somehow, a floodgate is about to open. History is littered with the tactic of fear and distaste replacing coherent debate and tolerant behaviour.
We have guidelines in place in the state schools. They allow governing bodies to be clear about what they wish to teach. Those guidelines are very clear, but they are also flexible. They emphasise the strong relationship; they focus on the family; and they talk about good parenting as a basis for children. These are at the heart of the way in which we discuss these issues in schools. The flexibility is important because we need to recognise the situation in which children are growing up.
The family as we might define it is very different for some children. I speak not only as a parent but also as a step-parent who has brought up children who were the product of a divorce. Like many, I welcome the involvement of parents and also of business people in our school governing bodies. They bring good sense, a richness to debate and play an active part—that is certainly so in my school—in the work that we do on sex education.
Teachers and governors work together to produce a policy, which is available to all parents. They can take home and study a copy of it. At a full parents meeting we discuss not only what will be taught to children but also by whom and when. Parents are able to comment, express their concerns and have the policy changed. They can, of course, withdraw their children from the school. I welcome more guidance from the Secretary of State, but I believe that there is no need to delay the repeal of Section 28.
My final point in that respect comes from my experience as a mother and step-mother. I wish many things for the children that I have brought up, and among them are happiness and fulfilment, a pride in themselves but a tolerance and respect for others. I want them to grow up in a safe environment. I know that information is a powerful weapon to keep them safe. It helps them to understand who they are; how to take care of themselves; to understand and have respect for others; not to be taken in; and to recognize
448
danger. I oppose the delay in the repealing of this section. Because of its ambiguity, I believe that it may prevent young people from getting the support and advice that they seek—advice and support which keeps those children, my children, safe.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In response to my noble friend Lord Randall of St Budeaux, perhaps I may refer back to what my noble friend Lord Whitty has already made clear in his contributions. We do not see that there is a consequential link between repeal of Section 2A of the 1986 Act and the safeguards that should and must exist around sex and relationships education in schools.
From my experience in talking to people, I should tell my noble friend Lord Mishcon that one reason why people have written expressing concern about the repeal of Section 28 is that they have been told repeatedly by normally well-informed presenters of programmes like "Today" that this section applies to schools. It does not. Section 28 was opposed honourably by many of my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Randall of St Budeaux, and other noble Lords, who were then Members of the other place, when it was introduced. However, even if it were true—and I have no evidence of it—that local authorities in those days were seeking to influence and control schools, legislation introduced since that time has made it impossible for them to do so. The responsibility rests, quite rightly, with governors; and that includes parent governors.
In response to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Ashton, I should point out that we are not dealing with a vacuum in terms of advice and guidance to those parents and governors who are currently charged with being responsible for this sensitive area of education for our children. Moral considerations and the value of family life underpin what is being done now. The fact is that Section 28 does not apply to schools and, therefore, we believe that it would be inappropriate to link it in the way suggested by this amendment.
So many people speaking in the debate in this Chamber have sought to imply that the opposite of being exhorted not to do something is "permission to do it". All my children went through the state education sector. I never even felt the need to exhort those professionals who were responsible for my children's development not to promote adultery, lust, sin or, indeed, any particular issue. I find it offensive that, according to some contributors to this debate, some professional teachers feel it necessary to do so. Quite frankly, I am shocked.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty said in response to the concerns raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, we shall think further about what is appropriate for primary legislation and about how the policy could be given greater coherence and, where appropriate, legal force. I know that my noble friend Lord Randall will give great consideration to

449
the fact that we propose to take the matter away and reconsider it. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said with great sensitivity, we are dealing with an area where the guidance must recognise children's own experiences. I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall. It is very difficult for a primary school teacher to deal with the issue of divorce. However, in my experience the probable reason that it emerged in discussion was the distress of another child in the same class.
Our children are growing up in a world where they come into contact with many situations that many older people would perhaps like them not to come into contact with at that age. Teachers have to deal with children's family experiences. I hope that my noble friend will feel confident in placing his trust in the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I know of the right reverend Prelate's enormous contribution to the quality of education in my home county of Lancashire. I know that he will bring sensitivity and knowledge to the discussions that the Government are holding. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: The debate, certainly from my point of view, has been extremely worthwhile. If we have what I think we have—namely, the opportunity to debate the mechanism that we employ, whether as regards schools or more broadly—we shall have got somewhere. I thank the Minister for her comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 365:
Leave out Clause 68 and insert the following new Clause—
PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: BULLYING
(" . In section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material), at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted —
"; or
(b) prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying".").
The noble Baroness said: At this late hour I do not intend to speak at length. We have heard the views of many in this Chamber and I do not want to repeat points that have already been made. However, I begin by answering the charges of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. It is sad that he should think that anyone in this Chamber would teach people to hate anyone. I have never taken that view and certainly not as regards any collective group of people. I like the noble Lord, Lord Alli. Therefore I do not quite understand what that argument is about. It would be an absolute tragedy were it to be thought that anyone who might support my point of view therefore hated a whole lot of people. That is not the case and nor do I agree that it is right in any circumstances to teach children to hate in the way that has been described.
I listened to the debate with great care. In putting my point of view I should not like it to be thought that I stood alone, or simply had the support of some of my own political colleagues, glad as I am to have their support. I have had support from all parts of the Chamber. I listened closely once again to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who speaks so well, and to the wise words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. I hope I am correct in asserting that he said that Section 28 is a benchmark. I believe that is the right context in which to place this whole discussion.
Furthermore, I have had the support of the Muslim community. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is present. I am sure that many of us received a moving letter from the leader of the Muslim community and have heard what that community had to say. The letter states,
"We believe that the repeal of Section 28 would expose our young children, even from a very tender age, to immoral values and practices. It will also undermine the institution of the family and damage the fabric of our society. Any teaching in schools which presents homosexual practices as equivalent to marriage, or in a morally neutral way. is profoundly offensive and totally unacceptable".
That seems to me a clear statement. After all, as we live in a diverse society, we should listen to what all sections of it have to say.
We should take account of what the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, has to say. He states,
"There is a real danger that the abolition of Section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage. Not only will this confuse many young people whose sexual identities are still fluid, it will frustrate any attempt to educate children in the importance of marriage as the basis of a stable and caring society".
We have heard what Cardinal Winning has said with such effect in Scotland, speaking out for the Roman Catholic Church. We have heard what the Bishop of Liverpool and others have said. Like so many Members of the Committee, I have received a vast amount of correspondence—some 2,000 letters—from teachers, doctors and parents. That suggests that a wide spectrum of society is concerned about the abolition of Section 28. It is for the Government to say why they believe that they are right and why they believe that those whose lives are spent dealing; with moral issues are wrong. The onus is on the Government in that regard. It is important to represent the views of many sections of our society.
I was disturbed by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson. It appeared to me that she was saying that because children today live in a moral vacuum they should remain in one.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Young: Well, what are you going to say? You must say something definite to children, but we are not giving them a definite message about anything. When children ask questions, I believe that one should give a clear answer.

451
As I have already indicated, Section 28 has been effective. However, it does not stop the discussion of homosexuality in schools. It does not prevent teachers from counselling. It does not prevent teachers from discussing the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to guidance from the Royal College of Nursing. In my opinion any school nurse who has a case of bullying brought to her attention has a duty to report that to the head of the school. After all, a nurse is a professional too, and she should report such a matter to a head. The idea that that matter cannot be dealt with if there is something clearly amiss in a school seems to me quite extraordinary.
I have been the chairman of an education committee. I have even been an education Minister. I have been a governor of maintained schools and of independent schools. I care very much about education. At the beginning of my remarks I said that I speak for children. Too much of the debate this afternoon has concerned not children but adults. In a free society how adults behave is a matter for them. However, what we tell our children is a matter that concerns all of us. It is a responsibility. Children are growing up in a difficult world—here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson—which is also difficult for parents and teachers. I believe that not to have any benchmarks or milestones would send out quite the wrong signal. It would send out a signal that one of the last benchmarks has now gone and Parliament no longer cares. I believe that it is the duty of this Chamber to speak up for the people of this country, for responsible parents and for responsible teachers, and keep Section 28. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester The Lord Bishop of Rochester moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 365, Amendment No. 365ZA:
Line 8, at end insert ("; or
(c) prevent the provision of a comprehensive and ethically-based curriculum on sex education".").
The right reverend Prelate said: It has been said today that we are a legislative body. That is true. It is also true that we are a reflective and deliberative body, and I hope, particularly at Committee stage, that what we are doing is as much reflective and deliberative as it is legislative.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, told us that laws and morals are distinct, but also that they are connected. None the less, the law has a declarative function; it must embody and affirm that which is regarded as normative in any human society. The Government's claim that they wish to promote marriage and a stable family as the basic building block of society must find an echo not only in their policies but also in their legislative programmes. The Government are well aware—we have heard it repeated by Ministers today—that a stable, publicly committed heterosexual relationship (in other words, marriage) is vital for the nurture of the family, the so-called basic building block of society. Any weakening of the bonds of marriage and of family will have
452
disastrous consequences for society as a whole. Some of the scenarios in classrooms that we have heard about give evidence of that.
It has often been pointed out—most latterly by Francis Fukuyama in his book The Great Disruption— that the depletion of a society's "social capital"—that is to say, honesty, compassion, avoidance of crime, neighbourliness, and so on—is directly linked to the disintegration of the family.
If the Government are serious about promoting marriage and the family, they cannot at the same time say that they would not encourage "the adoption of any particular sexual life-style". I have seen that in government documents. A heterosexual lifestyle within a permanent relationship is highly desirable, not to say necessary, not only for the continuance of society but for its flourishing. It is for this reason that I could not support the original Amendment No. 366— now happily withdrawn—tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and other noble Lords. For similar reasons I still cannot support Amendment No. 366A because of the basic contradiction—
Lord Brightman: My amendment has not been withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I thought Amendment No. 366 had been withdrawn and that Amendment No. 366A had been tabled. In any case, I cannot support Amendment No. 366A either.
Lord Brightman: Amendment No. 366 has been withdrawn. The right reverend Prelate is right.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: Perhaps I may continue. At the same time I cannot support Section 28 as it stands either. It is true that it is highly dangerous to promote a sexual lifestyle, whether in the school or the youth club, which is not the norm among impressionable youngsters, whose sexuality may not be settled and who may easily be misled into an inappropriate lifestyle. It is not as simple as being right-handed or left-handed—how people come about their sexuality is immensely more complex than that— and we should be very careful about giving people identities in terms of sexual behaviour.
Such promotion becomes doubly dangerous if it is carried out by those who are in a position of authority, such as teachers or youth leaders. It is true also that in any authentic family in such situations there is at the centre the difference—and therefore the complementarity—of a relationship between a man and a woman which is necessary for the birth and the bringing up of children. I have experience of many different cultures. Families may be structured in many different ways, but the relationship of difference and complementarity is always at the heart of a family.
There may of course be other human groupings—of friends, of people with a common background or interests and of those who support one another

453
because of perceived hostility or bias in wider society. Such associations may be beneficial to those who belong to them and, indeed, to society as a whole. This does not, however, turn such associations into "family". Section 28 is right, therefore, in providing that homosexuality should not be promoted as "a pretended family relationship".
As it stands, Section 28 allows for appropriate health education but says nothing about homophobic bullying in schools. I welcome wholeheartedly, therefore, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which will encourage head teachers and governing bodies to curb such bullying in schools.
The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman—I hope I am right in this—has the merit of recognising that we need effective sex education in our schools. Although I cannot support his amendment as a whole, I support this part of it.
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn received such praise in the House for his amendment. As we know by now, the amendment is about promoting marriage and family—that is good— but it does not say what should not be promoted. Since his amendment is a substitution for Section 28 and for Section 2A there—it is as important for us to know what is not being promoted as what is being promoted. I look forward to further discussions about that.
While homosexuality should not be promoted in schools—we have had various discussions of what "to promote" means—pupils still need to be taught about it. We should be clear about that. If they are to be properly prepared for adult life, they need to know the different forms of sexual behaviour they may encounter. Such teaching, however, as with all sex and relationships education, must be in the context of a comprehensive and ethically based curriculum on sex education. Such a curriculum would recognise that individual and social flourishing is profoundly related to stable marriages and families. It would place the need for teaching about these matters firmly at the centre, while also recognising that in the contemporary world pupils will need to know what other kinds of behaviour and relationships there are.
Obviously the question will arise of what is meant by "comprehensive"; I have no doubt that some noble Lord will ask me that. As I have said in the press, it must include all that people are likely to encounter in adult life, without necessarily promoting or approving of such things. I may be asked what is meant by "ethical". That is an old chestnut. What was meant by "ethical" when the Government said that they had an ethical foreign policy? I hope they still do have one, but sometimes one wonders. The statement of values produced by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is another example of ethically based education policy. So we have some guidance about what "ethical" might mean in this context.
One widely accepted description of "ethics" would he to say that it is a persons and principles-based way of thinking and behaving for the sake of individual and social flourishing. It is not the view of the majority or even of a minority, but it is based on the flourishing of individual persons and of society as a whole.
454
The purpose of my amendment is to bring together the best of Section 28—which I believe needs to be retained in the absence of anything else—the best of the amendment of the noble Baroness. Lady Young, and the best of all that has been said today. I propose, therefore, that Section 28 is retained at least until a better provision is proposed and that the provision proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, against bullying is added to it, together with my proposal regarding the provision of appropriate sex education. If our social capital is not to be further reduced, we need desperately to promote the family. It is there that people learn the values that sustain them in the wider community. It is there that we may interact with others in a way that leads to sexual maturity. It is there that we find the role models necessary for our all-round development.
The family needs not only to be promoted, but to be supported—a word that has not been heard much today. Whether that happens through tax relief or income support, nurseries or after-school clubs, justice in our courts or assistance at home, strong families will in turn be the source of support for the lonely, the ill, the aged and the bereaved. There are, of course, other ways of living which may also be supported, but the family remains the norm for basic social organisation and well-being. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I have listened carefully to the debate and I appreciate the attempts to clarify the issue under discussion. However, I wish to draw attention to some of the more unfortunate side effects of Section 28, such as the advantage taken by some of the more sensationalist media to stir up hysteria, bigotry and salacious propaganda. We are surely not fooled into believing that they really care about the issues. That is what happens when negative permission is given for bad behaviour. Section 28, however unwittingly, gives permission for bad behaviour and prevents those who wish to educate young people responsibly from doing their job adequately. It provides what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has called in one of his wise and sensitive articles,
"an illicit veneer of respectability",
under which potential violence and persecution hide.
The amendments, however well-intentioned they may be, do not remove the problem. The problem is that the words "promote a homosexual lifestyle" and "pretended family relationship" are unclear and confusing. Law which is unclear and confusing should go. I know that Members of the Committee on different Benches have deep concerns for young people. So do I. I am a parent, a school governor and a former teacher. It is sad when concern about young people is manipulated and confusion encouraged.
As has already been said, part of the confusion is that Section 28 does not apply to schools, although some parents, teachers and young people believe that it does. In England and Wales school governors are responsible for schools. There are several parents on

455
governing bodies, which are required to have policies on, and report to parents about, sex education. In addition, recent curriculum handbooks, which were sent to every maintained primary and secondary school last year, contained strong guidance on personal, social and health education, supporting responsible behaviour, positive relationships, marriage and keeping healthy. The Education Act 1996, as several Members of the Committee have mentioned, is already strong on morality. Schools are bound by inspections and by Education Acts. Religious bodies will issue their own guidance shortly, I understand. As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, stated, health is part of the discussion. Medical organisations are seriously worried that after early successful campaigns in this country to combat HIV infection, the present generation of young people is not receiving sufficient education about safer sex.
There appears to be concern about the flood of unsavoury materials which may reach young people if Section 28 is repealed. But parents, teachers and school governors are gatekeepers to young people, as the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said. Curriculum guidance shapes ethos and what is taught. Surely we are not denying the integrity and common sense of those responsible adults. In a survey, parents said that they wanted Section 28 repealed by a majority of two to one. Parents have long said that they want their children to receive sex education. Young people complain about inadequate information on sexuality and inadequate discussion on relationships. Of course, schools need values that should positively influence young people, but one set of values need not exclude the consideration of other values. Young people may discuss a whole range of values in order to formulate their own value system. One particular value system may be supported by home, school or faith.
Discussing homosexuality does not exclude promoting marriage. Marriage for me has been a fulfilling way of life. I have been married to the same person for over 30 years—so I am more of a novice than the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It may not be the ideal state for everyone. Some marriages, sadly, have brought misery and confusion to couples and children. Perhaps the new guidance for schools will encourage young people to develop relationship skills which are surely the basis of sound marriage and parenting, not the i~stitution itself. Relationship skills are also the basis of sexuality, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said; a sexuality which is satisfying and non-exploitative in whatever form it comes. Some people whom I know find homosexuality repulsive. That is their prerogative. But surely it is better to have a loving relationship with a same-sex partner than a miserable heterosexual relationship. In agreement with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, I believe that sexuality is about love, mutual respect and support and not merely sexual acts, which are private in any case.
Young people have common sense too, as well as discrimination. I remember reading the infamous Jenny lives with Eric and Martin with my children when
456
they were young. They said, "This is really boring— we'd rather have Little Tim and the Brave Sea Captain". None of them has grown up to be a gay parent, despite their mother's corrupting influence. The point of that anecdote is that children take on board what is relevant and meaningful to them. They cannot be made to be homosexual or heterosexual. A book or video cannot alter nature, even if it were to get into a school. Moreover, school governors and parents have to approve materials that enter schools.
The sensible thing to say to a young person confused about his sexual orientation is, "Don't have indiscriminate sex. Be sure what you feel". It should not be, "Because you think you might be gay, you are invalid and rather peculiar". That is what Section 28 perpetrates. It indirectly and insidiously inculcates prejudice and then stands back while it is acted out. I, too, have received letters, including some from three organisations for parents of gay teenagers. They are seriously concerned about the health and welfare of their children. I have received letters from medical organisations, children's organisations, teaching organisations and religious organisations which want Section 28 to go. I have received also two letters of filth and bigotry. I received one this morning which made disgraceful reference to David Blunkett's disability. It continues:
"God curses Gays and sodomists and all those that so promote
Death is their end and reward so perhaps you should take note".
Nice poetry. Last week, I believe that I was investigated by the office of a noble Lord. Today I am in the Daily Mail. It may be that that is a coincidence. I shall clarify the matter with the noble Lord involved.
Young people need validation and support, whatever their sexual orientation. In a report published by a gay teenagers' group, one boy says that he was called "poof, gay, black bastard" in school. It is interesting how intolerance overlaps and begets other intolerance. Another was advised to take cold showers and think about girls. I am not sure how that connects. Another was asked whether he was dropped on his head as a baby. That is hardly enlightened and supportive education.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the retention of Section 28 gives permission for people to interpret it, whatever the original intention was, as a licence to exclude one section of society, to insult and denigrate others and as a barrier to sexual health education; more than that, to intimidate and incite hatred. It opens other kinds of flood gates.
When I was first involved in the Section 28 debate, I was threatened both verbally and physically. One evening two nasty looking thugs with equally nasty looking dogs arrived at my office and said, "Listen, poof lover. Keep your mouth shut or you'll have these dogs after you". If that can happen to a middle-aged, middle class woman, what else is going on which I know your Lordships would find abhorrent?

457
The Committee's decision will send signals about the kind of society that we want to encourage. It is about much more than Section 28 or the promotion of homosexuality. It is about value tolerance and what philosophers call "the considerate way of life". I remember, in the midst of press hysteria, a leader column in the Independent saying:
"Morality has nothing to do with sexual preference and everything to do witI how we treat each other".
I hope that the Committee will not be seen to give permission by inference for ignorance, hysteria and bigotry to prevail, and informed discussion denied, through allowing, ambiguity in the law to remain. I support the repeal of Section 28. I cannot accept the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may—
Lord Peston:I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rising to her feet. It is customary for the Opposition Front Bench to speak at the end of the debate. I hope that she is not rising with any intention of trying to shorten the debate. We were promised by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General that those of us who had shown some restraint earlier—that includes me—would be allowed to speak. I am one of the few Peers who have sat through every word of the debate and have not yet spoken. I notice that other Peers feel that they can come and go out as they like. I hope that the noble Baroness is not remotely suggesting that the rest of us should not speak just because we are going to have a vote. My judgment is that she ought to wait until the rest of us have spoken and then she can reply. as she does very well, from the Opposition Front Bench. That is my point of order. It is not my speech.
Baroness Blatch: Would that I had that power. I have no power whatever to curtail the debate. I see that many noble Lords wish to speak. I believe that there has been a great misunderstanding—mostly because of the intervention of the Minister at the beginning of the afternoon and the intervention two-and-a-half hours later by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Some of us thought that we were having a universal debate on all of these issues and that we would then deal with those amendments by voting. A very long time went by before we were told to speak only to the amendments.
I do not intend to waste the time of the Committee in going back over a debate about which much has been said and on which there is not much new to be said. But it is not for me to curtail the debate. It will be a matter for the Committee itself.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness for that assurance. I may just be unduly cynical today because I suddenly see all kinds of people wandering in. I always look forward to the noble Baroness's speeches whenever she makes them.
Baroness Blatch: The very thought of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, being cynical is just so fanciful and I shall disappoint him because my speech will be very short.

458
A circular issued by the department deals with the way in which schools would handle life under Section 28. What it says dispels some of the myths that have been given voice to around the Chamber today. It says:
"Local authorities will not he prevented by this section from offering the full range of services to homosexuals, on the same basis as to all their inhabitants. So long as they are not setting out to promote homosexuality, they may, for example, include in their public libraries books and periodicals about homosexuality or written by homosexuals, and fund theatre and other arts events which may include homosexual themes"
As far as concerns the classroom, the circular goes on to say:
"Section 28 does not affect the activities of school governors, nor of teachers. It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality".
To repeal Section 28 removes from the statute the protection for teachers, for parents and, most especially, for children from those in local authorities and some organisations funded by local authorities who have allowed, and indeed would allow again, materials and teaching to promote homosexuality to our young people. Those of us who oppose repeal of Section 28 cherish childhood and care about the moral framework within which children grow up and develop. We believe that they should be able to look to Parliament for protection against exploitation. That is why we shall stand four-square behind my noble friend Lady Young on this issue and will reject the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Quirk: Perhaps I may return to the amendment before the Committee which was introduced by the right reverend Prelate. I should like to ask a very simple and short question. It concerns the term "comprehensive" with respect to sex education. The right reverend Prelate has already alluded to his unease with this notion of "comprehensive". He referred to the forms of sexuality with which children are likely to come in contact in the course of their lives. Those would presumably include sado-masochism, bisexuality, paedophilia and even perhaps bestiality. Necrophilia has also been mentioned during this debate. Is it my understanding that the right reverend Prelate would want a sex education that was comprehensive plus or minus some or more of those things, but that the only form of sexuality that was to be forbidden was homosexuality? Sado-masochism would be taught about but not forbidden; homosexuality would be taught about but forbidden?
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: I tried to say what I meant by "comprehensive". It would be things that adults would be likely to encounter. We have still not reached a stage in this society when in the course of ordinary life we encounter bestiality. I hope we never do. The real point is that we should teach people about things that we do not necessarily promote or approve of. Section 28 as it stands forbids certain things but it does not allow teachers and others to teach young people what they need to know.
Lord Quirk: I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I simply point out that the Brightman amendment, to which he alluded but to which he was not able to lend his support, specifically does, as it were, include all these other issues beyond homosexuality.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: The reason that I am opposed to the Brightman amendment is that it seeks to do contradictory things. On the one hand, it seeks to promote marriage; on the other, it seeks to say that no kind of sexual lifestyle should be promoted. I believe that those are two contradictory propositions.
Lord Rea: About two hours ago—it may be more— the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that Section 28 is protective against diseases that might be spread by homosexuality. The British Medical Association has a very different view. It says that Section 28 has had a harmful effect on the health aspects of sex education as many teachers and governors still believe—mistakenly, as we know—that it is unlawful to discuss homosexuality in schools. Thus, many men become infected with HIV or Hepatitis B because they have never been informed of the essential facts regarding safer sex for gay men. Others take high risks with their lives due to their low self-esteem, which is often engendered by homophobic attitudes and bullying in schools, which are seldom adequately dealt with by the staff. The BMA therefore supports the repeal of the section as it restricts the discussion of homosexuality within schools and prevents adequate sexual health education being carried out.
Playing it safe, a survey of teachers' views commissioned by the Health Education Authority, found in 1997 that,
"the existence of Section 28 was sending a clear signal that there may be something dangerous or wrong about addressing the needs of lesbian, gay or bisexual people".
From a personal point of view, I object particularly to Section 2A(b), which prohibits local authorities from promoting,
"the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability"—
I emphasise the word "acceptability"—
"of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".
That is particularly offensive to me. As I told the House in 1988 during the passage of the legislation containing Section 28, from the age of six I was brought up by my mother and her lesbian partner. That was not a "pretended" family; it was a very real family for me and my brother. We had a full and happy family life together. I was only sorry that I was sent to a boarding school and thus missed out on some of the socially and culturally rich—and sometimes hilariously funny—times that we all enjoyed together. It was a very happy period for us, although at that time the outer world was going through the painful spasm of World War II, followed by the austere but politically exciting post-war years.
460
To suggest that such a mode of life should not be acceptable, in the words of Section 28, is to me ludicrous. My simple Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "acceptable" as,
"welcome, pleasing or tolerable".
If people are happy in a long-term relationship, whatever their sexual orientation, and are contributing normally to society, surely we should welcome that. To enshrine in law that such a relationship is not welcome or even tolerable is not only draconian but incompatible with the free society in which we take pride.
The legislation was, and is, seriously flawed and should certainly be repealed. I shall vote against the noble Baroness's amendment, and I recommend that Members on all sides of the Committee do likewise.
Baroness Hamwee: As I said earlier, to inform is not to promote. I am quite clear about that. I am also clear that the aggressive pushing of homosexuality is wrong. Intelligent, caring support for children is necessary. That is the basis of our support for the repeal of Section 28.
Of course, parents, grandparents and many other people are concerned about proselytisation. I share that concern. I heard on the radio last week a comment that Section 28 should stay in order to prohibit encouraging 13 year-olds to experiment with homosexual activity. On hearing that, I thought that I must be very old-fashioned, because I do not believe that 13 year-olds should be encouraged to experiment with any sexual activity. That said, I do not believe that matters of personal development should be directly regulated by statute.
Earlier, the Minister used the term "sensitivity". There are sensitivities and nuances with which primary legislation is ill-equipped to deal. Personal conduct and culture may change over time, subtly, but sometimes quite fast. These are matters for guidance, which can be flexible and can be adjusted as time passes. It can enable, even require, teachers to distinguish between what is salacious or dangerous on the one hand and what provides support and information on the other. That is a long way from not having a benchmark or standards.
The term "promote" is causing us difficulty. What does it mean? Does it have any meaning in this context? I do not believe that it is possible to promote homosexuality. That is a different matter from saying that I support the promotion of homosexuality. The repeal of Section 28 is not some kind of green light for pornography and corruption. The repeal will leave the position neutral, and that is how it should be. "Neutrality" and "equality" seem to me to be the right terms—not "tolerance", which implies something so far away from the norm as to require tolerating.
Where do children get their information? Much of it comes from other children and from the media, including the Internet. Sometimes they obtain it from people from whom the educators have a responsibility to protect them. I know that the whole Committee condemns the abuse of vulnerable people, including

461
children—abuse by homosexual and heterosexual abusers. I suspect that the latter is more widespread. Protection must mean dealing with questions, spoken and unspoken, and not avoiding discussion. It means counselling, and sometimes it means helping a child to discover his or her sexuality.
Can teachers fulfil that role now? Yes, they can as the law stands, but Section 28 has collected so much baggage of misunderstanding that too many teachers believe that they would open themselves and their schools to prosecution. So too many teachers do not feel able to answer the most basic questions, to assist children grappling with a parent's or sibling's or their own homosexuality, or to tackle homophobic bullying. There is distressing evidence of books, school work and clothing being ruined, and of children being damaged in much deeper ways. And we all know how easily young bullies can become young, and then not so young, thugs.
We value the teaching profession. We should not constrain those in it. After all, we want to see more education and not less. Sex education is a matter for school governors, not the LEA, and the Education Act 1996 deals with its provision. I and other speakers have referred to the Bill's provisions. The reference to having due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life seems clear enough. Even so, local authority employees, such as youth workers, also feel under very real constraint.
Repealing the section will give confidence to those who deal with children. It will not give one single additional power to local authorities. It will not give them the power to promote homosexuality.
The section also refers to a "pretended family relationship". That, too, is unhelpful. It fails to recognise the value of stable relationships which are not marriage. Families come in many shapes and sizes. When I was asked to sit on the board of a charity dealing with research into family matters, I said, "But I'm not married, and I don't have 2.4 children". "Oh", I was told, "everyone has some sort of family".
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the symbolism of Section 28. The message that it gives is offensive. It reinforces stigma. It does nothing to assist the inclusiveness of our society, and it does much to reinforce discrimination. The repeal of Section 28 was in my party's manifesto at the last election. I am happy to support its repeal and must vote against the amendment if it is put to the vote. We on these Benches maintain our view that to inform is not to promote.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It is not true to say that Section 28 was unnecessary. It was originally devised as a Private Member's Bill of the late Lord Halsbury's, to prevent a very serious wrong, which was that certain London councils—Tottenham was one, and I think Brent was another—were teaching children that it was better to be homosexual than heterosexual. When parents protested, they were subjected to abuse and even considerable 'violence. So it is quite untrue to say that the clause was unnecessary at the time. I might just mention that some councils would merrily spend large
462
sums of council tax payers money on gay jamborees, raves and so forth, while cutting down on essential services, which they say they cannot afford. It applies not only to schools but to local authorities. It is quite untrue to say that the fact that no cases have come before the courts as a result of the section shows that it is unnecessary: it merely indicates how well it works.
To say that guidelines, or a code of practice, will do just as well is nonsense. Guidelines and codes of practice, unless given force by legislation, have no force in law and can be disregarded with impunity, and often are. What may be useful are guidelines as to what may or may not be done by teachers under Section 28, or possibly under a future substitute for Section 28. It is quite untrue to say that the section prevents teachers giving advice to worried children about problems of sexuality, as anyone who has read the clause knows perfectly well. It is quite untrue to say that it prevents teachers dealing with the bullying of homosexuals in the playground, as anyone who has read the clause will also know perfectly well. If a person does not try to understand, it is because he cannot be bothered or because he has private reasons for failing to do so.
There are a great many misconceptions regarding what is and is not permissible under Section 28. A good number have been fostered by ignorance, but many may have been fostered by interested parties. Neither the late Lord Halsbury, who was so much loved and respected on all sides of the House, nor any of those who were involved in his Private Member's Bill or in supporting its second incarnation as Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill were, or are, homophobes. The vast majority of that huge majority of people who do not wish to see Section 28 repealed are not only not homophobic but are infinitely more tolerant of people of different sexual orientation than homosexuals are of them, as a MORI poll carried out in the Daily Mail found.
The fact is that the opponents of Section 28 have a very weak case, and that is why they use so many dubious arguments to support it. Like other Members of the Committee, I have received a great many letters from anxious parents and grandparents imploring me to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Many of those letters came from Scotland. I have been obliged to write to say that nothing we do here will directly help them since it is a devolved matter. But feeling is running very high across the whole country. I cannot think why the Government want to do something which will be so unpopular with so many people, including many sensible and responsible homosexuals. I refer noble Lords to an article by Jason Henderson in today's Daily Mail. The Government must be daft.
I emphasise to all Members of the Committee, in particular my fellow Cross-Benchers, that the majority of people in this country look to this House to save Section 28 for them so that their children and grandchildren can grow up without being subjected at a very young age to the kind of indoctrination described in Bankrolling Gay Proselytism which Section 28 prevents. I hope that we shall not let them down.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: I shall be brief. I intended to make a long speech but many points have already been made by other Members of the Committee. I deal with just two matters. Since November last year I have been part of Channel 4's "Hate Commission" which is investigating "hate crime" based on racism and homophobia. We have completed our report. The documentary is being edited this week and will be televised in March 2000. I was asked to visit Manchester and meet the gay community, which I did, and study a report produced by the National Advisory Group Policing Lesbian and Gay Communities. Together with the author of the report, Ian Wilmott, I visited Gay Village in Manchester city centre and met various individuals, male and female. My aim was to see the scale of violence perpetrated against gay people because of their sexual orientation.
I was shocked by the scale of violence against the gay community and recommended various measures to ensure that violence against gay men and women should not be tolerated. My initial thoughts were that it was only through education that we could fight prejudice. However, having examined promotional material produced by some health authorities, I am convinced that some local authorities will interpret the repeal of Section 28 as a ticket to promote homosexuality.
The Committee has already heard of the concerns of the Muslim community. The Muslim community is totally opposed to the repeal of Section 28. I have informed the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of my intentions in this matter. Having heard earlier contributions to the debate, and the response of the Minister to the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division at this stage. However, I reserve my right to do so at Third Reading if the proposals offered by the Government do not meet the concerns that I have expressed.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that the onus was upon the Government to justify the repeal of Section 28. Leaving aside words like "onus", I should like to explain one very good reason for repealing Section 28 which has not yet been dealt with. Therefore, I hope that what I say is new and not merely repetitious. I make my observations in the presence of the Attorney-General, who will, I am sure, interrupt me if he disagrees with my analysis of why Section 28 conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights and why the amendment, if agreed to, will lead to enormous legal uncertainty when the Human Rights Act comes into force in October. In what I am about to say I shall deal with that and nothing else.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, indicated, one limb of Section 28 forbids local authorities from promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as what it calls "a pretended family relationship". Under that vague and ambiguous language, if a local authority encourages a teacher in a maintained school to tell her sixth-form
464
pupils that a homosexual relationship may constitute a real and not a pretended family relationship, that may be treated as promoting the teaching of "the acceptability of homosexuality" according to the wording of Section 28, irrespective of the authority's or the teacher's intentions to promote honest and accurate information and discussion in the classroom. That limb of Section 28 in effect requires local authorities to ensure that teachers treat all homosexual family relationships as pretended and not as real family relationships, including relationships in which a homosexual couple raise a child, say, of a divorced husband or wife. A teacher who disobeys that limb and puts her local authority in breach of Section 28 may jeopardise her career.
To that extent, in my view Section 28 promotes false and inaccurate teaching, for in truth, as this House pointed out recently in Fitzpatrick v. Sterling Housing Association—I hear someone say "a dreadful case", but it is the law of the land as laid down by the Law Lords—a homosexual relationship may involve a real rather than a pretended family relationship. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead,
"Where sexual partners are involved, whether heterosexual or homosexual. there is scope for the intimate mutual love and affection and long term commitment that typically characterise the relationship of husband and wife".
In other words, contrary to the first limb of Section 28, English law recognises that a homosexual relationship is capable of being a real family relationship, for example for the purpose of inheriting tenancy rights. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. Homosexuality is not to be equated with bestiality or necrophilia, if that was the burden of his remarks.
Lord Quirk: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I did not say anything to equate them. I was simply teasing out from the right reverend Prelate what would be covered by his comprehensive sex education.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I misunderstood the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Waddington: Before the noble Lord continues, does he realise that he disturbs us rather than assuages our fears when he refers to a case in which the courts redefined the meaning of "family". If at any specific juncture the word "family" can be given an entirely different meaning from that which ordinary people imagine it to mean, it makes us consider with some concern an amendment containing the word "family". That is the point to which we should surely address our minds. We need to know what "family" will mean in the future before we leap to support an amendment which refers to the family.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Nothing I say will assuage the noble Lord's fears. I am not attempting to address his fears but to explain what I understand the law to be and the implications for the amendment.

465
The European Court of Human Rights has similarly decided—no doubt it will increase the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—on 21st December 1999, in the case of Sagueiro da Silva v. Portugal, that a refusal by the Portuguese courts in divorce proceedings to grant custody of his child to the father rather than the mother, solely on the ground that the father was living in a homosexual relationship amounted to unjustifiable discrimination in the enjoyment of the father's right to respect for his family life. It found that the Portuguese Court of Appeal had broken Article 14 read with Article 8 of the convention. That decision, too, is inconsistent with one of the assumptions upon which Section 28 is based.
Section 28 forbids local authorities from allowing their teachers to describe homosexual relationships as capable of constituting real family relationships, whereas English courts, the highest court in the land, and the European Court have recognised that homosexual relationships, based on mutual love, affection and long-term commitment, like heterosexual relationships, are capable of being real family relationships.
Section 28 is a piece of clumsy state censorship and illiberal social engineering. It constitutes an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with the rights of teachers to communicate information and ideas to their pupils and of their pupils' rights and interests. Were a case to be brought after October, once the Human Rights Act is in force. complaining of the unnecessarily chilling effects of Section 28, in my view our courts would decide either that this limb of Section 28 cannot be read to be compatible with the right to free expression and other rights, or it would be interpreted so narrowly as to defeat the objective of the promoters of the amendment and of Section 28.
If I am right about that, even if the Chamber decided, in keeping with the arguments of the noble Baroness, to keep Section 28 on the statute book, it would be a pyrrhic victory because I think that the courts would come to the rescue using the convention strongly. But that is no reason to keep it on the statute book; it is one of the reasons for repealing it.
The other limb of Section 28 authorises interferences with free speech and discriminates against homosexuals with no objective or reasonable justification. It forbids local authorities from intentionally promoting homosexuality or publishing material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. It does not forbid them from intentionally promoting heterosexuality, as many noble Lords have said, nor from publishing material with the intention of promoting heterosexuality. It treats homosexuality as a serious social evil to be uniquely singled out, even though homosexual sexual activity between consenting adults is not unlawful, and even though homosexuals are as capable as heterosexuals of sharing their lives, of caring and love, of commitment and support, and even though a person's sexual orientation may be genetically determined.
466
Section 28 promotes a climate of intolerance among the public and a sense of shame and fear among homosexuals whose sexual preferences may be conditioned by their genetic inheritance as well as by their family and social environment.
It is legitimate to forbid the promotion by local authorities of any form of human sexuality, whether in the classroom or more generally. But I suggest that it is not the business of the state to promote any form of sexuality as distinct from providing educational guidance to young people—for example about the importance of marriage for family life and child rearing, parental responsibility, the virtues of a loving and caring relationship, the health risks of unprotected sexual activity, and so on. As many noble Lords have said, and as the Government have indicated, that guidance can be given in suitable statutory form, whether in the form of a code of practice or otherwise.
I believe that our courts would find that the prohibitions in Section 28 are not carefully tailored to the wholly legitimate aim of protecting children and young people from harmful and immoral influences. That aim can be met readily by less restrictive means which do not involve compelling local authorities to publish only the kind of literature of which the supporters of the amendment approve.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I may ask a question. Would the noble Lord he equally happy if his children or grandchildren were homosexual or heterosexual?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would be happier if my children were heterosexual rather than homosexual because they would have an easier life. But I would not regard a homosexual child or grandchild as in any way morally inferior to a heterosexual child. That was well expressed by Peter Preston in his interesting article in the Guardian, he having identical twins, both girls, one gay and one not.
I was astonished and pleased to hear the right honourable Michael Portillo, MP, say on the "Today" programme last week that the issue is not about tolerance but equality. I agree with him, but I would add that it is not only about equality but also diversity and free speech.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—I think that he is in his place—reminded me of something said by a great American judge about the spirit of liberty. The judge said that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. The vice of Section 28 is that its promoters were absolutely sure that they were right and that everyone else had to follow their opinions. The present statutory prohibitions are based upon a religious or moral certainty that homosexuality is a major social evil to be combated by means of a ban imposed by primary legislation. That is the passionate and completely sincere belief of the supporters of the amendment. But it should not be allowed to stand as the statutory command as to what all local authorities must do, or refrain from doing, in conformity with those sincere

467
and passionate beliefs. That is why I oppose the amendment. I very much hope that at the end of the debate the noble Baroness will feel able to avoid dividing the Committee and instead will enable the Government to introduce more appropriate measures but using proportionate means.
Lord Habgood: At this time of night, brevity is golden and your Lordships will notice that I have no sheaf of notes. We have sat through four-and-a-half hours of debate on homosexuality and I have become increasingly bemused by the fact that none of us knows why some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual. It is a great mystery. However, many speakers have assumed that there is a totally clear-cut distinction; that you are necessarily either homosexual or heterosexual, as though you were either left handed or right handed. That is a totally false analogy. Some people are ambidextrous, just as some are bisexual.
There is almost nothing in a human being which is either totally innate or totally culturally conditioned. We are an extraordinary mixture of some things which are given in our inheritance—no one knows whether there is a hereditary component in homosexuality and, although some people claim that there is, it is a disputed claim—the culture in which we are brought up and the personal history of each of us. Even our faces are not given by our genetic inheritance. To a limited extent, our faces are what we make them through our lives, which is a horrifying thought.
Given that flexibility, there is a strong case for saying that it is not just a question of nature which cannot be altered. Human beings are always altering nature; it is what being human is about. We need a culture in which people can discover themselves and can be helped towards discovering what most people through most of history have regarded as the most satisfying form of life; namely, marriage and having children. But that is not to say that one simply writes off some people who are at one end of the spectrum who know that they are homosexual, have known it for a long time and see no prospect of change.
In human up-bringing there is an important space in which people can be helped in one direction or another by their cultural environment, by what they are taught, by the people they mix with. We want a culture that is compassionate, which recognises real differences— and I am not being in the least anti-homosexual—which is supportive, which helps people through their difficulties as they are growing up but which is also clear about where the greatest happiness within the experience of human kind is to be found. Therefore, there is necessarily a bias in one direction without in any way denigrating those who cannot move in that direction as second-class citizens.
It is clear from the debate that we do not yet know how to frame legislation or even guidance which will encourage that kind of society. I therefore believe that the right thing to do is to vote tactically, which in practice will mean voting for the noble Baroness's
468
amendment, so that the issue is kept in front of this House and the Government until we have the better way of trying to express what we are really getting at.
Lord Peston: My Lords—
Earl Peel: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that it is the turn of the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
Earl Peel: I thank the noble and learned Lord, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I have sat throughout the debate and have not left my seat and, with the Committee's permission, I want to add a few words. First and foremost, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his opening remarks drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that Section 28 refers only to a certain part of today's debate. Its effect on the ability to control, if I may use that word, is extremely limiting. I am slightly confused as to how much Section 28 has the effect people believe. However, having listened to the debate today I am even more convinced that Section 28 must be left on the statute book. I have held that opinion for some time, but it was reinforced when I, like other noble Lords, received the Local Government Association briefing on the debate. The paper dedicates a considerable amount of time to describing why Section 28 is irrelevant in the classroom. However, it goes on to ask:
"Is it fair to place the duty on authorities not to intentionally promote homosexuality?".
I can only assume that that implies that in its opinion it is fair to do so. And the one advantage that my noble friend Lady Young has when she rightly puts forward her strong views is that we have the experience of knowing what these local authorities will do if Section 28 is repealed. We have heard many speeches tonight telling us that it is necessary to repeal Section 28, but, as my noble friend said most strongly, if we change it we are in for all kinds of difficulties, many of which we have witnessed already.
The Local Government Association brief goes on to state that the discretion of local authorities to act and to choose on behalf of local communities should he constrained only by an overriding national interest or because of a significant risk of harm. Well, if protecting our young people from a lifestyle which in many cases can harm them, particularly mentally, is not of national importance, I do not know what is. Of course I believe that it is right to allow adults to choose which lifestyle they want to adopt and I reject any accusations of homophobia—if my noble friend Lord Ferrers will allow me to use that term. But I do not accept the statement made by Stonewall and referred to by a number of Members today. It stated in its briefing that it did not accept the premise that anyone can make anybody lesbian or gay. In other words, we are what we are.
In the long run, that may be true, but as a parent— and I know that I speak for most parents in this country when I say this—I know that teenagers are deeply impressionable and can go through periods of

469
same-sex attraction. It can certainly be influenced by others. I have seen it, as I am sure have most noble Lords, and judging by the letters I have received, most ordinary parents in this country have seen it, too. There is no doubt in my mind that that can lead to confusion and a great sense of guilt and regret later. Therefore, I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to prevent such cases occurring.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said in his opening remarks that it is all about signs and signals. I agree entirely and I believe that it is incumbent on this House to show the right signs and signals and to vote with my noble friend tonight.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may make one more comment. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I find it tiresome to be told that there is no point in debating issues in this House because any decision will be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. If that is the case then what is the point of us debating this issue? We have a perfect right to debate the matter and I find it restrictive and offensive—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I certainly did not intend to be restrictive or offensive. However, it is useful for those who have the responsibility of making the law to know the background against which they do so. I hope that I can inform the Committee that I would prefer to see a committee that could do that job for us. However, since there is no such committee, I took it upon myself. I mentioned the matter only to inform the Committee and certainly not to curtail any debate.
Earl Peel: I understand what the noble Lord is saying. However, I have heard him make the same kind of comment on a number of occasions. I simply wish to make the point that I believe it to be restrictive.
I do not agree with the comments of I he noble Lord, but I agree that it is a very serious matter and something that we should all bear in mind.
8 p.m.
Lord Peston: This has been a rather queer debate. The Opposition Front Benches felt that they ought to speak before the Back-Benches, which is unusual in your Lordships' House. However, most of the speeches that were relevant to the important amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, were made on other amendments. That is why some of us are having considerable difficulty in getting our minds around what we should be talking about.
I hope that I have good enough credentials to allow me to take part in the debate. I have been married to the same person for over 40 years. Perhaps my credentials are not as good as those of some noble Lords who are so keen on marriage that they go through the process two, three, four or five times. Furthermore, partly in response to the noble Earl, Lord Peel—putting this as delicately as I can—I have always preferred the company of women to that of men. I have never been attracted to people of the same sex, but since one of the questions that I wanted to ask is, "What is this all
470
about?", I think that the noble Earl may have put his finger on it. Perhaps it is all about some noble Lords resisting attraction to people of the same sex and thus regarding themselves as having escaped from that kind of problem in the past; I do not know.
I must also reveal that I am as prejudiced as anyone else. In my younger days I was as bigoted an anti-Catholic as you could imagine. Admittedly I had never in my life met a Catholic and my bigotry was based on pure ignorance. I believe that I know about prejudice and what to do about it: you learn to get rid of it. It is called growing up. Perhaps I may also say that another of my prejudices was a similar bigotry against the hereditary peerage. Robespierre had nothing in comparison to the views I held, although I had never met a hereditary Peer. I did not realise that they were human beings like the rest of us. Again, experience does teach us that we must get rid of our prejudices.
Many in the Committee feel that the central issue here seems to be one of morality. However, if I ask myself about the alleged moral decline of our country, especially when considering the enormous divorce rate, I cannot see how, on any logical or empirical grounds, that can be blamed on homosexuals. A fortiori, the problem of the rise in single mothers could be blamed on many people but it cannot be blamed on homosexuals. Equally, the great rise in crimes of violence has no connection whatever with homosexuals. What I do believe underlines much of the decline in morality is the great advertising industry, what we see on the television and the rise of modern consumerism, particularly when it takes the form of, "I want everything and I want it now". Those problems seem to me to be more deeply connected to the decline of morality in our country.
For those who single out homosexuals, I put this question to them: why single out homosexuals? Of course, all—including the noble Baroness, Lady Young—will put their hands on their hearts and say, "We are not prejudiced". Indeed, those people are outraged at the suggestion that they might be prejudiced. But I must repeat the question: why focus on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular to blame for our moral decline? I have not heard a single response to explain the obsession held by many people on this point.
I promised to be extremely nasty to three or four noble Lords and so I shall now do so. I shall start with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lichfield. He referred to Section 28 as a bench-mark that he wishes to keep. The right reverend Prelate ought to know that some of us regard Section 28 as evil. I use that word quite literally. The reason why I am appalled by his intervention is that he wishes to retain a bench-mark that a great many people regard as evil.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: Perhaps I may intervene. I made the point that I am not prepared to give up something when we do not know where we are

471
going. It is not the bench-mark as such; it is because we are moving to another position that has yet to be spelt out.
Lord Peston: I shall repeat to the right reverend Prelate that I am appalled, in particular because some of us do know where we are going. We also know where those who support Section 28 want to go. It is the path of prejudice that they wish to follow.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that when listening to his contribution I was reminded of the writings of the American author, Randall Jarrell. Some years ago he stated that homosexuals have replaced Jews in those famous, "Some of my best friends are…" remarks. Nothing appals me more than someone who starts an argument by saying that.
Lord Elton: I find the remarks of the noble Lord rather strange. It happens to be true. It is not a political stance.
Lord Peston: Perhaps the saying does not resonate with the noble Lord, but "Some of my best friends are…" connects up with some of the worst prejudice in our society. In my judgment—I promised to be nasty—the noble Lord should not have made that remark. If I were a homosexual, I would deeply resent it because of its resonances.
Lord Elton: What the noble Lord is saying implies that I should think that there is something so shameful about that friendship that I should not refer to it. I resent that.
Lord Peston: I think that the noble Lord should simply remember that, given the contexts in which that phrase has been used, he should perhaps use another phrase.
I should now like to finish my nasty remarks. I was taken aback by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her attack on my noble friend Lord Alli. He referred to hatred and to his experiences of hatred and he was quite right. Whether referring to black people, brown people or, in this case, homosexuals, those groups are subject to hatred. I do not know what kind of letters the noble Baroness received on this subject, but I know that those I have received have been so appalling that I could not bear to keep them in my room. They went straight through the shredder. I have rarely seen anything as extreme as the remarks made against homosexuals in the correspondence sent to me. For all I know the letters received by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, were nicely balanced and moderate. However, mine were not. They referred to "these appalling people" who are, "a threat to our society" and who, "have got to be stopped". I have received letters saying that homosexuals ought to be killed and so forth.
472
I should like to point out to those who say that the views of the people out there are paramount, that there are some quite nasty people out there. I am happy to give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Young: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I intervene only to say that I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was not in his place when I was speaking. I should like to reiterate what I said. I do not hate anybody. To assert that people like myself, who hold our own particular views, go around hating or encouraging others to hate, is quite wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, might reconsider those remarks.
Perhaps I may also say that we have all received unpleasant letters. I have received many very unpleasant letters. I have chosen not to refer to them because I have tried to concentrate on the matters which I believe are most important.
Lord Peston: I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has no hatred for anyone, except possibly me!
Baroness Young: I like the noble Lord, as I like the noble Lord, Lord Alli.
Lord Peston: I believe that it is not unreasonable to place oneself in the position of people like my noble friend Lord Alli—although he was referring to a broader range of people—and ask what they feel when they hear that kind of remark and read that kind of amendment.
I make two final points. In this as in so many debates in your Lordships' House it upsets me when we are told that we are up to our old tricks and that we are old people telling young people how they should behave. That has occurred ever since I arrived here. We should realise that out there are many young people who say, "I wish they would talk about things that they know something about and not about the world in which we are living". I try hard not to tell young people how to behave, especially as the young people whom I know are my own children. I shall not tell your Lordships how they respond to me.
I believe that overwhelmingly this is a moral issue. I disagree with some noble Lords who have asked the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I am desperate that she divides the Committee on this matter so that I, at least, may vote against her.
Baroness Strange: I have been married for only 47 years, but I am working on it! I may feel rather like the best man at a wedding who stands up just when everyone cannot bear another speech and, quite insensitively, proceeds in detail to read out a great heap of telegrapms. These are some of the 150-odd letters which I have received, all beseeching me to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Before your Lordships take fright or die of boredom, I shall not read them out. However, through them all runs the theme that all children have a right to their childhood and their innocence.

473
Yesterday, when I was kneeling in the snowdrops in the woods at home, picking fresh white blossoms with their sharp, sweet scent. they made me think of the innocence, purity and loveliness of children, of their fresh clear eyes and of their direct way of looking at things. I was lucky enough to have a very happy childhood; so did my children and my grandchildren. I should like all children in the world to keep that childhood happiness and innocence for as long as possible. We all have a long time indeed in which to be grown up.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I know that some Members of the Committee are becoming impatient. However, some of your Lordships will remember that we agreed earlier that those who wanted to speak, having not spoken on the first amendment, would be able to contribute "at reasonable brevity"—I added that myself!
Lord Bragg: I wish to speak briefly. I have been waiting for five hours. These are the first six pages of my speech and I turn them all over. I want to say simply that I support those who argue that Section 28 should be repealed.
To strike out that section would be a victory not only for those who suffer from it; I believe that it will also send out a powerful signal that the society which we want today in our country in the 21st century is various, multiple, welcoming of difference, determined to extend the equalities of tolerance, and all the richer for it.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am of the view that misinformation breeds myths. Myths breed intolerance, and intolerance then breeds violence. I rather assumed—naively perhaps—that in coming to your Lordships' House I would not be exposed to misinformation and myths. I speak as someone who was leader of Haringey Council for 12 years, and whose sons attended primary schools in Haringey in the 1980s when so many dreadful, dreadful things are alleged to have happened.
I listened with interest to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in introducing her amendment. I listened also to the remarks of a trio of noble Baronesses opposite in the debate on Second Reading on 6th December. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for example, referred to the Haringey Council document, Mirrors Round the Walls—Respecting Diversity, which, she said, makes "pretty awful reading". She told us that she had read it in 1988 and that she had re-read it subsequently. I believed that perhaps we were talking about a different document. Therefore, I checked my copy of it and found that it does make pretty awful reading. It is long-winded, bureaucratic and boring, but, my goodness, I do not believe that it conveys the sense to which the noble Baroness referred. The document was produced by a working party of 27 members, inducing four head teachers, three deputy heads and other teaching staff.
474
It contained at length submissions from the diocesan board of education and a range of worthies who clearly were concerned about what might or might not happen in respect of education in Haringey. But I do not believe that it was "pretty awful reading" in the terms suggested by the noble Baroness. It is stretching things somewhat to suggest that somehow it was promoting homosexuality or something inappropriate.
Then we had the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, who referred to the document which has been referred to again today: Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin. She said specifically that it has on its front cover a picture of a six year-old sitting up in bed with her naked father and naked lover on the other side. But that, too, turns out to be misinformation. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not intend to mislead the House, but the cover has three separate head shots of a young girl and the head shots of two men, all of them fully clothed. Therefore, where did this image come from? It certainly was not from the front cover.
Then we had the story about the video, How to Become a Lesbian in 35 Minutes. Apparently, it was suggested that that was produced specifically to be shown in a school for handicapped children, some of whom were "very young". In fact, it was a video; it was shown to a lesbian youth group which happened to meet at the Blanche Neville school building in Tottenham. Yes, that is a school for special needs children, but it was an evening letting. There were no special needs children in the school at the time. It just so happened that that is where the meeting was located. However, the impression was given—I believe erroneously and without ill intent—that somehow that was all part of a plot to indoctrinate—if indoctrination were possible—young handicapped girls into the art of how to be a lesbian.
The title of the video was ironic. I appreciate that sometimes irony is in short supply in this House, particularly in this debate. However, that is what was intended. It was irony to demonstrate that one cannot teach someone to be lesbian or gay by a video, or even by one or two lessons in a classroom. My goodness, how wonderful the maths, English and science results would be in this country if it was that easy to inculcate things into our children.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to stop the noble Lord in full flow. I read just one line from the document from Haringey Council to which he referred:
"All social work and community care programmes should include a compulsory block on sexuality and this should promote positive images of gays and lesbians to young people in care".
Lord Harris of Haringey: I shall, of course, look at the reference in detail to check that it is in context. However, the point is that that is about making sure that professionals know how to cope with situations in which young people are not clear about their sexuality. I was hoping that we would return to Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin because there is an interesting

475
quotation in this document about the circumstances in which that book should and should not be used. I find it extraordinary—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I believe that I am right in saying that one will find the photograph which was referred to inside that book. The noble Lord is perfectly correct that it is not on the cover, but it is inside. I mention that simply as a matter of fact.
Lord Harris of Haringey: That may be the case. However, the point is that when people use the phrase "on the front cover", a specific impression is given. Of course, it was not a document promoted by my local authority or by any other local authority. The quotation which I was itching to read and which, thanks to the noble Baroness's intervention, I now shall read, is from the famous document Mirrors Round the Walls, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, found such awful reading. It says:
"We have been unable to discover anyone who would positively recommend the book Jenny lives with Eric and Martin for use in a school".
So a mirage is created, a climate where attacks can be made on lesbians and gay men. If anyone doubts that the significance of Section 28 does not live on, I am aware of a case in a London borough in which the deputy manager of a children's and adolescents' residential home asked the manager what to do about the fact that one of the young women residents had informed her that she thought she was a lesbian. She asked where she should go for advice. The deputy manager told the young woman that she could not talk to her about that because she could lose her job. That is not the intended consequence of Section 28, but it is the practical consequence of Section 28. That is why it is bad legislation. We need to remove that section. We need to ensure that we have sensible guidance for the professionals who have to deal with these situations every day of their working lives.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Like my noble friends—
Lord Whitty: I feel that in this, at least, I do have the support of the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Let us test it in the Division Lobbies then.
Lord Whitty: I think that the Members of the Committee do feel that all sides of this debate have been represented.
Baroness Blatch: I find it interesting, no less, that the Minister cuts out the one person in the Chamber still to speak who may not agree with him. Of course, I do
476

not know what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wished to say, but the Minister encouraged everyone else who wished to speak.
Lord Whitty: I am perfectly willing that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, should speak now. He was behind me and I could not see him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to my noble friend the Minister for what he has said, and for giving way to me. Like my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Bragg, I, too, have been sitting here all day listening to the debate. I wanted to make a substantial speech. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, I have scrapped that speech. I want to make only two points.
First, my noble friend Lord Peston, asks what we have against homosexuals. The fact of the matter is that many of us who support the retention of Section 28 have nothing against homosexuals at all, but we do not want the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. That is the simple message. Many of us are very concerned that sexual teaching in school should be of the right sort and should achieve the objectives. Many of us who supported compulsory sex education have been appalled at some of the results which have occurred. There are more teenage single mothers; there is sexual promiscuity; we now have child mothers aged 11 and 12. Young boys of 10 and 11 being prosecuted, or at least arrested, accused of rape. Therefore many of us are concerned about the quality of sex education per se. That might include, at a later stage, sex education about homosexuality. But for the time being we have only what we have. I want to see that improve.
Secondly, many of my noble friends have been encouraged by a Whip—I think that is unfortunate as this is a matter of conscience—to vote against their conscience. I hope they will not do so tonight. The reason for that is that until there was resistance to Clause 68 in the Bill, the Government were proposing to do absolutely nothing to improve Section 28, and the question of homosexual education in schools. It is only since there has been an outcry in this Chamber, in another place, and throughout the country that the Government have moved in any way and given any promises at all. Therefore, although I hope we can arrive at an agreed position on this, I hope that at this stage, in order to encourage the Government further to bring forward relevant amendments and relevant legislation, that we shall keep Section 28 in the Bill. I hope that my noble friends, who may have been discouraged by the Three Line Whip, and who previously voted for Section 28, will continue to do so tonight.
Lord Whitty: I think that, even in a slightly more subdued form, I now have the ear of the House. I think it was right to allow this debate to go on. One can look back and see how the groupings were structured, and of course it is necessary for us to look back at precisely what was contained in each of the amendments. We began this afternoon rather well. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn was accused of being

477
Jesuitical in getting to the head of the list. Leaving aside the fact that I think in this debate of all debates we would rather have a Jesuit than a Dominican, nevertheless, whatever means he found to get to the head of the list, it was very important that he did so. That enabled not only the right reverend Prelate to spell out the concerns of the Churches and others, but also allowed the Government to indicate that we were—I refute what my noble friend Lord Stoddart has just said—already engaged in a constructive dialogue with those who had moral and other concerns about this legislation.
As a result, I had hoped that we would have a rational debate and would treat this issue in the same mature way as other Committee stages. I regret, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has indicated that she wishes to push this matter to a vote tonight. I am afraid that the Government will have to oppose her amendment. Therefore, although I do not necessarily disagree with all that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said, I shall also have to advise the Committee to oppose that amendment.
I was hoping for a rational debate to which we perhaps could return at a later stage of the Bill, because I believe that much of the concern that has been expressed both outside and inside this House has now been removed from this debate and we can now concentrate on the real issues. Members of the Committee should be in no doubt that much of the discussion causes grave distress to groups of people who adopt different attitudes to the issue. It is the role of this House to examine the way forward calmly, collectively and with the maximum consensus that can be achieved. It is not the role of Members of this House—as has occasionally occurred in the course of this debate—to rationalise their prejudices and believe that we can transfer them into law. That is always bad law. It is particularly bad law in an area where a significant proportion of our community would feel themselves rightly and seriously discriminated against. That is the history of Section 28.
Perhaps I may record a few of the facts of life, if I can use those words. The first facts are legal facts. Section 28 is probably one of the worst drafted clauses on our statute book. Reference has been made to how badly the Section is drafted and the fact that the word "promote" is subject to a wide range of interpretations, and how that has led to some of the difficulties in discussing this issue. The other part of Section 28 refers to "pretended family relationships". Those, too, are not the words of calm parliamentary draftsmen. Those are the words used by those in the saloon bars in the Home Counties. It has nothing to do with precision in legislation. It is the kind of terminology used by two middle-aged gentlemen in florid ties who with one breath claim that they have never met a homosexual since they left boarding school and in the other claim that the BBC is absolutely crawling with them.
Those are the sentiments which were reflected in the discussion of Section 28 when it was first proposed and we should sweep such sentiments from our statute book.
478
It is wrong also because it has led to the impression that it applies directly to teachers in schools when, as Members from all sides of the argument have indicated, it does not.
It has been alleged also that if we remove it, despite its imperfections, then we open the floodgates. Even before we make—it is hoped—some further progress, as I indicated in my reply to the right reverend Prelate, we already have a substantial substructure of protection for our children. Guidelines exist already in relation to sex and health education. That is legally embodied in statute, in Section 403 of the 1996 Act. The guidelines exist and there is the procedure built in to the role of school governors and parent governors in particular. We are not leaving a vacuum. We hope that we can improve on that infrastructure through further discussions. I commit the Government to engaging constructively in those discussions and I am glad that the Churches and other faiths have indicated that they too wish to engage in them.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Is the Minister prepared to guarantee this evening, on behalf of the Government, that the guarantees for which the right reverend Prelate asked will be embodied in statute?
Lord Whitty: I have just indicated that there is already a statutory base for the guidelines. As has been said, many of the sensitivities and complexities of this matter can only really be reflected in guidelines. There is already a statutory basis in education law.
However, what I have said today—and I repeat it—is that if, as a result of the further deliberations, we consider that the statutory basis of that guidance needs to be strengthened, then we shall look at that matter.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am sorry but my vote depends on this. Statutory guidelines are very fragile. Will the Minister guarantee absolutely that the Government will provide statutory guarantees?
Lord Whitty: I repeat what I said. If, as a result of the discussions, we consider that the statutory basis for those guidelines needs strengthening, then we shall do that. That is what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has indicated; that is what the Government are committed to; and no doubt we shall return to that at a later stage during the passage of the Bill.
Some noble Lords have attempted to deny the other fact of life that despite its lack of direct effect on the schools, there has been a terrible implication for teachers, local authorities and social workers that Section 28 prevents or inhibits them from dealing with the problems raised by pupils and young people who have concerns about their sexuality and who consider themselves to be gay.
Noble Lords have denied that. Others outside the Chamber have denied it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to a "baggage of misunderstanding". Whereas 61 per cent of parents, if they are asked, want

479
their children to know about homosexuality and want it taught in schools, contrary to what has been alleged in part here, about half of teachers believe that they are prevented from doing so by Section 28. The noble Baroness shakes her head. She is very good at shaking her head in these circumstances and I have learnt not to be too disconcerted by it over the years. Nevertheless, all the surveys show that approximately half of teachers believe that they are in some way inhibited by the existence of Section 28. Whether they are right or wrong, that is the fact of the matter. Therefore, we need to tackle that.
We must also face the social facts of this matter—the context in which our teachers and young people exist. Reference has been made to the problems of access to information about sex of all sorts on television and in pornographic and other material and on the Internet. It is all available to very young children indeed. But it is true also that those young children and young adults live in family situations which are very different from those which seem to dominate the minds of many noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, very graphically pointed out that children and young people today have within their own families, in their neighbourhoods and among their relations people who are gay or who think they are; people who are involved in relationships with gay people; people who are, at the very least, outside the prescriptive narrow definition of normal relationships relating only to institutional marriage.
Whether we like it or not, whether we approve of it or not, the reality is that we are not in a world of Janet and John families. We are not in a world where the birds and the bees are sufficient for sex education. We must move on. I say this quite deliberately. The vast majority of us and the vast majority of the population as a whole have, at various times in their lives, lived in a sexual situation which is outside the confines of marriage. Pre-marital, adulterous and gay relationships are all outside what we might wish to regard as an ideal. All of those can be regarded as damaging to the institution of marriage and the institution of the family. Many noble Lords will do precisely that.
But as my noble friend Lord Peston said, you can hardly blame the homosexual community for the increase in the number of single mothers or the many other ills referred to by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. And yet, it is members of the homosexual community who are highlighted, stigmatised and identified separately in the legislation which we are currently considering. That is what we are trying to remove as a result of removing Section 28.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for a moment. What he says is understandable but there is only one word that really matters; that is that local authorities should not "promote" that sexuality. Why does he think that that is wrong? After all, it is
480
surely correct that local authorities and schools should give a true recognition of marriage and life and not a homosexual one.
Lord Whitty: I thought I had explained that one of the problems about the current drafting of Section 28 is that the word "promotion" is being interpreted differently by different local authorities, individual schools and teachers. We want to inform our children about the kinds of sexual relationships that they will find in the life which surrounds them; that they are already asking questions about. We want to give them information and many people believe that the word "promotion" prevents local authorities and others providing information to describe, explain and put into total context for children. Children are bombarded with all sorts of information from their peers, families and from nefarious sources of information; for example, the Internet and other material which is available to them. The teacher or social worker should be able to deal with that in a total context and not with homosexuality and sex education as a "ghettoised" subject. It should be dealt with in a caring atmosphere and in an atmosphere in which there is some interchange between the concerns of the pupils, students or young people and their social worker or teacher. The teacher or social worker should not be inhibited from doing that.
I appreciate that many people in this House and elsewhere regard many of those deviations from the marriage norm as being sins, and that is because of their religion, their moral belief. Such behaviour is not permitted within their moral code which is often sanctioned by religious blessing. I respect and understand that position. But here we are not debating the law of God or the morality issue but the law of the land. We are not discussing conscience or a moral issue. We are discussing local authorities' powers in this context.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: But Section 28 simply states:
"A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality".
Why is that in any way unacceptable? We are not discussing proper consultation by teachers. We are discussing intentional promotion which is very different.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has, unusually, read only part of Section 28. The other part refers to "pretended family" relationships and other matters that frankly we need to respect even if we may disapprove of them and not wish our own children to engage in them. Moreover, several times I have explained the fact that the word "promotion" is being misinterpreted up and down the land in different ways, which is inhibiting much of what I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, would wish to see.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I recognise that the Minister's role is to make quite a tendentious speech. I have not counted the number of times he has used the word "fact", but I suspect that we are now in double figures. Will he agree that in the world of rational and sensible discussion that the Prime Minister has requested we should judge matters to be facts when we have carefully weighed the evidence? On a number of occasions he has stated what the fact of the matter is while simply disregarding the fact that a number of people have another view that they are rationally arguing?
Lord Whitty: The fact to which I refer is the effect of the existing Section 28 in inhibiting teachers, social workers and others dealing with real personal and social problems. Those are the facts. I certainly recognise, as I thought I had been saying as clearly as I could, that there are many people who have a different view.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: It is precisely those facts that are in dispute. They do not become more evident as facts when stated loudly from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Whitty: Almost any survey has indicated the truth of what I am saying. It is also true—the right reverend Prelate is correct—that there are a lot of people who nevertheless regard the approach we are taking to Section 28 as helping or condoning something that they regard very seriously, and regard through their religious convictions and other moral convictions as a sin. I respect that view. I recognise that it applies to a large number of noble Lords and to a large number of people outside this Chamber.
Speaking personally, I was brought up in the bosom of the Methodist Church, which in the 1950s perhaps was not all that broad-minded on sexual issues. Nevertheless, I was taught to care for people. My understanding of the Christian approach to such matters—I believe this applies to the other great religions as well—is that you may well hate the sin but you love the sinner. Therefore, I believe that noble Lords would want to provide counselling services, advice and information, and would not want to have on the statute book a term which, however ambiguous and vague, actually inhibited that provision of care and counselling to such people.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May we please have the guidelines, on which great store is placed, by Report stage if possible?
Lord Whitty: Earlier I referred to the discussions involving my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Clearly, on Report I shall indicate how far those discussions have progressed. I hope that they will have progressed as far as the noble Lord seeks. It is certainly important that at the next stage the House knows which way we shall go and what degree of consensus
482
we have achieved. I can give that undertaking, which may not be quite as absolute as the noble Lord would like, but the Government's good intentions are clear.
It is wrong to think that those whom the noble Baroness referred to as dealing with the moral issues are all on one side in this argument. In no sense are they. We have already seen that even among religious leaders there are significant differences of opinion. We have seen that in this Committee and in pronouncements by Members of the Bishops' Bench. We have heard also from the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, who has a very strong and powerful background in these matters. We should respect that. The noble Baroness may quote the Chief Rabbi, but it is also true that the leader of progressive Judaism has today made it clear that that organisation opposes the retention of Section 28.
Let us not pretend that all the world's religions are on one side in this argument, and not only religious leaders deal with moral issues. On our side of the argument are representatives of doctors, teachers, nurses and social workers, all of whom day-to-day have to deal with moral issues, the personal problems of young people and indeed adults.
It is important that we do not allow this debate to be highjacked entirely on the issue of schools and young people. Counselling services for the adult gay community are also involved. I would advise noble Lords to read Section 28 again. It applies also to local authority services to adults.
That brings us to the area referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because human rights issues are involved. If an activity is not against the law, it is wrong that the state should discriminate against those who engage in it either in terms of their civil rights or in terms of the services we offer them.
Like many of us, even on this side of the argument, I have probably spent a fair amount of my life being an unconscious homophobe. Homophobia is a little like racism. As various black friends of mine would say, it is not the unthinking racist one has to worry about, but the thinking racist. Nevertheless, unconscious homophobia exists in many of us and lies behind a lot of the apparent good intentions in Section 28.
It is very important that we tackle the matter as early as we can. That includes not allowing unconscious homophobia or indeed explicit homophobia to develop within our schools through bullying and other attitudes. We must remember that if we do not address this issue in schools it is a very short step from 14 and 15 year-olds who receive the sex education to which we refer and the gay-bashers who are on the streets of our capital and elsewhere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she liked my noble friend Lord Alli but that she dismissed his ideas. We all have to address this issue of hate against the homosexual community. Let us hope that we can address it by sweeping Section 28 aside, engaging in a more constructive dialogue with all concerned, and removing the fear in the homosexual

483
community, but allowing teachers, social workers and others to address the real personal and social matters presented by the issue of sexuality.
I regret that in Committee we are getting into a debate that is as emotive and as difficult as this. I hope that even at this late hour the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. We shall return to this matter at a later stage with the benefit of the discussions that my right honourable friend intends to have with the Churches and others. I hope, therefore, that if she wants to press a vote tonight she will recognise that she does so in a way that will not create the best atmosphere for those discussions. Therefore, I plead with her not to press the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I have to inform the Committee that before we return to Amendment No. 365 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and other noble Lords, we should dispose of Amendment No. 365ZA in the name of the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: I am in somewhat of a quandary. If I withdraw this amendment and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is passed, from my point of view the provision will have become impoverished. I am minded to give weight to the Government's promise to talk to the Churches and to people of other faiths. Perhaps, at this stage, I should withdraw my amendment, but reserve my position until the Report stage.
I am sorry to do this but, in the absence of any other provision. I must support the retention of Section 28. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 365ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 365, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness Young: At this late hour I do not intend to make a further speech. We have had a full debate. I thank all those who supported me so vigorously and so forcefully. I draw the Committee's attention to the valuable speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Hapgood, which summed up the situation extremely well. I shall not answer the other points that have arisen. I test the opinion of the Committee.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 365) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 210; Not-Contents, 165.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Arran. E.

Ackner, L.

Astor, V.

Aldington, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Attlee, E.

Ampthill, L.

Barber. L.

Anelay of St. Johns. B.

Bell, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Bellwin, L.

484

Belstead, L.

Hogg, B.

Blackwell, L.

Holderness. L.

Blatch. B.

Home. E.

Blease, L.

Hooper. B.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Bowness, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Brabazon of Tara. L.

Howie of Troon. L.

Bramall, L.

Hunt of Wirral.L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hussey of North Bradley. L.

Bridges, L.

Hylton-Foster. B.

Brightman, L.

Inglewood. L.

Brigstocke, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Buscombe, B.

Jopling, L.

Butterfield, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterworth, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Kingsland, L.

Byford, B.

Kirkham, L.

Caithness, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Laird, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lane, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Lichfield, Bp.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lindsay, E.

Chadlington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chalfont, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Luke, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Colville of Culross, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Cox, B.

Marlesford, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Masham of llton, B.

Cranborne, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Molyneaux of Killead. L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monson, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Montrose, D.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moran, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norfolk, D.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dundee, E.

Northesk, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orme, L.

Elton, L.

Palmer, L.

Feldman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fellowes, L.

Patten, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fitt, L.

Peel, E.

Flowers, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fookes, B.

Pevton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pike, B.

Freeman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Goschen, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Prentice, L.

Habgood, L.

Prior, L.

Hambro, L.

Pym,L.

Hanham, B

Quinton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Reay, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rees, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

485

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Swinfen. L.

Rochester, Bp.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Saatchi, L.

Tenby. V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Seccombe, B.

Tombs, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Trumpington, B.

Selsdon. L.

Vinson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vivian, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Waddington, L.

Shrewsbury. E.

Wade of Chorlton. L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Waverley. V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Weatherill. L.

Slim,V.

Wharton. B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L,

Wilcox, B.

Stallard, L.

Williamson of Horton. L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Stewartby, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Windlesham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Strange. B.

Young, B. [Teller]

Strathclyde, L.

Young of Graffham, L,

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Alli, L.

Goudie, B.

Amos, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Archer of Sandwell. L.

Grabiner, L.

Ashley of Stoke. L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ashton of Upholland. B.

Guildford, Bp.

Avebury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bach, L.

Harris of Greenwich. L.

Baldwin of Bewdley. E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Barker, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Barnett, L.

Harrison, L.

Bassam of Brighton. L.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haskins, L.

Biffen. L.

Hattersley. L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Borrie, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bragg, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brett, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe. L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burns, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carlile of Berriew. L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Christopher, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jacobs, L.

Craigavon, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Crawley, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jeger, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

David, B.

Judd,L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Desai, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Dholakia, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Levy, L.

Dubs, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Elder, L.

Lipsey, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Falkland, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ludford, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

McCarthy, L.

Filkin, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Freyberg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Gale.B.

Gavron, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Geraint, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Goldsmith, L.

McNally. L.

Goodhart, L.

Maddock, B.

486

Mallalieu, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Marsh, L.

Shepherd, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Molloy, L.

Stern, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Newby, L.

Taverne, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Patel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Peston, L.

Thornton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Tope, L.

Plant of Highfield.L.

Tordoff, L.

Prashar, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Puttnam, L.

Varley, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rea, L.

Walpole, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Warner, L.

Rennard, L

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton. L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Whitaker. B.

Russell, E.

Whitty, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Wigoder, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Wilkins, B.

Sandwich, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sawyer. L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Scotland of Asthal. B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Serota, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.2 p.m.
[Amendment No. 365 A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 365 B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 366 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 366A not moved.]
Clause 69 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendment No. 367 not moved.]
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 368:
Page 42, line 8, after ("section") insert (" 3(3),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 369 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 370:
Page 42, line 9, after (" 10(5)") insert (", (Alternative arrangements)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Noble Lords:Order!
Lord Elton:Some of us would like to know whether there is to be a dinner break; and, if so, when.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 and 71 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 50, line 28, leave out ("52") and insert (" 52(3A)(a)(i) or (ii)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Noble Lords:Order!
Lord Brougham and Vaux:There is too much noise as my noble friend the Deputy Chairman of Committees is putting the Questions. I should like to point out to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that this is not the first time that this has happened. I wish the noble Lord the Chief Whip could do something about the noise when noble Lords leave the Chamber, both after Question Time and Divisions. The situation is getting very serious.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 372:
Page 50, line 33, at end insert—
("Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
In section 30 of the Local Government Act 1974 (reports on investigation by Local Commissioner)—

(a) in subsection (3), the words "except where subsection (3A) below applies" are omitted,

(b) subsection (3A) is omitted.")

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 375. These amendments deal with the alignment of the Local Government Act legislation in relation to the ombudsman. I do not believe them to be controversial and at this time of night I hope that they can be taken without extremely lengthy debate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty moved Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 373 to 374A:
Page 50, line 34, at end insert—
(".—(1 ) Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of monitoring officer) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), before "the officer so" there is inserted "subject to subsection (1A) below"
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(1A) The officer designated under subsection (1) above by a relevant authority to which this subsection applies may not be that authority's head of paid service.
(1B) Subsection (1A) above applies to the following relevant authorities in England and Wales—

(a) a county council.

(b) a county borough council,

(c) a district council,

(d) a London borough council,

(e) the Greater London Authority,

488

(f) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or police authority, and

(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly."

(4) In subsection (8), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "relevant authority", for "(j)" there is substituted "(k)"
Sections 31 and 32(1) of that Act (National Code of Local Government Conduct) are omitted.")
Page 50, line 35, leave out ("the Local Government and Housing Act 1989") and insert ("that Act")
Page 50, line 42, column 2, after ("tribunal") insert ("or interim case tribunal").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 375 and 376:
Page 51, line 8, at end insert

("1974 c. 7.

Local Government Act 1974

In section 30. in subsection (3), "except where subsection (3A) below applies" and subsection (3A).")

Page 51. line 13. column 3, after ("Sections") insert ("31, 32(1) and")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Commencement]:
[Amendments Nos. 377 to 379 not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 2000
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton:My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This order corrects a number of omissions and deficiencies in the first order that your Lordships debated last year. It does not depart from the principle that the Assembly should assume the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales; indeed it fulfils that principle. The order mostly transfers functions to the Assembly which were inadvertently left out of the first order. The remaining provisions transfer functions which should not have gone to the Assembly back to the UK Government.
I shall cover some of the key points in the order now. If noble Lords have particular queries, I shall seek to deal with those in closing the debate. The order transfers to the Assembly many more functions than it transfers back to Ministers. Some of these, such as those contained in regulations implementing the common agricultural policy, are straightforwardly for the Assembly. It should have these functions as part of its overall responsibility for agriculture in Wales. Others came too late for the first order, for instance,

489
the functions in the Tax Credits Act 1999 of approving childcare providers in respect of which families can claim a tax credit. The order rightly transfers all these functions to the Assembly.
The order also transfers a small number of functions back to Ministers from the Assembly. In each case they deal with matters which were never the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales and thus ought not to be for the Assembly. Perhaps the most important example relates to the Mental Health Act 1983. The first transfer order inadvertently transferred to the Assembly my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's powers in the Mental Health Act 1983 to authorise the detention of criminals and remand prisoners in secure hospitals. The Assembly has no expertise in this area and since the transfer the Home Office has been exercising these functions on its behalf under an agency agreement. The order restores the correct position by transferring the functions back to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
I hope that the examples that I have chosen serve to illustrate the kind of technical changes this order seeks to make. As I say, I shall endeavour to deal with any further queries during the debate or in closing it. This order should not be contentious. The Assembly has already unanimously agreed to the draft and I urge your Lordships to do the same.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it is always salutary for the Government to admit the error of their ways, and that is what this order amounts to. I am glad that the noble Baroness has come to this "confession box" that is Parliament to talk about the errors and omissions that have now been corrected.
I am bound to say that we suspected that the original order would contain some errors and omissions which are now corrected in the present draft order. I have listened carefully to the Minister and have read the speech of Mr Paul Murphy, the Secretary of State for Wales, to the 5th Standing Committee on delegated legislation on 31st January at col. 3 of Hansard for the other place. Having said that the first order has been found to contain mistakes, he went on to say that,
"the errors in the first order have not caused any significant disruption to public services or the business of government here"—
presumably, that is Whitehall,
"or in Cardiff. Where necessary, I or my colleagues have entered into agency agreements with the Assembly to discharge functions that were inadvertently transferred or to allow the Assembly to discharge functions that were inadvertently not transferred. The order formalises that position".
That paragraph is quite revealing in that it shows just how easy it is for the Government to circumvent the normal procedures laid down in legislation. I would hope that the Government would take immediate steps in those circumstances to inform Parliament of the alternative action that they are taking; that is, the agency arrangements.
490
I do not want to belabour the point but the danger is obvious—namely, that some future government, or some future Secretary of State with less integrity than Mr Murphy, might seek to avoid the controversial Transfer of Functions Order by means of an agency agreement. I sincerely hope that the Government will give careful consideration to this issue and let us know the outcome in due course.
Technical though this order appears to be, it deals with matters of considerable importance. It gives the Assembly full control over common agricultural policy matters in Wales, including payments under the beef special premium scheme. Bearing in mind the parlous state of Welsh agriculture and the fact that average net farm incomes have gone down by some 25 per cent this year on last, we may well be justified in debating that particular part of the order. It also has a bearing on the Assembly's powers to ban trials of genetically modified crops in Wales and gives the Assembly power to act independently of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is a highly controversial area.
Other matters covered relate to child care providers and their approval so that families can claim tax credit. There is also the vexed subject of water supply on the borders. I am glad to see that the position is clarified. We certainly welcome that.
All those subjects and others could be debated at length. We may do so at some future date, but probably not this evening. We have that right, affirmed on our behalf by the memorandum of understanding issued by the Lord Chancellor last year.
I am intrigued by another point made by the Secretary of State to the Standing Committee on delegated legislation, where he said in col. 4 of Hansard that other functions transferred, one way or the other, under the Tax Credit Act 1999,
"deal with the taxation and benefit systems and are properly matters for my Ministerial colleagues".
In other words, he could not speak about those matters. Can the Minister, who answers here for the Government as a whole, tell us a little more about those matters under the Tax Credit Act 1999. I was not aware that the Assembly could be involved in tax matters, but it clearly is, tangentially at least.
The National Assembly, which dealt with this order briefly and formally under a severe time restraint, approved the order in a matter of minutes. That may be admirable celerity, but it means that your Lordships would be justified in pausing a while as we bandy these powers about within the Government. Your Lordships would be quite entitled to do so, although I personally refrain from delving too deeply into the specific areas referred to in the order.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is encouraging to see that powers to deal with the common agricultural policy are transferred to the Welsh Assembly. I was particularly interested in the Sheep and Goats (Removal to Northern Ireland) Regulations. I wondered whether perhaps the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill had somehow

491
found itself to the Welsh Assembly. I also note that the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations are now within the compass of that body.
It was to be expected that the Welsh Assembly would have teething problems, but what it is facing at the moment is raging toothache. We argued long and hard that the Welsh Assembly should have powers of primary legislation, clearly defined, so that it can formulate policy and put it into effect. The problems about which I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this House, warned of at length have now come to pass.
There is no devolution of discrete functions within government. The legislative muddle which this order illustrates, I am afraid, derives from the fact that the areas of government responsibility remain divided between Westminster and Cardiff. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, pointed out, it is not good enough that these regulations should be placed before the Assembly for a minute or two of consideration before coming to your Lordships' House for further discussion.
The current crisis in the Welsh Assembly, which comes to a head tomorrow, arises out of the refusal of the Labour Government to let go; to give the Assembly its head in policy matters and to give adequate funds to back it. I give credit to Mr Blair and to Mr Brown for negotiating in Berlin £1.2 billion of European money for Objective 1 funding for the Valleys and West Wales, but it arises out of a recognition that incomes in those areas are less than 75 per cent of the European average. It is our poverty that qualifies us for that support, not our political management. The refusal of Westminster to give assurances of matched funding leaves Wales still at the bottom of the pile.
If the Westminster new Labour Government want their Welsh administration to survive tomorrow, they must come up with new money. If they do not, Europe will keep its cash and devolution will to that extent have failed; it will have suffered a severe blow. Unhappily, Mr Michael's political failure in Wales has been to appear to represent Whitehall in Wales instead of Wales in Whitehall. Wales needs a street fighter who, with the goodwill of the whole Welsh Assembly, will fight Wales's corner with the Treasury. Perhaps that point verges a little way from the theme of the order, but we on these Benches have those thoughts because we are so concerned for the success of devolution in Wales.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the order is a technical measure designed only to correct deficiencies in the devolution settlement as it stands. It does not alter the basic principles. It is extremely important that we recognise the enormity of the task undertaken by officials in identifying the complex areas that needed to be identified as part of the transfer.
492
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, raised the issue of the order removing the requirement for the Assembly to act jointly with MAFF in approving trials of genetically modified crops. That is a purely technical change. MAFF has never taken an active role in decisions in Wales, as the noble Lord is aware. I should stress that it does not change the legal position regarding the Assembly's powers. The noble Lord recognised also that the position with regard to water has been clarified.
The noble Lord asked about the position regarding tax credits. The Assembly has no function regarding taxation or benefits. Its only function under the legislation is to approve childcare powers, in respect of which it may then bring down a tax credit. It is an approval of the mechanism rather than anything else. The noble Lord asked about agency agreements. They were debated in the House under Section 41 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly commented that changes were having to be made. I am sure that I do not need to remind him of the size of the order. Compiling it involved painstaking effort by almost every Whitehall department for about 18 months. It is regrettable that the first order was found to contain mistakes, but I am sure that he will agree that the number of occasions in your Lordships' House when we debate the issue of to which Secretary of State a piece of legislation refers makes this quite a difficult task.
The noble Lord referred to the Assembly being allowed only a few moments to consider the draft order. That is rightly a matter for the Assembly to determine and one on which it would be improper for me to comment. The noble Lord referred also to the issue of matched funding to ensure that the people of Wales receive funds that were hard fought for. I assure the noble Lord—I am sure he will agree—that European funding is not attracted to a country without that country's government putting forward the best possible case. We shall not let down the people of Wales. We have given an assurance that funding will be available as necessary from the public sector and as appropriate to meet the areas where it is needed. I would say to him—I am sure noble Lords will agree—that one cannot have a comprehensive spending review if then various parts of it, however likely the outcome, are divulged in advance of the total comprehensive spending review. With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel happy to support the order.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say how grateful we are to her for her reply to this short debate. But will she look rather carefully at what I said about the agency agreements when they substitute for a proper order? There must be cause

493
for concern, because it is a way in which the Government can avoid an error which has occurred in a previous order.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I certainly undertake to look most carefully at that point and will write to the noble Lord should the occasion prove necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Best Value (Exemption) (England) Order 2000
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The debate today is about how we apply best value to town and parish councils. Best value is at the cutting edge of this Government's modernising agenda. It bites particularly on local government and will come into force on 1st April this year. It aims to force up standards of service delivery to those of the best.
Section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 includes all parish councils within the best value regime, but Section 2 gives the Secretary of State order-making powers to exclude best value authorities from all or part of the best value duty. The Government believe that best value should apply in spirit to all parish councils. It is only right that local people and other stakeholders should be reassured as to the quality and cost-effectiveness of the services provided where public money is involved. However, most parish councils have little capacity to take on the full duty of best value.
At the other end of the parish spectrum there are town councils which are responsible for significant expenditure. Local people would expect such councils to be subject to the duty of best value in some way, and the Government agree. Even then, we recognise that their capacity to take on new tasks is also limited. That raises two questions: the first is where to draw the threshold below which all parish councils will be exempt from the statutory duty; the second is how to vary the duty for those councils above the threshold. The first question is a matter for the order which we are considering today. The second is approached in best value guidance for parish councils, a draft of which was issued for consultation last year.
Perhaps I may start with the threshold. Noble Lords will see from paragraph 2 of the order that this is set at £500,000 with respect to budgeted income in each of the three years preceding the year in question. All parish councils with income below that threshold will be exempt from the duty of best value. The reason we have included the three preceding years in the definition of the threshold is to avoid the situation of a parish council being "in" one year and "out" the next because of, for example, short-term project funding. The effect of this threshold is to bring some 80 parish councils out of a total of some 8,000 within the best value regime.
494
Perhaps I may turn to the varying of the duty of best value for those parish councils within the best value regime. The Government intend to lighten the duty of those councils. We do not propose to apply national performance indicators to them. However, we would expect them to set their own suite of local performance indicators reflecting local priorities.
Parish councils are already close to the people they serve, and we do not see any particular difficulties in parishes managing the new duty to consult. We believe it is right for best value parish councils to review their functions over a five-year cycle. Such reviews are key to making a real difference to service delivery.
We are also considering whether a single inspection over the five-year cycle might be the more cost-effective approach to scrutiny. That is a matter for the Audit Commission.
We also believe it right that a best value parish council should produce a performance plan and that the plan should be subject to audit. That does not have to be a large document—rather, just a few pages—but sufficient to let local people know about future plans and past performance.
I now turn to costs. The costs of any inspection will be borne by the Audit Commission from funds made available by the DETR. There will be a cost for the audit of the performance plan. But there will be a subsidy for a proportion of the audit costs. In the end, these costs approximate to less than 50p on average on the tax bill for each household.
The Government believe in the importance of parishes. They add value to local democracy, and they have particular strengths in local service delivery. Indeed, this Government have created 60 new parishes since their election.
Some parish councils are well into best value. For example, Dunstable produced its first performance plan last year. Burgess Hill runs a one-stop shop to be envied—a shop which brings in its key partners and which shows best value principles in action. There are also parish councils below the threshold which are taking on elements of the best value regime: for example, Hertford, Bishops Stortford and Yeovil. Such councils want to demonstrate that they are effective performers.
That is what it is all about. Best value is an opportunity for parishes to show what they can do: to become more a part of mainstream local government and to make good partners. I hope that all parishes will begin to see best value in that light.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be relieved that I hope to avoid provoking the one-and-a-half hour discussion that the order generated in another place. There may have been an excuse for that in the sense that, while it was Wednesday in

495
Westminster Hall, where the order was debated, it was still only Tuesday in the Chamber itself! Matters were slightly disrupted.
In this House we should welcome the order. It follows lines that have been well debated in both Houses. We sought to place the figures and exemptions on the face of the Bill. I understand the reasons for not doing so, but I still think it regrettable. We might not have been having this discussion had the point been accepted at that time.
I have one question. Because it was necessary for me to be in the Chamber this afternoon, I regret that I did not have quite enough time to do my homework. The Minister can probably give me a quick assurance. Budgeted income can mean various things. I should like an assurance that it does not include capital income. In the south-east of England it is not unusual for a parish to own a piece of land which it might sell at a very high value. If it were to have two or three acres of land to sell, in certain areas the value of the sale would mean an otherwise small parish council being subject to best value, which on the basis of its revenue spending would be completely inappropriate. If the noble Baroness is able to give me that assurance when she replies, I shall be happy to see the order go forward in its present form and to welcome it in that form. However, I hope to receive that assurance.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we welcome the order. As the noble Lord said, when this matter was debated by noble Lords in Committee as well as in another place there was considerable concern about the need not to impose inappropriate duties on small parishes. While wishing to achieve best value in the general sense, there is concern about the best value duties as spelt out in the legislation. Obviously, the effect of pieces of bureaucratic legislation on the budgets of small parish councils is something that we, like the Government, want to avoid. We do not believe that it is a good use of public money for a small authority to have to go through the procedures that they otherwise would.
I was also glad to hear the Minister's assurance about the value that the Government place on parishes. This has been a matter of controversy over the past two or three weeks given statements made by one of the noble Baroness's right honourable friends in another place. It is good to have that assurance on the record. I am sure that the Minister would not provoke us by making a statement in the other direction. We support the passage of the order.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions. In answer to the noble Baroness, I am sure she recalls that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised this matter during the passage of the Local Government Bill, when I placed our commitment on record. As to the issue raised by the noble Lord, it appears that under the circumstances that he describes a very small parish council may meet the target for one year but certainly not for three consecutive years. I do
496
not believe that capital is part of budgeted income, but I shall write to the noble Lord if I can add anything further or I need to say anything by way of correction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 2000
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 2000
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000
Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000
Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) Order 2000
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Education) Order 2000
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000
9.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move the seven Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. These orders help complete the arrangements for protecting personal data created by the Data Protection Act 1998. For the most part, they are about striking a balance between the basic data protection rules and other important individual needs or public interests. They modify individuals' rights to get access to data held about them; set out circumstances in which sensitive personal data may be processed; and designate media codes of practice in connection with processing of personal data by journalists.
The 1998 Act gives effect throughout the United Kingdom to the 1995 EC Data Protection Directive. A large amount of subordinate legislation is needed to complete the regime that it creates. A total of 17 instruments, including these seven orders, will be brought into force with the 1998 Act on 1st March. The remaining 10 orders are subject to the negative resolution procedure and are to be laid separately before your Lordships' House this week.
The 1998 Act is complex and I draw the attention of the House to just two key elements of it. First, the Act creates a set of rules, known as the data protection principles, with which all organisations processing personal data must comply. Among other things, these

497
regulate the fairness and lawfulness of the processing, the accuracy of the data and the purposes for which they may be processed, the time for which they may be retained and the need for security. The second pivotal element is the right for individuals to be able to get access to data held about them: the subject access right.
These orders all relate in one way or another to exemptions from certain provisions of the 1998 Act. With your Lordships' permission, I shall for convenience refer to them in abbreviated terms. I deal first with the health, social work, education, miscellaneous and Crown appointments orders. All of these orders modify or provide exemptions from the subject access right and, in some cases, the accompanying right for individuals to be given information when their data are collected. Together these are called the subject information provisions.
The health order is similar, but not identical, to an order made under the existing law, the Data Protection Act 1984. Its main effect is to create an exemption from the right of subject access to health data where giving access would cause serious harm to the health of a data subject or another individual.
The social work order which also reflects an existing order under the 1984 Act makes similar provision for social work records held by the organisations in Schedule 1 including local authorities, health bodies and the courts. Its main effect is to create a subject access exemption where giving access would prejudice social work because of the serious harm caused to the health of the data subject or another individual.
The 1998 Act creates data protection access rights for education records for which access is currently provided by the Education (Schools Records) Regulations 1989 and similar regulations made in other parts of the United Kingdom. The education order replicates exemptions made in those regulations. Again, the main effect is to create an exemption from subject access to education records, where giving access would cause serious harm to the health of the data subject or another individual.
All three orders make other provision, including exemptions from the subject information provisions for certain court reports.
The miscellaneous order also mirrors existing provision. It provides subject access exemptions for certain information whose disclosure is prohibited or restricted by the statutes specified in the schedule. The information covers information about human fertilisation and embryology, adoption records, information about children's special educational needs, parental order records, and information provided by the principal reporter in children's hearings in Scotland.
Finally in this group, the Crown appointments order provides exemptions from the subject information provisions for data processed for assessing individuals' suitability for the appointments made by Her Majesty which are specified in the
498
schedule to the order. The exemptions are needed because the records would typically include communications involving Her Majesty.
I turn now to the sensitive personal data order. As required by the directive, the 1998 Act identifies certain categories of personal data for special treatment. They are information about race, political or religious views, trade union membership, health, sex life and actual or alleged criminal activity. The Act refers to this information as sensitive personal data. Such data may not be processed unless one of the nine express conditions set out in Schedule 3 to the Act is met. Schedule 3 also allows further exemptions from the general prohibition on processing sensitive personal data to be set by order.
The schedule to this order specifies additional circumstances in which such data may be processed. Consistently with the directive, the circumstances are limited to those where the processing is in the substantial public interest; and where there are safeguards, often in the form of a requirement to seek consent where possible. In considering this order it is important to note that it does nothing more than provide a gateway: if the processing manages to get through the gateway, it still has to meet the requirements imposed by the rest of the data protection principles.
Finally on this order, paragraph 10 allows the police to process sensitive personal data in connection with their common law functions.
I apologise for having detained your Lordships' House for so long on this order. But it is a very important part of the package and I thought it right to explain it in some detail.
I shall be much briefer on the final order, the designated codes of practice order. As I have already mentioned, the 1998 Act provides a wide exemption for processing for journalistic, artistic and literary purposes. One of the conditions of the exemption is that, having regard to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, the data controller reasonably believes that publication of the personal data would be in the public interest. In assessing the reasonableness of the data controller's belief, regard may be had to his compliance with any relevant code of practice designated by the Secretary of State. This order designates for this purpose the five codes set out in the schedule to the order: the Broadcasting Standards Commission's Code on Fairness and Privacy; the ITC Programme Code; the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice; the BBC's Producers' Guidelines; and the Radio Authority's Programme Code.
That concludes my swift but, I fear, too lengthy overview of the orders. They are essential to make the regime created by the 1998 Act work smoothly. They have been drafted following a general consultation exercise and in specific consultation with many organisations which are concerned.
The Data Protection Registrar, who will become the data protection commissioner with the implementation of the 1998 Act on 1st March, has

499
been formally consulted about the orders and is content for the 1998 Act to be put into force with them as they stand. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved That, the draft orders laid before the House on 24th January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committed.]—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the orders. I shall be equally brief. The first order concerning Crown appointments is intriguing. I had not realised there were so many interesting Crown appointments. Those exempted include Archbishops, Deans, Lords Lieutenant, the First and Second Church Estates Commissioners, Masters of Trinity College, the Provost of Eton, the Poet Laureate and the Astronomer Royal. I am sure many budding poet laureates will sleep happily in their beds tonight knowing that if they ever hold that position their private lives will not be exposed. Indeed, many astronomers staring into the stars tonight will be equally relieved that they will be covered by the order.
I have no comment to make on the second order relating to social work. The important order is the third, which relates to the processing of sensitive personal data. We passed the Act a long time ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and I were present, but the Minister was not even at the Home Office. No doubt he has read the debates in detail in Hansard, but just in case he happened to miss something, I have given him notice of a question I intend to ask.
As regards the processing of sensitive personal data, a commitment was made during the passage of the Bill. We are grateful not only for the commitment with regard to journalists but with regard to ethnic minorities.
The fourth order relates to miscellaneous subject access exemptions and I have no comments to make on that. The fifth order, concerning designated codes of practice, causes me to ask a brief question. The Minister will see that of the five codes of practice four relate to statutory bodies which come under the Broadcasting Act 1991 or the producers' guidelines for the BBC which, being brought in by Royal Charter and Agreement, is subject to parliamentary control. The bodies include the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Radio Authority. However, the code of practice which relates to the Press Complaints Commission appears to be different because that commission is an independent body. It is funded by the press, sceptics will say, largely for the benefit of the press. However, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, it carries out an extremely important role in protecting the public. Its codes are independent, but now they are designated codes of practice must they be agreed by the Government? Will the Home Office monitor those codes? Is this the first step towards the Home Office becoming involved in those codes of practice? Will the commission remain an independent body?
500
I am sure that there is a reasonable explanation, but the concern exists and the situation must be clarified. There has always been public concern about the validity of the commission's codes and we must make it clear that it is an independent body with its own codes or that it has a link with the Government. Therefore I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can answer that question.
I do not have any comments to make on the final two orders. However, perhaps I may say that I have had dealings with the Data Protection Commissioner and I should like to say publicly that those dealings have been most helpful in sorting out various problems. I am full of praise for the role carried out by the Commissioner.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate briefly these seven statutory instruments. Furthermore, I congratulate the Minister on his introduction of this complex and important topic. As we heard in the initial debate, these orders form a part of the Government's goal of "bringing rights home". However, I find this to be an inadequate implementation of such an important goal.
The Minister has correctly stated that the Act and the resultant orders derive directly from the European directive on data protection, which became an Act in 1998. Of course that coincided with the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights—the lodestar or northern compass of the Government's commitment to "bringing rights home". However, as the Minister has already said, the Act touches on two sides of the same coin: the privacy of the individual in terms of the protection of individual rights; and the other side, which is the right of access by an individual to information compiled by other people about him or her.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on only two of the orders before us: the fourth, Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions, and the fifth, Designated Codes of Practice. I should like to give one or two examples of the points that concern me, but I am of course aware that we examined these topics in detail in our lengthy debates on the Bill which was enacted in 1998. None the less, the world has moved on and new variables have been introduced into these areas. If the Minister cannot respond to my points tonight—although I know that we cannot amend the orders—perhaps he will take them away for consideration and then write to me or hold a meeting.
I shall turn to the point about the media. When we consider the designated codes of practice, we must remember that they are not all apples but rather apples and a pear. We have the Code on Fairness and Privacy issued by the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the ITC Programme Code, the Producers' Guidelines from the BBC and the Programme Code issued by the Radio Authority. Those are one side of the argument. However, the oddity—the pear—is the code of practice published by the Press Complaints Commission. I should like to remind the Minister that this is the one that is not buttressed by a statutory

501
basis. The commission is merely a self-regulatory body which does not come in front of Parliament in the same way as do the other media. Print is not regulated by Parliament: it is self-regulated.
That, I believe, reaches the nub of the problem, one that attacks the privacy of individuals. The press has no statutory duty of accuracy, as have both radio and television, nor does it have a statutory duty to separate fact from opinion, which again is covered by successive broadcasting Acts since 1956. I therefore regret that this particular code of practice has no statutory basis. Therefore, for that point only it is with regret that, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am not able formally to amend this code of practice which relates to the media.
My other point is somewhat different. It relates to access by the individual to information. Of course, the Minister referred to that in several of these orders. I pick out one merely to put forward my view on it; for example, the order which deals with human fertilisation and embryology information and that pertaining to adoption and parental order records. I believe that the miscellaneous subject access exemptions order most likely conflicts with the rights of the child contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, under that convention children have absolute and unrestricted access rights to their natural parents. It is very difficult to have access to one's father if one is not allowed to know who he is. Many of the children who were conceived in unusual circumstances by scientific methods, rather than natural human methods, have now reached the age of 21 or 22— that is two decades ago. I believe that almost the first thing they try to do is to find out who their father is. I ask the Minister to consider that also. Does this order conflict with the rights of the child now that the Government have imported into legislation the European Convention on Human Rights?
The conventions of this House prohibit any amendment of these orders, but there is continuing movement in the European Parliament and in the European Commission on the topic of the freedom of individuals to have access to information about them and also protection of individuals from the unacceptable assaults on their integrity, perhaps by printed media and in other ways. Therefore, apart from the occasion of these orders, I hope that there will be another opportunity soon to debate these important, major topics and that the Minister will be kind enough to take those thoughts home with him to discuss them while we accept these orders.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for her considered reflection on the orders. I am grateful also to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for his considered comments. I can be of some help both to the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount this evening, but, I confess, perhaps not as helpful as I should like to be.
I turn, first, to the Press Complaints Commission codes. I believe that I can put the noble Lord's mind at rest that the Government have absolutely no plans to change the status of the Press Complaints Commission
502
at this time. The order in itself does nothing to qualify the independence of the Press Complaints Commission. Both contributors to the discussion over these codes have drawn on the different position that the commission occupies within the overall codes that we are discussing. We fully recognise that, and we should be foolish to do otherwise.
However, I believe that in a sense there is regulation through the courts and they can decide whether a journalist claiming compliance with the code in connection with the exemption under Section 32 of the 1998 Act, does so legitimately. I believe that that is an important consideration. However, I believe that some form of regulation exists, perhaps not as some Members of your Lordships' House would expect or desire. But it is important to keep in mind that that element of regulation exists.
I believe that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, about this issue being two sides of the same coin—a reflection on what I said myself—was completely right when she addressed the question of access to information relating to human fertilisation and adoption records. I believe that there is a balance to be struck. We try to match exactly that balance with these codes. We have had to consider carefully the harm that might be done in releasing certain information to individuals about their personal circumstances. That thread runs through the orders. That brings us to the sharpest point for this particular set of orders. There should be opportunity for more debate on what is an important matter of public concern. I shall be happy to have further discussions with the noble Baroness who rightly draws our attention to the way in which the law is moving in Europe and some of the human rights considerations.
We should not be afraid of human rights considerations. We must see them as an important challenge and as an important part of the checks and balances which we have within our system. We must educate ourselves about what they may mean in those circumstances. No doubt we shall do that in the future.
If there is a conflict with the rights of the child convention—and we believe that to be unlikely—that may stem only from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The order merely preserves the exemption in the Act. That is extremely important.
Having said that, I hope that the House will approve the orders.
10 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I ask him briefly to amplify one matter. As I understand it, the order relating to the Press Complaints Commission means that the data controller, if he does not follow the code of practice, may be in a position where he breaks the rules concerning data protection and therefore breaks the law.
That is entirely reasonable in relation to all the other codes of practice because they relate to statutory bodies. However, the point I make is—and this was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—that

503
the Press Complaints Commission is an entirely independent body. Therefore, it may one day decide to change its rules and codes. There is nothing that the Government can do about that. Therefore, I ask the Minister to assure us that the Government will monitor that code of practice, look at it carefully and discuss with the Press Complaints Commission whether it intends to make any changes. If the Government found any changes to be unacceptable, they could then come to Parliament and change the orders accordingly. Perhaps the Minister will give me an assurance that the Government will monitor that process.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance. Perhaps I was not sufficiently reassuring earlier. The order designates a specific edition of the code which goes to the heart of the point
504
made by the noble Viscount. It relates to the code published in December 1997. We shall of course continue to monitor the situation and we shall consult, as we do on these matters, the Press Complaints Commission. If it changes the code, a fresh designation will be required for the new edition. Therefore, there will have to be further consultation in any event. We shall consider any request which the commission may make for designation of the code in consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner. I hope that that gives the noble Viscount the satisfaction which he seeks and clarifies the situation. As I said, we recognise the independence and the value of the independence which the Press Complaints Commission has. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  EU Directives: Implementation and Celex Database
  EU Directives: Implementation and Celex Database
  Lord Chancellor's Department DEL
  Lord Chancellor's Department DEL
  Judgments: Reciprocal Arrangements with other Countries
  Judgments: Reciprocal Arrangements with other Countries
  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  Ethnic Cleansing
  Ethnic Cleansing
  "Your Britain, Your Europe" Roadshow
  "Your Britain, Your Europe" Roadshow
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office DEL
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office DEL
  Act of Union of 1801: Bicentenary
  Act of Union of 1801: Bicentenary
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Police: Time Lost through Sickness and Injuries
  Police: Time Lost through Sickness and Injuries
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Casework System
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Casework System
  Criminal Justice System and Ethnicity
  Criminal Justice System and Ethnicity
  Probation Service: Change of Name
  Probation Service: Change of Name
  Racial Equality Commission
  Racial Equality Commission
  Crime Fighting Fund
  Crime Fighting Fund
  Religious Discrimination: University of Derby Project
  Religious Discrimination: University of Derby Project
  Broadcasting and Telecommunications Convergence
  Broadcasting and Telecommunications Convergence
  SMEs: Websites
  SMEs: Websites
  Utilities Bill: Draft Guidance
  Utilities Bill: Draft Guidance
  Beacon Councils: Modernisation of Political Management Structures
  Beacon Councils: Modernisation of Political Management Structures
  Lead Shot
  Lead Shot
  Hedgerow Protection
  Hedgerow Protection
  Trunk Road Improvement
  Trunk Road Improvement
  Merchant Shipping Regulations
  Merchant Shipping Regulations
  English Sports Council: Lottery Agreement
  English Sports Council: Lottery Agreement
  Lympne Industrial Park
  Lympne Industrial Park
  Cancer Treatment and Research
  Cancer Treatment and Research
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Timber Products: Labelling
  Timber Products: Labelling
  Maize
  Maize
  Food Products: Country of Origin Labelling
  Food Products: Country of Origin Labelling
  Meat Industry: Red Tape Review
  Meat Industry: Red Tape Review