Sitting of 10 February 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Pig Industry
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the European Commission on approval for state aid to restructure the UK pig industry. [107878]
    Mr. David Tredinnick: What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission concerning aid for UK pig farmers. [107882]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): My officials and I have held several discussions with the European Commission on the difficulties faced by UK pig producers. The most recent discussions were on Monday 24 January and on Tuesday 1 February.
    Miss McIntosh: I have come without my chocolate eclair—I shall save it for other purposes. Will the Minister confirm that he has spoken to the Commission, following the Prime Minister's undertaking to the National Farmer Union last week? The Prime Minister said:
    "I do not rule out further measures to help. But it must be linked to a strategy that provides a long-term framework."
    I have received correspondence from the Commission that shows that the Commissioner is waiting to hear from the Minister that the type of aid—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] I am prepared to put correspondence in the Library to show hon. Members that the Commissioner is on standby, waiting to help.
    386
    Pig farmers have had to replace all their units to comply with the sow stall and tether ban. They have also had to pay more than £80 million a year—more than £5 a week a pig—on a BSE equivalent tax. The Government are allowed to apply for state aids. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he has done so?
    Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the hon. Lady completely misunderstands the position. Discussions with the Commission on the difficulties in the pig sector have been continuing for some time. I have been trying to find a way through for the sector, in order to keep it operating. Any room for manoeuvre that the Commission may have—although that has not yet been settled—will be in restructuring. That is rather different.
    The burdens that I am asked to lift are to do with offal disposal—to put some extra money into the industry as an operating aid. As we have often pointed out, the big difficulty with that is that it would be viewed by the Commission—certainly by other member states—as an economic aid to the industry. If we had intended to provide such assistance because of BSE, which underpins the restrictions in the UK, we should have done so in 1996.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, a year ago, there were 470 pig farmers in the east midlands and that 70 of them have ceased trading? Is he further aware that what really angers the pig farmers is that the Belgian Government were able to obtain compensation for controls against dioxin in animal feed, but our farmers are suffering, in effect, a BSE tax? Does he not think that it behoves his Government to consider how the Belgian Government received money, while he has been unable to do so?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes the same error as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). He is confusing two separate issues. Aid for restructuring the industry—as was given to Belgium—means taking out capacity and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No Minister has ever underplayed the difficulties in the sector. We have been trying to find constructive ways to get the sector through the difficulties. In effect, the hon. Gentleman is arguing for aid to close it; that has never been our objective.
    The key issue, as I told the hon. Member for Vale of York, is the cost of offal disposal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have twice been back to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to try to find a way of getting back the commercial value for offal that existed before the restrictions were enforced. I have twice been turned down by SEAC. The Government have to act on professional advice in this matter.
    The other issue is whether we can find a form of operating aid that would be acceptable to the EU. We have been trying to make progress with the Commission on that proposition—but not successfully.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Are we being hampered, in our requests for state aids and in my right hon. Friend's negotiations, by the fact that, over 18 years of Conservative Government, the Conservatives argued repeatedly in the Commission against any form of state aid to any form of agriculture in western Europe?

    387
    They repeatedly adopted that position, and now they have done a complete somersault and placed us in a very invidious position.
    Mr. Brown: I think that we would have been on much stronger ground if we had agreed to pay some form of state aid to the pig sector when the original restrictions came in, because of BSE, in 1996. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Opposition spokesman, has confirmed to the House that such aids were not paid then because it was believed in 1996 that the industry could bear it. Having said that, he is effectively saying that any payment now would be an economic intervention—which is precisely what the Commission says back to us, when not allowing us to make any such payment.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who took us into this lousy Common Market? In October 1971, the Tories took us into the Common Market. When we had a referendum in 1975, I went round Bolsover and many other areas, asking the farmers to support us to get out of it. What happened? Sadly, the farmers had been kidded on by the newspapers supporting the Tory party and all the rest, which were saying, "There will be money for you in the Common Market." The pig farmers, those dealing with cows and all the rest of them would not listen to people like us, and the net result is that they have got it round the neck.
    I am fed up to the back teeth of listening to these Johnnys-come-lately who voted for the Common Market, for the Maastricht treaty and for the Single European Act and got us into this almighty mess, and who are now standing on their political heads.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to chide the parliamentary Opposition for their views on Europe. It is true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I said, "For their views on Europe." Hon. Members should listen carefully before going "Oh!" It is true to say that the common agricultural policy, as structured, does not work well for British farmers. That is why the Government strive for reform and have made more progress on it than anyone else ever did.
    Mr. Colin Breed: What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury in respect of funds that may be made available for state aid to the pig industry? Is there any underspend in his budget in respect of BSE-related expenditure?
    Mr. Brown: There is no underspend in my budget that I could use to provide an emergency aid package for the pig sector. Extra support for the pig sector would mean a call on sums of money that are not contained within my Department's budget. Discussions of moneys that are to be spent on supporting agriculture continue with the Treasury, but the sum of money that can be spent is finite and I certainly have nothing new to announce to the House today.
    Mr. Mark Todd: In a conversation earlier this week, Mr. Fischler made it absolutely clear to me and some of my colleagues that there was no prospect of state aid related directly to the £5.26 additional BSE burden, and that the only prospect lay with short-term assistance focused on capacity reduction for restructuring.
    388
    Is that the Minister's understanding, and would that therefore suggest that we must look carefully at a package of that kind and also at lifting the restrictions imposed by SEAC?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has accurately explained the position, although I do not draw quite the same conclusions. I have been trying very hard not to close the door on any avenue that might work. I have repeatedly told the House that getting state aid clearance from the Commission on providing assistance on the offal disposal measure was always going to be incredibly difficult; but I have been trying hard not to close the door on that.
    Mr. Michael Jack: As we stand in the House at the moment, there are pig farmers outside fighting for the very future of their industry. They deserve our support. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has retailed only part of the conversation, which I also heard, with Commissioner Fischler this week. In that conversation, he made it absolutely clear that he was awaiting proposals from the United Kingdom Government, perhaps of an innovative nature, dealing with restructuring and measures to improve the efficiency of the industry, but none had been received by Tuesday of this week. For the sake of those pig farmers in Parliament square, will the Minister tell us when he will come up with a proposal to help save their industry?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman obviously was not paying attention to the earlier exchanges. We have been exploring how best to use the limited sums of public money available to help the industry get through. What he is now advocating—I should be interested to hear whether it is the official position of the Conservative party—is a package to restructure permanently, by which he means downsize, the industry. That is something quite different.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the problems in the pig industry resulted from the collapse of a particular market that the British pig industry used to have? Can he confirm that, when he does put forward proposals to the European Commission, they will be about the long-term sustainability of the pig industry and will not result in the problems that we have seen in other sectors of the agriculture industry, where short-term gain and proppings-up have made the industry dependent on subsidies from Europe in a way that is not in the long-term interests of the industry as a whole, or of individual farmers?
    Mr. Brown: The support that the industry can receive from the European Union is export refunds and aids to private store. I have asked the Commission to make use of those instruments, but, because of the broader European scene, it has declined to do so. However, we have made that request.
    As I have said repeatedly, the public moneys that are available for that purpose are limited and I would rather use what public moneys are available to get the industry through and closer to the marketplace. That is why I announced at the NFU conference the use of the extra moneys behind the meat livestock promotion campaign and other pig industry-related marketing initiatives.

    389
    That is the way to get the industry through its problems. I am not persuaded by those who say that we should try to get some public moneys to close the industry. That now seems to be the view of the Opposition.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Last July, the Minister promised that he would write to all public sector purchasers, but he did nothing for four months. Before Christmas, he promised to end the scandal of fraudulent labelling that allows foreign pigmeat to be described as British, but he refuses to support the honesty in labelling Bill. Last week, the Prime Minister promised help for pig farmers, but the Commission has confirmed that no request has even been made by the British Government for such help. Meanwhile, pig farmers are restructuring themselves by going out of business. Is the Minister too busy writing scripts for "The Archers" to realise that his failure to act and his weakness are driving hundreds of pig farmers out of business every month and forcing British consumers to eat more pigmeat that has been produced under inferior animal welfare conditions?
    Mr. Brown: This is pretty poor stuff. We have heard about the letters to support the industry. They are part of a Meat and Livestock Commission campaign that has been co-ordinated with it. There has been no unreasonable delay in my Ministry sending the letters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me try this again, although you will be familiar with the argument, Madam Speaker, having had to listen to it on at least three previous occasions. The letters were part of a co-ordinated campaign with the Meat and Livestock Commission. I had hoped that it would be a campaign that would unite Parliament and that everyone would get behind our domestic producers. However, all the Opposition seem able to do is to snipe, to make jokes and to say that things should have been done differently or should have been done more speedily. What they do not do is come up with constructive suggestions of their own. I notice that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Opposition, did not confirm whether it was now the Opposition's policy that Her Majesty's Government should approach the Commission with a scheme to downsize the industry. Is that the hon. Gentleman's policy, or is it not?
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best aid that the pig industry could receive would be to have a proper system of labelling? At the present, one rifles through a supermarket's bacon counter where one sees "Wiltshire cured" written in extremely large letters on the packets. However, in tiny letters underneath, it is made clear that the bacon has nothing to do with the British pig industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will view as a matter of urgency the need for real changes, so that those of us who support the better welfare system that British pigs have are given every opportunity to exercise our consumer choice without the difficulties that we encounter.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have issued tough new guidance—because that is within my competence—to trading standards officers. I hope that they will make use of it through the courts to ensure that labelling on the origins of livestock products is not misleading. That is particularly important in the pork sector.
    390
    The legislation introduced through the private Member's route is clearly designed to skirmish with the European Union, whose competence labelling is, rather than to solve any problem that is faced in the United Kingdom.

    Bovine Tuberculosis
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the progress of the trials investigating the control and spread of bovine TB. [107879]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):Six triplets have been enrolled in the badger culling trial and initial proactive culling has been carried out in three of them. We aim to announce the remaining trial areas in the course of this year.
    Mr. Winterton: Although bovine TB is a highly complex scientific issue, does the Minister agree that it is also an urgent economic issue for farmers, particularly the dairy farmers in my constituency of Macclesfield, in Congleton, in Eddisbury and in other constituencies elsewhere in the country? Although there is a need for scientific investigation, does he agree that that should not be used as an excuse for Government inaction? What steps are the Government now taking urgently to control the spread of bovine TB?
    Mr. Morley: We regard bovine TB as one of the most serious issues that MAFF faces. We have committed significant resources to the Krebs experiment, but it would be undermined if we took action outside the trial areas. However, we are concerned about the spread of TB. We have set up the TB forum, which has the freedom to consider the situation outside the experiment areas, and we shall listen to its advice carefully.
    Mr. David Drew: I am sure that we shall debate the matter at greater length in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to consider help with consequential loss, particularly when herds that have been closed can be re-closed because of the increased incidence of bovine TB? We must consider in particular the discrimination against those farmers who seek to reduce their cost base by increasing collaboration and by sharing milking. They are the very people who are most adversely affected by that awful disease.
    Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. As he knows, we have increased compensation to farmers by 200 per cent., to reflect the problems that they face because of TB. We are not in a position to make extra compensation for consequential losses, but we will keep the situation under review.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Is the Minister aware that the delays, uncertainty and secrecy surrounding the studies of badgers and TB are causing great consternation throughout Worcestershire, which is one of the areas in which the trials are meant to be taking place?
    Mr. Morley: There have been delays and problems with recruitment, the weather and interference. Some of

    391
    those problems were predicted and we were not surprised by them. The independent scientific group still believes that the experiment is on course and that we can deal with the problems, and we are tackling them.

    Flood Defences
    Mr. Steve McCabe: What progress has been made in implementing the Bye report on flood defence; and if he will make a statement. [107880]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):A good deal of progress has been made towards the Government's priority of a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response.
    Mr. McCabe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, with climate change becoming more and more of a reality, the need for effective flood defences, particularly in low-lying areas, cannot be overstated? Is he satisfied that the Environment Agency is on target to complete its action plan for flood defences?
    Mr. Morley: I am glad to say that the Environment Agency is meeting the target that we set for the action plan that we put in place following the Northampton floods. We are certainly facing rising sea levels, and we are building in projections to our sea defence strategy and making more resources available, but of course we cannot prevent all floods. We can improve warnings and try to minimise risk. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to all the staff from the Environment Agency, local authorities and the emergency services who worked so hard over the holiday period to shore up defences.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: We echo those sentiments about work done by the Environment Agency. What consultations has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the implications of its strictures on building on flood plains for the overall capacity of counties, such as Northamptonshire, in or near the south-east to absorb the houses that DETR wishes on them as part of its proposals? Does he not realise that it will be impossible both to make land available for housing and to safeguard the same land because of its enhanced apparent flood risk?
    Mr. Morley: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are in consultation with DETR. The Bye report referred to problems of flood plain development and the fact that, in the past, advice from the former National Rivers Authority was not taken into account. The issue is important, and I know that my colleagues in DETR will take it into account in future planning guidance.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Will my hon. Friend comment further on progress being made by the Environment Agency in respect of advice given to planning authorities? I thank my hon. Friend and his staff for the professional and sensitive manner in which they dealt with the queries of my constituents. Often, advice
    392
    given by the Environment Agency to a local authority is at best non-committal, and sometimes unhelpful and over-cautious. Finally, may I welcome the appointment of Sir John Harman? Having had a run-in with his predecessor, I hope to have a much better relationship with him.
    Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been deeply involved in these matters, following the tragedy that occurred in Northampton. I am sure that he will be pleased to see all the lessons learned from that being applied. One result is that the Environment Agency has now produced flood risk plans, which are being sent to all local authorities in the country so that they know the areas at risk. That will assist planning policy for the future.

    Northern Ireland (BSE)
    William Thompson: What progress is being made in discussions with the European Commission to categorise Northern Ireland as a low BSE incidence area; and if he will make a statement. [107881]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The matter is under discussion between the UK Agriculture Departments. The Northern Ireland Minister, Brid Rogers, made out a strong case when we met recently. I find the Northern Ireland case persuasive and want to help to take it forward constructively.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for his positive reply. I am sure that he appreciates the efforts that have been made by the new Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland to further the case. It is a strong case, and I urge the Minister to redouble his efforts to bring it to a happy fruition, because of its importance to the farming industry in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brown: I want to work constructively with the responsible authorities in Northern Ireland to take the issue forward in a constructive way. The case is a good one. Other countries that have been accepted as low risk, such as the Republic of Ireland, have a higher incidence of the disease than Northern Ireland. The House may be interested to know that, in 1999, there were some eight cases of BSE per million head of adult cattle in Northern Ireland. That compares with about 25 in Ireland, 50 in Switzerland, 230 in Portugal and 365 in Great Britain.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I was pleased with my right hon. Friend's response. I support the position adopted by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) who, on this matter, is supporting a united Ireland approach and obviously believes in equality for farmers throughout the island of Ireland. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Ulster Farmers Union has stated:
    "On science and on fact we qualify as a low incidence region."
    There were, I believe, only six cases of BSE in Northern Ireland in 1999.
    Mr. Brown: The figure that I have is between seven and eight, but we will not quarrel—the point is clear. We have not yet succeeded, but the case is a good one, founded in fact, and I want to take it forward.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: If the Minister is too weak to stand up for Northern Ireland, will he tell us— [Interruption.] Yes, he is engulfed in bureaucratic excuses for not doing what the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) asked. Will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to protect British consumers against the dangers of eating French beef, following this week's report which exposed the scandalously defective procedures in France, where large numbers of potential BSE cases are being slaughtered without proper inspection or even proper recording, and from which meat is being sold for human consumption?
    Mr. Brown: I see now why the hon. Gentleman was not moved in his party's last reshuffle—certainly not to Northern Ireland. These issues are not easy. The proper approach is to work constructively with those who understand them and to find a constructive way forward. We do exactly the same on food safety issues—
    Mr. John Bercow: Supine.
    Mr. Brown: I do not think that the public who are being protected by the measure that we have in place would regard the Government's attitude as supine. Such remarks come ill from members of the Conservative party, which presided over the BSE crisis in this country. We act on professional advice on the safety of food and of imported food, and we will continue to do so.

    Food Standards Agency
    Helen Jones: When he will establish the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [107883]
    Mr. Tony Colman: When he will establish the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [107889]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We successfully completed the legislation to establish the Food Standards Agency in November last year. We are on course for the agency to begin work in the spring and it will be accountable to this House through the Secretary of State for Health.
    Helen Jones: I know that consumers will welcome the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. Given the widespread public concern and confusion about genetically modified food, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the agency will make sure that proper advice and information, including proper labelling, are available, so that consumers may make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to eat products containing GM food?
    Ms Quin: Even in advance of the establishment of the agency, the Government have been active on labelling with relation to GM food. The legislation has ensured that
    394
    the Food Standards Agency will be the competent authority for authorising GM foods. It will be assisted by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, and the existing arrangements within Government. We are happy that, with the establishment of the agency, we will have an excellent regulatory system in which the consumers of this country can have confidence.
    Mr. Colman: I am pleased with that answer, but it is my view that there should be a UN-based, not a World Trade Organisation-based, world food standards agency. What discussions have my right hon. Friend's officials had, in setting up the UK Food Standards Agency, with the officials at the Codex Alimentarius, which is administered by the World Health Organisation and the FAO?
    Ms Quin: Officials regularly meet with WHO officials and those specifically involved in the Codex Alimentarius outfit.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Outfit?
    Ms Quin: Yes. We are making a positive contribution to the Codex Alimentarius system. My hon. Friend raises an important point because, although the establishment of the Food Standards Agency here is important, it is also vital that this country's knowledge and expertise in some areas is channelled into the wider UN system and the WHO.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: In major cases of food poisoning in meat in the future, who will be held publicly responsible—the Meat Hygiene Service or the Food Standards Agency, which will be simultaneously policing the Meat Hygiene Service as well as administering it?
    Ms Quin: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the interesting Third Reading debate held in the other place, he will see that my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, who leads for the Government on the issue, went into detail about the relationship between the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency, so that they are able to work with each other, while having their separate responsibilities and functions.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Will the powers of the European food authority—which we assume that the Government support—override those of the UK Food Standards Agency? If it does not take precedence, why cannot the Government go ahead unilaterally with a scheme for simple, clear and honest labelling of food products? Does it not speak volumes about this Government's track record of saying one thing and doing another that, although they pay lip service to labelling, they cannot bring themselves to support the private Member's Bill soon to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien)?
    Ms Quin: The Government support in general terms the proposals of the European Commission to establish a European Union food standards authority. We will work with the Commission and our partners in the Council of Ministers to try to make sure that the final system that comes out of the consultation process is as effective as possible.

    395
    We have had the Commission's support in recent food safety disputes because we have accepted our responsibilities in the European Union framework and ensured that our national system complements it. We believe that we can have a system whereby we benefit from the strength of the EU acting together and make a constructive input to that system through our own Food Standards Agency. When there is clear agreement at European level to take certain action and enact certain policies we shall abide by it, by contrast with certain other EU countries at present.

    Organic Farming
    Ms Joan Walley: How many farmers began the process of conversion to organic production in 1999. [107884]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): All 1,176 farmers who applied for conversion aid under the organic farming scheme in 1999 had begun the process of conversion by the beginning of the year. Few, if any, will have converted without applying for aid.
    Ms Walley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He should be congratulated on the extra money for organic farming, but may I warn him that he could be a victim of his own success? I understand that in January 2000 alone, the Organic Conversion Information Service received 351 applications from people wishing to convert to organic production. Will there be new money for new conversions between now and April 2001? If not, will he have further urgent talks to see what extra money could be available through the rural development plan? Will he perhaps consider what has been done in Wales and the possibility of giving retrospective guarantees for those who want to convert before April 2001?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. There has been a huge increase in organic conversion and that is not unrelated to our doubling of organic conversion payments in order to encourage it. The Government want to give farmers as many diversification options as possible. The allocation to April 2001 has been made; but I take my hon. Friend's point and we shall take further action if there are opportunities to do so. However, I reassure her that the England rural development plan makes available a further £140 million for organic conversion over the next seven years.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Is the Minister available—[Laughter.] I am sure he is. Is he aware of how badly livestock producers who have converted to organic fanning have been affected by the decimation of the rural abattoir network, which has made it effectively impossible for many of them to sell their meat as organic? I urge him urgently to consider that question and the establishment of a proper network of mobile abattoirs in rural areas.
    Mr. Morley: That is an important point. At least two mobile abattoirs are operated by the Humane Slaughter Association and they play an important role in terms of organic livestock. As part of the review of red tape, we are
    396
    considering some of the cost burdens on small abattoirs— which also have an important part to play in the organic sector—to see what assistance we can give them.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend agree that organic production is based on good science and best farming practice? In the light of recent utterly unwarranted claims that there are dangers in organic food, will the Department undertake to evaluate its merits, or perhaps suggest that the Food Standard Agency make that one of its first priorities?
    Mr. Morley: I understand that a number of organic organisations are carrying out a detailed study of some of the points to which my hon. Friend refers. I saw the article in question. Articles are written for and against organic food and some claims are not always backed by the facts. I agree that any claim for organic or non-organic food must be backed by sound science, and the Department will evaluate all the available information it has.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Is the Minister aware of consumers' growing demand for organic foods, and of the fact that 70 per cent, of organic food sold through British shops is imported? Will he do more to make money available to British farmers who want to convert? The supply of money from the Ministry does not meet the demand from agriculture.
    Mr. Morley: Demand has certainly increased, but only 400 farmers converted to organic farming under the regime of the previous Administration. In the past year alone, 1,100 farmers converted because of the increased aid that the Government have provided. We want to do more. Organic foods constitute an expanding market, and we want our farmers to take more of a share. We are making more resources available to help them do that.

    Rural Enterprise
    Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on Government support for developing new rural enterprises. [107887]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The England rural development plan, on which we propose to spend £1.6 billion, explains how we propose to use the rural development regulation to support the development of rural enterprises over the next seven years.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Farmers in my constituency and the National Farmers Union recognise that agriculture faces structural problems which require fundamental change, as well as short-term measures to help with current difficulties. I welcome the Government's rural development plan, which signals a new direction for farming and the rural economies. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the proposed transfer of wasteful subsidies to new environmental schemes and farming enterprises will mean real cash and support for farming communities in my constituency?
    Ms Quin: Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend about that, because we have been able to get extra spending from the Government to match the modulation system that

    397
    we are introducing, and because there have been increases in some specific schemes to help the transition to organic farming, as well as marketing and enterprise schemes. Real new money is available and my hon. Friend is right to say that it represents a new way forward.
    The regulation is important because it allows support to be given to some of the sectors that do not receive mainstream support from the subsidised common agricultural policy. It allows pig farmers, poultry farmers and others to apply for assistance. It thus provides for a better, more flexible system in future.
    Mr. James Paice: Following the Prime Minister's successful tour of the south-west last week, when he managed to convince any remaining doubters that he knows nothing and cares less about the true state of the rural economy and of rural enterprise, why did he not tell farmers about the proposed closure of two thirds of MAFF regional offices? That could mean the end of the Exeter office, which is the only MAFF office in the south-west. Does the Minister understand the impression that that will give to farmers, who are in the middle of an agricultural crisis, and who need the support from, and the face-to-face contact with, excellent MAFF officials? If the Minister goes ahead and closes two thirds of the network of offices, it will simply confirm to farmers that the Government are all talk and no action and that they do not care.
    Ms Quin: That was an extraordinary question, given the launch last week of the rural development plan and the extra money that we have put into agriculture. As well as the Prime Minister's visit to the south-west, during which he spent two days in the region, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Ministers from the Ministry and from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions visited rural areas throughout the country.
    The launch of the rural development plan was important to show that we are keen to ensure that the new measures benefit all regions of the country. In the Ministry's regional review, we are trying to ensure that the service to regions is enhanced, not reduced. The hon. Gentleman's alarmist claims are therefore completely wide of the mark.

    Subsidies (CAP)
    Mr. Andrew Reed: What estimate he has made of the proportion of farm income derived from subsidies and price supports under the common agricultural policy. [107888]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The overall value of direct payments and price supports received by UK producers in 1998–99 represented 230 per cent, of total income from farming.
    Mr. Reed: Despite the enormous subsidies that go to farmers, we recognise that they are in crisis. However, does that not show that we are not getting good value for money from the common agricultural policy and other policies? Will the Minister ensure that we work harder to get much more of that money into things such as rural development plans to allow those farmers to convert,
    398
    and so that farmers are eventually paid for the work which they do but are not paid for—country stewardship and such things—rather than the Government interfering in the way they work on their farms?
    Ms Quin: I welcome the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. We want a new sense of direction in agriculture. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve through the rural development regulation. The way the CAP has developed in recent years has distorted payments throughout the agriculture sector. Often, it has been difficult to support the sectors that we have wanted to support. At the same time, money has been spent through the CAP in a distorting way. We have made an imaginative start with the rural development regulation. I am glad that certain other European countries are taking a close interest in what we are doing.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What provision the Crown Prosecution Service makes for Welsh speakers in the conduct of proceedings in Wales. [107907]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): It has been the CPS's policy in the conduct of its business to treat the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality. That policy was given further effect by the publication of the "Welsh Language Scheme" on 27 January. The Welsh Language Board has approved the scheme. It aims to enable anyone who communicates with the CPS in Wales to do so in Welsh, if they so choose.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. and learned Friend confident that there are enough Welsh-speaking chief Crown prosecutors to ensure that, in all cases where participants are Welsh speakers, they will be able to use their mother tongue?
    The Solicitor-General: There are a number of Crown prosecutors who can speak Welsh. I think that about a quarter of them can, which compares favourably with the population as a whole. In addition, there are members of the Bar in Wales who can conduct trials in Welsh. Although it is a responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department, there are people who can interpret. I am confident that people in Wales can conduct criminal proceedings in Welsh.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As a member of the Welsh Bar, I know that provision is patchy in Wales. The CPS should run courses to train people to conduct and to deal with advocacy through the medium of the Welsh language. It is only proper that that should happen; and it should be an all-Wales scheme.
    The Solicitor-General: As I said in my original answer, there is a dual policy. The Welsh language advocacy training programme supports Crown prosecutors to enable them to prosecute cases in Welsh—but I take the point. We are working on it.

    Unclaimed Assets
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What criteria are applied to the distribution of unclaimed assets of dissolved companies and intestate individuals; and if he will make a statement. [107908]
    The Solicitor-General: In the case of dissolved companies, their beneficial property and rights vest in the Crown as bona vacantia. The Treasury Solicitor acts as the Crown's nominee for dealing with such assets for England and Wales, other than in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster.
    The criteria for distribution of the estate of intestate individuals are laid down in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. Where an individual has died intestate without known kin, the estate will fall to the Crown.
    Dr. Iddon: How does the Treasury Solicitor dispose of money arising from those sources that is left in bank accounts? What is the value of such money?
    The Solicitor-General: To answer the second question first, some £10 million net every year is administered in that way. In relation to money in bank accounts, that will go to the Crown, although it may be that claims can be made by, for example, unpaid creditors. In some cases, former members of the dissolved company can make an application.
    Mr. John Burnett: Is there a register, open to the public, of unclaimed estates of intestates? What is the time limit for claimants with genuine and proven claims to make claims against the Crown where assets have been confiscated by the Crown? Is that time limit effectively 30 years?
    The Solicitor-General: There is no such register of intestate individuals. I understand that there are about 2,000 cases every year, and that in about one third of them a next-of-kin is ultimately identified, so that money does not go bona vacantia. In some cases persons who do not have a legal claim but may have a moral claim—for example, they looked after the deceased—can make a claim and the Treasury Solicitor may make an ex gratia payment. The hon. Gentleman is right about the time limit; there is a time limit.

    Rape Prosecutions
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will review the arrangements for the prosecution of crimes of rape. [107909]
    The Solicitor-General: The principles applied by the Crown Prosecution Service in rape cases are governed by the code for Crown prosecutors. In order to prosecute, a Crown prosecutor must be satisfied that the evidential and public interest tests set out in the code are met.
    The Home Office is leading a review of all sex offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and expects to issue a consultation document this spring.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In all seriousness, what are we to do about women who make false allegations of rape
    400
    against men, sometimes four years after the alleged event? Surely juries have a duty to demand far more evidence if they want to convict, because very often their decisions, which can be wrong, lead to further injustice, as happened in the case of Owen Oyston.
    The Solicitor-General: The conviction rate in reported rape cases is 9 per cent; it is quite low. There is quite a high attrition rate. The CPS will prosecute only if a very high evidential test is met. It must be sure that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. Because consent is the issue in most cases, and because the parties involved in the majority of cases will have an acquaintanceship, that is a very difficult evidential test to be met. So I assure my hon. Friend that prosecutions are undertaken only in cases where there is clear evidence. Moreover, the public interest test that I mentioned will almost always be met, given that rape is a gross violation of a person's integrity.

    Information Technology (Reading CPS)
    Jane Griffiths: What plans he has for investment in information technology for the Crown Prosecution Service in Reading in 2000–01. [107910]
    The Solicitor-General: I am pleased to report that the Reading CPS office will benefit from a significant IT investment this year and next.
    The sum of £12 million from the Government's capital modernisation fund, together with existing CPS resources, will fund the so-called Connect 42 project, which will enable CPS staff to have access to modern PCs across the 42 CPS areas for the first time. It will also facilitate electronic mail communications with other agencies. The national roll-out to all CPS areas will be between August this year and July next year.
    Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that very welcome reply. He will recall visiting the Crown Prosecution Service in Reading last year. Does he agree that the staff there will not only be grateful for this investment, but will be enabled finally to put into practice their commitment to fast and efficient justice for the 21st century?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend and I both visited the Reading office last year and saw a local initiative undertaken by one of the staff. I commend that member of staff, who has developed a local tracking system. Ultimately we need to develop the information tracking system nationally.
    As well as the £12 million modernisation fund, there is a public-private partnership which will go beyond the initial modernisation stage and will enable the different agencies—the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—to talk to each other. In the end, as my hon. Friend said, that will lead to joined-up justice between the different agencies and more efficient justice.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: No doubt the £12 million going to the Reading CPS office will be welcome—[Interruption.] Ah; it appears that there will be only £12 million nationwide. Is that not a ridiculously small sum? Information technology is not a new idea. The Government have been in office for nearly three years;

    401
    if they are only just getting round to putting a small amount of money into Reading, and only just getting round to putting £12 million into the whole CPS, is it not time for the Solicitor-General to invite the CPS inspectorate to take a thorough look at his own policy-making system, and a thorough look at the use of information technology throughout die CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman is on a bit of a high, but that was over the top.
    Under the last Government, very little money was put into technology. Crown prosecutors had virtually no access to it, and their case-tracking system was pretty hopeless. We have started the job that will give them access to basic technology. E-mails, for example, will enable them to talk to the police, and therefore operate more efficiently. Remedying the defects with which the last Administration left us, however, will require a long and detailed programme.

    Victims of Crime
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the role of police officers in dealing with victims of crime exclusively on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. [R] [107911]
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What recent steps have been taken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has a greater role in dealing directly with victims of crime. [107916]
    The Solicitor-General: Under the citizens charter, the police are responsible for keeping the victim informed of developments in the case.
    The Government have accepted the Glidewell and Macpherson recommendations in relation to the CPS assuming a greater responsibility for direct communication with victims. Six pilot studies to assess the operational impact of such communication are now under way. Information from those pilot studies will help the planning of a wider options study, due to begin in April 2000.
    Dr. Lewis: I am grateful for that constructive reply, but I urge the Solicitor-General to press on. Does he not agree that the system is skewed too much in favour of the defendant and against the victim, especially in complicated technical cases in which the defendant can directly consult the lawyers representing him, but the victim can only communicate what are sometimes precise,
    402
    detailed, technical points to the Crown prosecution lawyers via the medium of a policeman who, with the best will in the world, will be untrained in detailed legal matters? I urge the Solicitor-General to act on the results of his pilot schemes with the utmost speed.
    The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has long been interested in this matter, and he is right to suggest that the approach of the police is sometimes not the right approach, in that they can get the message garbled. It is better for the prosecutors to be able to communicate directly with victims, but this will be a long process. The practice already exists in relation to homicide, but the aim of the pilot projects is to ensure that it can apply to offences more generally.
    I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about victims' access to prosecutors, but by the same token, it is important for prosecutors to continue to act in the public interest, and in some cases that is not on all fours with the arrangements applying to defendants and their counsel.
    Mr. Coaker: Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that the CPS keeps victims of crime informed about the progress of prosecutions, and that the reasons for action taken by the CPS are explained to them?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Victims need to be kept informed, and we are taking a number of steps to ensure that they have a more central place in the criminal justice system. Their views must be taken into account, and one aspect of that is ensuring that they are kept informed. My only regret is that one of the six pilot schemes is not located in my hon. Friend's constituency; but on the basis of the national roll-out, his area will benefit
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether the Solicitor-General is satisfied that the amount of police resources available for co-operation between police and the CPS is sufficient. Has he made vigorous representations on the 5,000 police officers whom we all thought would be extra in the system—and whom the CPS requires for all the work that it is doing—or has he accepted that the number of police officers will continue to be reduced?
    The Solicitor-General: The CPS of course depends on police—police investigate, and the CPS prosecutes. We have taken a number of steps to ensure that there are adequate numbers of police officers. However, we were faced, before May 1997, with a considerable decline in the numbers of police.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (First Day).
Motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2000.
TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill.
Motions on the Greater London Authority (Election) Orders—the Greater London Authority Election Rules 2000 (SI 2000 No. 208) and the draft Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000.
WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (Second Day).
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 18 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Excellence in Education: the Government's Failure to Deliver" followed by a debate on the Millennium Dome. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion (First Day).
The provisional business for the week following the Adjournment will include:
MONDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 1 March, there will be a debate on European Community humanitarian and development aid in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 16 February, there will be a debate on the 1999 review of telecommunications legislation and radio spectrum policy in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 1 March 2000:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 10497/99, 10705/99, 11203/99, 12456/99, EC's Humanitarian and Development Aid. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC-34-xxxi (1998-1999).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the weeks thereafter. The House remains concerned about Northern Ireland. May we have a statement, on Monday,
404
from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the use that he plans to make of the powers that he has been given if the current discussions are unsuccessful?
When will the Government publish the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference? Subsequent to its publication, may we have a debate, in Government time, on Labour's plans for a European army, tax harmonisation and the renunciation of the veto?
What has happened to reform of the House of Lords? The Government invited Lord Wakeham's commission to report quickly, but, since the baton was handed over to the Government, the pace has dropped from a sprint to a stroll. When will we debate the report and learn of the Government's proposals to take matters forward?
The right hon. Lady has announced a defence debate. Will the terms of that debate be sufficiently wide to embrace the critical report of the Defence Select Committee expressing alarm at the extent of overstretch in our armed forces?
Finally, reverting to my request for a St. David's debate on Wales, would it not be appropriate for the Prime Minister to open that debate and explain to the House the precise relationship between his highly centralised Administration and the devolved Welsh Assembly
Mrs. Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend will, of course, keep the House informed. As to whether he will be coining to the House on Monday to make a statement, obviously the situation is fluid and I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that now. However, I shall certainly make my right hon. Friend aware of his express request for such a statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference will be published. I think that "soon" is the correct answer to that. However, he then made some slightly surprising observations on the European army, on tax harmonisation and on renunciation of the veto. I remind him that it was Lady Thatcher who first signed up to the notion of a European defence role. That was endorsed by her successor, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). On tax harmonisation, the Government have made it plain that we retain control of our tax affairs. On the veto, we are prepared to explore issues when there is merit for Britain's case, but we have never renounced the veto. The only person who has ever renounced Britain's veto is Lady Thatcher.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about a debate on the Wakeham report. I have already said that we are prepared to undertake such a debate. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that he has had full opportunity to digest its contents, but I do not think that most of the rest of us have. He will remember that Lord Wakeham said that he thought it deserved mature consideration.
The report of the Defence Select Committee will certainly be part of the background to our debate on the White Paper. We had to wait for the report before scheduling the debate. I do not anticipate the debate on or around St. David's day being opened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I hope that whoever speaks in it on behalf of the Conservatives will be able to explain their precise relationship with Plaid Cymru. I understand

405
that the leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly has said that they would be prepared to support a Government of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report commissioned by the Government on bed shortages in the NHS? It is a damning indictment of the stewardship of the Conservative Government, who allowed the situation to become so serious. Will she make time for a debate on beds in the NHS? She will be aware that a new hospital is being built in Halifax thanks to the Government, but some of us are concerned that there may not be enough beds in the plan.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know of the enormous amount of work and expertise that she has built up on the Health Select Committee. I am aware of the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has published today, although I have not yet had time to study it. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it was needed because of the appalling record of the Conservatives. It considers how we should provide cover in the NHS in hospitals and outside. She may like to know that my right hon. Friend will publish a consultation paper today and the Government will respond to representations on 15 May. She is right to draw attention to the fact that we need to reassess the demand for beds in the light of changes in medical treatment.
Mr. Paul Tyler: When will we have the long-delayed statement on the Government's response to the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly? Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the statement is made to the House, rather than to Mr. John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4? Will she undertake urgent discussions with her Cabinet colleagues—and, if necessary, in the appropriate organs of the House, such as the House of Commons Commission and the Modernisation Committee—about arrangements for making statements to the House? Is she aware that the Secretary of State for Health made a long and substantial statement on the "Today" programme this morning about the report to which the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has just referred? No statement is being made to the House this afternoon. Indeed, we are not even being told officially about the consultation paper. Will the right hon. Lady look again at the issue? The national beds inquiry is very important, as she said just now. Why have we not had a statement today?
We got used to government by press release under the previous Administration, but things have become a great deal worse under this Administration. How can we expect the media to take us seriously and attend our debates if they can get all the information that they need from a broadcast early in the morning?
Mrs. Beckett: We had a debate on long-term care not so long ago. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's observations, but we cannot keep returning to the issue with great frequency. The hon. Gentleman also asked why there had been no statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on the report that was published this morning. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's impression may be, the figures show clearly that this Government have made far more statements in the House than did our predecessors.
406
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the document to which he referred was a review report to the Government. My right hon. Friend was not announcing the Government's response or the policy decisions that the Government propose to take and to pursue. He was simply reporting that a review has been received and a consultation document will be issued. As for whether my right hon. Friend should have made a statement, all I can say is that if the Government were to make statements on all the issues for which statements are requested at Business questions, we would do nothing else in the House except listen to Government statements.
Mr. John Cryer: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 381?
[That this House notes with alarm the accession to power of the Austrian Freedom Party; further notes this organisation was aided by Austria's proportional electoral system; and calls on the British Government to confirm that the first past the post electoral system is fair, accountable and tends to lead to the exclusion of extremists of all kinds.]
The motion notes the aid given to the fascist Freedom party by the wretched system of proportional representation that operates in Austria—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] May we have a debate on electoral reform so that those of us who have the odd qualm about fascists, racists and Nazis can point out the shortcomings of proportional representation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has clearly commanded some support across the House. However, as he is aware, the Jenkins report has been published and, rest assured, no change will be made to the electoral system for this House without the specific endorsement of the British people in a referendum.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady will remember that last week I raised the issue of the document, "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity", and I obviously took her aback when I did so. In the past week, she will have had time to read it, and she may have read page six, which states:
"In broad terms, the countryside is prosperous, contented and reasonably well served".
May we have an urgent debate in which we can point out the circumstances that confound that statement? In Lincolnshire, for example, we have inadequate transport, inadequate road communications, petrol charges are high, the rural post offices are closing, police numbers are falling and, as I have said many times before in the House, there are inadequate funds for the provision of important drugs such as beta interferon. We want to address those matters, and a debate in the House would be a good way of triggering that process.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has indeed raised the issue of the problems in Lincolnshire before, and I am well aware of them. They include issues such as inadequate transport and the decline of rural post offices, and they went on for decades under the Government of whom he was a distinguished and senior member. I have always thought, and frequently pointed out to the people of Lincolnshire, that their problems have much to do with their predilection for electing Tory county councils and Tory MPs.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for

407
Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), may I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether we may have a debate on Britain's relations with Austria, so that the Opposition could make it clear that they dissociate themselves from the actions of their sister party, the Austrian People's party, which is in the Conservative International with the Tories and has entered a coalition with a Nazi? It would also be an opportunity for those of us who share my hon. Friend's views about aspects of electoral reform to point out that the problem in Austria is complex. It is caused not only by the electoral system, but by a failure to deal adequately with the Nazi collaboration and the Nazi past of that country over many years.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, although I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that Foreign Office questions will take place on 15 February. I hear what he says about offering the Conservatives the chance to dissociate themselves from the decision taken by their sister party. It is a real source of difficulty for people across the European Union and there is much repugnance felt for the emerging attitudes of the Government of whom the fascist party is a part. I am aware that not everybody shares the view my hon. Friend expressed—or so it seemed, from the "noises off from the Opposition last week.
Mr. Peter Brooke: While I welcome the appearance on the Order Paper of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and do not begrudge No. 10 the spin that this is by kind permission of the Prime Minister, does the Leader of the House realise that this conceals massive dilatoriness and incompetence on the part of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? I advised the Department in January 1998 that the conditions of bipartisan support existed that would enable the Bill to go before a Second Reading Committee which, two years later, the Government have found time to do.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's long support and strong efforts on behalf of what I entirely agree is a reasonable and sensible measure. However, it is not merely a matter, as he says, of the Government being unwilling or unable to deal with the matter with dispatch and efficiency. I rather think that in saying—quite correctly—that the matter generally has much cross-party support, he might have omitted from that support his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Mr. Brian White: My right hon. Friend may be aware that yesterday a number of e-businesses in the United States had to shut down because of being flooded by e-mails. Given that the Government published the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill yesterday, can she allow time before Second Reading for the Home Office to investigate the implications of that action?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. I am aware of the events to which he refers. He will note that we have a Home Office Minister
408
present who will have heard his observations. I cannot undertake that the Home Office will be able to produce a special response to that event before the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill has its Second Reading, but I can tell my hon. Friend that that sort of event is continually under review.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that I was not able to catch your eye in Agriculture questions, because the subject of the debate that I would like to ask the Leader of the House to grant concerns the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have here two letters, the first of which is from the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz Fischler, dated 22 December, in which he says:
"the Commission has recognised the BSE crisis as an exceptional occurrence, and has authorized a number of aid measures to mitigate the effects of the crisis, including aids for the pig sector."
The other letter is from a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of the British pig industry support group, in which they seek
"the grant of an 'exceptional occurrence' and/or restructuring state aid to the pig industry".
I tabled a question on 27 January; I received a reply on 7 February. My question to the Minister was— [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am rather pleased that the hon. Gentleman did not catch my eye during Question Time, otherwise I might have had to ask him to sit down. I think that the Leader of the House has the gist of what he is seeking, which is a major debate on these issues. Is that right?
Mr. Gill: May I repeat my question very briefly, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Gill: My question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was:
"what representations he has received regarding EU grants for exceptional occurrences within the pig industry"
The answer was:
"We have received no representations and there are no such EU grants."—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 78W.]
This matter needs to be cleared up in a debate.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If I dare to disagree mildly with you, Madam Speaker, I am slightly sorry that he did not catch your eye, because he might have found someone from MAFF who was in a position to reply to his points. However, I will certainly undertake to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I inform my right hon. Friend that I have digested Wakeham? I know that Lord Wakeham wants the life peers to continue down in the other place until they drop. Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to reflect on the implications of my early-day motion 376 on the life expectancy of life peers?

409
[That this House notes the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords which allows for existing life peers to remain in the Upper House should they so wish; further notes that the average age of male life peers is around 70 years compared with 64 years for women; calculates that the expected number of life peers dying within 11 years is around 49 per cent, of the 543 life peers (out of 550) whose dates of birth are readily available; postulates that it would be around 20 years before this expected number reached three quarters of existing life peers and 29 years before this figure reached 90 per cent.; considers it inappropriate for appointed peers to serve in Parliament long into the 21st century; recognises that appointment is no substitute for election; and calls for a wholly elected Upper House of 100 members.]
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that according to my calculations, half of them will be dead within 11 years; 75 per cent, of them will be dead within 20 years; 90 per cent, of them will be dead within 29 years, but 10 per cent, will still be alive and kicking well into the next century? [Interruption.] I meant this century.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being numerate at the moment. He had better put his question.
Mr. Prentice: Everyone knows what I meant, Madam Speaker.
May I add my Back-Bench voice to the shadow Leader of the House's call for an early debate on Wakeham?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interesting observations and statistics, which the House will study closely when they appear in Hansard. I take note of his point, but also note that this is the first occasion, of which I am aware, on which my hon. Friend has agreed with something said by the Conservatives.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In reply to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who requested a debate next week on Austria, the Leader of the House rightly pointed out that there will be Foreign Office questions soon. However, do we not need a much wider debate than that on foreign affairs and on the incongruity of Labour policy? The Government are forbidding high-level visits not only to Austria, but to Chile—another good friend of this country. On the other hand, a succession of high-level dignitaries have gone to Cuba, China and other countries with nefarious regimes. The ethical foreign policy is in tatters and our interests are being damaged. May we have an early debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that our policy on Austria is not merely that of the Labour party, but of all the Governments of the European Union. [Interruption.] I know that that fact may be unwelcome to the hon. Gentleman, and he may consider it a recommendation against the policy. However, Governments across Europe are deeply concerned by events in Austria and have taken the same action as the British Government.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker, as I was so excited by the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that I nearly forgot to stand up.
410
Does my right hon. Friend recall that three weeks ago I referred to rumblings on the Government Back Benches about the freezing of the minimum wage? Does she accept that those rumblings have grown? Indeed, the rumbling that took place in Committee Room 7 last night may well have reached the Chamber by now. Does she agree that it is vital to have an early statement about a policy that seems to be leading to a decline in the real standards of living of some of the poorest people in our country? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early statement?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I am aware of the concern that has been expressed. I am also aware of the popularity of the national minimum wage. So popular is it, indeed, that the Conservatives have decided that they cannot afford to continue to say that they will scrap it. May I mention a slight misapprehension? The Low Pay Commission's recommendation about the minimum wage was intended to be implemented on the date on which it actually came into force. It was not set a year early, and was not, therefore, already out of date by the time it came into force.
Some debates on the matter have overlooked the fact that the timing of the rate's setting was explicitly understood. However, I fully recognise that some people believe that the rate should be increased. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is also aware of that view.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the right hon. Lady find time, not too distant from the time of the defence debate, for the House to discuss the Government's response to changes in the Western European Union, the only organisation in which European countries not in NATO may discuss defence matters? Do the Government take a positive stance one way or the other—for or against—on our future parliamentary representation at the WEU? Would she also find time to discuss the future relationship of Parliament with the Council of Europe and with NATO? All three institutions require review, and all three deserve some of the Chamber's time for a debate on our reaction to proposed changes.
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman raises a serious point; the changes that are afoot in all those bodies are worthy of consideration. However, although those matters are important and serious, it would probably be difficult to find time for them on the Floor of the House because the pressure on business in the Chamber is always so great. The hon. Gentleman might consider whether it would pay him and those who take a special interest in these matters to pursue them in a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. David Winnick: I know that there has been criticism from Conservative Members in the Chamber today, and outside it, about the cancellation of the visit to Austria for the trade fair in May by a high-level person. Bearing in mind that the Freedom party is led by a person who recently described SS troops as decent people who have character, will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to holding a debate on Britain's relations with Austria?

411
In view of the fact that some of the criticism comes from those Conservative Members who are, first and foremost, defenders of Pinochet, should we not demonstrate that it is not only Pinochet, but characters who are willing to glorify the Nazis, whom the Tories consider worthy of attention and approval?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that some Conservative Members have criticised the decision that has been made, and have expressed unhappiness about the stance taken over developments in Austria. I also recognise how abhorrent most of us will find many of the statements that are being made by the Austrian party to which my hon. Friend refers.
However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter, although the temptation to expose the inadequacies and divisions of the Conservative party is always strong.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady consider a further debate on the future of sub-post offices? Does she realise that, although many debates have been held in the Chamber, in Opposition time, and in Westminster Hall, we have never received a straight answer to the question that we put so many times? Why, despite Government assurances, does the literature that they and their agencies distribute lead people to assume that, after 2003, they will have no choice? We need a debate so that Ministers can say, once and for all, that they are encouraging people to move over to banks, or that they will change the literature that gives people that impression? We need an urgent debate on that matter— we need it next week.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid I cannot undertake to find time for the debate that the hon. Gentleman requests. Ministers have repeatedly made it clear that, of course, people will continue to have the choice to draw their benefits as they do at present. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that, on Tuesday, the Postal Services Bill will receive its Second Reading.
Mr. Geraint Davies: When are we likely to have a debate on public transport substitution? With the arrival of the tramlink in Croydon, there are fears that the 130 bus will be cut—[Laughter.]—It is an important issue. Furthermore, in relation to public transport in Croydon, we need to consider guidance on retail car parking for in-town redevelopment, such as limits on car parking and environmental impacts. Might Third Reading of the Transport Bill provide an opportunity for that?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to raise issues of concern in his constituency at Business questions— many hon. Members do so. I am aware—as are many Members—that Croydon has had transport problems for a long time. They are the result—at least in part—of the Conservative legacy. I hope that my hon. Friend will use opportunities such as debates on the Transport Bill to raise those issues. It is a welcome change for an hon. Member to realise that such debates provide those opportunities, rather than to call for special debates.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate on the subject of Mr. Romano
412
Prodi—that well-known, intimate friend and protegee of the Prime Minister? Mr. Prodi seems to be given to making increasingly outlandish statements about the future of Europe. It would be of great importance to the House and to the people of this country if we knew much more about the Prime Minister's reaction to the statements of his friend and protegee—in whom the right hon. Gentleman places such trust and whom he so much admires—so that we can know whether the Government support Mr. Prodi's vision of the future of Europe and of the relationship between this country and Europe. Surely, that matter is of the greatest importance and urgency—before Mr. Prodi gets completely out of hand and takes the Prime Minister with him.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I see no need for a special debate, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister always makes plain his view on these matters. Secondly, I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I reminded him last week, that I fear I have ceased to take his bona fides on this matter seriously since I discovered that in 1975, when I was warning people of precisely what he is now complaining of, he was campaigning for the other side.
Mr. Tony Colman: I note that, so far, no date has been set for the Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which of course ratifies the additional protocol to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has passed through all its stages in the other place. Last year, it received support from both sides of the House with the exception of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
I would suggest that it is especially important that the Bill passes through all its stages in the House and receives Royal Assent before the end of March, because an international review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is being held in New York at the beginning of April, and it is very important that the United Kingdom Minister at those talks is able to carry forward the view of the House that we need to take further measures to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are hunted out in any country in this world.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a very close interest in, and done a great deal of work on that issue. He is right that the cause that he describes is important not only to this country and to our national well-being, but to international well-being. I hope that perhaps there will be an outbreak of discipline and common sense on the Opposition Benches and that perhaps such a Bill will pass, but, as my hon. Friend knows, that remains to be seen.
Mr. David Maclean: Will the right hon. Lady arrange an urgent debate on the shambles that the Prime Minister has made of the United Kingdom constitution? We see an utter shambles in Wales as the Welsh reject the Prime Minister's poodle; we see the prospect of a similar thing happening shortly to the First Minister in Scotland; and—without even mentioning Northern Ireland—we see the shambles that is now emerging from the other place, with uncompleted constitutional reform and even that Chamber, with the Prime Minister's placemen, rejecting the Prime Minister's policies. We have half-hearted constitutional reform in this Chamber.

413
When can we obtain an early debate, so that we may point out to the right hon. Lady that the latest polls show that the majority of the people of this country believe that the Government are now damaging the integrity of the United Kingdom, rather than making it more inclusive?
Mrs. Beckett: Oh, dear, dear—I fear that the right hon. Gentleman was not listening with his usual close attention a few minutes earlier, or else he would have raised a different matter. It is pointless for any Conservative Member to talk about the shambles of policy on issues such as devolution when, despite the fact that members of the Conservative party opposed devolution because they said that it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, they are now proposing to support Plaid Cymru, which calls for exactly that, in the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Graham Brady: Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to say when the Government will grant the debates that were recommended by the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which called for debates in both Houses to fix the numbers of special advisers that the Government can employ? Is that not especially important in the light of today's news that the number of staff employed at Downing street has increased by 300 per cent, since the last election, and especially as we discovered yesterday that even with three times as many people at Downing street, they still cannot tell the Prime Minister what is going on?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raised that point last week. I am aware of the report. It may come before the House at some point, although it will not be next week. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party make something of an error in continuing to draw attention to that point and to say that there are now more advisers than were enjoyed by the previous Government. Given the previous Government's catastrophic record and the general election result, surely that is not an argument in their favour.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Following the humiliating circumstances of the resignation of the First Secretary in Wales yesterday, has the right hon. Lady had any approach by the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House? I understand that he does a two-day week and therefore has plenty of time available. Has she had any suggestions from the Government that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland should do a job share and merely come here occasionally to speak on the subject of Wales or Scotland?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the folly of the argument pursued by Conservative Members, in that they are now apparently prepared to countenance a party that advocates the break-up of the United Kingdom. He is also overlooking the pattern of events in the Welsh Assembly—on occasions, with the support of the Conservative party, it has had a vote of confidence once in every 17 sitting days. How the Welsh Assembly conducts its business is entirely a matter for it, but that suggests to me that it might do more constructive things.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given the Government's dramatic reduction in police numbers—by
414
1,700 since they came to power, including a further 27 in Cheshire in just the past 10 months—and given that the Home Secretary is here to listen to my point, will the Leader of the House make time for a full-day's debate on how the Government have let down my constituents in Cheshire and the people in this country, whose fears are rising in direct proportion to the reduction in police numbers that has happened under this Government? Will the Home Secretary write to every hon. Member to tell us how that is affecting our constituents?
Mrs. Beckett: As a result of the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, police numbers in Cheshire will rise by an additional 86 over the next two or three years. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that police numbers have fallen over recent years. They fell under the party which he supports, and which gave freedom to chief police officers to make decisions on how they spend their budgets and to what degree they spent them on police numbers. It is no good Conservative Members complaining about the outcome.
Mr. Owen Paterson: This morning we learned that the Prime Minister had had long, friendly and constructive conversations with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), even though the Prime Minister used the whole Millbank team to block the hon. Gentleman's progress to becoming First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. We need the Prime Minister to come here to make a statement on the muddle that he has got himself and the country into with the devolutionary experiments. We would also learn how soon he intends to have jolly and friendly conversations with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
Mrs. Beckett: The Prime Minister has much better things to do with his time.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Could we have an early debate on the financing of the BBC? I am sure that all hon. Members realise that the two channels of the BBC are the only ones, out of the hundreds available, that are funded through a compulsory licence fee. Is the BBC's public service remit being fulfilled when the only farmers who could be found to say anything nice on the BBC about Government policy were the fictional farmers, Pat and Tony Archer? Although Greg Dyke is willing to ensure that positive spins are put on Government policy, that does not justify continuing to have a compulsory licence fee.
Mrs. Beckett: That was a rather convoluted way of asking a question about agriculture. Yes, of course the BBC has a public service remit, which it carries out. As for the notion that it is only on "The Archers" that anyone can ever be heard to say anything in favour of Government policy on agriculture or against that of the Conservative party, all I can say is that I have frequently heard members of the National Farmers Union doing precisely that.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is now great interest on both sides of the House in having a debate on the Government's constitutional reform programme? That would give us an opportunity to reflect on the successes

415
or otherwise of the devolution settlement in Wales and in Scotland, on the interesting impact of the reforms in the House of Lords, and on the interesting impact of proportional representation. Most importantly, it would give the right hon. Lady and the Government the opportunity to let the House and the country know what further reforms they have in mind.
Mrs. Beckett: Given the repeated propensity of Conservative Members to raise this matter—despite the fact that I have already pointed out to them that they now say that they might support a Government containing Plaid Cymru, which is in favour of the break-up of the United Kingdom—it is a mistake for them to call for such a debate. However tempting the prospect is of a debate that would expose the shambles and misjudgment of Conservative party policy on this matter, I fear that I cannot undertake to provide time for one.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The right hon. Lady has disappointed everyone in the House with her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Surely she is confusing vacancies in the police with actual numbers. Is she not aware that since her Government came to office, police numbers have dropped by 1,700, and a third of those losses have occurred in the past six months? Is she not slightly embarrassed that when the Home Secretary promised 3,000 more officers, the immediate reaction of 632 long-serving officers was to leave the force? Does she agree with Mr. Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, when he says:
"The bottom line … is that they give with one hand and take away with the other."?
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a debate? I did not hear him do so.
Mr. Pickles: Yes, I am indeed asking for a debate— for a whole day, maybe two.
Madam Speaker: I want to have it on the record.
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have already reminded the hon. Member for Eddisbury
416
(Mr. O'Brien) and others, that police numbers fell under the Government whom they supported. The budget that we pursued for the first couple of years was the one that they put in place, so if they are complaining about the consequences of that budget, they are complaining about actions that they supported.
A remarkably consistent feature of this exciting and enjoyable episode in the House this week is that Conservative Members are continually calling for increased spending on a whole range of policies, while claiming to be in favour of cuts in public spending. It is time that they made up their minds.
Mr. John Bercow: I am sure that it was only by an accidental oversight that the Leader of the House failed to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on being named yesterday Opposition Member of Parliament of the year.
Can we have an urgent full-day's debate, in Government time, on the crucial question of political bias in television programmes in general and those of the BBC in particular? Does not the right hon. Lady agree that such a debate would be especially timely in the light of yesterday's article in the Financial Times by Mr. Christopher Dunkley, former host of the BBC's "Feedback" programme, who has spilt the beans and said that the BBC is biased in favour of the left and against the right, in direct defiance of its charter obligations? Do we not need an urgent debate about that important matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing me of the success of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); I was not aware of it, and indeed I congratulate him on it.
I have not seen the article to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) refers, and I am not acquainted with Mr. Christopher Dunkley, but he does not sound like an unbiased, objective individual.

Stansted Hijacking
1.12pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stansted hijacking.
The House will, I know, have been pleased to learn that the hijacking of an Ariana Airlines plane at Stansted ended peacefully this morning. The plane had been on an internal flight within Afghanistan from Kabul to Maser-e-Sharif on Sunday 6 February with 186 passengers and crew on board when it was hijacked. After initial stops in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, the plane landed in Moscow where it was refuelled.
While the plane was on the ground in Moscow, we made it clear to the Russian authorities that the flight should not expect to come to the United Kingdom. None the less, the authorities in Moscow allowed the plane to take off again after, I understand, the hijackers had asked for information about a number of western destinations.
When we learned that the aircraft was heading for the United Kingdom, we decided to allow it to land, in accordance with our international obligations. There were serious concerns about the safety of those on board, given the threats that had been made earlier to kill passengers, uncertainty over fuel levels and reports of technical problems.
The plane landed at Stansted at about 2 am on Monday 7 February. Contingency plans were activated and Essex police took control of the incident. I should like to pay tribute to the patience, skill and professionalism of the police and all those who supported them to bring this dreadful incident to a peaceful conclusion. I believe that those sentiments are shared by the whole House and the country.
Eight hostages were released on Monday and another man left the aircraft on Tuesday. Four crew members also managed to escape from the cockpit on Tuesday. A fifth crew member was ejected from the aircraft early on Wednesday. Then, at 3.30 this morning, 85 more people left the aeroplane, followed at 5.45 am by the remainder on the plane.
It had been agreed that two of the hostage takers would leave the aircraft for a face-to-face discussion with the negotiators before the remaining hostages were released. No clear political demands were made at that meeting or at any other time following the plane's arrival at Stansted, although statements were made to the negotiators about the political situation in Afghanistan.
Hijacking is a very serious terrorist offence in this country and in all other countries that are signatories to the international conventions against hijacking. A total of 19 people so far have been arrested by the Essex police. The House will understand why I cannot at this stage go into any further detail about the legal process involving them.
All those released from the aircraft are having their health assessed, and a process of interviews is under way. We obviously wish to ensure that those who were taken hostage are able quickly to return to their homes in Afghanistan. We are making arrangements accordingly.
418
There has been considerable concern about whether this hijacking was an attempt to seek political asylum in this country, both in respect of the hijackers and any accomplices, and in respect of some of the other passengers on board.
Let me first make it clear that in the talks that led to the peaceful ending of this hijacking, no undertakings of any kind concerning asylum or any other matter were given by representatives of the British Government. The surrender from the plane was unconditional.
Of the 165 people on board, 60 have so far told immigration officers that they wish to apply for asylum, together with an additional 14 dependants. Most of the remainder have yet to make their wishes known.
Like other countries, we are bound by international conventions relating to refugees, but we are also bound by the clearest international obligations to prevent and deter hijacking. I must tell the House that, as a matter of public policy, I believe that the clearest and most unequivocal signals must be sent out so as to discourage hijacking, whatever its motive.
In the special circumstances of this hijacking, I have given instructions that I personally will make the determination of any application for asylum made by persons on board the aircraft.
While I must and will act in accordance with the law, I am determined that nobody should consider that there can be any benefit to be obtained by hijacking. Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable.
There are some striking features about this case. This was an internal flight from the international airport at Kabul to Mazer-e Sharif, a relatively small town with a population of no more than 130,000. In such circumstances, it would seem inconceivable that persons on the flight could have intended to claim political asylum unless, of course, they were complicit in the hijacking.
We condemn all hijackings unequivocally, and I know that this view is shared across the House and the country. We will respond resolutely to any such attempt to use terrorist methods, whether the aim is to advance a political cause or to benefit the individuals concerned.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. I understand why I did not receive it until 12.57 pm, although it has made it impossible for me to examine it in some detail. I hope that the Home Secretary will therefore entertain the possibility of a written follow-up to the remarks that I shall make now.
I join the Home Secretary in one thing at least—in congratulating the police and all the others involved on the way in which they have handled a difficult situation and brought it to a safe conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman says that he informed Moscow that the plane should not come to the UK. What were Moscow's own obligations under international law? Will there be any follow-up activity as a result of the plane leaving Moscow and coming here?
Why the United Kingdom? How many countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights did the plane fly over on its journey from Moscow to the UK? Why did those involved decide to land here

419
and try to take advantage of our asylum procedures? Is it because those procedures are known to be rather more congenial than some which appertain in other countries which are, nevertheless, still signatories to the 1951 convention and to the ECHR?
The right hon. Gentleman has said that we have a clear international obligation to deter this method of seeking asylum and to deter hijacking. We would all concur with that. Does he consider that one way of discharging such an international obligation is to make sure that our procedures are not noticeably softer than those of surrounding countries?
Does the Home Secretary agree that speed is of the essence in processing these claims? I welcome the fact that he has said that he will take personal responsibility for the decisions. Can he give an idea of the timetable envisaged? If he is able to take personal responsibility for these decisions, will he also take personal responsibility for any undetermined asylum claims arising from previous hijackings? Does he accept that the fact that there are still supposed to be outstanding claims on the part of hijackers who have paid a criminal penalty is not a deterrent for those considering the same method of getting into this country? Will he accept responsibility for those cases as well?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that as far as those who are responsible for the hijacking are concerned, he will place the processing of any criminal action ahead of the processing of any asylum action? Will he confirm that in considering whether asylum is appropriate, we would take into account whether or not people have freedom of movement, such as being on an internal flight; whether or not they have jobs; and whether or not they had freedom to travel to family weddings? Will he confirm that each individual on that plane must, in order to claim asylum, show genuine and individual fear of persecution?
Can the right hon. Gentleman now set out the cost of the operation at Stansted? If not, will he let me know when he will be able to do so? I would be grateful if he would answer those and possibly further questions.
Mr. Straw: As I said to the right hon. Lady behind the Chair, I am sorry that it was not possible to get a draft of the statement to her or to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), with the length of notice that I usually give. She will know that I endeavour to provide as much notice as possible—usually two to three hours in advance of my making statements. That was not possible in these circumstances, as I am sure she understands.
Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary is an example to the rest of his colleagues.
Mr. Straw: I hope that that is not put on the record. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will be now."] Then I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her sedentary comment. I will be happy to follow up any further questions that she may have, either in correspondence or on the Floor of the House. I remind her that we have Home Office questions on Monday.
The right hon. Lady asked about Moscow. We continue to examine whether the Russian authorities complied with their international obligations. There are obvious
420
questions about why the Russian authorities did not take steps to disable the plane so that it could not take off, which is standard practice in respect of any plane that lands where the intention of those on board has been to hijack it. Representations will be made to the authorities in Moscow, as appropriate, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The right hon. Lady mentioned speed in respect of processing claims. I accept the need for that, and special arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the claims are processed as quickly as possible. My written instruction to the immigration service that I make the decisions on the initial determinations is part of that, although she will understand from her knowledge of immigration law that there are other processes as well. However, I intend to take the initial decision personally and as quickly as I can.
The right hon. Lady asked about undetermined claims arising from previous hijackings, but I advise her not to go down that route if she has any knowledge of what happened following the 1982 hijacking. It took place under an Administration whom she supported, although she was not a Member of the House at the time. I draw attention to the fact that the Opposition supported the Government when there was a hijacking in 1996 and I hope and believe that such support will be forthcoming in these circumstances.
As for people who are complicit in serious criminal acts and then seek to claim asylum, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that article IF of the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees provides clear exemptions from the consideration of any application for asylum in respect of those who are convicted of or suspected of being involved in certain criminal acts. There are also provisions under article 33 for the exclusion of individuals involved in other matters. Either of those articles may well apply in this case. There are other striking features to the case in addition to the fact that the flight was internal and to a relatively small town away from the international airport, as I mentioned. The right hon. Lady mentioned factors such as freedom of movement, whether the people involved had money, and what sort of genuine and individual fear they were subject to.
It is too early to give the full costs, but considerable expense is involved in such cases. However, it has been a matter of concern to successive Governments that, wherever possible, such hijackings should end peacefully, as this one thankfully did, but with the full rigour of the law applied to those directly and indirectly involved.
Mr. Bill Rammell: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement. Given the proximity of my constituency to Stansted airport, there has been real concern there about the hijacking and enormous relief that it has been successfully and peacefully concluded. Like him, I congratulate the Essex police force on the superb and professional manner in which it conducted the operation. May I ask about the additional costs of the police operation? For whatever reason, it appears that a hijacked plane heading towards Britain tends to head towards Stansted airport. The costs are currently being met locally. Will he give sympathetic consideration to a

421
special payment to ensure that a national burden and a national responsibility do not fall disproportionately on the Essex police authority?
Mr. Straw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns and those of his constituents. It is not possible for the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), the Deputy Speaker, to intervene on the Floor of the House, so would you, Madam Speaker, allow me to refer to his concerns? I have been in touch with him. He has been very anxious indeed and has spoken about the hijacking on behalf of his constituents. We are all aware that the remarks of those in the Chair are circumscribed, but I am fully cognisant of the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend about the hijacking's effect on their constituents and on the Essex police.
My hon. Friend asked about the costs that Essex police have had to bear as a result of the hijacking. As I said to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), it is too early to say what those costs are, but the Police Acts provide for making an application to the Home Office for an exceptional payment to cover such costs. I would consider such an application sympathetically.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I begin by joining in the tribute to Essex police and by paying tribute to the other public servants in the health service and the emergency services, and to the Home Secretary and his officials for the way in which the matter has been tackled and resolved peacefully.
It is appropriate to reconsider two international issues. The first is international responsibility when a plane first lands and is not passed on. The Home Secretary dealt with that point. Secondly, if crew members are involved in a hijacking, international regulations should preclude them from being crew members anywhere again.
Will the Home Secretary make it clear where responsibility lies from now on—that the prosecuting authorities, independent of the Home Office, will tackle criminal activities; and that the immigration authorities will deal with any asylum applications under rules that apply to everyone else? If the Home Secretary intends to make a practice of calling in asylum or immigration applications, as he did in the Tyson case and as he intends to do in this hijacking case, we should have rules to govern that, just as we have rules for calling in planning applications. That would be preferable to the Home Secretary's simply being able to pick and mix. Under such a system, people would not know whether they would receive special fast treatment from the Home Secretary or normal treatment from someone else.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the police and others involved in peacefully resolving this terrible hijacking.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about international responsibility when a plane first lands. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues and officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are urgently considering the matter. Clearly, it is worrying that the Moscow authorities allowed the aeroplane to be refuelled and to take off. A threat arises when a plane is first hijacked; it continues, and the responsibility is passed on to other countries.
422
However, all countries must accept their international obligations; if we are told that a plane is going to land, it would be a breach of our international obligations and utterly irresponsible if we prevented it from doing so. It would lead to loss of life, not only of those on board but of those who lived in the surrounding area.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, 18 hijackings involving a European Union country occurred in the 1990s and the first year of the new century. Only two have taken place in the United Kingdom, one in 1996 and one this year.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned crew members. In my judgment, any crew members found guilty of involvement in a hijacking should be banned from further employment with aircraft.
As the House knows, prosecution decisions are not a matter for me, but for the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service. The analogy that the hon. Gentleman made between asylum applications and the powers of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to call in a planning application was slightly eccentric. There is no such parallel. There is also no direct parallel between my direct powers in respect of asylum seekers and the provisions of immigration legislation for entry into the United Kingdom. The law clearly states that the Home Secretary makes all decisions about applications for asylum. Given the fact that there are more than sufficient to fill my box every night, I cannot make all those decisions personally. However, I believed that, in this case, it would have the approbation of the House if I made it clear that I would make the decisions personally.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I echo the praise given to Essex police, to all who worked with them for a peaceful resolution of the hijacking, and to my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and staff. The events persuade me that it may be time for us to re-examine the 1951 convention, which was drawn up in totally different circumstances, to take better account of the great changes in international terrorism and hijacking.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, for paying tribute to the police and others. On the 1951 convention, his point has a great deal of merit. The simple fact is that the convention was drafted and agreed half a century ago in very different circumstances, before mass air travel, before there was much greater ease of travel across land borders and before the development of the criminal terrorist activity of hijacking.
As I have made clear, we are faced with a clash of international obligations and public policy: obligations in respect of refugees, and the clearest possible obligations in respect of the prevention and deterrence of hijacking and other international terrorism. I have made it clear where I believe the balance must lie.
Mr. Simon Burns: I add my tribute to Essex police for the fantastic and difficult job that they have had to do over the past few days.
First, in relation to the comments by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), if the county of Essex makes an application for funding at the right time, will that be

423
full funding of the costs of operations? Secondly, when we have advance notice that a plane is coming to this country as a result of a hijacking, why does it go to a commercial airport rather than to a military airfield, where it might for security reasons be easier to protect, after and deal with the people involved?
Thirdly, there are rumours in Essex that, during the time it takes to determine any applications for asylum, councils in Essex will be expected to house those people who have been involved in the hijacking. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary confirmed whether that is correct, or whether the Home Office will make alternative arrangements. How will the councils in Essex be able to find the necessary accommodation, given the pressure on local authority and housing association housing and the costs involved?
Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have no doubt that Essex police will make an application for full funding. He will understand that I will look at it sympathetically, but I plainly cannot prejudge it. However, I have made it clear by my actions over the recent past that, where an application for additional funding because of exceptional circumstances is well based, I am ready not only to give it sympathetic consideration but to make a contribution—in some cases, a full contribution—to the additional costs involved.
The hon. Gentleman asks a question that I know is in the minds of many people, particularly those in the area around Stansted, which includes his constituency: why could the aircraft not have been sent to a military airfield? Much consideration has been given to that issue by successive Governments. I ask him to accept two points. One is that it is in the nature of things that only short notice is given that hijacked planes are about to land. The second is that successive Governments have judged that arrangements that have worked satisfactorily are likely to work satisfactorily in similar circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the councils in Essex. We have not finalised the details, but my full intention is to ensure that responsibility for housing any of the asylum seekers is dealt with directly by the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office, rather than by local authorities in Essex. I cannot give an absolute guarantee on that but, if there is any change, I will ensure that he and other Essex Members are informed immediately.
Mr. Denzil Da vies: My right hon. Friend has told the House that he personally as Secretary of State will take decisions in respect of asylum seekers. Will he confirm that should asylum seekers, or some of them, be refused asylum and therefore be subject to deportation, the normal appeal procedures will still apply?
Mr. Straw: Normal appeal procedures obviously still apply, because that is the law of the land. But the nature of any appeal depends on the circumstances of any refusal and the country to which asylum seekers are to be returned.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I thank the Home Secretary for his answers to the questions by my
424
hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), with whom I find myself unusually in agreement because of the close proximity of my constituency also to Stansted airport. It is good news that the Home Secretary will look favourably upon applications by Essex police for financial assistance, because in a situation like this, a tragic national and indeed international incident, it would be quite wrong for the people of Essex in one way or another, through the costs of housing, the police and other costs, to bear the full financial burden. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the managers of Stansted airport, who have also acted commendably throughout this incident and have been most assiduous in keeping local Members of Parliament informed about what is going on?
Mr. Straw: I commend the hon. Lady's intervention. I know her constituency very well, since I was born and brought up in it. My concern for the people of Essex is second only to my concern for the people of my constituency. Of course, the people who live around Stansted airport have already had to suffer very considerable inconvenience and anxiety as a result of this hijacking.
I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned the manager of Stansted airport and his staff, because the administration of the airport has been magnificent in very difficult circumstances. I add my own tribute to the managers and staff, not only of the airport but of all the airlines and others associated with the airport, who have managed to keep services going, broadly speaking, despite this terrible hijacking.
Fiona Mactaggart: I add my congratulations to those who have acted with courage and good sense in Stansted—the police and others. Is there any risk that my right hon. Friend's personal involvement in determining any asylum claims may complicate appeals that people may seek to make? Can he assure the House that any appeals will be dealt with swiftly? Can he also give an estimate of how long it might take someone to appeal in this case?
Mr. Straw: It is by no means unheard of for Ministers to make final, but initial, determinations in asylum cases. The law is very clear that all decisions in asylum cases made initially are made by the Secretary of State, so it is not as exceptional as people may imagine. As I have already made clear, I will act strictly in accordance with the law and look at the circumstances of each case. I have also made clear the overall framework within which I shall do so. It is right that I should do that, but in no way would that lead to any compromise of any discretion, which I am bound to exercise in such a case. Appeals obviously depend on the circumstances of any decision. I do not want to speculate further, except to say that we are seeking to put in hand arrangements so that any further adjudications happen as quickly as possible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I call Eric Pickles.
Mr. Eric Forth: I very much welcome the Home Secretary's robust—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Eric Pickles.
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure for me to follow the Back Bencher of the year.

425
I should like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). We owe a great debt of gratitude to the staff of Stansted, who have experienced two really important crises in the past few months and handled both very well. The first was the crash over Christmas. Their response has been remarkable.
May I return to the narrow point of who bears the cost? I realise that the Home Secretary will be sympathetic and reasonable—which is wonderful—but, as he said in his statement, this is part of a national contingency, and I do not think that we should rely on him using his discretion. Provision for events such as this should be made as a matter of course, which would relieve much of the current anxiety in Essex.
Mr. Straw: I am glad that we have solved the problem of which Eric wished to speak. I was perplexed about the possibility that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) had moved constituencies—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Again!"] I believe that the chicken run has been deferred for at least another year.
I know the area represented by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) nearly as well as that represented by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). I know that many people who work at Stansted airport live in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and that most people in Essex have used the airport's excellent facilities.
Let me return to the issue of cost. I do not want to make a political point, but the structure of police funding has continued under successive Administrations. In the first instance, individual territorial police services provide the facilities; then there is provision for applications to whoever happens to be Home Secretary. I do not think I could make it clearer that I will view applications sympathetically, and the sooner they are submitted to me, the sooner I can make a decision.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I condemn out of hand the terrible crime of hijacking, and join others in congratulating not just the Essex police, but my right hon. Friend on the way in which a very difficult affair was handled.
My right hon. Friend has difficult decisions to make. When making them, will he keep in mind the odious nature of the Taleban regime, which has eliminated women's rights and murdered and tortured its own citizens on an hourly basis? Before making those decisions, will my right hon. Friend engage in talks with other countries where there are movements opposed to the Taleban—such as Afghans in exile—to establish whether they will take these people, before sending them to certain torture and death?
Mr. Straw: Any decisions made by me will be made in accordance with the duties imposed on me, and will take account of, among other factors, the circumstances in Afghanistan as they are shown to relate to the individuals seeking asylum, and then the wider circumstances in which those individuals came to apply for asylum.
426
I think I have made it clear that the issue of removals may relate not to removals to Afghanistan itself, but to neighbouring countries.
Mr. David Maclean: I thank the Home Secretary for the robust content of his remarks, and also for their robust tone. He may be the first Labour Home Secretary in history who sounds more right wing with each year in the Home Office, rather than the reverse.
Without prejudicing the quasi-judicial position in which he is placed, the Home Secretary gave us the clearest possible hint that the whole thing may have been an outrageous scam. He will have to make tough judgments in the future. Does he accept that he will have the support of not just Conservative Members, but most people in the country, if he brings about legislative changes to ensure that if the country experienced a similar scam in the future, the perpetrators would receive long sentences and the so-called hostages would be given food, water and medical treatment, and then be sent home to their loved ones on the first available plane?
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, on this occasion I shall not accept the bouquet that he has so generously offered me. It is the lot of Home Secretaries to be subject to comment from this side or that, according to the issue, and it is perfectly possible that, when we come to debate the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will be saying exactly the opposite.
On legislative change, the provisions of the criminal law are very severe indeed on those who can be proved to have been either directly involved in hijacking or complicit in one way or another in hijacking and other terrorist offences.
There is a wider issue, on the 1951 convention, and I have already offered the House my opinion on that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I add my compliments to the police and special forces on their excellent work. However—why Stansted? I have not heard a satisfactory answer to why it was chosen. We have an air force base at Brize Norton, which I should think could have been isolated much more easily and without bringing the problems associated with a hijacking to a commercial airport. Was Brize Norton considered as an alternative for dealing with the hijacking? If not, why not?
Mr. Straw: I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me from ventilating too far the reasons why such an airport is appropriate. However, I should say that when air traffic control is told that there is an aircraft in the sky, that people on board are seriously armed with guns, grenades and possibly explosives, and that it wishes to land, there is not a great deal of time to make decisions. Quick decisions have to be made, not least on the basis of contingency arrangements that are put in place. On the basis of such considerations, the plane landed at Stansted.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to raise with the Home Secretary the issue of consequences and penalties. First, on penalties, he has

427
already made the point that hijacking is capable of attracting a very serious sentence of imprisonment—life. He will know that, broadly speaking, I am against minimum mandatory sentences. However, in the case of hijacking, is there not a powerful case for saying that there should be a substantial minimum mandatory sentence? A minimum sentence of 10 years strikes me as appropriate.
Secondly, on consequences, may I reinforce the suggestion, which has been made on both sides of the House, that participation in hijacking should be a total prohibition to the granting or obtaining of political asylum, and that that should be made explicit? If it requires a change to an international convention, we should play our part in obtaining that change.
Mr. Straw: I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general views on minimum mandatory sentences. I also certainly would not argue against his proposition that the type of figure that he has in mind would be the least that the public and the House would expect in circumstances in which the courts judge that someone has been seriously involved in hijacking. As there have been very few occasions when people have been sentenced for hijacking, I do not have in mind the type of sentence that has been passed, but I am aware that the sentence may have been more than 10 years in some cases and less in others.
On participation in hijacking, as I told the House, article IF of the 1951 convention already provides that the asylum application of those who are convicted of, among other things, serious criminal and terrorist offences cannot be entertained. There may be a need for the convention to be amended not only as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, but more widely. We shall certainly consider that.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to deal with the matter as expeditiously as justice allows. He offered some succour to the people of Essex in determining where those folk may have to remain in the mean time, but I am sure that he will also have some sympathy for the people of Hastings and Rye, who have 900 asylum seekers in a small part of my constituency that contains only 3,000 local inhabitants. That situation was not made any better by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who visited my constituency last week and made comments that were of no help at all. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the new powers available under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that allow for dispersal will be used and that he will take account of areas that already have significant numbers of asylum seekers?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will know that I am familiar with his constituency because my father lives there. [Interruption.] I think that we have covered the whole of my family this afternoon. I am aware of the pressures on my hon. Friend's constituents and of his concerns on their behalf. The arrangements that we have put in place in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provide for national dispersal of asylum seekers, not least
428
to relieve the pressures on London boroughs and a number of towns in Kent and around the south coast, including Hastings.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Home Secretary said that the aircraft made intermediate stops at Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Russia before landing finally at Stansted. Intervention by the Foreign Secretary on his forthcoming visit to Moscow may be all very well, but we need concerted action by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal to ensure that no nation permits hijacked aircraft to proceed blithely on their way. It is all very well to talk about getting the Russians on board, but we need a total international ban.
Mr. Straw: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise on air transport issues. He has made a strong point and I shall ensure that his comments are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. John McDonnell: All fair-minded people understand the complexity of the decisions that my right hon. Friend now has to take, particularly hon. Members who have an airport in their constituency. I hope that the incident will not be dragged into the current racist campaign that some parties are waging against asylum seekers. We need to weigh the import of our actions and words on such issues carefully. Two weeks ago in my constituency a 49-year-old Lithuanian was about to be deported, but he was too distressed to be accepted by the airline. He was found hanging at Harmondsworth detention centre the following morning.
Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is a conflict of international obligations on the issue and it is difficult to judge where the public interest lies. I have thought about the issue carefully and believe that the need to prevent and deter hijacking and other forms of international terrorism must be paramount. Nobody should benefit, including those from countries with considerable political instability. Such terrorist actions must not be allowed to continue.
Mr. Mike Hancock: For a plane of that type to fly the 2,000-odd nautical miles from Moscow to London would take more than three hours. When were United Kingdom authorities properly informed that the plane intended to land here? Did those on the plane request to land in other countries during the flight from Moscow? If so, which countries refused permission? The plane landed three times before it ended up in the UK. All three of those countries have regular flights to the United Kingdom. Is it not time that we said that those flights will not be permitted to land here if those countries are not prepared to accept their obligations under the law—obligations that all three have signed up to? That is the only way in which hijacking will be outlawed completely.
Mr. Straw: I understand that we were given three-quarters of an hour's notice. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my understanding is that inquiries were made by the pilot in respect of possible landings at two other airports in Europe, but that no formal requests to land were made in respect of those

429
other airports. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, we will make clear the need for all signatory countries of the international conventions against hijacking properly to accept their obligations at the acute point where they arise.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: If the Home Secretary has any relatives in Aldershot, he will know that they will warmly welcome his robust attitude to the problem and, especially, his recognition of where Britain's best interests lie in terms of the conflicting international obligations to which he has referred. If he is to exercise his discretion in the case of those asylum applications—and I hope that he will send out the clearest possible signal that they will not be accepted, otherwise he will encourage further hijackings—it is imperative that the courts do not seek to undermine his judgment in the matter. He is at least accountable to the House, and through the House to the people of Britain, whereas the judges are not.
Mr. Straw: I have no relatives in Aldershot, so far as I am aware. I have made it clear that I have to make my decisions subject to the law and in accordance with the framework of the law. It happens that as a result of decisions made by this elected House, there are rights of appeal in certain circumstances for those who are refused applications relating to immigration and asylum, and those decisions are made ultimately by the courts. It is plainly not possible in current circumstances for that framework to be changed suddenly.
Mr. Eric Forth: As a former Brentwood councillor, may I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in welcoming the Home Secretary's intention to be robust in this matter? I am sure that people throughout the country will be reassured by that. Is the Home Secretary worried about why it was that the destination of choice of the people on the aeroplane was the United Kingdom? Does he know why that was the case? Is he worried that we may have been seen as a soft touch? If so, will he bear in mind that people in this country and abroad need to be given unequivocal signals from the Home Secretary and the Government that this country will not be a soft touch and should not be regarded as a destination of choice in any remotely similar circumstances in the future?
Mr. Straw: I was more than worried that this country was the destination for the plane; I was deeply concerned that it was the destination and that innocent people's lives were at risk, and I was angry about the hijacking itself, a sentiment that has been expressed by everyone else concerned. I do not believe that the language that the right hon. Gentleman has used today is appropriate. As I have said, in the past 11 years there have been 18 hijackings across Europe. It happens that two of those, including the one that concluded today, have ended up in the United Kingdom, and the other 16 have taken place elsewhere in
430
the European Union. It is incumbent on all civilised states to ensure that as many measures as are practicable and possible are put in place to prevent and to deter hijacking.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The fact that the record of Britain's skies and airports has been so comparatively safe over the past 18 years means that this week's hijacking has sent shock waves throughout the United Kingdom. Stansted airport is familiar to me and, indeed, I travel between my constituency and Westminster through that airport. I know also that many of my constituents set off on holiday from that airport, and several of them have rung up today to ask for a robust interpretation by the Home Secretary of the international conventions that apply, for the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It would be deeply worrying if Britain were to be seen as an easy option, perhaps even within the European Union, for hijackers.
I pay tribute to the Essex police and emergency services, those who work in and use the airport, and those who live nearby, who have had a tense time over the past three months, because of the Korean Air disaster and the hijacking. While a peaceful solution was reached on this occasion, it is acutely important that we are not seen as an easy option for future hijackers.
Mr. Straw: I do not want to rehearse the discussion that took place last Wednesday, a week ago, about our asylum situation. The fact is that we are not an easy option. As the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 comes into force, we are putting into place very robust arrangements which, in any analysis, are more robust than those which were put in place in 1996. Of course I accept that we have to be robust; we have to send out the clearest signals that we are not entertaining hijackers in this way, and that is what we are seeking to do.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I do not want to embarrass the Home Secretary by heaping further praise on the firm line that he has taken today. However, I was particularly impressed when he said that the criminals— the hijackers—must face the full rigour of the law. I also noted that he said that he would be sending people back to Afghanistan, or possibly that area, as soon as is practically possible. The hijacking took place in Afghan air space, of an Afghan airliner, with Afghan people. The crime was committed in Afghanistan. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that in his discussions with Law Officers, he will be looking at returning the criminals as soon as possible to the place where the crime was committed?
Mr. Straw: Under international obligations, it is a responsibility, as I understand it, for those who are directly subject to the hijacking to take appropriate criminal action. Therefore, it falls initially to the Essex police, not the Afghan authorities, to take action in this case. I am clear that that must be the appropriate course of action.
As far as removals are concerned, I spoke about removals from this country. Precisely the country to which people are removed remains to be determined.

Points of Order
2.7 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to early-day motion 340 in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and other hon. Members about Senator Pinochet? You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in October 1998, shortly after the Senator's arrest, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) put down an early-day motion applauding that arrest, or words to that effect, and I tabled an amendment saying that the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration of the matter was the senator's own country, Chile, to which he should be returned at the earliest possible date. Madam Speaker declared then that such an early-day motion was strictly outside the regulations of the House because the matter was sub judice.
The terms of early-day motion 340 refer to the medical examination of the senator, undertaken at the behest of the Home Office, and the fact that the results of that examination are secret, and also to the Government of Belgium, which is a party to the current action in the High Court. Is it not, prima facie, the case that early-day motion 340 is strictly out of order and should be withdrawn from the Order Paper?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I noted the point of order that the hon. Gentleman has raised with regard to the matter being sub judice. All I can say is that I think that this matter should be given more careful consideration.
Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During Business questions the Leader of the House inadvertently misled the House when she asserted that the Conservative group on the Welsh Assembly was prepared to go into some form of coalition with the nationalist party, Plaid Cymru. I have spoken with the leader of the Conservative group, Nick Bourne, who assures me that the Conservatives would not be prepared to form such a coalition.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those kinds of arrangements are not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.9 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is based on the principle of equality before the law. It also provides added protection for the vulnerable. I am deeply committed to the Bill, although the Government and, I believe, the Opposition regard it entirely as a matter for a free vote according to individual conscience, rather than a matter for the party Whips.
  I am saddened that yet another year has passed without this reform on the statute book. The House has endorsed the principle of equality not once but twice. We included child protection measures as part of the Bill last year and asked the other place to agree. Regrettably, it has rejected the Bill. It has opposed equality and failed to support— indeed, even properly to consider—the child protection measures.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne rose—
  Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way later, but should like to make some progress first.
  That was not a noble cause on which to oppose the will of the elected Chamber. I am sad at the delay that the Lords' opposition has caused, and at the need to reintroduce the Bill with, if necessary, the use of the Parliament Acts.
  Whether or not the Bill is a matter of conscience, its issues have been considered several times by the House. Last year, we sent it to the other place with our overwhelming endorsement. We have had three separate votes on the Floor of the House, spending more than 13 hours in debate. In each vote, a majority of more than 180 favoured the Bill. In the debate on clause 1—on the equalisation of the age of consent—the Committee of the whole House voted in favour by a majority of 204. In addition, the clauses on abuse of trust received 10 hours of discussion in Committee Upstairs.
  Mr. Swayne: The principle that underlies the Bill is that young men of 16 are sufficiently mature to be able to make an informed choice as to whether to enter into a homosexual relationship. However, the Bill's second provision is that they must be protected from people with whom they might enter such a relationship and with whom they should properly share a relationship of trust. Surely the second provision bears testimony to the falsehood of the first. Those two propositions cannot both be true. They are mutually exclusive.
  Mr. Straw: The first proposition is whether we should equalise the age of consent. We could decide to equalise at 12, as happens in some European countries, or at 14, 18 or 21. My judgment, which I hope the House shares, is that we should equalise at 16. The second issue affects

  433
  people aged between 16 and 18. I should correct the hon. Gentleman's small slip in assuming that the provisions on abuse of trust apply only to male gay relationships. In fact, they apply to relationships of any kind.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I am in the middle of giving an answer to the right hon. Lady's hon. Friend. If she will hang on a moment, I shall come to her.
  The second proposition before us concerns the circumstances in which people aged between 16 and 18 should be able to trust another person—specifically in a professional situation—but that trust can be abused. Our judgment is—although it is a matter for a free vote—that that position could be abused. For example, teachers or social workers in residential homes have considerable power over those aged between 16 and 18, as well as younger people, and it is possible that they could abuse that trust. That is our argument.
  If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) still wishes to ask a question, I shall happily give way to her.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. He said that we could decide on equalising at other ages. Will he confirm that, even if the House wanted to do that, he is giving us no opportunity to do so through the procedures under which we are debating the Bill? We will not have an opportunity to amend the Bill. We must take it or leave it.
  Mr. Straw: I will not confirm that. Ministers propose, but the House disposes. If the House reaches a different view from that which I invite it to take, that is the end of that. The majority of the House is, I think, of the opinion that the Parliament Acts fall to be used in this case. The House has taken a view on the merits of the Bill not once or twice, but three times. The Parliament Acts can be used only if the Bill presented a second time is identical to that which was rejected by the other place on the first occasion. That is an argument in favour of the proposition before the House, and it is up to the House to decide whether to accept that proposition.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on abuse of trust?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I want to make some progress.
  For me, the central issue before us is one of equality, of seeking to create a society free from prejudice in which our relationships with others, including strangers, are based on respect, not fear. When I was a young man, homosexual acts between two men were unlawful, criminal offences attracting a penalty—can we now believe this?—of up to life imprisonment. What did such harsh criminalisation achieve? Let me answer that by saying, first, what the criminal law utterly failed to achieve: it failed to achieve the elimination, or reduction, of gay sex. There were probably as many people who were homosexual then as there are today, but while heterosexual people could enjoy sexual relations in peace, those who were homosexual lived in fear—fear of
  434
  exposure, and of the misery that comes from having to live a lie. Our society suffered too, for it lived a lie as well, and dealt with that lie by institutionalising hypocrisy, pretending that everyone was heterosexual, while knowing that many people were not.
  Criminalising gay sex in private for those otherwise above the age of consent did not protect those of us who are heterosexual, but it deeply scarred many who were not allowed to come to terms with their own sexuality, in peace and with respect from others.
  It is worth recalling another discriminatory aspect of the law, which explains why the Bill is necessary at all. The Offences Against The Person Act 1861, which created the modern offence of buggery, made a sexual relationship between two males a criminal act, but sexual relations between two females were not then, and have never been, specifically criminalised. The law has never criminalised all same-sex relationships—only those between males. In time, that led to the anomaly that the age of consent for sexual relations with females was 16, but between males it was set at 21 in 1967, and at 18 in 1994.
  I wish that we had moved then to 16, but we did not. Subsequently, a challenge was made under the European convention on human rights and, by 14 votes to four, the Commission—not the Court—found that our law was discriminatory.
  In commending the Bill, I would say that it is a moderate measure.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and shall not heap yet more praise on him to embarrass him further than we did earlier.
  May I return to the child protection measures? I sat on the Standing Committee that considered those matters, alongside the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). All of us who served on that Committee know perfectly well that the child protection measures are a fig leaf and a load of nonsense. We conducted an investigation into them. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the likely number of prosecutions might be around two each year and that the provisions will make very little difference?
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Nor do I accept that the effectiveness of the criminal law can be determined solely by the number of prosecutions that follow from it. If that were so, the hon. Gentleman would be on his feet calling for the amendment of several highly publicised criminal offences created by the Opposition when in Government, although I would not.
  Organisations that support equalisation and other measures in the Bill include the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and leading children's charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos, NCH Action for Children, the National Children's Bureau and many others. Those people and organisations are at the forefront of dealing with the serious problems caused by the present inequality in our law.
  I have explained clause 1. Clause 2 serves to decriminalise the younger party in male homosexual acts or buggery, if the younger party is under the age of consent and the other party is over the age of consent.

  435
  That clause was not in the Bill when it started out last year. We included it, during proceedings held on the Floor of the House, because we felt, as a House, that the present position was wrong.
  A girl under the age of consent is not charged with a criminal offence if she has unlawful sexual intercourse with an older man. That means that she can seek help for sexual or emotional problems arising from her actions without fear of prosecution. The older man cannot blackmail her, through the threat of the criminal law, to keep silent if she is unhappy about her position or feels that she was forced to consent. Those are important safeguards for young people—as important for boys as for girls—and the Bill puts them in place.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is wholly committed to the Bill and to making buggery legal for people aged over 16. For the benefit of those of us who have led a sheltered life, will he describe the act of buggery so that the House, and the public who are listening to the debate, know exactly what we are talking about?
  Mr. Straw: No, I shall not accept the invitation offered by the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he understands how much he is detached from opinion throughout the country. Our society should be celebrated for the tolerance that it shows to people who lead a law-abiding life. People want to be allowed to live in peace, within the framework of the law. I happen to be heterosexual, but I could have been born homosexual, or I could have become homosexual. If that had happened, why should I be penalised and subject to the prejudice and abuse that the House has just heard from the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Gillrose—
  Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman asked me an emotive question and I have replied. He is unwise—simply as regards his representation of his constituents, who are light years away from his intolerance and prejudice—to utter such opinions.
  Mr. Gill rose—
  Mr. Graham Brady rose—
  Mr. Straw: I need to make some progress. I have already given way several times and many other Members want to speak in the debate.
  The Bill provides a new offence of abuse of trust. We have already referred to that matter, which is also an important child protection measure. We were considering it as long ago as 1998, when the amendment on equalising the age of consent was tabled to the Crime and Disorder Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) moved an amendment to create such an offence. When the equalisation amendment was rejected in the other place, we undertook urgently to consider such an offence. That resulted in the measures in the present Bill, introduced last year.
  436
  The House will recall that we looked at the new offence in great detail in this place a year ago. Amendments were made to strengthen it; most significantly, following arguments made by Opposition Members, for the increase of the maximum penalty from two to five years. It is in the Bill in the form that we approved after those detailed discussions.
  Mr. Joe Ashton: My right hon. Friend referred to the discussions held in Standing Committee. During the 10 hours of debate on the Bill, one of the matters that was often raised was the growing menace of pimps and the abuse suffered by 15 or 16-year-old girls and boys who were hooked on drugs. The conclusion was that the penalties for such abuse were not severe enough. We were told that it would not be practical to deal with the matter under this Bill, but an assurance was given that a sexual offences Bill would be drawn up to tackle the problem and alter the penalties. However, there seemed to be no mention of that in the Queen's Speech. Will my hon. Friend give us some information on that point?
  Mr. Straw: It is true that there is no such legislation in this Session on the pimping offences described by my hon. Friend. I ask him to bear in mind that the Home Office is carrying a third of the whole legislative programme and that even that great Department of State has limits in its capacity to deal with that, in addition to other matters. I can reassure him, however, that offences relating to pimping and the penalties for such offences are being considered under the review of sexual offences that the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is undertaking.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend consider an anomaly that could arise in the future? The names of men who have already been convicted of private consensual sex with a 16 or 17-year-old will have been placed on the sex offenders' register. That will extend beyond the enactment of the Bill, and is unjust. Does my right hon. Friend have the power to remove those names from the register when—as we hope—the Bill is enacted?
  Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I cannot give him comfort on that point. We cannot retrospectively remove names from the register; that is the obverse of the principle that we do not make criminal offences retrospective. If someone has been convicted of a criminal offence, I do not think that we can rewrite history to suggest that, by virtue of a decision of the House—later than the conviction—such a conviction should be deleted.
  The offence of abuse of trust is targeted to protect young people, both girls and boys, who are most at risk or most vulnerable, or where the position of trust is strongest. The circumstances are closely defined to include matters such as residential care, detention and hospitals. They also include full-time education, given the special status of teachers and their well-established position of trust.
  Abuse of trust may also occur in less well-defined circumstances, such as leisure, sporting or religious activities. In those cases, the position of trust may be less

  437
  strong, the circumstances less clearly defined, and the young person may be less vulnerable. Nevertheless, those points cause concern.
  The Government have tackled that problem in two ways. First, the Bill includes an order-making power, so that the House can extend the scope of the new offence at a later date by affirmative resolution, if there is evidence of need. Secondly, on 17 September last year we issued all organisations that deal with young people with guidance on how to prevent abuse of trust. There has been a good response to that.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Jackie Ballard rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), and then I shall conclude my speech.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving way.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that his claim to protect children wholly flaws the Bill—the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—will he agree that the abuse of trust protection, which he alleges he has put in the Bill, is inadequate? Will he tell the House how he would deal with a situation in which, for example, an 18-year-old prefect in a boys boarding school made advances to a 16 or 17-year-old boy? The prefect would have a position of some power—as a prefect. What protection is offered to children in those circumstances? The measure is disgraceful; it will completely undermine child protection.
  Mr. Straw: It is not possible to draft a Bill that would cover every conceivable circumstance. The Bill deals with adults who hold positions of trust in relation to young people aged between 16 and 18.
  I do not know much about the hon. Gentleman's background. I attended an all-male boarding school in Essex. Even at a time when the full force of the criminal law applied, circumstances such as those he described were not unheard of in such institutions.
  Jackie Ballard: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way.
  The right hon. Gentleman listed several organisations that support the Bill. The list did not include any of the teachers' unions. Although those unions support the equalisation of the age of consent, they are opposed to abuse of trust provisions. They believe that such abuse of trust, which we all decry, can be properly dealt with under the profession's disciplinary codes. They do not want it to become a criminal offence for a specific profession.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the position of the teachers' unions, but I do not agree with it. It is very hard to argue that those who are in a position of trust, for example, in a children's home, should be subject to the criminal law, but those who are in the position of trust and power— very considerable power—that is exercised by teachers in respect of sixth-formers as well as of younger children—
  Jackie Ballard: What about the power of Members of Parliament over researchers?
  Mr. Straw: It is a matter of proportion and circumstance. However, I do not think that one can argue
  438
  that those who are running children's homes should be subject to the criminal law but teachers should not. I say through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hon. Lady that the potential power that teachers have over those in their care is very, very considerable and that that trust should not be abused. When it is, these penalties are appropriate.
  Let me deal briefly and in conclusion with two important issues concerning the Bill. First, I remind the House that the Parliament Acts may have to be used in this case, and it is because they may have to be used that I invite the House—it is a matter for the House—to pass the Bill in an unamended form.
  The second issue concerns the impact of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of this measure. That has created what may be a unique constitutional dilemma for the Bill, as the Scottish elements fall into an area that is now properly the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Executive therefore requested the Scottish Parliament to consider its position on the Bill. The terms of the motion moved by the Scottish Executive were as follows:
  "That the Parliament endorses the principles of equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity and creating a new criminal offence of breach of trust as set out in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill considered by the UK Parliament in the 1998–99 parliamentary session and agrees that the UK Parliament should consider any Bill introduced in the same terms in the current session."
  The Scottish Parliament debated that motion in great depth on 19 January 2000. It focused on the principles and content of the Bill and on the constitutional issue. I am delighted to report that it endorsed the motion fully, by 90 votes to 16. That was an overwhelming vote in favour of the Bill. The Scottish Parliament has therefore made it clear that it wants to end intolerance, prejudice and discrimination. It wants the added protections to be put in place. It sees the Bill as unfinished business, delayed because of the prejudice of the other place. It has given us a clear mandate to finish the business, as it should have been finished last year.
  Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No.
  The Bill is long overdue for the statute book. I hope that the House will again give it the overwhelming support that it deserves, and that we can pass it to the other place. We have had ample discussion on it.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Straw: We need to move now to action, to ensure equality and justice, and better protection for our children and young people throughout the United Kingdom.
  2.33 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: As was the case the last time this measure was debated in the House, the Opposition will be having a free vote tonight. The concerns that I shall express are my own, but I know that they are shared by many Opposition Members, and I should be glad if the Minister would address them in his winding-up speech.
  My own opposition to the Bill is probably fairly well known. I am glad to have the opportunity to give some of the reasons for my opposition to it, but first I should like to look at the handling of the Bill and raise certain questions about that.

  439
  It is very unfortunate that the Government have decided to curtail debate on the Bill. Today will be the only opportunity that Members of the House will have to discuss the matter—unless, of course, amendments are made in another place. However, in the House there will be no Committee stage, no Report and no debate on Third Reading.
  Given the interventions that have already been made on the Home Secretary, I should have thought that he would have wished to have seen a much fuller discussion in the House of the adequacy of at least the abuse of trust provisions in the Bill. There should have been an opportunity for concerned Members to table amendments to reflect some of the worries that were raised in the short time for which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking.
  Although I acknowledge that the measure has been debated more than once by the House during the current Parliament—and, indeed, in another place—that is not in itself a valid argument for cutting off the proper scrutiny of the House, even if the Government have decided to invoke the Parliament Acts.
  On Monday, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), said in the House that it would be open to another place to suggest amendments to the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out at the time, the Government have denied that opportunity to hon. Members, despite the fact that the Parliament Act 1911 makes provision for the suggestions procedure. Therefore, I wonder whether the procedure that has been adopted is the most wholly appropriate, given the concerns that exist.
  For example, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wished to table an amendment to the Bill, but has been denied that opportunity. That amendment would have addressed one of the concerns that has been raised about the European convention, because it would have equalised the age of consent at 18. The Government should have at least given the House the opportunity to examine that issue, and to examine the arguments for and against which hon. Members might wish to make. If the Government wish to base their argument in favour of the Bill on the fact that the House represents the democratic will of the people, perhaps the Government should have allowed hon. Members from both sides a little more democracy in considering its provisions.
  The reason why the Government have resorted to the Parliament Acts is that these measures were rejected after a long debate and very substantial consideration by another place. Similarly, the Government's proposal to abolish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was recently rejected in another place. Perhaps, when the Government reflect on those two decisions, they may come to the view—as I have long come to the view—that the views that have been expressed in another place on both these issues better represent the views of the majority of the people of this country than do the actions of the Government.
  There is also the matter of Scotland, which was briefly touched on by the Home Secretary. Clause 7 states that the Bill will extend to Scotland as a pre-commencement enactment, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament
  440
  now has full competence in this area. I should be grateful if the Minister, in his winding-up speech, would address some of the issues that arise from that.
  Will the Bill, in so far as it concerns what is now a devolved matter, be a unique case, or is the Minister aware of any plans by the Scottish Parliament to amend the provisions of the Bill, if enacted, which it could certainly do? Are there plans for different commencement dates in Scotland, and will it be the Scottish Executive or the Home Secretary who decides on the commencement? Can he confirm that the only reason why this legislation is now to extend to Scotland as a result of whatever will is expressed in the House, is to allow the current Bill to be pushed through unchanged under the Parliament Acts?
  I shall now discuss the substance of the Bill. The age of consent is one of the major issues of conscience, and I know that there is a wide range of views on both sides of the House, and that those views are sincerely held. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said during the previous Session, I believe that we should continue to give the protection of the law to vulnerable young people, and very especially to young people in their mid-teens who may not have a fully developed sense of their sexuality. I believe that it is appropriate that the age of consent for homosexual acts should allow for that fact, and I believe, as my right hon. Friend did during the previous Session, that there is widespread support in the country for such a position.
  We must, after all, remember that the age of consent for homosexual acts was reduced from 21 to 18 as recently as 1994. I do not believe that issues of equality should override the imperative to protect young people; and it is, in my view, wrong that a young person of 16 should be free in law to embark on a course of action that might lead to a life style that would separate him, permanently perhaps—
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Has the right hon. Lady ever met anyone, gay or straight, who has told her in all honesty that their sexual orientation was a matter of choice? She has just used again the term "life style", which implies that it is a matter of choice. She should know better.
  Miss Widdecombe: Whether people choose to practise any particular way of life is a matter of choice. What they are inclined towards may not be, but what they choose to do—heterosexually or homosexually—is a matter of choice. I am never going to contend that heterosexuals have no choice over what they do; that would be a false contention. I will not patronise homosexuals by pretending that they have no choice, either.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: We are debating essentially a matter of degree. My right hon. Friend said that it was only a few years ago that the age of consent moved from 21 to 18. Has that made any difference to people's conduct?
  Miss Widdecombe: I believe that it probably sent quite a powerful signal. It is not a signal that I want to reinforce or to expand on in the course of any further changes.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I would like to finish the paragraph as I was in the middle of it. I shall then give

  441
  way to my hon. Friend. He came a good second yesterday for the coveted award that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) won.
  It is in my view wrong—I stand by that position—that a young person of 16 should be free in law to embark on a course of action that might lead to a life style that would separate him, perhaps permanently, from the mainstream life of marriage and family. In particular, I believe that such a person needs protection from older men.
  Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was, to put it mildly, a trifle opaque. Would she be good enough to tell the House to what specific damaging consequences the reduction from the age of 21 to 18 has led?
  Miss Widdecombe: I think that that was one of a series of deliberate measures and of practices in society that has led to a signal that there is somehow equal validity between the homosexual life style and marriage and family. That measure was a part of a signal that I personally reject.
  As I made clear in my opening remarks, I am aware that some Conservative Members do not share those views, but the views that I am putting need to be put. We have had a clear speech in favour of the Bill—a personal commitment as well as a political imperative—from the Home Secretary. It is right and proper that there should be an opposing speech giving the other point of view. That is what I intend to do.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I am now going to move on to the next paragraph.
  Most parents, I believe, want to see their children grow up and raise a family. Overwhelmingly—[Interruption.] Perhaps people do not agree. Overwhelmingly, that is how most children and young people see their future. I would therefore like to point the House towards a topical argument on the subject and one that I hope will be addressed further in the debate.
  I remind the House of the words of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), when he spoke on the procedural motion. He said that, since the Bill was last considered by the House,
  "nothing has changed that would affect the provisions then agreed."—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 89.]
  However, at least one factor in the equation has changed. The Government appear, as the Prime Minister restated in the House yesterday, to be fully intent on abolishing section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. That move by the Government changes the context in which we must view the provisions of this Bill.
  If the Government have their way by means of the Parliament Acts or otherwise—and there is no reason to think that they will be persuaded by the arguments made in the other place—we will at once be allowing the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities and reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts so that
  442
  many who are still at school—indeed, some who have not even taken their GCSE examinations—will be able to engage in such acts.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I am going to finish my sentence. If the hon. Lady interrupts me again, I will not give way until I have done that. That is the score, so she can choose.
  If the Government have their way, not only will 16-year-olds be able to engage in homosexual acts, but local authorities will be able to use public money actively to promote such activity. That point changes the context of the Bill and merits consideration by the House and a wider debate. Therefore, it merits a rather more generous attitude to the Bill's further stages than the Home Secretary has shown.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I apologise for not describing her as "right hon." when I asked to intervene.
  The right hon. Lady makes her argument, but surely an argument is based on fact. Will she at least admit that, when she was given two opportunities by her colleagues to identify facts that would back up her argument, she failed to do so? She expresses her personal opinion, but there is no hard evidence—figures, prosecutions or any other data— for her view that the Bill is a dangerous move.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Bill is a dangerous move because it removes a vital measure of protection for young people from those very young people.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: There is an embarrassment of riches to choose from, but they all hold the same view. I give way to my hon. Friend in blue.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) raised, and in response to the two questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), has not the growth of HIV and AIDS in the past couple of decades been very great? Are we not reasonably entitled to believe that the vast majority of cases are among the homosexual population, as I will argue if I have the opportunity to speak later? That is an example of the downside of such measures, and I hope that that point will be dealt with at length in the debate.
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, that point is a consideration and I look forward to my hon. Friend expanding on it. I also quote the view that I have received from many teachers and others who say that although some 16 year-olds may be ready to make such decisions, many more are not and they deserve the right to a degree of protection.
  Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I will, because I did not do so earlier when she and a number of other hon. Members rose.
  Ms King: I thank the right hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way. Does she agree that if young

  443
  16-year-old boys need protection from predatory males, all the evidence suggests that young 16-year-old girls need that protection more? Does she also accept that we do not choose our genes?
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Lady had listened to what I said a moment ago, she will have heard me address that point. I do not think that we give adequate protection to young girls. I have come across in my surgery parents of under-age girls involved in liaisons with older men. Those parents find it very difficult to get the police, the statutory services and everyone else to take that seriously as a criminal act. The point that I made was that there is an extra dimension in the case of young men, who take decisions that might put them permanently outside the mainstream way of life. The hon. Lady may disagree with me, but that is my point. I shall now make progress with the rest of my argument.
  We must consider not just the possibility of those in a position of trust abusing their position to take advantage of young people as a result of the reduction in the age of consent, but the likelihood of young people being exposed to, and engaging in, homosexual acts at an age at which they are particularly vulnerable. I am surprised at the attitude of Labour Members—and, to some extent, of those on the Benches behind me—which dismisses the issue of vulnerability and the serious issues that arise from the Bill, even to the point of not allowing further examination of the adequacy of the abuse of trust clause. That is extremely serious. Notwithstanding what happened in the other place recently, the House must consider whether it is right and proper to introduce the two measures concurrently. It is very significant that the Government will probably have to apply the Parliament Act to both measures because those in the other place are vastly more in tune with the wishes of parents and with public opinion than are the Government.
  What is being proposed today sends the wrong message to our communities, to teachers and to parents. Most of all, it sends entirely the wrong message to the young people of this country.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, not least because the Home Secretary would not allow me to make this point during his speech. Is it not regrettable that although the Home Secretary rightly regards this issue as a matter of conscience for the House, he claims that it is a matter of prejudice when it is debated in the other place?
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and it is significant that the Home Secretary probably also considers that everybody who disagrees with him on this issue has a bad case of prejudice, instead of realising that there are extremely serious arguments against what is being proposed and that it is our young people who will suffer if those arguments are not fully tested.
  The House should particularly consider whether the offence of abuse of trust will be an adequate safeguard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said on Third Reading in the previous Session, there is widespread concern that the definition of a position of trust may not be broad enough. Regrettably, because the Government are driven by the need to apply
  444
  the Parliament Act to the Bill, and because of the procedural motion passed on Monday, there will be no opportunity for hon. Members to examine that proposition further.
  In the Bill's explanatory notes, the Government say that they expect the offence will
  "act more as a deterrent than result in a large number of actual prosecutions."
  Is that a hint that the Government will not seek to prosecute in some instances of abuse of trust? The sharpest deterrent of all would be a guarantee of prosecution where trust had been abused.
  I would hope that the Home Secretary, having made much of the new offence and having accepted in the previous Session the arguments for increasing the maximum sentence from two to five years, would assure the House that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will be actively encouraged to prosecute where necessary.
  I said that we do not at present accord sufficient protection to young girls. That is very much due to the absence of will to prosecute and to take measures to protect them. I hope that if we pass the Bill, we will not make the same mistake in respect of young boys.
  I recognise that the new offence will provide at least some small safeguard, but I doubt that it is adequate. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Home Secretary cannot pay any attention to what I am saying. I am talking to the House, but hoping that he will listen, about the adequacy of the abuse of trust provisions.
  Mr. Straw: My reply to the right hon. Lady is that the provisions are adequate, as I sought to explain.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman may have been explaining it to his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), but he has not explained it to me and he has not listened to my points.
  I remain convinced that it would not be right further to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts when the Government are intent on repealing section 28. The case for further change has not been made today. Those are my views.
  Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No.
  Hon. Members must use their individual conscience and judgment. I cannot support the Bill. I know that serious issues are arising for young people. This is not a theoretical debate about equality, but a question of how we best protect vulnerable youngsters and ensure that every young person has protection in law against being encouraged to engage in activity that could lead to permanent exclusion from a mainstream way of life.
  I am sorry that that strikes no chord with Labour Members. It strikes an immense chord with the many parents who have written to me or visited me and made representations that they feel there is a rush for political correctness that does not take into account the needs of young people and the realities that they face.
  2.55 pm
  Ann Keen: I am grateful for the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the history behind this legislation, including events in 1994, and in 1998 and 1999, since I have been a Member of the House. We are now in another century. I commend my Government and other colleagues for their support on the crucial issue of the age of consent and equality for young people. I commend my friends on the Opposition Benches who have—bravely, in the present political climate—spoken out on the subject.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred at the end of her speech to political correctness. The Opposition seem to regard true political correctness to be intolerance, prejudice and discrimination, and would like that reflected in the law of the land. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that, thankfully, we have become a much more tolerant, progressive society, and will continue to progress. All political parties will continue to strive for greater tolerance.
  We are all aware of the bombings that took place last summer in Brixton, Brick lane and, of course, in Soho. None of us could have failed to be shocked, angered and disbelieving that any person could willingly harm members of our community who are considered to be in the minority and different from the norm. We are talking about human beings. We must value all human life equally.
  Life was going on that night in Old Compton street. Friends and family—gay and straight—were out for the evening. Some were celebrating a wedding and, sadly, one of the deceased was celebrating the expected birth of a child. They were all enjoying the opportunity to go out and mix on a warm summer night. I know that many colleagues visit those places. I frequently visit all parts of London and enjoy a social life with hon. Friends and, occasionally, colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I often go out with my family and friends. I have referred to a diverse section of society, but it is truly representative of society in this country today.
  That bombing sent out Shockwaves that were felt by organisations such as Stonewall. They received comments of sympathy, but of course other comments were voiced in the extreme language that people feel entitled to use when there is any inequality in the law. There were cowards who talked of the pleasure that the bomb had caused them. Sadly, I have personal experience of that because a spineless coward who phones me and leaves messages on my answering machine asked me that day whether I would like to come and collect some arms and legs.
  We all come across intolerance. We all have to be brave at times and make sure that our friends, neighbours and colleagues are accepted in our society because they are human beings, they are equal and they give to this country, whether through their job, through their academic work or through the way in which they choose to live their life. The public services that acted so bravely after the Soho bombing and the bombings at Brixton and Brick lane—the police, the fire service, the ambulance service, paramedics and health workers in the hospitals—included both gay and straight members among their staff, all offering their knowledge and expertise in dealing with a tragedy.
  446
  I was overwhelmed by the messages that were received, particularly from the Prime Minister and the Queen. Together with the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), I visited Soho square. Many of us attended church services. Many religious organisations came together to say how wrong the act was.
  To my friends throughout the House, I say that we cannot tolerate the offensive language used in the Chamber and in the other place, and written in tabloid papers such as the Daily Mail—language that deliberately scares young people and their families. Switchboards and helplines of gay organisations take calls from young people who have been frightened by articles such as those that have appeared in the Daily Mail. We know that to be true.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have received in my postbag letters for and against, but the letters of support far outnumber the others. I have heard from people who genuinely did not understand what they opposed. I have had letters from very right-wing "Christian"—the words "Christian" and "right-wing" do not seem to go hand in hand—organisations deliberately distorting the facts of the case and making people afraid. We hon. Members should stand up united and say that we will not tolerate that.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Is she trying to suggest that those of us who oppose the measure with the utmost vehemence that we can command somehow endorse what went on at the Admiral Duncan pub? If that is what she is suggesting, it is an utter disgrace. However strongly we feel about the argument, I know no one who could endorse such activity. It is an outrage.
  Ann Keen: However uncomfortable the hon. Gentleman may feel about my remarks—I understand that many people feel uncomfortable having to listen to such remarks—he should recognise that the language sometimes used in the debate, the scaremongering and intolerance of which I have become aware since entering the House, will breed hatred and contempt.
  Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way again?
  Ann Keen: No, I am sorry. I must make progress. Many hon. Members want to speak.
  Blackmail is a crime, and blackmailers love any form of inequality before the law. Young people have been blackmailed not to report abuse. The law as it stands would deter any young person from reporting abuse. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was distressed by my comments about the bombing and about intolerance. I, like many of my hon. Friends and many others outside the House, find it distressing that we are insufficiently concerned about young people being abused. If we vote in favour of equalising the age of consent, the key word for me and many of my hon. Friends is "consent".
  During such debates in the House, I have heard some of my colleagues having their personal sex life openly discussed, sometimes with great humour and sometimes causing people to feel uncomfortable. People outside wonder why any adult's sex life should be discussed in

  447
  open debate. As a heterosexual woman, I do not recall ever having to explain or justify any of my actions, as long as they were legal and occurred with my consent.
  My nursing background helps me to observe and study human behaviour. Some of the human behaviour that I have witnessed can lead me only to the conclusion that some hon. Members and certainly some in the other place get great satisfaction from discussing other people's sex life, using colourful language and distorting the facts. It brings a new dimension to "The Jerry Springer Show" and suggests a new kind of show, in which all sorts of people queue up to confess the things that they like or dislike.
  I believe that people's personal sex life is their own, provided that it is conducted with consent. All responsible Members of this House and another place should take that on board.
  On the wider topic of health and health care, health is a sense of total well-being—feeling comfortable with oneself, as well as a certain standard of physical health. We know that at least one in six of us suffers from some sort of mental health problem. In our early teens, life is difficult enough. It is pretty difficult sometimes when we are over 50, but not as complicated as it is in our early teens. Young people need the opportunity to be themselves and to discuss who they are.
  We do not choose our life style, nor are we taught it. To all those who are worried about section 28, I shall quote from Victoria Coren's "Diary" piece in The Observer on 6 February. I wish the thought had occurred to me, but I must give her the credit. She mentions the fears that if section 28 is repealed, young people will be taught to become homosexuals. I agree with her when she comments:
  "If that's the case, then why are we a nation of people who can't add or spell when teachers expound the benefits of these every day for 16 … years?
  And if 'gay lessons' have some special magic power to stick in the young mind, then for heaven's sake let's make the whole syllabus gay! Gay physics, gay geography, gay maths. We'll all be geniuses."
  I definitely go along with that.
  Health education is crucial. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) raised the issue of AIDS and HIV. There is indeed a serious rise in the number of cases, and it is occurring in the heterosexual community, which has become complacent.
  The all-party group on AIDS supports the lowering and equalising of the age of consent, as do the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, NCH Action for Children, Childline, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardos.
  When we want information, we go to the experts. We listen to their advice and read what they have written. Any sensible person makes a judgment on that basis. Why, then, on this issue, cannot we accept the advice of those leading children's and young people's organisations? I should like someone who disagrees to give me an answer. Why do we refuse to accept the advice of bodies such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Education Authority? I ask myself that as a nurse and as a mother.
  448
  In my family, I have the greatest gift: I know my son. All hon. Members, regardless of whether they are married or have children, are part of a family. People who oppose the Bill without question offend families in this country. That is so serious that I have to say, along with others, that I am fed up of humility. I do not see the need to beg constantly for this change to be made or to say that we will listen to this or consider that.
  The Bill is about equality; it is about human beings; it is about our families. To use a famous phrase, enough is enough. It is about time that the House and the country said that there has been enough intolerance of something about which some people know little, because that intolerance affects people's lives. This is a new century, and this Government will bring us to a new age and a new tolerance.
  3.11 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) has done on this issue—not only today but since she has been a Member of the House. I also pay tribute, without reservation, to the work of Mrs. Edwina Currie, who is no longer a Member of the House. She introduced the prospect of change to us in 1994, and it is a tribute to the system that Back Benchers can still put issues on the Front-Bench agenda.
  I shall be brief as many Members want to speak. We have three issues before us. Should we equalise the age of consent? Should we remove the stigma of criminality from under-16s who become involved in sexual activity? Should we have a law to deal with the abuse of a position of trust? My colleagues and I support each of those propositions.
  At both elections since the creation of the Liberal Democrats in 1988, our party has stood on a manifesto of equality on the age of consent. For us, that has been a self-evident consequence of arguing for an equal society. We have always agreed that colleagues in the House should be free to vote as they choose, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who did my job for the past five years—personally supported such legislation, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), our then leader. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), our new leader, and I support the Bill.
  I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about the most important of the Bill's provisions. It is time to move on, and we must conclude that there should be equality for sexual relationships—at 16 in Great Britain and 17 in Northern Ireland, for other reasons. There would thus be equality in both places.
  It is important to remember that the proposal is on the agenda partly as a result of events in the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court. The European convention on human rights has also played a part. I refer colleagues to the helpful and succinct House of Commons research paper on this subject and remind them of how we reached this position through the European Court.

  449
  In 1994, Euan Sutherland—who lived with his family in Southwark, my borough—brought a complaint to the Commission, arguing that Britain had failed him twice in terms of his rights. As the research paper states, article 8 of the European convention on human rights
  "grants everyone the right to respect for"
  their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. Article 14 states that
  "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground".
  It listed all the grounds that had been identified.
  The then Government said that it should be possible for Britain to argue that we were entitled to have 18 as the age of consent for gay relationships, but 16 for the rest. The Commission ruled by 14 votes to four that there had been a violation. It had listened to the Government's argument, but did not accept it. As the recommendations of the court were likely to result in a similar judgment, the Government wisely accepted that they should put before Parliament the proposition that the age of consent should be equalised. It seems to me to be beyond argument that under European law, and therefore under law that we are bound to follow, there has be to equality. Although there are many reasons for passing the Bill, we should pass it for that one, if no other.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: How much of the House's sovereignty is the hon. Gentleman prepared to surrender to such organisations as the European Court of Human Rights or to the European convention on human rights? Is there no limit? Is he prepared to hand over all decision making on those issues to foreign bodies?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be distracted down that road, but I shall try to deal with the point succinctly. This country signed up to the European convention 50 years ago. It was drafted by a member of the hon. Gentleman's party. It is effectively a British document in conception.
  Mr. John Townend: Yes, but it has changed.
  Mr. Hughes: The convention has not been changed on this issue; the two articles with which we are concerned are from the original. Governments of both parties have adhered to it and my party has always supported it. I do not believe that it is good for national Governments to think that they always get it right without anybody else adjudicating. Establishing the convention after the war was a far-sighted move and a great tribute to the Council of Europe. It has been good for Britain in many ways and has given people many rights.
  Mr. William Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Once more, then I must make progress.
  Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the convention was established and when there was talk of equality, it was never in the minds of those who drew up the document that it would be interpreted as widely as it is now?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not think that that is true on this particular point. When the convention was drawn up
  450
  people had ideas about equality in family life and on gender, sex and race matters that obviously led them to conclude that people should be treated equally. I was born in the year in which the convention was signed, but I am sure that gay people in the first half of the century would have expected that their time would soon come and that they would be given equal status under legislation such as this.
  Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way again. I am trying to enable all colleagues to speak.
  I want to own up. I tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that would not have failed to achieve equality, but would have achieved it for 17-year-olds. However, the House disagreed with it and I accepted that. I must tell the House the most persuasive argument, which was that made by Euan Sutherland. He came to see me as a Southwark resident and was supported by his family and a couple of friends. They said that, as young men, the issue was not how they were protected or what they did, but whether they were treated equally at all stages. If society would not treat them equally, how could it expect them to receive equal treatment from their peers? If the law did not treat them respectfully, how could society ask other people to do the same? Euan Sutherland—and also someone who once worked for me—put the case most convincingly. Those young people said, "This prejudices and discriminates against us." We need to move on.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she is not prepared to see equality override protection, but the Bill would not do that. We must enshrine equality in the law and then we can work on the protection. Colleagues, particularly on the Tory Benches, may still be thinking of opposing the Bill. I say this to them: in Britain, criminality is not attached to female-female relationships and never has been; nor is criminality attached to male-female relationships at 16, which is the same age at which people are allowed to leave school, go to work, pay taxes, join the services, get married and have children—
  Mrs. Gorman: And get AIDS.
  Mr. Hughes: And, as the hon. Lady said, be vulnerable to sexual diseases, no matter through what activity. From that age, people are treated in one way if they happen, permanently or impermanently, to have a male-female relationship, but differently if they are two men in a relationship. That is not logical. If we could get away from justifying inequality to considering the more sensible point made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about how to protect young people from abuse, we would do the country a service.
  One cannot tell gay people, who, according to any projection are likely to be a minority of the community, that they are valued as equals if the law does not treat them as such. We cannot get away with that. It is like telling people with physical or mental disabilities, or women or men or black or Asian people, "You're equal, we value you lots, we love you, but we're not going to treat you equally." We simply cannot do that. If we cannot move forward in Britain in 2000, we are in big trouble.

  451
  Clause 2 is straightforward. Thanks to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others in Standing Committee, we have decided not to criminalise under-16s. It is no good to anybody to say that a sexual activity engaged in at school renders someone a criminal. It is fine to deal with adults' abuse of young people, but let us not criminalise under-16s. Let us consider someone who is under 16 and goes through a passing homosexual phase at school and is criminalised for that. That blot remains on the record for ever. To criminalise someone for that is not the response of an adult, mature society.
  Let us consider abuse of trust, which the Minister tackled the other day when he replied to the short debate about procedure. I hope that the other place will have an opportunity to consider the details of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) will say if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I hope she will, we are worried about some aspects of the drafting. Those anxieties are shared outside the House. The House has considered the measure, and I hope that the other place has an opportunity to examine it. We are considering a difficult measure which deals with the exploitation of younger people by older people. I hope that we can spend time on it to ensure that we get it right.
  I am a Christian and a member of the Church. I come from an evangelical church background. I say to those who try to place an interpretation of faith on their views that there is a great difference between arguing that the Gospel, the Koran or the teachings of Guru Nanak say that someone should lead a particular life style or behave in a specific manner and legislating to make it illegal not to behave in that way. If the Church is to be all embracing, and faiths are to win people, not lose them, they must accept people as they are. They should try to win them by argument, not legislation. I hope that the division and difficulty that the Church has experienced on life style can be removed. The way in which people live, their moral choices and their behaviour are matters of morality, faith and conviction, but not legislation. Legislating on such matters is not for us in this multicultural, multi-community age.
  The Bill is about private acts. We must not introduce into our discussions matters that are nothing to do with the Bill. We should have a review of sexual offences—I hope that the Minister and the Department are making good progress. The law is a muddle. I say that as someone who used to practise in the criminal courts. It is all over the place. Much of it dates from many years ago. It contains may inconsistencies, illogicalities and anomalies. The sooner the general review is before Parliament for careful consideration, the better. It should address the differences in the way people are treated. It should improve the law on indecent activity in public places. That does not work at the moment. We must not include in our discussions the debate about clause 28. That is a separate debate, which is not about the rights of our citizens, but about what our public institutions do.
  I beg hon. Members to put aside extraneous matters and issues that involve our personal convictions and our faith and, to borrow a phrase from someone much more famous than me—[Interruption.] He is much, much more famous than me. I sense that at the moment,
  "There is a tide in the affairs of men"
  452
  and women. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, the Bill will lead us towards a more tolerant, less bigoted society in which all people, after centuries of struggle, will at last be treated as equals. The measure is a small step in that direction. Please let us not put up barriers of bigotry now; let us move on to a more enabling and refreshing agenda.
  3.26 pm
  Lorna Fitzsimons: It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. Many colleagues have provided eloquent testimony to their long-held views and passionate beliefs in the rightness of what we are doing. The Bill is testament to the sort of society we want to live in and the sort of people we want to be. We must remember that this place is an advert to the rest of the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) said, our language and tolerance is used by the general public as a method of judging what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We have to lead by example. If we do not have laws that ensure that we treat people equally and accept that everyone is equal, we are going round in circles on one leg.
  It was interesting and sad to listen to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She talked about permanent exclusion. Anyone who has worked with or near children who are approaching the time in their lives when they question their sexuality, ask questions and make discoveries knows that exploring those matters under the cloud of knowing that they are involved in an illegal act leads to exclusion. I can think of no better definition of permanently excluding someone from society. The message is loud and clear: society does not recognise their right to exist, and the act that they want to practise is illegal, not because they are gay but because of their age. As soon as they become a certain age, the act becomes legal.
  I find it offensive that young girls are treated differently. We should provide protection for all our children, regardless of age or sexuality. One does not say to a child, "Are you gay? All right, I'll protect you." Every child deserves protection in law and in society generally. Being a member of society means looking out for children. One does not look for the tag on a child's head; one looks to protect them. The premise that a gay young boy between the age of 16 and 18 needs more protection than a young girl of the same age is nonsense. Anyone who claims that has not listened to any teenage girls. I am about to become a stepmother of a 12-year-old girl, and we cannot avoid young girls' questions and their sexuality. They cannot avoid their sexuality—they have hormones popping everywhere. It is naive in the extreme to say that young people have to hide their sexuality in a discreet closet because it does not exist.
  Another point has been eloquently made. To pretend that the change would undermine the family is outrageous. Excluding people means excluding family members— brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunties, uncles, sons and daughters. Do some people think that gay people do not have families? It is offensive to say that, all of a sudden, it is a chattering-class issue or a right-on issue, that it is not a core issue.
  It was interesting to see a little snippet on BBC news this morning. It had done a vox pop in Newcastle upon Tyne, Central—not exactly a trendy, cafe latte-type place.

  453
  The question was, "Is it just the chattering classes? Are they not concentrating on bread and butter issues and on what you want as working class people?" Interestingly, woman after woman said, "No. It is a core principle about the type of society that we want to live in and the type of people we want to be. We have to ensure that all our children are protected and are treated equally." That did not come from me or anyone here—it came from ordinary working-class women in the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. We have to recognise that.
  I have had the most heart-rending personal letters from young men who have never declared their sexuality to anyone because they were too scared; I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member here to have received such letters. Are we not humbled by the courageous way in which they are coming out and touching us as Members of Parliament by writing to us? Sometimes, we are the first person with whom they have shared that experience because of the law as it stands. Sometimes, they do not have the courage to go to their family because of their perception of how the family will deal with it. Often that is unfair because families can be very supportive—although sometimes they are not, as we know from our surgeries—but we cannot let down those constituents.
  To say that there are no gay people in Rochdale is naive. To say that there are no young people asking real questions about their sexuality, who want help and to be able freely to ask and to get information, is wrong. How can they freely question something when it is illegal and there is total fear? That is at the core of the child protection issue. Surely, if something is made illegal—we all know this from all the case law—it will go underground. People do not report crimes, and they are preyed on and blackmailed. The bottom line is that keeping this law is the best way to continue the abuse of children by people who allegedly care for them.
  If we take child abuse seriously, we will ensure that everyone inside and outside this place knows that, in the eyes of the law, at the age of 16, people are all equal. We are all worthy of the same protection in law. We must ensure that we send that message collectively to everyone who uses the law to exercise bigotry because of their own fear, vulnerabilities or standing in life. The bottom line is that we advance nothing that the great British parliamentary tradition has held dear by continuing to have this law.
  As for the intervention by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I find it absolutely and utterly astounding that, in a place that is meant to be so learned, we still have bigotry based on ignorance. The facts are clear; they have been published in the House of Commons Library research paper and have been eloquently referred to. There is a rise in the incidence of AIDS in the heterosexual community. Anyone who is naive enough to believe that sexual practices in the homosexual community are the only ones that lead to sexual and other diseases has not been to a sex education class in any school recently.
  Mrs. Gorman: I, too, am quoting from statistics produced by the Public Health Laboratory Service. Dr. Nicoll points out that of the currently diagnosed cases among heterosexuals in this country, only 6 per cent.—62 of the individuals concerned—have contracted that dreadful disease in this country. The great majority of people are from the sub-continent of Africa. The disease
  454
  there is pandemic. We all know that, but the impression given by the publicity is that the disease is growing among the indigenous population in this country—the heterosexual population—and that is not true.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I cautiously say that I am sure that I misunderstood the hon. Lady when she said that it was an imported epidemic from Africa. The fact is that it is growing in the heterosexual community throughout the world. We are an international community—everyone travels.
  The bottom line is that when people continue to perpetrate the myth that it is a gay plague, they allow every person who is heterosexual and about to embark on their first heterosexual experience to think that it is all right not to practise safe sex. Sadly, that is one of the reasons why people are naively led into unsafe sexual practices which lead to the rise in the AIDS epidemic. Can we therefore at least recognise one principle and fact in this Chamber—namely, that we are all prey to diseases when we practise unsafe sex and that it has nothing to do with sexuality?
  Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that ignorance comes not just from hon. Members? A leader in the Daily Mail the week before last said that one of the reasons for keeping section 28 was because, otherwise, young people might not be taught that marriage helps to protect them from AIDS. That is not just ignorant; it is criminal and dangerous to encourage children down that route.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I would be interested to find out from the statistics how many married people have AIDS. The truth is that we need to expound the myth. More heterosexuals than homosexuals have AIDS. The bottom line is that it is a disease that affects us all, so we should stop scapegoating. I thought that we had got rid of that idea a decade ago; I genuinely did. I am shocked to hear it raised in the Chamber.
  I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) raised with him. I want to make it clear that it is not, as it appeared from the Home Secretary's response, about repealing the conviction retrospectively, which no one—including, I understand, the Bolton Seven—is asking for. The point is that, because of the law as it stands now, they are on the sexual offences register. If the Bill is enacted, as I hope it will be, they will be on the register for something that is no longer illegal— consenting sex with a 17-year-old. Therefore, we ask for a review of people on the register because of the unequal age of consent. The issue is purely about those who have entered consensual sexual practices.
  Mr. David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to separate the punishment for the crime, which is the sentence meted out by the court, from a measure that is meant to safeguard the public, which is what the register of sexual offences is for? There is some confusion in the Home Office about what the punishment is and what the public protection is.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for putting it so clearly. We all share those concerns about

  455
  protection. That is why we have considered the matter and why it is part of the Bill, but there is some confusion. I would like us to consider that a bit more closely.
  The bottom line is that in this day and age—in the new millennium—we want to be able to be tolerant. For all of us who are parents, whether step-parents or natural parents, and for anyone who is involved in teaching children, the greatest fear is that children will not go to their parents, a teacher or a responsible person with their questions. If we continue to maintain the current inequality, that will happen. We know that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of children who have many questions which they are just holding within themselves. I cannot think of a sadder and more dangerous society for our children to live in.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I have changed my mind on this subject, and I owe it to myself, the House and my constituents to explain why. The words "I was wrong" do not readily trip off my tongue, but that is what I believe. I think I was mistaken to vote for the status quo last time, and I intend to vote for the Bill, for reform and, I think, for progress.
  But before I explain to the House my thinking—and I hope that the House will be tolerant of my doing so—I should like to pick up on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—who, sadly, is not in her place— said in opening from the Opposition Front Bench. I greatly regret that she chose to establish a linkage between section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 and this Bill. I say what follows not to break what consensus has already emerged in the debate or cause any offence. I recognise that some hon. Members feel strongly that section 28 should be removed. I believe that they are mistaken. I believe that we are right to support it. It has a valuable effect, and it would be a mistake to dispense with it. That is a matter for legitimate debate and argument, but it is wrong to link the two and imply that one must take the same line on both issues. There is no requirement whatsoever to do so.
  I should also like to make it clear that, as I think the House will understand, regarding my right hon. Friend's references to political correctness, I have in no sense fallen prey to it. I abhor political correctness. I could not give a tinker's cuss as to the view of the European Court of Human Rights, and I view both the persona and the activities of Mr. Peter Tatchell with repugnance. So I hope that I shall be acquitted of the charge that I am in some sense a fellow traveller of the organisation OutRage!
  On the contrary, I have just reflected upon the issues. It so happens that I am heterosexual, but I acknowledge a point that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) made in her speech and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) made in her powerful contribution, which is that I have homosexual constituents as well. The idea that they exist in every other constituency, but not in that of Buckingham, is preposterous. I have a proportion of homosexual constituents. They are human beings; they are civilised; they have rights and obligations as well. And I am duty bound to take account of their interests.
  456
  In essence, there are three main reasons why I feel impelled to vote tonight for change.
  First, the status quo provides discrimination without benefit. I am not opposed to discrimination per se in the way in which I live my life. [Laughter] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) laughs. I shall try to explain what I mean. A discriminating person is somebody who exercises judgment, discretion and, not infrequently, wisdom. But it is a very different matter to have a statutory discrimination without benefit.
  I listened intently, interestedly and respectfully to my right hon. Friend speaking from the Front Bench, but it was not at all clear to me what was the benefit that flowed and flows from the status quo. There is no evidence that the present law reduces the incidence of homosexual activity, minimises the spread of infection and increases the protection available to young people. None of these things is achieved by the present law. It seems to me that it has no beneficial purpose at all.
  Indeed, the argument is stronger than merely that the present law has no beneficial purpose or effect. It is that many young people, possibly uncertain about their sexuality, or possibly knowing that they are homosexual, are discouraged by their being currently criminalised in law from seeking appropriate health advice from those in a position to provide it. It cannot be right that we simply ignore that fact.
  The effect of present arrangements is that the statute book delivers a recipe for confusion, misery and fear. The onus of responsibility is on those who are defending the status quo to explain what benefits it confers upon us and what demerits would result from the Bill. My right hon. Friend's speech, I regret to say, failed to explain that.
  The second argument in support of change is powerful, but one that some right hon. and hon. Members might think it curious to hear from me. I refer to the position in continental Europe. I yield to no one in my Euro-scepticism. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, and as I have already made clear, I could not care less what the European Court of Human Rights thinks about this subject. But it would be absurd to ignore what happens in other countries, and the fact is that in Denmark, France, Greece, Poland and Sweden there is an equal age of consent, which happens to be 15. The House will be aware that in Germany the equal age of consent is now 16.
  I challenge those who support the status quo and inveigh so violently against this relatively modest reform to prove that some damaging consequence flows from the different arrangements in those countries. If they could show that the incidence of homosexual activity was greater, that the spread of infection was bigger, that the protection for young people was weaker, they would have the kernel of an argument. They have not been able, at least to my satisfaction, to demonstrate anything of the kind. The position is no worse in those countries, as far as I can discern. Indeed, arguably the position in many other countries is far better than it is here.
  Everyone in the House knows this country's record on teenage pregnancies, for example. It is an abominable record, a shameful record, a record that we should be doing our level best to improve. There is nothing to suggest that the existing law will achieve that.

  457
  The third argument against the status quo and in favour of change, which I had heard before, but which I had not previously allowed to persuade me, is that experts in medical charities and children's charities alike, and throughout the medical profession, counsel that we should make this change. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to that wide-ranging consensus for change. It is important to recall once again the range of organisations that support reform: the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; Barnardos; NCH Action for Children; the National Children's Bureau; Save the Children; the Family Welfare Association; the Family Planning Association; the Health Education Authority; the British Medical Association; the National Association of Probation Officers; the British Association of Social Workers; the Royal College of Physicians; the Royal College of Nursing; and so on. If I have omitted to mention an important organisation, no doubt a right hon. or hon. Member will point that out.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Bercow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who intervened from a sedentary position, for not including the Liberal Democrats in the category of important organisations, but I am very happy to accept that he is a long-standing supporter of reform.
  I counted no fewer than 13 organisations in my list. All of them believe that positive health benefits could flow from a change in the law, and that seems a good reason to consider making it.
  I do not want to detain the House for much longer, because I am very conscious, first, that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and, secondly, of the substantial expertise on all sides of the House on this subject; expertise with which I do not pretend to compete. But I would make some concluding points.
  First, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends occasionally give the impression that they are in favour only of homosexual activity between consenting males of 99 years of age, with the consent of both parents. That does not seem to me to be justified. I believe in tolerance. I believe in equality before the law. I also believe in freedom under the law, and it is with the concept of freedom, as well as with that of equality, that we are in this debate, I hope, concerned.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate the real risk that young, impressionable boys who are somewhat doubtful about their sexuality will be pressurised into adopting a course that they will regret later? Does he not accept that Parliament has a role to play in the protection of young people?
  Mr. Bercow: I certainly believe that it is important for Parliament to protect people.
  I once bought into my hon. Friend's argument, but since then I have been reading, I have been listening, and I have been conversing with people who know something about the subject, in my constituency and elsewhere. Now, I simply do not think that the argument is valid. There have been a plethora of studies, in this country and overseas, and the general conclusion seems to be that an individual is unlikely, as a result of an experience in his
  458
  youth, to be propelled into a homosexual existence that would not otherwise have occurred. The Howard League for Penal Reform produced one of the most recent and penetrating reports on the subject, in 1985. I found it very persuasive.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made a good point about the duty of Parliament to protect young people in all circumstances. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) think that making a young person a criminal will protect him in any way?
  Mr. Bercow: Certainly not. I agree with my hon. Friend, whom I have heard expatiate on the subject before, that that is a recipe for misery and fear.
  Mr. Duncan: It is counter-productive.
  Mr. Bercow: It is indeed.
  I am very conscious that, in speaking as I have done and in voting as I intend to do, I am almost certain to incur the wrath of many of the people whom I admire most in politics, and that I will be accompanied in the Lobby by some—not all—of the people whom I respect least in politics. However, I have a duty in this regard.
  Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman may have those fears, but I am sure I speak for many Labour Members when I say that, following what he has said so far, we shall look on him in an entirely new light. We only hope that he will not do this too often; if he does, we shall feel most uncomfortable in the future.
  Mr. Bercow: I accept the hon. Lady's tribute in the spirit in which it was offered, but I hope that she will not overdo it. No doubt I have already inflicted massive political damage on myself, and I do not want to add to it.
  Like other Members, I have received many letters on this subject—not many in the run-up to today's debate, but many over the past couple of years. Those letters expressed a variety of views. I will not assert that the majority favoured change; they probably did not, and certainly a majority of Conservative supporters were against it. However, I believe that if we spend years trying to get into this place, once we are here we should say what we think and vote with our conscience. For that reason, and on the basis of a conversion on my part because of the evidence, I will support the Bill's Second Reading.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and his last words were particularly near and dear to me. I congratulate him on being humble enough to admit that he was wrong, and suggest that he should hang on to a copy of tomorrow's Hansard, which may well become a collector's item in years to come.
  It is nice when someone introduces some levity to the Chamber—heaven knows, it is badly needed on occasion—but we are discussing a serious matter. I disagree with the hon. Member for Buckingham on one point: I feel that section 28 is linked with this debate.

  459
  I say that because the Home Secretary's speech—not so much the content as the tone, which was based on humanity and compassion—was also near and dear to me.
  Many of us, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), were born in the early part of the last century. I cannot recall homosexuality being discussed in my home during my childhood, or in the various schools that I attended. Only as a teenage apprentice did I become aware of it. I did not have a sheltered upbringing; in fact, I grew up in rather a rough area.
  When something is sprung on a person, that person will have difficulties. I was not a politician in those days; I was just like any other teenager, trying to learn and to find my way through a difficult time. I must be honest, and admit that I initially felt some distaste about homosexuality. My subsequent feelings, however, were perhaps more important. I had a sense almost of pity, of compassion, and, I hope, of understanding in relation to someone who did not belong to the flock—someone who was an outsider.
  I must say in all honesty that I do not think I have met half a dozen homosexuals in my life, although I have read a lot about them and have heard people speak about the subject.
  Ms Oona King: There are half a dozen on these Benches.
  Mr. Etherington: I should be grateful if my hon. Friends would give me a count. It is good to get a bit of information.
  One of the most poignant experiences that I have encountered was that of a couple with whom I became friendly when they were young. In their later days, they discovered that one of their children had homosexual tendencies. They were horrified, and found it difficult to cope. I felt immensely sympathetic. Like all decent parents, those people loved their child very much, and this was a big blow.
  We have moved on tremendously in recent years, but we have not moved far enough. I pay tribute to the Government for noting the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to abolish discrimination against homosexuals in the armed forces: that was a big step forward. If this Bill is passed, that too will be a big step forward. In many ways, this issue is like the long march of Everyman: it goes on, and we hope that it gets better.
  Unlike the contender for Back Bencher of the year, the hon. Member for Buckingham, I do give a tinker's cuss about Europe, and about the various organisations to which we have voluntarily signed up and in regard to which we have responsibilities and obligations. If I have a slight criticism of my Government in relation to the issue we are debating, it is this. The European Court of Justice made a decision about discrimination against those with a different sexual orientation in the armed forces. If we could put a three-line Whip on that, and if Government policy was to try to get it through, why have we suddenly returned to a free Vote when the European Court has made a decision that has led to today's debate? I do not see the logic: I do not understand the difference between the position today and the position just after the Christmas recess.
  460
  I have spoken about subjects involving homosexuality during the plenary session of the Council of Europe, and I belong to the committee on equal opportunities for men and women. The committee strongly agrees that heterosexuals are treated very differently from homosexuals by many nations. Britain has a pretty good record, and we are respected in Europe, not least because of the recent decision about the armed services. However, we can still learn from other people and countries, and we still have some way to go.
  I am fairly confident—I speak with some authority on this—that my Government do not believe that sexual orientation should be allowed to be a consideration in employment decisions. In employment, one's sexual orientation and sex should not matter, everyone should be treated equally and there should be no discrimination.
  Recently, the issue was discussed at the Council of Europe, where I spoke on it for the Socialist group. An amendment was also passed to the new protocol 12, specifically including sexual orientation as an unlawful consideration in employment decisions. However, I was amazed to discover that, in the brief from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Government opposed the amendment. Their opposition did not fit in with what I have been led to believe in this place. Although I am sure that some other hon. Members have had similar experiences on other issues, the Government's opposition to that amendment did not send out the correct signals.
  The House of Lords' regrettable decision on section 28 did not send out the right signals to our European partners. I appreciate why no amendments are being tabled to the Bill. If the Parliament Act 1911 is to be invoked, it is essential that the Bill not be amended. Passing the Bill is the only way in which we will be able to comply with a ruling in law that we have signed up to abide by.
  When the Government introduce Bills to bring us into line with European legislation or judgments from the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice, the House of Lords are able to thwart those efforts. If we are going to comply with our obligations, we will therefore have to examine very closely the House of Lords' powers. The other place could cause the Government and every British citizen to be in breach of our European and international obligations.
  I have therefore reached a conclusion that has nothing to do with this debate: if the House of Lords could put us in such a situation, perhaps, when we are considering reforming the House of Lords, we should consider abolishing it. If we do not, democracy will not prevail, and the elected representatives of the United Kingdom will be thwarted in performing their responsibilities.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Etherington: I will not, because I have only two or three minutes.
  I am very pleased that the Bill will be passed today. Some time ago, I voted to lower the age of consent from 21 to 16 but it became 18 and it is long overdue that we equalised the age of consent. It has been inexcusable that certain backwoodsmen have been able to hold up progress, but democracy and the rule of law will ensure that religious beliefs—which, in many ways, is what this debate is about—cannot be used as an excuse for failing to live by the law of the land. We want to progress equality for homosexuals of both sexes.
  4.3 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who made great play of the importance to him of his constituents in Buckingham, and perhaps particularly of those of a homosexual persuasion. I put it to him and to the House that we come to this place not only to exercise our own conscience, but to represent the views of those who elected us—our constituents.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the great majority of his constituents, and of mine, have strong misgivings about not only this legislation, but the Government's intention to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. We have an obligation—often in the face of Labour Members' criticisms, which are not always particularly well-balanced or rational—to express the views of those constituents. Majorities, like minorities, have a right to hold and express their views. I am speaking partly on behalf of that majority today.
  I, like everyone else, do not seek to criminalise young people in any context whatever. However, we should remember that the number of prosecutions of young people in the 16-to-18 age group for anything related to homosexuality is minute. I think that, in the past several years, there have been only two such prosecutions. Therefore, we are talking not about people hunting down 16-year-olds to prosecute, but about the concerns of the parents of those children.
  As hon. Members have said, some of those parents may very much favour changing current legislation, but some do not favour it. As some of my colleagues have said, the children of some of those parents may be in education or in care institutions. Although I welcome the fact that young people in care will receive special protection in the Bill, young people who are not in care—such as those in schools and other activities, such as swimming clubs and military groups—will not be protected by the Bill. Those young people may be subject to pressures that induce them to become involved in various activities.
  As we know, some young people, including boys, become prostitutes. In many cases, those young people may well be led into such practices for money, or even simply for a type of affection, rather than as the result of an automatic predilection, be it biological or otherwise.
  Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: No, I shall not give way now. I want to make some progress. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be able to speak and tell us her views.
  I am particularly concerned—I have raised this issue in the House before—about the health aspects of the matter. In the United Kingdom, we are bombarded with propaganda on the health risks to young people caused by smoking, drinking and drug taking. However, if we mention the health risks involved in homosexual activities, we are shouted down and told that we are bigoted or prejudiced or, in many cases, completely wrong.
  I should like again to quote the chief executive of the Public Health Laboratory Service, Dr. Nicholl, who states in a report:
  "The risk of contracting Aids is vastly greater in homosexual people than in heterosexuals."
  462
  The report also stated that, last year, of the 1,070 heterosexual people living in Britain who contracted human immune deficiency virus—many of whom underwent HIV testing because of increased concern among women about the disease—only 62 contracted the disease in this country. When I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) that the great majority of the women in that group came from the sub-continent, she jumped on the statement and said that it simply showed that heterosexual populations in other countries are severely affected by the disease.
  The fact remains that, in some of those countries, particularly African countries—it has been a feature also in post-communist Romania—the incidence of HIV-AIDS among the female population is related to the use of anal intercourse as a form of contraception. That fact has been medically documented. Therefore, the issue of what happens in some cases of homosexuality between consenting male adults—an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whose comments were subsequently sedentarily described by Labour Members as bigotry—is relevant to the debate. We should put that on the record because it is highly significant.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am listening to the hon. Lady with as much dispassionate intensity as I can muster. I am concerned about her line of argument. She is talking about public health issues, which affect heterosexual as much as homosexual people. Does she accept that the logical implication of her argument is that the age of consent should be raised for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals? Will she acknowledge that the gay community and homosexual organisations have done at least as much as other organisations to alert people to the public health issues that she is talking about?
  Mrs. Gorman: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says, but not all of it. I do not want to get into a debate with him because we have a short time available and I want to put my point of view.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend and I have been friends for 15 years and I am sure that we are not going to fall out over this issue. Is not the weakness of her argument that it is based on the premise that the proposed change in the law will somehow result in a dramatic explosion of homosexual activity? That premise is fundamentally flawed. Why does she think that the advice of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians on the pursuit of good health is wrong and that she is right?
  Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend ignores the fact, which I have already pointed out, that in the past few decades we have had an explosion of HIV-AIDS—a disease that was practically unknown before the more liberal attitude to homosexuality was adopted in this country. We have to some extent managed to conquer that problem, thanks to more advanced medical techniques, but that does not alter the causal relationship. When we tell young children

  463
  about health risks, the diseases related to some forms of homosexual practices should be brought to their attention. This is a health issue rather than a moral issue.
  Mr. Borrow rose—
  Mr. Stephen Twigg rose—
  Mrs. Gorman: I shall not give way, because all hon. Members have an opportunity to make their own contribution and I do not want to detain the House for too long.
  We should keep the issue in proportion by bearing in mind the number of people of a homosexual persuasion in the country. Those listening to our debates might get the impression that we are dealing with a massive problem involving large numbers of people who should receive a lot of attention. The report of the national survey of sexual attitudes and life styles shows that around 1 per cent. of the male population are of homosexual persuasion. That is some 300,000 people, which means that there are about 30,000 males of the relevant age group. It is not the case that every school has half a dozen or more boys who are being bullied because they are homosexual or are at risk of being enticed by older males into homosexual practices. For that reason if for no other, the attention that we are giving to the need to lower the age of consent is out of all proportion with the problem.
  Jackie Ballard: Does the hon. Lady agree that, no matter what the size—whether it is 1 per cent., 10 per cent, or 49 per cent.—one of the first duties of this place is to protect the rights of minorities?
  Mrs. Gorman: I agree with that, but another important purpose of being in this place is to present the views of the majority. The majority on this issue, as in the debate on section 28, is almost ignored, partly because the membership of the House of Commons is not representative of the population on the issue. We have a much higher percentage of people of homosexual persuasion in the House than in the population at large. That tends to drive the debate in a direction that reflects the personal considerations of some Members rather than the attitudes of the population as a whole.
  Ann Keen: How will the majority be affected by the Bill? How will they feel and what difference will it make to them?
  Mrs. Gorman: The views of parents of boys aged 16 to 18 and their concerns about their children should be reflected in our debates. Some will agree and some will disagree, but the majority of parents feel concern. The number of children at risk is relatively small. For that reason alone, we do not need to alter existing legislation against the wishes of the great majority of the people whom we represent. We are bombarded by propaganda in this country and sometimes we are led to believe that there is a regime of persecution of our young people on the issue. That is a great exaggeration. There is no evidence that existing legislation needs to be changed. The change will cause great concern to many parents. We have a duty to represent their views and consider whether we need to
  464
  alter the law. The amount of persecution going on is so slight that it could be dealt with by the current law, which does not discriminate badly against young male homosexuals. That is demonstrated by the number of convictions. I shall sit down now so that others can participate in the debate.
  4.18 pm
  Kali Mountford: I feel privileged to listen to the debate. My parents brought me up to know people from many walks of life and religions. I owe my mother a debt of gratitude for the fact that I am not inflicted with any disability of mind that might make certain people repulsive or repugnant to me. As we shall have a free vote on the issue, I have examined my conscience closely to work out why I feel the way I do and why I believe that my vote will be morally right and justified.
  I have considered the great figures of history whom the rest of us aspire to be like to see from whom I could draw an example. A line comes to mind from Martin Luther King when he was considering the position of his children. He was talking about the future of people of different ethnic backgrounds, but his comment that we should judge people by the content of their heart applies in this debate. It is the content of a person's heart that appeals to me, not the state of their being. We can judge people only by actions over which they have control. We cannot, in all justice and conscience, make a judgment that criminalises someone for a state of existence that is simply themselves, because if we do that we deny them. This debate is not just about equality before the law; it is about humanity, which is the very purpose of a legislative Chamber. If the House is not concerned with humanity, what are we here for? We have to consider the law, and its sense and purpose.
  One purpose claimed for the law as it stands is that it provides protection. What sort of protection do we seek for our children? Do we seek to protect them from their own sexuality? Is that even possible? The European Commission has stated:
  "Sexual orientation is fixed in both sexes at the age of 16."
  It continued:
  "Men aged 16 to 21 are not in need of special protection because of a risk of being 'recruited' into homosexuality."
  I absolutely agree.
  I firmly believe that our sexuality is as much a part of our being as whether we have curly hair, green eyes or white or brown skin. Therefore, homosexuality should not be an issue for a debate about equality. We should simply accept each other as we are. There is nothing for people to be protected from, because we should not need to be protected from our own existence.
  What other protection might we seek for people? We could seek protection for them from older people making sexual advances against their consent. In that case, the law clearly discriminates, because men and women are treated differently. The BMA has said:
  "The risk posed by predatory older men would appear to be as serious whether the victim is a man or a woman and does not justify a differential age of consent."
  The argument is that young men aged between 16 and 18 are more vulnerable than young women of that age. That is a preposterous argument. Young women, if they

  465
  experience unwanted sexual activity—or sexual activity they have consented to that is unwise and leads to pregnancy or disease—face at least the same dangers as a young man. Young women also face the risk of pregnancy, which can be grave indeed at that age. I do not propose that we change the age of consent for young women, because it would be ludicrous to deny the fact that young people engage in sexual activity—which anyway would be impossible to police. If we are providing protection for young women at the age of 16, why should there be a difference for young men? I have seen no evidence that makes me believe that young men are more vulnerable.
  It has been suggested that protection is needed on health grounds, but the first protection is information. If people are not informed about where their sexual activity may lead them, what hope do they have of protecting their own health? I do not know what is so complicated or advanced about condoms. They have been around for a long time and served a useful purpose. They protect people, whatever their age, against the unwanted consequences of sexual activity. Their primary purpose is obviously protection against pregnancy, but they also protect against sexually transmitted diseases for both men and women. Why should we differentiate between people of different sexes when there is nothing very complicated about the use of a condom? They are not a new idea, and their use should be discussed more widely in schools, youth clubs and wherever people who need such information to protect themselves gather together. There is nothing new in that.
  The NSPCC, which is a respected organisation, supports the equalisation of the age of consent because
  "continuing discrimination in the law against homosexuals stigmatises young people growing up gay. It hinders them from developing a positive self-image and prevents them from seeking information and help in coming to terms with their sexuality."
  We know that the current situation provides a platform for homophobic bullying. If there is any risk to health, it is in the law as it stands, which means that people do not have information with which to protect their bodies and are not supported in protecting their mental and emotional development.
  The current law leaves people open to abuse. If an older man seeks to have a sexual relationship with a younger man aged 16 to 17, both parties are in breach.of the law. If the young man has not consented, he cannot put himself forward for protection under the law, because he, too, is in breach of the law. That situation is not providing protection for him or his health, and serves no purpose for the public or the young people whom we seek to protect.
  It is claimed that the current state of the law protects young people, but so far I have seen no evidence of that. It is claimed that the law protects family life. Well, family life has been glorious for me. I enjoy marriage, and I know many people who do. I also know gay men who have married to protect themselves from homophobic views and bullying, but that serves no purpose to marriage, their happiness or that of the women they marry. People will not be happy if they marry to avoid homophobic behaviour, and that is not the sort of family life I support.
  Many hon. Members have discussed the importance of family life and said how many of our sons, brothers, sisters and so on are gay. They are part of our families,
  466
  but people should not feel forced into relationships that are not natural for them. Just because my own marriage is natural and happy for me, I should not seek to impose a similar relationship on others. I am fortunate that the relationship that feels natural to me resembles those of the majority of people in this country, but what purpose could it serve for me to impose a relationship that suits me on another individual? My happiness is my own personal joy, and I hope that the House will find a way of allowing other people to find their personal joy in their own way.
  Some people assume that, when young people are growing up and exploring their sexuality, they make a decision about it. However, the evidence shows that there is no decision to be made. The vast majority of young men who are homosexual find that out for themselves before the age of 15 and with no sexual contact. They have engaged in no physical exploration with anyone else, but they already know their own mind.
  Some of my hon. Friends have already spoken of their experience with step-daughters, daughters and sons, and mine is the same. There is no possibility of my telling either of my children what their sexuality is, or of being able to change their mind. It is not a question of changing their mind—that is the crux of the matter. The construct of my argument is that a person must be valued in society, and so must their relationships, their developing sexuality and their emerging love for other people. I use the word "love" very carefully. In my experience, when young men and young girls have their first early contacts with either the opposite sex or the same sex, the first powerful feeling is one of love. That loving feeling for their first partner may not last for the rest of their life—it rarely does—but why should that surge of loving feeling between opposite-sex couples be denied to same-sex couples, and not all same-sex couples at that? It has already been said, far more poetically than I could say it, that there is a love that cannot speak its name. But let us speak it, because it is love.
  I do not accept that married love between two people of the opposite sex is somehow more valuable, and has a special place—that would be to deny same-sex love. It does not mean that I denounce marriage, which has its place in society. Marriage is considered, not just by this place, but by most religions, as a special relationship in which children are brought into the world and have a special place in that family. We cannot talk about the emerging sexuality of children without talking about love. Love includes the love between parents and the love of parents for their children. It means that we accept the love that our children feel for the people with whom they have relationships throughout their life. Therefore, equalising the age of consent is an objective of paramount importance.
  We also have a duty of care, which should not be about emerging sexuality, but about whether someone has a relationship of power over another person. That is where the Bill draws distinct and important lines. It does the debate a disservice to draw those lines in a trivial way by saying that, if young people go swimming, for example, or engage in a fun activity with others in a youth club, the adult running the club or in charge of the outing has a powerful relationship over those young people. That is a silly contention.
  It is important to consider institutional structures such as schools, care homes and other places in which adults have a particular position over children, whether girls

  467
  or boys. What is important is that the adult does not transgress the child's trust. The trust exists because the adult has a powerful position, not just because he or she is an adult. That point was made strongly in Committee when we last discussed these provisions—this is the third time in this Parliament that we have done so. I believe that the Committee got it right—looking carefully at the position of trust was the right thing to do.
  I have said it before, and I shall continue to say it: this is dependent not on sexuality, but on trust. If people are to trust us to do the right thing, we must look at a way forward that is based on equality, respect, acceptance and love.
  4.35 pm
  Jackie Ballard: I think that most people would agree that the last time this subject was debated in this place, the most eloquent speech was made by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who was then on the Conservative Benches. So far today, the most eloquent speech has come from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), although I suspect that he will not be following all the examples set by his former hon. Friend.
  In the past three years, everything that could ever be said about sexual activity, sexual orientation or sexual offences has been said in this House and in the other place. However, this is the first time that I have taken part in such a debate. I will try hard not to repeat arguments that have already been made.
  I strongly support the main provisions of the Bill, which will at last bring equal treatment and equal rights, at least in one respect, to my many gay and bisexual friends and constituents. I do not understand people who are obsessed with the sexual activities of others. We have all had letters from people who write in lurid detail, as have some of those who have spoken this week in the other place. I believe that it is no business of mine what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes, and I do not believe that the law should be interested in that either.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Jackie Ballard: Certainly.
  Hon. Members: He has only just got here.
  Mr. Robathan: As it happens, I was here at the beginning.
  The hon. Lady talks about consenting adults. The whole point is that we are talking about children, as defined by the Children Act 1989 and the United Nation convention on the rights of the child. I am sure that she will acknowledge that.
  Jackie Ballard: It is strange that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that at the age of 16 girls are adults, but at the age of 16 boys are still children, unless he is arguing to raise the age of consent for everyone to 18. I suspect that that would not receive wide, if any, support.
  Despite my general support for the Bill—and we have heard eloquent arguments about why we should support it—I believe that it leaves many unanswered questions. It does not go far enough in some areas and goes too far
  468
  in others. The main areas in which I disagree with the Government are the continuing unequal treatment of gay men and the continued discrimination against them in law. As I indicated in my earlier intervention on the Home Secretary, I also have serious misgivings about the abuse of trust provisions.
  Let me deal first with the continuing unequal treatment of gay men. At present, heterosexuals involved in group sex commit no offence as long as it is done in private. However, even after the Bill becomes law, homosexuals will still be committing a criminal act if more than two people are present or if it is deemed to be public. It is clear discrimination when the law makes no such provision of an offence for heterosexuals. I am not asking for the law against gross indecency in public places to be relaxed, but we are discussing equal treatment under the law and equal rights. Therefore, should we not be equalising it in all respects, including the issue of group sexual activity? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
  My main concerns are about the abuse of trust provisions. I do not take the line proposed by some Conservative Members that we should extend them to everyone. Many aspects of the provisions seem confused. A lot of people who speak in these debates say, "I am a parent, therefore I care more than everyone else." Well, I, too, am a parent, and I take it that we all have families of one sort or another, we all care about our children and other people's children, and we all want to make sure that they are not abused, their trust is not abused and a position of power is not abused. So I am sure that we all welcome the measures that are aimed at protecting children, particularly in residential homes and secure units, where they are especially vulnerable.
  However, the provisions contain several anomalies. To check that I was not alone in being concerned about how the Bill applies to teachers, I spoke this week with representatives of four teaching unions in Somerset. Not all of them were new Labour or Liberal Democrat supporters; one, in fact, was a Conservative councillor. All opposed the new criminal offence of abuse of trust as it relates to teachers.
  People may say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" We may think that they have a vested interest. But those representatives made the point that everyone in the teaching profession is bound by a code of conduct that recognises that teachers are in a position of trust. If teachers have a consensual relationship with young adults in their care or under their supervision, they are likely to be abusing their position of trust and authority. Such behaviour can already result in disciplinary action by employers, including summary dismissal, having one's name entered on List 99 and the ending of a teaching career.
  It is right to discipline a teacher for forming an abusive or exploitative relationship. However, in my view, in the view of the teaching unions, and, I think, in the view of many people when they think about how far the Bill will extend the law, it is not proportionate to the risk to go further and to determine that that is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment.
  The abuse of trust provisions were debated at length in Committee when the Bill was last discussed, although no such provisions were included when the age of consent was first debated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Home Secretary gave two reasons for the scope of the

  469
  Bill on abuse of trust. First, teachers act in loco parentis. Secondly, there would be practical difficulties in creating separate groups within education, such as those who teach day pupils at a school where there are also boarders, and that that would create invidious anomalies.
  However, other people who act in loco parentis are not covered by the Bill. They include guardians, godparents, step-parents, church leaders, and scout and guide leaders. I am sure that we could think of many others who act in the same way and who are not covered. The Home Secretary referred to teachers' power over pupils in their care, but the Bill also extends to relationships teachers have with students who are at the same institution but not being taught by the teachers. In that case, there is no relationship of trust or power; the two people merely happen to be at the same institution.
  However, the Bill does not include areas in which there is a clear relationship of power, such as that between a Member of Parliament and a young researcher, and that power could easily be abused. The same is true of the relationship between any employer and a young employee. The Bill allows for a young teacher to be prosecuted, convicted and registered as a sex offender for behaviour that might be less than sexual intercourse—"sexual activity" is what the Bill specifies, although it does not define the phrase. The same behaviour would not be an offence for a general practitioner or a Member of Parliament. That will place teachers in a vulnerable position. There will be a real danger of false allegations. The net result may be that even fewer young men take up teaching in future.
  Dr. Harris: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the scope of the Bill is even wider than that. A 17-year-old at university—as is the case with the majority of first-year students in Scotland—may have a relationship with someone who teaches. That person may be a postgraduate student who does not teach the 17-year-old, but who would be committing an offence if any sexual activity took place. I ask my hon. Friend to prevail on the Government to rethink that provision.
  Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I am taking the House's time today. We shall have no Committee stage in which to examine the matter further and raise issues that should worry anyone who examines the scope of the Bill.
  When the NAS/UWT responded to the interdepartmental working group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children, it said that there should be a national register of all those who work with young people and children. I have raised that matter before, and I am sure that I shall do so again as chairman of the cross-party group on the campaign for the registration of workers with young people and children, which is supported by both Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament.
  Abuse of trust or power is always wrong. However, we must ask whether it should be a criminal offence and, if it should, in what circumstances. Should the law single out a particular group of professionals for discrimination? I believe not. Other European countries have laws that try to deal with abuse of trust through age differences. For example, in Portugal it is illegal for someone aged over 18 to have a sexual relationship with someone aged under 18. It would be more appropriate to consider age
  470
  differences in relationships rather than individual professionals for our provisions on abuse of positions of power or trust.
  I suspect that the Government are determined to go ahead with the Bill, but I ask the Home Secretary to reassure me that the Government will not encourage the House of Lords to defeat it so that they can invoke the Parliament Acts on an unaltered Bill. Instead, they could encourage the other place to vote in favour of the Bill—I know that there will be a free vote in the other place, just as there will be here, but I hope that the Government will signal their hope that the Bill will not be defeated—so that a Committee stage could be held there. Then, the abuse of trust provisions, which have never been examined in detail in the other place, could be properly debated.
  I also urge the Home Secretary to make a commitment to review the provisions within a year or two after the General Teaching Council, which will strengthen professional codes of conduct, and the General Social Care Council come fully into operation. The Home Secretary referred earlier to orders that could extend the scope of the Bill. I hope that he might consider orders that could reduce its scope.
  There is no objective or scientific way to determine the age of consent to sexual activity for young people. It varies across Europe, from 12 in Spain—which many of us would probably think on the young side—to 17 in Greece. Apart from Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, European countries have equal ages of consent, regardless of sexuality. An unequal age of consent gives the message that it is okay to treat gay men differently and discriminate against them. It is not surprising that that homophobic message can lead to bullying, abuse, or, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) said, even worse.
  The protection of young people should be one of our key duties. It is best maintained by consistent and fair laws. The passage of the Bill—even with flaws that I wish we could remove—takes us one step nearer to a fairer and more decent society.
  4.48 pm
  Ms Oona King: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Second Reading.
  The Bill is about two important matters: equal protection and equal treatment. I ask Members of Parliament not to encourage law breaking. First, there is law breaking by our own country. We have been found to be in breach of European law because we have evidently been discriminatory. Secondly, MPs should not encourage law breaking by those unsavoury individuals who prey on vulnerable young people. As the law stands, it encourages that.
  How could any decent-minded person not want a change in the law? I have been wrestling with that question. At the root of the question lies a genuine belief—sometimes lurking in the further recesses of some people's minds but sometimes at the forefront—that gay men are inherently unequal and should be treated unequally under the law, as indeed, currently, they are.
  Over the past 200 years, there has been a struggle for progress—a struggle to recognise one simple, basic premise, which is enshrined in article 1 of the United

  471
  Nations universal declaration of human rights: all human beings are born free and equal in rights and in dignity. However, the past 200 years have also been marked by the proclamations of those who are against change—who believe that they are entitled to inalienable rights, but that such rights are not transferable to other human beings. We have heard some of those views expressed by Opposition Members.
  Those views are familiar because they were heard 200, even 100, years ago. It was said that black people were inferior to white people, so they could not be treated equally under the law. It was said that women were inferior to men, so they could not be treated equally under the law. If we read Hansard from 80 years ago, we will see the names of hon. Members who argued passionately that women should not be granted the vote and that, if they were, it would be the end of society.
  When we read those comments today, we can scarcely believe them. We recognise in them the antediluvian, atavistic, primitive and bigoted views that they represent. We might even forgive those ancient Members of Parliament some of their bigotry—perhaps for cultural reasons or because of their sheer ignorance. They lived in an age and in a society that was primitive in its understanding of equality.
  That is what we are discussing—a simple inescapable matter of equality. Unfortunately, we do not have to search through 200 years of Hansard to find bigotry and ignorance. We only have to listen to recent remarks. For example, we cannot forget Baroness Young. Several years ago, she said:
  "If a 16 year old girl has heterosexual relations, the worst that can happen to her is to have a baby. She could lose her heart to an unsuitable man and she may be very unhappy … But what is so tragic for the 16-year-old boy … entangled with homosexuality is that he denies himself forever the opportunities for marriage, children and a normal life."
  I would say that one can have a normal life with or without marriage and children. The shadow Home Secretary might want to reflect on that point.
  Lord Longford, a colleague of Baroness Young, said:
  "A girl is not ruined for life by being seduced. A young fellow is."
  I fail to understand that logic: a young woman can get over being seduced, but a young man cannot. Those poor young men! It seems that they do not have the strength, the resilience or the moral purpose to withstand being seduced. Why are people so concerned about the right of 16-year-old boys to be protected from predatory men, but not about the right of girls? I do not understand that. I take great offence at the suggestion that, in that respect, a girl deserves less protection under the law.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have been tempted to intervene.
  The reason why some of us take the view that we do is that it is perfectly natural for a boy and a girl to engage in a physical relationship. We feel that there is something less than natural about a relationship—anal intercourse—between two men. I am sorry, but that is how we feel.
  Ms King: That is precisely why I was trying to place the debate in the context of history, because in that context, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must
  472
  recognise that views have changed. Sixty-seven per cent. of young British people do not share his views and do not feel that gay men are in any way unnatural. The hon. Gentleman will have to come to terms with that, in the same way that my white racist grandmother came to terms with the fact that racism was unacceptable.
  The idea has been expressed that one catches homosexuality like the pox. I find that very offensive—although I would say that hon. Members are entitled to prejudice and prejudicial views in the privacy of their minds. What really concerns me is when hon. Members allow their prejudice to maintain a law that indisputably discriminates against young gay men.
  I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the following issue. There is evidence that the current law actually protects rapists in some circumstances, and no doubt encourages them. I refer colleagues to the debate initiated by Lord Tope in October 1998, in which he read out a letter from a 16-year-old male Londoner who said:
  "I was raped by a man. But because I was under the age of consent, at the age of sixteen, I thought that if I told anyone, I would be arrested and put into prison. And so I did nothing"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 323.]
  So a rapist got away with raping a young man. I ask all hon. Members, regardless of their views on this matter, to recognise that if they vote to maintain an unequal age of consent, they are complicit in allowing young people in that situation to have to withstand brutality, violence and rape. By the same token, I believe that they are complicit in allowing rapists to escape justice.
  It is not just the morality of those who want to maintain an unequal age of consent that bothers me, but their stupidity. It is an unfortunate fact of life that some men—a minority—rape. If they rape a 16-year-old girl, that young girl can go to the authorities and get the authorities behind her, but if a rapist rapes a 16-year-old boy, that young boy can go to the authorities and go straight to jail. We can see where the prejudice is, but we cannot discern the logic. In 1957, the logic of the Wolfenden report, which recommended a different age of consent for gay men, was that young men should be actively discouraged from choosing a way of life that might have the effect of setting them apart from society. First, as Stonewall has pointed out, that is a circular argument which relies on prejudice to justify prejudice. Secondly, I would hope that, in 40 years, we have made some progress.
  Many studies, some of which have been alluded to, have shown that choice does not come into the matter in the way that some hon. Members might have thought it did. Most reputable medical organisations recognise that homosexuality is not a choice—a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) expanded convincingly. In recent research by the Medical Research Council, 74 per cent. of gay men said that they thought that they were sexually different before they first had sex with a man. Of course, there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence. I have many gay friends. I was talking to one of my gay friends the other day, and he said that every single one of his 40 or 50 gay male friends had thought that they were gay by the age of 12. When I was 12 I used to dream of getting married and having children: but he and his friends knew at the age of 12 that they were gay.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Lady knows that I much admire her views on many subjects but

  473
  I disagree with her on this one. She has used anecdotal evidence, so I remind the House of something that I said when the matter was last before us. The only known gay boy in my secondary school—he was mercilessly teased and bullied and I felt great sympathy for him—told me that he started on the road to being homosexual when he was under-age and was interfered with by an older youth.
  Ms King: My first reaction is that I hope that the hon. Gentleman fully supports the repeal of section 28 to prevent such bullying. The second and more general point is that most people recognise that people cannot transfer their sexuality if they violently attack someone. People either have a proclivity, or they do not. It is ludicrous to suggest that, had I been attacked and sexually assaulted by another woman when I was a 16-year-old girl, I would suddenly have thought, "Whoops, you know what? I am not a heterosexual: I'm actually a lesbian." Such arguments are ludicrous.
  I want to return to the theme of intolerance, which has run through the debate. If we start from the premise that one group should have less protection under the law than another, we end up with the outcome that one group is worth less under the law than the other. That is the foundation stone of intolerance. Obviously, there are degrees of intolerance. For example, a little bit of intolerance is when people say that they do not like homosexuals and that homosexual relationships are worth less than heterosexual relationships. A lot of intolerance is when someone says, "Homosexuals are worthless, they have no right to life and I am going to blow them up."
  The one thing that the bombs last year taught us is that intolerance is a danger to us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), in an eloquent account of the devastation that resulted from the bombs, told us how they had affected her and many of her friends and family. I am sure that the bombs affected many people personally.
  When the first bomb, targeting the Afro-Caribbean community, went off in Brixton, I, as a black MP, was terribly concerned. When the second bomb, targeting the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets, went off in Brick Lane, I was naturally, as the local MP and as someone who has lived and worked in the area, terribly concerned. When the third bomb, targeting the gay community in Soho, went off, I was very, very concerned, not least because I was standing 60 yards away at the moment of the explosion. I realised, as I watched someone having shrapnel picked out of their back, that homophobia threatens everyone, including straight women like me and the straight men on the Opposition Benches.
  We cannot, in all conscience, give intolerance an excuse in the letter of the law. That is why I urge every Member of the House to vote for an equal age of consent. As we know, it is difficult to achieve change and it has been a difficult process. It takes courage to do that.
  In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the fact that his logic led him inescapably to decide that it serves no purpose, and that it is wrong and damaging, to have an unequal age of consent. I also congratulate him on the fact that he has learned to put his notes on the Bench and read them from there, which is a good trick. Finally, I congratulate him on doing so well yesterday. I hope that he will accept that those are the last congratulations I will lavish on him for the duration of this Parliament.
  474
  Homophobia should have no rock under which to hide, and unless and until we change the law, we are giving it a place to hide.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) is charming and puts her points forcefully and with good nature, if not always with good humour. She said that there is a streak of intolerance running through the debate—I believe that because many of those who have spoken in favour of the Bill have displayed marked intolerance towards those of us who take a contrary view. I have to tell the hon. Lady that we are much more in touch with the feelings of the people in this country. We may not be represented in large numbers in the House tonight, but we represent the vast majority of the British people.
  It is curious that even the changed, emasculated—I will not call it "reformed"—other place has spoken for the nation. It was led by Baroness Young, whom the hon. Lady unwisely disparaged. The noble Lady has shown enormous courage in the stand that she has taken, and their Lordships have followed her lead and spoken for the people.
  The Daily Record may not be the hon. Lady's everyday reading, and I suspect that it is not the everyday reading of those hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies and who have gone off to the Scottish Parliament. The Daily Record is not a Tory newspaper. There is not a Tory newspaper in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "There are no Tories in Scotland."] They are coming back, and they will be coming back in droves now. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues had read the Daily Record over the past couple of weeks, they would have seen that every day it reported the hostility in Scotland towards the Government's proposal to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
  Cardinal Winning, who has nailed his colours firmly to the mast, has garnered enormous support and respect in Scotland. An overwhelming majority of people in Scotland are in touch with our view and wholly out of sympathy with the views expressed by Labour Members.
  Ms King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his graciousness in giving way. If his opinions represent the views of the general public, can he explain why a Harris poll showed that 74 per cent. of the general public backed an equal age of consent?
  Mr. Howarth: I have not seen that poll. I saw a poll a couple of years ago which showed that 53 per cent. supported the view that I take. However, it is the latest poll in Scotland that is interesting because it reflects people's concern, as do hon. Members' mailbags. That is not to say that we are intolerant of people who have a different life style. I do not want to know what people do in their own home, behind closed doors, provided that it does not involve young people, and I do not want to read about it in the newspapers either.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who is no longer in her place—[Interruption.] What did the Whip say from a sedentary position?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
  Mr. Howarth: I do not know what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said. He was pretty vocal in the previous debate on this matter.

  475
  When the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made her impassioned speech, she displayed the patronising attitude that those of us who take a contrary view are less intellectually capable than she is and that we care less about other people than she does. That is entirely wrong.
  The man who has been charged with the bombing of the Admiral Duncan public house in Soho is a constituent of mine. I resent bitterly, and my constituents will also resent bitterly, the implication of the hon. Lady's remarks that those of us who take a contrary view to hers may somehow, by our language and our actions, be encouraging that young man to do what he is alleged to have done.
  That is unacceptable. I resent it, and, on behalf of my constituents, I say that the hon. Lady ought to have the courtesy to acknowledge that when we speak about these issues, we do not give, and do not intend to give, encouragement to people to resort to the bomb or other acts of violence to promote their ends.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is both capable and caring, but does he agree that even if we are able confidently and accurately to identify majority opinion as being in support of the status quo, that does not of itself absolve us of the responsibility to study the legislation, to form our own view of it and to speak and vote accordingly?
  Mr. Howarth: Of course. I shall come to my hon. Friend's views in a moment. I know that his views on the importance of saving the pound are in no way influenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the British people, in opinion poll after opinion poll, support it. He is a man of principle and he speaks from principle.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House acknowledge not only that my hon. Friend is extremely able, but that he is a man of principle. However, if he has had a change of heart, I hope that he will respect the fact that some of us have not, and that we are unpersuaded. Despite my hon. Friend's powers of persuasion, I am unpersuaded by the arguments that he advanced today, although I agree with him in his references to Europe in this debate. He and I are entirely agreed on that issue.
  My hon. Friend and I may not agree in our attitude to the Bill, but we are agreed on an important aspect of it—its origin. If its origin lay solely in the Government's desire to introduce the measure, we could argue it between us and have a good debate. My hon. Friend said that he did not give a tinker's cuss for what other European countries do, for the European convention on human rights or for the European Commission of Human Rights. He and I are entirely agreed on that.
  Labour Members should beware of the way in which, week in, week out, the House is ceding its powers to authorities beyond these islands. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) can feign boredom and ennui, which is a French word meaning the same thing. She is a charming hon. Member and she will understand this even if the rest of the House will not: I am not flying wholly solo as we speak, but that is between us.
  Mr. Swayne: Share it with us.
  Mr. Howarth: You might rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went down that road.
  476
  As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is no longer present, when the United Kingdom signed up to the European convention on human rights, it did so only when it was absolutely certain and Ministers had agreed among themselves that the United Kingdom could not possibly be in infringement of the convention as drafted.
  At that time buggery was a criminal offence, full stop. How can it be right that we were not infringing the convention then, but are doing so 50 years later? There is an answer to that question: the convention was drawn up in the aftermath of the second world war when the nations of Europe were concerned with ensuring that the atrocities that had been committed, principally by Nazi Germany, were not repeated. They were establishing a framework within which guidelines could be applied to the democratic countries and the emerging democratic Germany to ensure that a code of practice provided some bulwark—however realistic that prospect ever was—against the repetition of the atrocities of the 1940s.
  Today we are experiencing a relentless intrusion on the rights of the elected United Kingdom Parliament to determine the composition of Her Majesty's armed forces. At least the Government have in this instance introduced a Bill and we are debating the age of consent, but we were unable to intervene in any way on the lifting of the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces as no Bill was introduced.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Next Thursday.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position, but has clearly not read his pager. The Armed Forces Discipline Bill has nothing to do with homosexuals serving in the armed forces and everything to do with the system of courts martial and other procedures related to military discipline. However, I would not expect him to know anything about defence. [Interruption.] I am sorry; if I was a bit harsh, I apologise.
  The European Court of Human Rights is interfering in sexuality not only in respect of the armed forces. We read in the newspapers today that, apparently, the Government are to introduce proposals requiring employers not to discriminate between heterosexual married couples and homosexuals living together in respect of benefits in kind, which in the vernacular are called perks. According to the Daily Mail, which is a very good authority on these matters:
  "It means that a gay couple will in future get the same perks as the spouses of married staff or cohabiting heterosexuals."
  I find that extremely worrying. The proposal is being introduced at the behest of the European Court of Human Rights.
  Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: In a moment. The decision on the armed forces was taken by judges from well-known liberal-minded countries such as Lithuania, Cyprus and Austria, whose involvement is ironic, is it not? What right have

  477
  they to interfere with our determination to make the laws of this country? We are accountable to the people who elected us; they are accountable to none.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Watford tried to intervene earlier and I allow her to do so.
  Ms Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I must try to regain at least some dignity in front of my hon. Friends by making it absolutely clear that there is no strange liaison between us. Will he explain the real reasons for his opposition to the proposal? He should not use the debate to rant against the European Union or, indeed, anything to do with Europe. This is a matter for the House; it is not a European issue. It is purely to do with equality and ensuring that young people receive the rights that they deserve.
  Mr. Howarth: I was not aware that my speech was a rant, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady has made those remarks about our little discussion earlier. I had thought that someone might have written about them and we could have sued them and had a good meal together. She has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the Bill. It is not about equality, but about the pernicious influence of the European Court of Human Rights on our proceedings. It is no good Labour Members making lovey-dovey speeches. The Bill has nothing to do with the European Union, but has to do with the European Court of Human Rights and its interference in our national affairs.
  The hon. Lady suggested that I used the previous argument to mask the real reasons for my opposition to the Bill. The argument that I have just advanced is a fundamental reason for opposing the Bill, but not the only one. The Government claim that the debate is about equality, but I do not subscribe to that view. The debate is—or should be—about protecting children against predators. The Home Secretary kindly allowed me to intervene in his speech earlier to express that view.
  Clause 3 deals with abuse of trust. It will provide protection for 16 and 17-year-olds from teachers or others in authority who are over 18. However, it will not protect 16 and 17-year-olds from other young people of 17, 18 or older who are not in a position of trust. Earlier, I gave the example of boarding school, where a young child of 15 or 16 could feel influenced and intimidated by an older boy in a position of authority, but not in a position of trust—for example, a prefect. Those who have been to boarding school know that prefects command a lot of influence.
  Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I want to reach the substance of my argument.
  I do not believe that the Bill provides the protection that the Government claim. We are being asked to change the law. The foreseeable consequences will be deliberate exposure of young boys to abuse from older men and even paedophiles. Worse, the measure is presented in the name of equality and of giving children rights. Those who support the measure want to make it lawful for an older man to bugger a child—a 16-year-old boy—when he is at his most vulnerable and confused as he makes the
  478
  transition to manhood. As he makes that transition, he is to be exposed to activities that could scar him mentally and physically for life. Parents will ask why Parliament is trying to expose their young boys to that risk, especially when there are so many other matters about which to worry.
  The Government want to protect young children from drugs and tobacco. The age at which it is lawful to buy tobacco will be increased from 16 to 18 to protect young people.
  Ms King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No, I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me.
  Some hon. Members claim that it is nonsense to say that young people will not be scarred for life because homosexuality is genetic. I rebut that. Young constituents have been to see me and told me that they had been pressurised into homosexuality, that they had broken free, and that they were now leading what they—and I—regard as a normal life.
  Homosexuality is not a genetic disorder. A wealth of information has been provided on the subject. I shall quote a group of eminent professors and doctors, who stated in a letter to The Wall Street Journal on 9 January 1997:
  "These young men and their parents have the right to know that, contrary to media propaganda, there is no proven biological basis for homosexuality."
  The letter was signed by professors of psychiatry, clinical directors of psychological clinics and other eminent people in the sector in the United States. It is not acceptable to assert that it is a genetic factor; it is not. There is no evidence of that. At best, medical evidence is not unanimous on that.
  Once the Bill is enacted—for surely it will be, notwithstanding the fact that it is entirely out of touch with the mood of the British people—we will find that we will go on. We will change the laws relating to employment so that we have to accord homosexuals the same rights as are accorded to heterosexual people. Anyone who thinks the Bill is the end of a process and not the beginning need know only what OutRage! has said:
  "Many MPs think we will be content if they equalise the age of consent. They have got to be kidding. We won't be satisfied until every discriminatory law is abolished."
  Mr. Bercow: I honestly believe that my hon. Friend is wrong. He cannot at one and the same time assert the supremacy of Parliament and emphasise his belief in the importance of its continuing sovereignty, and suggest that, just because we pass the Bill, we are henceforth handing over the government of the UK in relation to sexual matters to Mr. Peter Tatchell. We are doing no such thing.
  Mr. Howarth: I am not saying that. My hon. Friend misunderstands. What I am saying is that it is crystal clear that those who are behind the campaign to reduce the age of consent do not see it as the end of the story. They will ensure that, year in, year out, more legislation is brought before the House further to make homosexuality like heterosexuality. It is only a matter of time before we will be invited to support homosexual marriages, because that is the ultimate conclusion.

  479
  I will not adduce all the medical evidence, but my hon. Friend adduces many people in medical circles who support the measure. I have plenty of medical evidence that homosexual people are more exposed to illness, particularly to HIV infection. Why does the National Blood Authority refuse to accept blood from any man who has had anal intercourse once?
  Ms King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No, I will not.
  The authority either knows something that the rest of the medical profession does not, or it knows something that the House wishes to close its eyes to.
  The Government are renowned for trying to have it both ways. Not only are they seeking to appeal to the homosexual vote through the Bill, but the man whose name is on the back of the Bill—the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—is also the man who will send new guidelines to schools on the importance of marriage. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they support marriage but also agree to make young men vulnerable, as they will through the Bill. There will be a big price to pay.
  5.28 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to support the Bill, but I want to take the opportunity to respond to a couple of the points that were made by hon. Members, particularly those on the Conservative Benches, who have not taken every intervention; I have not been able to intervene.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) claimed that it is the ambition of all parents for their children to marry and to have more children. She implied that it would be a bitter disappointment to parents if their children did not do that. I do not believe that that is true in every case. I am sure that she would not regard herself as a bitter disappointment to her parents. That sort of language and approach does not show much thinking through.
  I think that the right hon. Lady almost accepted that there was not a choice over whether one was homosexual, but she implied that there was a choice over life style; it was as if it was legitimate for her to say that consenting people who are heterosexual need not have any restrictions on how they express their love, but the full force of the law should restrict how consenting people whom we regard as adults express their love, if they are homosexual. It is a restriction on human rights to use the law to do that. The right hon. Lady is entitled, whatever the basis of her belief, to preach her views from any platform or pulpit. But to seek to use the law to restrict the rights to privacy, rights to expression of love, of people whom we regard as adults cannot be acceptable.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not an absolute restriction? It is a restriction that applies only for two years. If the love is that profound, can it not wait?
  Dr. Harris: For the hon. Gentleman, the restriction would be for five years or in fact a complete restriction—
  Mr. Swayne: Any number of years.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is honest enough to say it now. He would not want it to be legal at all. So it is a bit disingenuous for him to say that we should criminalise people for two years if they are homosexual in consenting relationships with other people whom we regard as adults, but that we will not do it for heterosexuals. Even for that two-year period, to criminalise people in that way is not acceptable.
  The implication of the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was that we should encourage homosexuals to be heterosexual, that so strongly does she believe in the institution of marriage that she would use the force of the law to encourage homosexuals to marry, to enter into sham marriages, to have children, in relationships that are doomed because they are dishonest. The implication is that marriage must be promoted; that we must discourage people at the same time from following homosexual life styles; that the right hon. Lady wants to encourage people who feel that they are homosexual to enter into sham marriages and have children, resulting from those unions, who will face inevitable family breakup.
  If the right hon. Lady thought a bit more deeply on the subject, and more fairly, she would see the misery that would be caused by what was implicit, if not explicit, in what she said. I listened to her carefully.
  It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is here. Many of us remember with admiration his speech on two occasions in support of this proposal. If he had been following the debate from outside the Chamber he would have heard a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who put quite clearly, even from his Conservative perspective, that it is not worth supporting the status quo if doing so does not achieve anything that he wants to achieve. He has been converted to that.
  While I accept that the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the correctness of the points that we have been making for some time does not commit him to supporting other matters, such as repeal of section 28, all his arguments in support of his position on equalising the age of consent to 16 apply to stronger sex education in schools. That is something that I support and that I hope he will support.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I should like to point out that, although he may have been converted to some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), I earnestly believe that he has no intention of following the hon. Gentleman to the Labour Benches.
  I should like the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to address in this debate, as he has on previous occasions, the difference with regard to the situation of people who are still technically children and who by being allowed to engage in anal sex are exposed to a degree of medical risk that does not apply either to straight sex or to lesbian sex.
  Dr. Harris: That is an interesting point. I was about to say in response to points that the hon. Gentleman has

  481
  made previously, and in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who did not wish to take too many interventions because she wanted to finish quickly, that the logic of the hon. Lady's position was that people should not be engaging in penetrative sex at all, because all penetrative sex has risks. According to her logic, she should be promoting lesbianism as much as possible, because the risks associated with sexual activity among lesbians are much less than for heterosexuals and for homosexual men, if the sexual activity is not performed safely.
  The message, however, is not that sexual activity is dangerous; it is that we must all take measures to reduce the risk of harm from sexual activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual. The organisations cited by the hon. Member for Buckingham—organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, HIV organisations, the Royal College of Physicians and, indeed, children's charities—want to equalise the age of consent at 16 because they want information to be given to people who otherwise, because of criminalisation, have no access to such information, or feel that they are prevented from giving it.
  The hon. Lady must recognise that she cannot pray in aid the risks of homosexual activity without the same considerations applying to heterosexual activity. The same argument applies to the ludicrous and, in my view, shameful assumption that predation occurs only in the case of male homosexuals. That is patently not the case. Members who have argued on that basis do not seem to recognise that most predation involves older men—indeed, men generally—and younger women. In fact, predation probably exists to an extent in the case of homosexual females. The obsession with homosexual males is exactly that: an obsession. It is not backed up by the evidence about predation. If those presenting that argument are to have any credibility, they should be consistent.
  In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) mentioned other legal inequalities—for instance, in employment law. Although the hon. Gentleman is not present now, I suggest that he should consult the record to see how he voted on an amendment to the Employment Relations Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), which sought to prevent any discrimination in employment law on the ground of sexuality. The House divided on the amendment, at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, and nearly all Labour Members voted against it. If the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members are concerned—I know that Labour Members will sincerely be concerned—they should read the record of that debate and decide whether they can persuade their Front Bench to ensure that there is equality in that regard as well, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North wishes there to be.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) suggested that the wish for equality in the provision of perks in employment law was due to the European convention on human rights. The convention, however, does not apply to employment law; it is the Amsterdam treaty that will force Britain belatedly to ensure that there is equality in employment law. The argument that perks are part of pay was won in the European Court of Justice, in the Grant case. However, it was only because the company that discriminated against that person and her
  482
  lesbian partner would also have discriminated against a male homosexual and his partner that the case was found not to come under the jurisdiction of the equal treatment directive, which deals with gender equality. We need to reform our laws.
  Last time we debated this issue, I was pleased that the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), was in charge. I hoped that he would accept various amendments that would improve the legislation. I believe that, in terms of equality in sexual offences law, this Bill—and clause 1 in particular—does not go far enough. During the Committee stage of the earlier legislation, the Minister turned into Mr. No, and he returned as Mr. No on Report.
  The Bill does not go far enough in terms of equality for homosexuals. As has been pointed out, there is no equality for homosexuals in employment law, in pension law or in housing law and the inheriting of tenancies. There is no full equality for homosexuals in immigration law, and there is no equality for homosexual couples in adoption law. I hope that Labour Members who feel strongly about equality will press the Government to introduce legislation in all those areas.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No, not now; I should like to develop the point.
  Even after the age of consent has been reduced, there will not be equality in sentencing provisions on homosexual offences. The Bill will not create equality in sexual offences law. There are huge discrepancies in sentencing provisions between lesbian offences and homosexual offences, regardless of whether the acts were consenting.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said—I have also made the point before in the House—compared with the treatment of acts involving heterosexual sex, the privacy laws are highly discriminatory in dealing with acts between consenting adult homosexual men. If two or more such adult men are present, the act simply cannot be defined as private or, therefore, as legal. Arrests, prosecutions and convictions are still occurring on the basis of those laws.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has recited a load of matters in which he hopes the Labour Government will create equality in the law for homosexuals. Is the policy of the Liberal Democrats therefore to allow homosexual marriage, too?
  Dr. Harris: Marriage is of course an institution and, in another sphere of law, is dealt with in civil marriage. It also has a religious connotation to it. As I am not a religious person, I do not pretend to know how religious institutions might change their rules. However—specifically to answer the hon. Gentleman's question; I think that he wants this answer—those rights that are available to heterosexual co-habiting couples, who have the choice to marry, should be available to homosexual

  483
  couples in a similar stable relationship. The arguments for such change—in all the spheres that I have mentioned— are overwhelming.
  Mr. Howarth indicated dissent.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman disagrees. That is where we differ. Nevertheless, I hope that he recognises that I have answered his question.
  Gross indecency is another offence in which sexual offences law is grossly unequal. By definition, it is a homosexual-only offence.
  I realise and accept that the Government cannot address all those issues in clause 1. I think that the Government recognised that limitation when, in response to a proposal that I made to abolish that privacy provision, they introduced a most welcome review of sexual offences law.
  I ask the Minister, in his reply, to update us on the progress of that review. Will there be legislation on it in this Parliament, or is there insufficient time in this Parliament to introduce legislation based on the review? If there is not sufficient time to introduce such legislation, it will have implications for the way in which—while there is still time—both Houses deal with this Bill. If this is the last chance that this Parliament will have to address other issues, which I shall describe in a moment, we should know whether there is any likelihood of legislating, on the basis of equality, on the review of sexual offences legislation.
  Clause 1 fails to deal with two other matters, the first of which is use of the sex offenders register for consenting offences. It is absolutely vital that we dissociate consenting homosexual offences from the remit of sexual abuse unless similarly consenting offences for heterosexuals are included in it. It seems absolutely wrong—I do not believe that the Government can defend it—that consenting homosexual offences occurring between consenting adults should be subject to sex offenders registration legislation whereas similar heterosexual offences are not subject to it. There can be no justification for it.
  Although the age of consent will be equalised from 18 to 16, the Bill provides for no subsequent repeal of the sex offenders legislation. It is a serious omission.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, I should be very grateful if he would again address himself to the point that perhaps I did not make clearly enough in my earlier intervention. HIV results from unprotected anal sex, whether between males and males or males and females. Unprotected sex occurs more frequently between homosexual males than between straight couples and of course between gay women. The Bill legalises homosexual relations—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The intervention is far too long.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was far too long and far too incoherent. The point of health education is to ensure that sexual activity is safe, not of a specific nature. The hon. Gentleman does not have to do
  484
  anything if he does not want to, but he should not criticise others whom we consider to be adults for having consenting sexual relations.
  Dr. Lewis rose—
  Dr. Harris: I shall not give way again, because the hon. Gentleman wants to make an argument that has already been answered by all the medical organisations that can be cited.
  Dr. Lewis: Sixteen and 17-year-olds are children.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he had finished speaking. That is the end of the matter.
  Dr. Harris: The council of the British Medical Association, which is relatively conservative, voted unanimously that the reduction in the age of consent from 18 to 16 was a necessary step to improve health education and provide information about how people can protect themselves when engaging in sexual activity. The same applies to heterosexuals. That argument was made forcefully by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I wish that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) would take it on board.
  Ms Ward: The hon. Member for New Forest, East seemed to suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds were not capable of making the decision. They are capable of deciding to join the armed forces and go on the front line for their country if necessary. Surely they are able to determine their sexuality.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Lady is right. Sixteen and 17-year-old girls are capable of giving consent to having sexual relations with the hon. Member for New Forest, East. I have never seen an amendment tabled by him to raise the age of consent to 18. Until he tables such an amendment his arguments will be prejudicial because he is selecting one group for criminalisation.
  Dr. Lewis rose—
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has had his say.
  Dr. Lewis: I was cut off from having my say.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not cut off from having his say. Interventions should be brief. That is what I was trying to point out to him.
  Dr. Harris: In the section 28 debate in the House of Lords, Lord Moran came out with unjustifiable prejudice against homosexuals on the grounds of paedophilia and child abuse. He said that the young had to be defended. I was going to read his remarks, but they were so offensive that I do not want to do so.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Go on.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman can look at my copy of Hansard if he wants. The implication was that

  485
  paedophilia was a homosexual issue but the overwhelming majority of paedophiles are heterosexual. The Government have to recognise that people make that false assumption. They are reforming the law step by step and the Bill is a small but welcome part of that process. They should also alter the law on the sex offenders register. It is unacceptable that people will be subject to the administrative requirements of registering solely for acts that will be legal on the enactment of the Bill. How can the Government justify making someone register as a sex offender because of an act that will no longer be illegal? Even when it was illegal, it was committed between consenting people whom we regard as adults.
  In Committee last time we considered the issue, Conservative Members supported my point of view. The Minister was alone among the Front Benches in refusing to move for the simple reason that to find the 78 people whose human rights were being abused would cost money, because the Government would have to go through the court records. I simply cannot believe that a price, especially a modest one, can be put on decent treatment for people. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will reconsider an amendment in the other place to close that dreadful loophole.
  My final point concerns the absence of a statutory defence for homosexuals. That is important because another clause in the Bill has implications for homosexuals accused of breaches of the age of consent law. Heterosexuals who are accused of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 may adduce a statutory defence in court. They can claim that they did not know that the person with whom they have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse was below the age of 16 and that they had reasonable grounds for that belief.
  It is very common for partners to be picked up in nightclubs, for which the age of admission is 18 or 21. They may have been drinking, so they have already deceived bar staff about their age. Sexual contact may then take place, but heterosexuals can claim in their defence that they had reasonable cause for mistaking the age of their partner. That defence is available to ensure that people are not convicted or locked up when they have been deceived and it is also important that people are not open to blackmail.
  In Scotland, that defence is also available for homosexuals who are accused under the law on the age of consent, but that is not the case in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. If the act is proven and the age is proven, there is no possible defence, even if someone was deceived as to the age of the other person. There may be arguments about whether it is right to have that statutory defence for men under the age of 24 who have not been charged with a similar offence before—it is not a universal defence—but if it is appropriate for heterosexuals, it must also be appropriate for homosexuals, because the risk of blackmail also exists.
  Clause 2 decriminalises the person aged under 16 in cases of unlawful sexual intercourse, and I welcome that because I proposed it in Committee the last time the Bill was considered, with the support of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). At the moment, it is the criminalisation of the younger party that prevents young boys who are pimped from deceiving older men about their age, having sexual relationships and then blackmailing them, because the young boys also risk
  486
  prosecution. Decriminalising the younger person opens the way again to widespread blackmail of men who are deceived about the age of their partners and do not have the statutory defence that is open to heterosexuals.
  Last time during the passage of the Bill, the Government said that they wanted to clamp down, once the law was equal, on age of consent offences, which are often not prosecuted for heterosexuals. If there is a clampdown, and the statutory defence is not open to homosexuals as it to heterosexuals, the only people who will be prosecuted and convicted will be homosexuals, and that would be directly discriminatory in a way that the Government would not welcome. I urge the Government to be open minded if amendments are tabled in the House of Lords, because that will ensure that the Bill goes further towards equality in sexual offences law for homosexuals than it does at the moment. Otherwise, I support part 1 of the Bill.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is entirely right on his last point about the decriminalisation of the partner under 16 in a homosexual relationship. He will recall that, when we debated the matter earlier, I pointed out to him that the effect of that provision is to abolish the age of consent, not merely to reduce it. However, I do not wish to rehearse arguments that we have had before.
  My reading of the mood of the House is that the trenches have been well dug. We have argued about this a great deal and there is little more to be said. In fact, the longer we drag this out, the more danger there is of seeing other spectacular and awful conversions such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), so I do not intend to detain the House for long.
  I wish to revisit my earlier intervention on the Home Secretary, when I said that there was a fundamental contradiction between the two principles that underlie the Bill. The first principle is that a boy of 16—I know that the Bill is drawn wider, but I confine my remarks to this particular aspect—is sufficiently mature and developed to decide to have carnal knowledge of another boy of 16. Yet the Bill also provides that boys of 16 are immature enough to require protection from sharing precisely such a relationship with someone with whom they should properly share a bond of trust. I said that those provisions were mutually exclusive, because the obvious truth of the second proposition proves the falsehood of the first. Surely a boy cannot be sufficiently mature to decide to have a homosexual relationship at 16 if he requires the protection of the law against just such a relationship with someone whom he should trust.
  The Home Secretary's reply was very revealing. He said, effectively, that the principle that I imagined existed in respect of the first case—namely, that a boy of 16 was sufficiently mature—was not part of the Bill and that the only principle was one of equality. If a boy of 16 is capable of making a decision about ordinary sexual behaviour, he should also be capable of making such decisions about homosexual behaviour. The House is effectively being asked to decide whether homosexual behaviour and ordinary sexual behaviour are equal. That is the clear implication of the Home Secretary's reply to

  487
  my intervention. The House must decide whether those two types of sexual behaviour are equal—of the same value.
  I believe that homosexuality and ordinary sexual behaviour are clean different, and not equal in any way. It is proper that the law should establish that inequality. It is proper that young men of 16, who I believe are still very impressionable, should have the assistance of the law in reinforcing a powerful message that homosexual behaviour is not normal.
  Mr. Bercow: I might be wrong, but is it not the case that Department for Education and Employment circular 11/95 lists, among other types of misconduct, the engagement of a teacher in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a pupil, even if that pupil is over the age of consent? That seems, if I may say so, fundamentally to undermine my hon. Friend's thesis.
  Mr. Swayne: I fear that I do not see how that example undermines my thesis. Indeed, I regard it as entirely irrelevant to the point that I am developing. It is more in tune, certainly, with the provision that gives protection to those who need it from people whom they would otherwise trust. However, I am concentrating on the fundamental principle that the two types of sexual behaviour are equal. It is my contention that they are not. I contend that the vast majority of the people whom we were sent here to represent do not regard it as equal. They are tolerant of different types of behaviour, but they are nevertheless aware that types of behaviour are not equal and they welcome law that reinforces inequality.
  As I said to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, there is no absolute abrogation of what might be called human rights in this respect. Those parties disappointed at 16 by being unable to pursue their homosexual desires are only being asked to wait two years until they are marginally more mature and better able to make the decision.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that people will do what they are going to do whether or not there is a law? The point is that the Bill will decriminalise acts that will be performed anyway. It will enable vulnerable young people to seek medical help and, sometimes, the help of the police when they have been obliged to do something that they would not have wished to have done.
  Mr. Swayne: Much of what my hon. Friend says has force, but the last part about medical help is fatuous nonsense. People are perfectly capable of seeking advice without bringing any criminal penalty upon themselves.
  Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Swayne: Let me answer my hon. Friend first. He was entirely right to say that many of the acts that we are debating will take place no matter what. If the Bill passes, there will be no huge change in behaviour. It will have an impact only at the margin, but we should not ignore that margin. Young men would undoubtedly be encouraged by the force of the law to sublimate their unnatural desires,
  488
  which they would in all probability outgrow, so that they could live otherwise blameless lives. Some at the margin will not be so encouraged if we change the law, and they will bring upon themselves a less eligible life style than they would otherwise have. The Bill is important for those few young men at the margin.
  The Bill is important for another reason. It undermines our clear message of society's values, which are shared by the people who sent us here. People feel profoundly that homosexuality is not equal. It is, I am afraid, gross and unnatural.
  6.3 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I found myself quite rightly corrected by you earlier for making an over-long intervention. I trust that I shall not be corrected now for making too short a speech, because I intend to make simply the point that I tried to make in that intervention and one other.
  I did not intend to speak, because I made two substantial speeches in our previous debates. They are on the record, and can be found on my website—www.julianlewis.net—for the edification of my constituents and anyone else who wants to know my views.
  The argument about the need to decriminalise people who are currently below an age of consent would, if carried to its logical conclusion, undermine the very concept of any age of consent. Yet, as societies have become more civilised, they have taken greater care of their children, raising ages of consent rather than lowering them. The first age of consent in this country was 12. It was later raised to 13, then to 16. At any one of those stages, it could have been argued that it was wrong to pitch the age of consent so high, because it would criminalise those who were below that age.
  As I have said before—it remains as true as it was—the purpose of an age of consent is not to criminalise those below that age, but to protect them from being seduced by people above that age. That is the concept on which the age of consent is based. It is thus fatuous to say that the age of consent must be reduced in order to decriminalise those below it, because those people are never prosecuted in any case.
  My second and final point is the one that I unavailingly tried—not once, but twice—to put to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) during his speech. I was surprised to hear him say that I had not advocated that the age of consent should be equalised. The hon. Gentleman attended a sitting of the Standing Committee for the previous version of the Bill at which I argued that, if equality was the prime issue, there was a stronger argument for equalisation at 18 than at 16. The reason for that is medical—as I started to explain earlier. I maintain that the argument is not about morality, but about health.
  I could not attend the whole of today's debate because I had to move an amendment in Committee on another Bill; but, on this and other occasions, I have never heard

  489
  a refutation of the medical fact that HIV most frequently results from penetrative, anal sex—whether between two males or between a male and a female.
  Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that health issues are not age related, but are the same whether one is 16, 17, 18 or 80?
  Dr. Lewis: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Lady because her point brings me to what my brief contribution is primarily about—the difference between an adult and a child. Someone aged 16 or 17 is not an adult and is not recognised as an adult. Those Members who argue that such people are adults, when it comes to the risk of contracting HIV through unprotected anal sex with people who really are adults, are the same Members who argue that 16 or 17-year-olds should not be allowed to be put in harm's way in the armed forces. As usual, such opponents want it both ways.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  There is a serious misunderstanding. HIV and AIDS do not know the barriers of sexuality. The problem with HIV and AIDS is that millions of women and small children will die—not because they are homosexual, but because HIV is a virus that spreads through penetrative sex. It is wholly unfair and irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman not to recognise those problems in Africa.
  Dr. Lewis: In forgetting which party he was elected to represent, the hon. Gentleman has also forgotten the content of a debate in which we both participated some months ago. It was explained then that the circumstances appertaining in Africa to resistance to the HIV virus did not apply in this country. The hard medical fact in Britain—it is only for Britons that we legislate at present—is that, if one has unprotected anal sex with a man, whether one is a man, a boy or a woman, one is at much greater risk of contracting AIDS than one would otherwise be.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Unfortunately, the turncoat hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) mentioned that the chief executive of the Public Health Laboratory Service said that gay men still remain the single largest group at risk of acquiring HIV. Is that not game, set and match?
  Dr. Lewis: I believe that, in terms of what has been recognised by the medical authorities in this country, it is beyond doubt, beyond question, beyond a scintilla of the slightest hesitation, that the people most at risk in this country, for whom we are legislating, are the people who engage in unprotected anal sex.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Lewis: No, I will not. I must conclude my remarks.
  As a result of that increased risk, the logic of what is being proposed today is that people who are recognised as being under the age of majority—under the age of 18, under the age at which this society recognises that people
  490
  have the responsibility to take life-and-death decisions for themselves—are being exposed to a greater risk of catching a deadly disease.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Lewis: No, I am not giving way. I am concluding my remarks.
  That was my position in the first debate on this issue and that was my position in Committee in that first argument about this issue. Nothing that I have heard this afternoon has encouraged me to alter that position in the slightest degree.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: The arguments that have been deployed by hon. Members on both sides of the divide this afternoon have been presented with great passion and have obviously sprung from deep personal belief and commitment. I shall not single out everyone who has spoken—but, although I shall not be in the Lobby with her tonight, I want to tell the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) that her speech was presented with a generosity of spirit and an idealism which reflected the best of the motives of those who are supporting the Bill tonight.
  I want to chide some of those who spoke in support of the Bill, because I think that their arguments, although deeply felt—I appreciate that I differ from them, and I try to understand their point of view—misrepresented the equally strong feelings held by those of us who will vote against Second Reading.
  I say to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)—I hope that I say this with an understanding of her long-standing and intense commitment to this cause—that what I found striking about the public reaction to the three bombs in London last year was the fact that they brought forth a common horror among people of all political persuasions, whatever view they might take on the issue of the age of consent and from whatever race or social background they might come. That horror arose because we seek to resolve our arguments and our disagreements, however deeply felt, by debate, by vote and by election—not by terror.
  I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will understand that those of us on this side of the argument feel that she did not do justice to her cause in what appeared to me to be an elision of argument, so as to represent us as in some way giving succour to those who sought to bring about the terrorist attacks that she rightly condemned.
  Ann Keen: I reiterate what I said about the use of language. Offensive language such as we have heard—if not too often in this debate, I am pleased to say, but on previous occasions and in another place—encourages and gives licence to people who feel that they can condone hatred, homophobia and even worse. People have been beaten and gay men have been murdered; they have been under attack and they are still under attack. When offensive language is used in a place like this, it gives licence to such behaviour. I have no intention of offending any Member, but I do not want any Member to offend any member of the public and families outside.
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for, at least, making her position her clear. I agree with her to the

  491
  extent that, in seeking to express strongly held views, we should all use language that does not inflame unreasonable passion and provoke violent and undemocratic action.
  My second point applies to several comments made today. There was too ready an attempt to dismiss simply as bigotry or outmoded thoughts the views that are held not just by those of us in the Chamber who oppose the Bill, but by a large section of opinion in the country. We can swap figures about opinion polls. However, even the Bill's keenest advocates would acknowledge that it is controversial and that it is opposed by a large section of public opinion that includes not just the Christian Churches, but Jewish and Muslim leaders. Parliament should not lightly dismiss public opinion.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with considerable interest. Does he accept that there are times when legislation may be unpopular but right? Simply to be governed by what the majority of the population might think—and perhaps even to be governed by focus groups—does not necessarily mean that we are doing what is right for the nation and the people who elect us.
  Mr. Lidington: I have never argued that we should be governed by a simple arithmetical calculation of public opinion, and certainly not by focus groups. If I had thought that, I would not have voted consistently for the abolition of capital punishment. However, it is incumbent on democratic politicians to reflect carefully when they support a measure that is both controversial and flies in the face of majority public opinion. At the very least, they should express their support for such a measure with a proper understanding of, and respect for, the views of those who oppose them.
  I approach the Bill with views of my own. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I make it clear that I am speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the Conservative party. My approach was summed up better than I could phrase by the Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev. James Jones, when he wrote recently:
  "The challenge of a civilised society is to be able to set moral priorities while at the same time being tolerant towards and respecting the conscience of those who dissent. Society has not always got that balance right. There is a history of oppression of homosexuals and the moral certainties of the past have clearly played into the hands of bigots. But as English society becomes more tolerant, it needs to acknowledge that those who give moral and social priority to marriage are not necessarily homophobic. It is important to have the debate on sexuality without demonising each other."
  Before I come on to the age of consent, I want to deal briefly with the other important aspects of the Bill and express general support for the measures on the abuse of trust. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in paying tribute to the courage and energy of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in persuading the Government and Parliament to incorporate the provisions in the Bill.
  We may, as individual Members, have questions about the scope of those provisions, such as whether the maximum penalty is adequate. However, the procedural motion that the House adopted on Monday prevents a Committee stage and any discussion of amendments to the Bill, so we have to take the measures on abuse of trust as they come.
  492
  The amendment to the earlier Bill, which was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), will decriminalise an under-age partner in a sexual relationship. That amendment was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. Although I had serious doubts about the amendment when it was first proposed, I now think that the hon. Gentleman was right to introduce it. That measure will tackle the problem that several hon. Members who support the Bill have talked about at length—the problem of young people who fear that if they go to their parents, a teacher, a doctor or the police, they risk criminalising themselves, even though they desperately want to get out of a relationship into which they have allowed themselves to be seduced.
  The debate has clearly focused on the basic issue of the age of consent. I am willing to admit that I have had to think about this issue. It is not simply a matter of what we, as individuals, believe. I approach it as someone who is not a libertarian. In my social views, I am an old-fashioned Conservative. I believe in the primacy of marriage and that marriage is the best framework for the mutual love of one human being for another and the best environment in which to bring up children.
  I must, however, acknowledge that we do not live in a theocracy; we live in a free society. There may be many things that I, as an individual, regard as wrong, immoral or mistaken, which nevertheless should not be the subject of criminal law. I believe that adultery has done immeasurable harm to family life and has scarred many children for life, but I am not proposing that adultery should be made a criminal offence and the subject of criminal sanctions.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: The Conservative party would lose half its members.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself.
  Much of the Home Secretary's speech was about equal rights. He talked about wanting to set a legal framework within which people should be free to live their lives in peace. I agree with that as a general principle, but I shall nevertheless vote against the Bill. I accept the general principle that what adults do in private, voluntarily, is a matter for them, and the law generally should not intervene in those decisions. However, we are not talking about the state of Britain in the years before the Wolfenden report or the legal reforms of 1967; we are talking about people who are legally children.
  The age at which one draws any line will be a matter of judgment, and whatever age is chosen, there will always be some people who are below that age and have an emotional and moral maturity beyond their years. Equally, there will be some who need, in an ideal world, greater protection, even though they are above the age at which the law states that they are entitled to be regarded as adults.
  To set in law any age of majority or any age of consent inevitably involves a judgment based on a generalisation about people of that age. Eighteen is the legal age of majority in this country. It is the age which the Children Act 1989 defines as marking the threshold of adulthood. It is also the age defined by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child as marking the bridge between childhood and adulthood.

  493
  Because I believe that the law should not interfere with what adults do in their private lives, when the issue arose in the previous Parliament, after much thought I voted in favour of reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 18. That is a logical and sustainable point of view.
  Two aspects of the Bill concern me. First, I believe that the Bill sends a message about Parliament's view of the direction that society should take. In his speech, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) spoke about the way in which legislation can be used to send out signals to the wider society, and we are familiar with the idea that the law can help to lead and shape public opinion. That is a feature of debates about race relations law, equal opportunities law and so on.
  However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, some people and some organisations—by no means all those who support the Bill—see it as part of a wider agenda, which would later seek to reduce the age of consent further, perhaps to 14, the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships and equal rights for gay couples to adopt children. That broad agenda is already part of the active political debate in the United States.
  Those who advance that point of view are at least arguing from a coherent position of support for general equality. I acknowledge that the last time the Bill was debated, the Home Secretary made it clear in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that the Government were opposed to measures of the sort that I have just described, but I believe that when the Bill is enacted, it will only encourage the people and organisations promoting that agenda.
  Secondly, in debating the measure, we are discussing the extent to which the law should protect young people below the age of majority by second-guessing their own private decisions. It comes down to a judgment about the maturity of 16-year-olds. One of the most cogent speeches in the House of Lords debate on the Bill was that from the Labour Benches by Lord Mishcon, the last surviving member of the Wolfenden committee, who spoke and voted against a further reduction in the age of consent.
  Referring to the Wolfenden report's conclusion, Lord Mishcon said that while there was an element of arbitrariness in any decision about an age of consent,
  "all things considered the legal age of contractual responsibility seems to us to afford the best criterion for the definition of adulthood … While there are some grounds for fixing the age as low as sixteen, it is obvious that however 'mature' a boy of that age may be as regards physical development or psycho-sexual make-up, and whatever analogies may be drawn from the law relating to offences against young girls, a boy is incapable at the age of sixteen of forming a mature judgment about actions"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 947.]
  of this kind.
  Whether or not we accept the verdict of Lord Mishcon and the Wolfenden report must be a matter for individual judgment on the basis of our own experience and beliefs. There is a case, as some hon. Members have noted, for seeking to equalise the age of consent at a higher age for women as well as for men, but that is not in the Bill, and the Government's procedural motion that was passed on
  494
  Monday means that we are denied the opportunity of discussing that at a later stage. We must accept the Bill as it has been brought before us.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lidington: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to conclude my remarks.
  There have been very few prosecutions in recent years for cases of consensual intercourse between young men aged between 16 and 18. The police and the prosecuting authorities have operated a discretionary policy and I would not argue against that, but one of my fears is that passing the Bill would, in practice, extend that de facto tolerance to a younger group and that men in their 20s, 30s or 40s would claim—in Scotland as a defence or elsewhere in mitigation of sentence—that they believed a boy to be 16 although he was 15 or even only 14. We should not dismiss that risk lightly.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: I will not.
  I cannot prove that my fears will be borne out, but my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is mistaken to assert that the burden of proof lies with those of us who defend the status quo. When the protection of vulnerable young people is at stake and when there is doubt, we should put that protection ahead of the principle of equality. My fear is that the House will fail in its duty to those young people and to the country if it supports the Bill tonight.
  6.31 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We have had a good, wide-ranging debate and one thing is clear: the Bill is not about section 28 and the responsibilities of public bodies. Nor is it about codes of practice and equal opportunity in employment. It certainly is not about gay marriage and an attack on the family. It behoves no party on either side of the House to claim to be the party of the family and we are all agreed that families are a good thing. They contain gay people and straight people and are about ties of mutual love and affection. They are, and need to be, whole and healthy institutions for the good of not only the individuals in them, but, we all surely believe, society. It is no use labelling those on one side or another of the argument pro or anti-family.
  The Bill is about the equalisation of the age of consent, the protection of vulnerable people and abuse of trust. Various strands ran through the speeches of all those who contributed to the debate, but each of them—in different ways and from different sides of the argument—clearly acknowledged the importance and significance of respect for difference, in sexuality and in age. They created a sense of the importance of equality before the law, the law as a framework for our actions and people's rights and responsibilities—not only the rights of the young in relation to their own sexuality, important though that is, but the responsibility to them held by older people in positions of trust. They also made it clear that we, as legislators, must get the balance right. We try to do that. The Bill gives the House the opportunity to achieve that balance and to make a judgment. As well as respecting

  495
  differences in sexuality, we must also respect differences in deeply held opinions and convictions. Different convictions can be held with honesty. We do not need to paint each other as homophobes and bigots or as being part of a sort of homintern, or homosexual conspiracy designed to undermine civilisation and the family. We have resisted the temptation to do that in the main, but with some notable exceptions.
  We all respect the importance of difference. We understand that the law has to ensure that young people can safely be different in their sexuality: safe from the predatory sexuality of older people and safe from the enormous damage that is done to young people who are made to feel guilty and ashamed of their sexuality.
  We should reflect on messages. I understand the point that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made about them. However, what sort of message do we send young people when we say that their sexuality, which is real to them, is criminal, shameful and should be hidden under a bushel? We know that the mental and sexual health of those who hide such issues and are not prepared to discuss them or share their fears are at risk. There is a high price to pay in self-worth if we criminalise a group of young people because they happen to be gay.
  Hon. Members have a free vote tonight. I have always taken the view that equalising the age of consent in law is the best way in which to protect young people. It does not make them vulnerable; it makes us better able to ensure that they grow up without being subject to the risks that have been discussed today. However, hon. Members will make up their own minds about that.
  Important speeches have been made in the debate. It is invidious to single out individual contributions, but two struck me as especially significant: the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The last person to deliver such a forceful and eloquent speech on the subject that we are considering from the Opposition Benches subsequently had a cup of tea with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), and the rest is history. The Labour party is a broad church. I was delighted that my hon. Friend had a cup of tea with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), but if she is minded to have a cup of tea with the hon. Member for Buckingham, that will strain the strength of the pillars of the temple.
  Mr. Bercow: First, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) will be pleased to know that there is no such prospect whatever. Secondly, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends that, as I approach my death bed, the last words that will trip off my tongue will almost certainly be, "Vote Conservative."
  Mr. Boateng: I was just beginning to like the hon. Gentleman, but there we are.
  It has been a good and serious debate. It came out of all the speeches that we must ensure that, whatever the age of consent, whatever people's sexuality or gender, we make common cause on protecting people from abuse, which is of the utmost seriousness. It is important to detach the two
  496
  things. We are not introducing proposals in relation to abuse of trust because we are giving the House the opportunity to vote on equalisation of the age of consent. My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) both have strong track records in the House in relation to matters to do with children. It is a concern for both sides of the House. In other debates, the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) have also expressed concerns about the protection of children. Our abuse of trust provisions seek to ensure that we have in place a workable mechanism to prevent young people—be they men or women, the prey of predators male or female, straight or gay—from being abused.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) has raised some of the teacher unions' legitimate concerns. We had to make a decision on how to cast that Bill. Of course, it will be important to monitor and to see how the provisions work in practice, but our conclusion was that the relationship between a teacher and a pupil was a particular one—the teacher is in loco parentis.
  Jackie Ballard: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady made her point well. If she will excuse me, we have to get on.
  We believe that that relationship is one of special trust that needs to be protected by law, but we keep those matters constantly under review and we will co-operate with teacher unions in developing the code of practice. It is for that reason that we decided to proceed in that way.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked me some specific questions about the position in relation to Scotland, so it is right that I should answer them in some detail. By agreed convention, Westminster will not normally legislate for Scotland with regard to a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, and with the Parliament Act 1911 in mind, we sought the consent of the Scottish Parliament and it was given. Since this is a pre-commencement enactment, the Royal Assent having been given, if that is the will of this Parliament, the power in relation to Scotland will come into effect when the First Minister makes the necessary orders. That is how it will work in relation to Scotland, and of course Scotland will have the power to amend the legislation for Scotland if it wishes at some later time.
  The House has given this matter great consideration over a number of days on three successive occasions. We have been into these matters in great detail, properly so, in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The time has arrived for us to come to a conclusion in this House, and to come to a conclusion that carries with it the full weight of the Parliament Act 1911. So when we send this measure to the other place it will take with it its own message in terms of our vote, and the other place will understand what motivates us.
  What will motivate hon. Members in arriving at their decision is the belief that we are talking about equality before the law and the protection of the vulnerable. I end on this note, because the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) sought to make his point, as he has every right to do, in relation to the European convention on human rights. He suggested that we in this House were somehow subordinating our consideration of these matters

  497
  to considerations that belonged to an alien institution far from these shores which had no business telling us what to do.
  I do not think that anyone who has heard the debate in this Chamber, anyone who has read the correspondence or met the deputations that have been to see hon. Members on all sides of the argument, could believe that this is not a matter that we are deciding for our country.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No.
  We are, however, deciding it within a context and framework that is, yes, one of human rights. The hon. Gentleman referred to the European convention as something that arose post war, out of the events of that war, and said that it was in no way possible that those who framed that piece of international law would have dreamed that it would ever be applied to issues of sexuality. It was born out of the war, he said.
  Well, the hon. Gentleman should reflect on who it was who died in the gas chambers. It was the Jews, it was the gypsies and it was the gays. And he should remember, too, the ground in which intolerance and bigotry grew.
  Therefore, for those of us who look to the convention as a reminder of the importance of human rights, to those of us who look to the convention as a reminder of what equality before the law should be, that is a tradition that is entirely honourable, and those of us who will vote for the equalisation of the age of consent tonight will do so because we believe in equality, because we believe in the common humanity of all, regardless of age, regardless of sexuality.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 102.

  Division No. 71]

  [6.49 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allan, Richard

  Brady, Graham

  Allen, Graham

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Austin, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Ballard, Jackie

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barren, Kevin

  Burgon, Colin

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beard, Nigel

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Casale, Roger

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Caton, Martin

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Best, Harold

  Chaytor, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coaker, Vernon

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Borrow, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Boswell, Tim

  Coleman, Iain

  498

  Colman, Tony

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Jean

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cox, Tom

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Darvill, Keith

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kemp, Fraser

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

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

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kidney, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dobbin, Jim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Doran, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Duncan, Alan

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Efford, Clive

  Love, Andrew

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  McCabe, Steve

  Evans, Nigel

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fabricant, Michael

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Fisher, Mark

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McDonnell, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foulkes, George

  McWalter, Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Goggins, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moonte, Dr Lewis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moore, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

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

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mountford, Kali

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mullin, Chris

  Healey, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Norris, Dan

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hill, Keith

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hood, Jimmy

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hope, Phil

  Pike, Peter L

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Plaskitt, James

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Pond, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  499

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prior, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Stunell, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rammell, Bill

  Swinney, John

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Todd, Mark

  Rendel, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tyler, Paul

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford, Phil

  White, Brian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Breed, Colin

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gill, Christopher

  Burns, Simon

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cann, Jamie

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Green, Damian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Horam, John

  500

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Loughton Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Luff Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, William

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Townend, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Michie Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Viggers, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Moss Malcolm

  Walter, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  O"Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Yeo, Tim

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Randall, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Laurence

  Mr. Gerald Howarth and

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time; to be read the Third time tomorrow, pursuant to Order (7 February).

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Northern Ireland Act 2000
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 2000
United Reformed Church Act 2000
Alliance & Leicester pic (Group Reorganisation) Act 2000
Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Act 2000

Police Funding (Lincolnshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
7.2 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I want to examine how the Government are supporting the Lincolnshire police, which is a subject of importance and interest to the people of Lincolnshire. The first duty of any Government is to protect the people and ensure that they enjoy their freedom under the law, safe in their own homes and on the streets. The burden on the Government is to ensure that, within necessarily limited resources, all parts of the country, urban and rural, are given a fair deal on public services, including the police.
The facts speak for themselves: Lincolnshire does not get a fair deal on police funding. That is not party rhetoric. It is based firmly on the facts. Lincolnshire covers about 2,800 square miles, with a population of 620,000. By area it is the fifth largest police force in England. The population is evenly and widely dispersed over 504 parishes. During the summer months there is an influx of tourists heading towards the coast. The population is disproportionately elderly. One in five will over be 65 by 2007. The fear of crime is particularly high among the elderly. In rural areas, burglary—the cruel invasion of one's home that is particularly upsetting to older people— is a real problem.
Sadly, Lincolnshire is in the third quartile nationally for burglary. Rural villages suffer from vandalism and petty theft. Villagers demand a greater police presence which cannot currently be delivered. The standard spending assessment—what the Government think that Lincolnshire should spend on the police—is £62.6 million. If the police authority agreed to spend at that figure, we would have between 150 and 200 fewer police officers and policing in Lincolnshire would be in crisis. The police authority breaks the limit, spending £69.7 million, which is 11.3 per cent, more.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that between March and September 1999 the number of officers in Lincolnshire fell by 29. He will be further aware that between April 1997 and the end of 1999, there was a total fall in numbers of about 40 officers. Does not that suggest that we need the Government to introduce the sparsity factor into the formula, as recommended by their independent consultants?
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend because he has raised that issue on several occasions and made some important points about manpower in the Lincolnshire police force. I will come back to that subject in a moment.
The result of the overspend above SSA is inevitable. It means that Lincolnshire people pay more than people elsewhere, and they get less. That is our central problem. Lincolnshire's council tax at band D is £81, compared with the standard council tax of £50. We are top of the league in levels of council tax, but pay in our area is often low compared with national rates.
For all that the council tax is high, we still suffer from poor levels of policing. The population is served by just one police officer for every 535 people, which is one of the
502
poorest ratios in the country. There are just 1.97 officers per hectare, compared to a national average of 8.25. In plain speak, Lincolnshire police are overstretched and undermanned. They have to chase their tails over a huge area.
Gillian Merron: I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a couple of brief points. First, Lincolnshire has seen—I am delighted to say—the biggest decrease in crime in the east midlands. Secondly, the chief constable, Richard Childs, said only last month that one of the best ways to explain that reduction is the hard work put into multi-agency efforts to tackle crime and the causes of crime. Does not Lincolnshire's record show that the Government have set a winning formula with Lincolnshire's police?
Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Lady mentions the chief constable. I am also delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who takes a keen interest in these matters, is now in his place.
The chief constable has made it clear that he supports our campaign to increase the funding formula because he thinks that it is unfair. We hope that the hon. Lady will join that campaign. Of course I welcome a fall in recorded crime, but it is still too high. When I talked to the mayor of Gainsborough last week, his view was that in certain areas it is so difficult to get a quick police response that people often do not report crime, and that is something that greatly concerns him.
In 1998–99, Lincolnshire received the lowest police grant per head of population. That is worrying. The Minister may argue when he replies that the Home Secretary's crime fighting bids are the answer to our problems, and of course we welcome 41 extra police officers. However, the real issue is that the formula used by the Government in working out the grant is simply unfair. It does not take adequate account of the sparsity factor and the rural nature of our county.
In any event, the 1,000 extra police officers that were announced do not make up for the 1,700 officers lost nationally since the general election. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made clear earlier, we have also lost police officers in Lincolnshire. The Government's announcement yesterday will not solve the problem. The chief constable, my hon. Friends and the police authority agree with me, but more importantly that is also the view of the report that the Government commissioned into the problem. The ORH report provides conclusive evidence of the additional costs placed on Lincolnshire and recommends an adjustment to the formula. If that was implemented, Lincolnshire's SSA would immediately rise by £2.2 million.
Successive Labour Ministers have promised that they would respond to the findings of their research. First, it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—now the ex-First Minister in Wales— when he was the Minister responsible. Then the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), when he was the Minister responsible, promised that the Government would implement the report. He said that the recognition of the significance of sparsity as an effective needs formula drew support from both sides of the House. We want to know that the Minister now accepts the conclusion of the Government's report.

503
It gets worse. The research was delayed by the Government in 1997 owing to an alleged lack of funds, despite an offer from the rural authorities to fund the report. Ministers now say that they cannot implement the report because they have conveniently imposed a moratorium, or freeze, on changing the funding formula for the police. However, this unilateral freeze was imposed after the research commenced, and the results were originally promised for the current year's settlement for 1999–2000. As such, they would not have been affected by the moratorium. There is no case for not implementing this report, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will do so. If we do not implement the report, matters will get worse.
I have talked so far about figures. Let me give a few examples of what is happening locally. The call centre in Lincoln is not working adequately—I visited it. Police constables are having to be taken away from other duties to man it. Despite reassurances about the police station in Gainsborough, people are not convinced. It is supposed to stay open until 9 o'clock, but often it is not. I visited a company which had a problem. The director of Impaq Ltd tells me:
"On my way home, I called the main Gainsborough Police station just to let them know that there was a gang of youths loitering on private property. Unfortunately the place was closed at 7.55pm!"
There has also been a problem with vandalism in the churchyard. Very worryingly, there is a hide, and there has been talk of vigilantes in the town. Nobody condones that sort of behaviour, but when the police presence declines to such an extent and people start talking about vigilantes, that is really worrying. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of what people are saying.
We have written to a number of parish councils. This is a typical comment from Hemswell Cliff parish council:
"One parishioner commented that after reporting a burglary in progress at out buildings at their property, it was some 50 minutes before the police arrived, by which time the offenders had fled. The officer apologised for the delay, but stated that they were the only patrol car covering the whole of the Gainsborough area and had been despatched from Lincoln."
That is the constituency of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). Sometimes, in my constituency, in that enormous area stretching from the boundary close to Grimsby in the north-east right down to Market Rasen, there may be only one police officer on duty, or one car roaming around. It simply is not good enough.
In the 120 square miles covering Keelby, Great Limber, Riby, Caistor, North Kelsey and South Kelsey, Nettleton, Grasby, Searby and Bigby, when the Caistor police constable is off duty, there is just one back-up. Gainsborough town centre has a very good beat officer, but only one, and she also doubles helping with murder inquiries in Lincoln. If there is a murder in the county, she goes—we do not see her again. One could go on giving examples.
In conclusion, the whole county is asking the Government to do the decent thing and recognise the conclusions of their own report. They must recognise that the population of Lincolnshire is evenly spread across that vast county, and that the police simply cannot do the job on the money that they are given. We want action, and we want it today.
7.13 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on obtaining this debate on police funding in Lincolnshire. In a way, it is his second bite at the cherry. When the debate was scheduled for 25 January in Westminster Hall, he was so preoccupied to ensure that the leader of his party was not vulnerable in Prime Minister's questions that he wanted to knock out the next day's business. He therefore spoke in the debate on the Floor of the House, so we lost the debate on this subject. However, I am glad to have this chance to debate it now.
The House debated and approved the Government's proposals for police funding for 2000–01 on Thursday 3 February. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised important issues affecting police funding for Lincolnshire police during that debate, and I appreciate the way in which he raised them.
Police funding and rural crime concerns have been raised by hon. Members in the Chamber in previous Adjournment debates, most recently by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on 2 December and in other debates on crime. It is a genuine issue, and I acknowledge the seriousness with which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) takes it.
I should put on the record Lincolnshire's current funding position. For 2000–01, funding will be £65.4 million—an increase of 3.3 per cent, over the previous year, and higher than the national average of 2.8 per cent. In 1999–2000, the force's funding increased by 4.4 per cent., which again compares well with the national average of 2.5 per cent. There have been two years of above-average increases in Government funding for Lincolnshire. That is a good result for Lincolnshire police and the people of Lincolnshire, and it is more than many other forces received. I, like the hon. Gentleman, pay tribute to the chief constable for advancing his case, but I pay tribute too to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has pressed that case hard in both public and private representations.
Government funding is not the whole picture. It is for the police authority to decide on its final budget, along with any corresponding increase in council tax, but there is scope for the police authority to increase spending power next year by asking council tax payers to contribute more, and we are all familiar with the political judgments and trade-offs that exist in that regard.
The police increase of precept on council tax last year was 3.9 per cent.—the second lowest in England and Wales at a time when many forces took decisions that went the other way. When, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, I discussed education with the leader of Lincolnshire county council last year, we discussed the matter at some length. Issues remain to be discussed openly, involving, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, Government funding, but also involving decisions taken by the police authority about the appropriate precepting regime.
In 1999–2000, Lincolnshire will spend an estimated £111 per head of population compared with an average for the shire counties of £114.50 per head of population. That figure is slightly lower than the national average, but I would argue that it is not significantly so. As the

505
hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the Government have taken measures to ensure that the whole community, along with the police and local authorities, can address the issues of crime within the context of partnership. In Lincolnshire, as in many other parts of the country, partnerships can mobilise the resources of the community at every level in order to prevent and reduce crime and the impact of offending.
Many rural communities throughout the country have welcomed the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which institutionalised effective partnerships on the ground and ensured that people could work together effectively. Many partnerships in Lincolnshire seek to develop in a variety of ways and the Government; wjsh to do all we can to help.
The effect of all that on crime in Lincolnshire was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln in her intervention. In general, there has been good news for Lincolnshire. In the 12 months to 1999—according to the most recent published figures—crime fell by 2.3 per cent, bucking the national increase of 2.2 per cent. That is a tribute to the police and the local communities and partnerships that have worked hard to reduce crime. The percentage change translates into an average of 7,496 crimes per 100,000 population in Lincolnshire, which is significantly below the national average of 9,984.
I do not want to suggest any sense of complacency. We continue actively to discuss the targeting regime and appropriate procedures to drive down crime further. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the debate, it is a good time to pay tribute to everyone in Lincolnshire who has played a part in ensuring that it is relatively free of crime in comparison with other parts of the country and is continuing to drive crime down.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister is an able and competent man who takes his duties seriously. I am sure that he will not wish to use the limited time available to us as a result of the admirable initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) without addressing the central point of the debate. That is that police funding in England is based on the standard spending assessment system, under which Lincolnshire is structurally underfunded because there is no recognition of the county's sparsity. We have the greatest sparsity of any county in England, and the distribution of population is unusually evenly spread. That means much higher costs for delivering any given level of police service, yet as the Minister has acknowledged, we have the lowest funding—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
Mr. Clarke: As always, I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. When we served on the Select Committee on the Treasury, I was well aware of his ability to make powerful and effective points at some length—as he has just done.
The next point in my speaking notes is headed "Sparsity". I do not think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough attended the debate on the police grant— unlike his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—so he may not be aware that I dealt with sparsity at some length on that occasion, as I intend to do in this debate.
506
I understand the disappointment that we did not implement the recommendations of the research report on the cost of policing of rural areas. Recently, I met a delegation of representatives from the rural authorities, led by Lincolnshire, and which included my Norfolk authority. The authority that polices my constituency is one of those affected by the sparsity formula. I discussed the matter in great detail, and I pay tribute to the role of the chairman of the Lincolnshire police authority in co-ordinating that group.
Last Thursday, in the debate on the police grant, I mentioned the role of the chairman. He wrote to me asking what I was referring to. I told him that I was concerned about the way in which the Lincolnshire police authority had raised the issue of sparsity in a press release. That press release was intended to be on behalf of the rural authorities affected by sparsity, but several representatives from such authorities—notably from Northamptonshire—said that it did not speak for them.
My advice to everyone prosecuting the sparsity debate is to do so according to the genuine merit of their case. I emphasise that point. The debate should not involve party political point scoring. Some police authorities are in strong Labour areas—others are in strong Conservative areas. Members of Parliament from all parts of the country advance arguments in what is a legitimate and fair debate, but it is not right to make it a party political one, as I tried to point out.
During the summer, the findings of the research report on policing rural areas were considered by a Home Office-led group, including representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities. Various views were expressed and there was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected—as the hon. Member for Gainsborough correctly pointed out during his speech.
The Government understand that rural police authorities, such as Lincolnshire, will want those research findings to be implemented. However, we set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities to plan ahead—for the reason given by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in his intervention. We need to ensure that the whole SSA system is right.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is conducting a review of the system because it is unfair in several respects, including the sparsity aspect. In the light of that, there is a moratorium, so my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided that it would be inappropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. However, I can give the House a commitment—as I did last Thursday—that we are actively considering making that change in future years. Many members of the Government strongly support that approach.
We have also responded to the problem in other announcements on the subject. For example, in the crime-fighting fund, which was announced yesterday, there was a specific reference to sparsity. The allocation of 4,000 of the 5,000 officers was based on the general distribution plus a sparsity factor of 2 per cent.—the first time that that has been done—acknowledging the force of the argument made by the "sparsity alliance".
Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend is aware that I think that the report on sparsity should be put into action. I have

507
pressed him on that matter, and I am pleased that he has said that change will be actively sought. I hope that it will come soon. I welcome the boost to police recruitment. The Government have awarded Lincolnshire about 80 per cent, of the police authority's bid. The authority was one of the most successful in its bid to the new crime fighting fund. Congratulations are due to Lincolnshire police on the quality of their application and to the Government on their award of the funds.
Mr. Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that point, which is entirely correct. If I may reinforce it, may I just place on the record the remarks of the chief constable, who has been mentioned, on the fund? Mr. Richard Childs—a very fine chief constable—said in his press release:
"We were realistic in our bid for a portion of the Crime Fighting Fund and have been given an additional 41 officers over the next three years … We bid for a further 50 … and based that … number on specific crime and disorder initiatives focused particularly on rural communities where there is a real gap between actual crime and the fear of crime … Lincolnshire has been allocated resources to recruit"—
the 41 officers over the next three years. It continued:
"From April we will be able to start redressing the perceived absence of officers across the whole County … They are not of course the only officers we will be recruiting as we anticipate replacing those that resign and retire as well as catching up on a few we were unable to recruit this year … With our increased investment in information technology to support the front line officers, I am confident we will meet the continuation criteria imposed by the Home Office to ensure we can recruit our full allocation".
In his covering letter to me when he sent me a copy of the press release, the chief constable said that he wanted me to emphasise that his positive approach to the allocation to Lincolnshire complements the allocation with the
"intention to invest heavily in IT and … touches upon our ability to recruit as many as leave next year. This is possible only as a direct result of the very significant reorganisation we have gone through and the effective problem solving focus we have adopted within the Force".
That is a powerful testimony from the chief constable, which I am glad to read into the record.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has expressed warm words about the need to introduce to the formula an element to reflect sparsity. Can he give the House an
508
undertaking that, at the end of the moratorium period, he will introduce to the formula the sparsity factor recommended by his Home Office consultants?
Mr. Clarke: No, I cannot give that undertaking. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very experienced— I hate to use the word "statesman"—political leader in his own right. He knows that undertakings cannot be given by Ministers when major reviews of funding systems are taking place. The purpose of the review of funding systems is to weigh up the issues and form a view, including in this case on sparsity.
I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an undertaking that the issue of sparsity will be very seriously considered—in fact, is being very seriously considered—throughout that process. I can give him an undertaking that the Government intend to focus even more sharply on rural crime as a very important element of our initiatives to build a safe community countrywide. However, I cannot give him an undertaking about the outcome of that review process. No Minister could, and under the Conservatives, no Minister could either, simply because a process is taking place which will give rise to conclusions.
However, I do want to say that, in addition to the sparsity element in the crime fighting fund announcements that we made yesterday, in the CCTV announcements we gave priority to rural funding issues and our new guidelines will reinforce that still further; and we are actively considering, in the context of the Government's priority on rural issues as a whole, the ways in which we can fight rural crime both with resources and with a range of other and different initiatives. I really do believe that the Government are seeking to address these issues very seriously and to ensure that we can address the issues in the fullest possible way.
On rural crime, a wide range of other issues are of concern. We are pursuing a range of inter-related initiatives to reduce crime and the fear of crime. We are delivering new powers to the local crime reduction partnerships and we are providing a significant amount of money through the crime reduction scheme and for CCTV schemes to focus on those most at risk.
We strongly believe that we must address the issues of confidence in rural communities, such as those represented by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. I genuinely commend him on securing the debate. I genuinely believe that the issues of rural crime are important, and he is right to raise them in the way that he has, not only for his constituents but for the wider good. I also genuinely believe that the Government are seriously trying to address these issues in a sharp and focused way.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the Agriculture Committee, Session 1998–99 (HC 233), and the Government's response thereto (Session 1998–99, HC 612).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I rise as acting Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has moved on to higher things—or lower, depending on one's view of the Whips Office. I was pushed into the breach, but I am getting to like the job.
I commend the fifth report of the Select Committee on Agriculture on badgers and bovine tuberculosis and I shall speak about the progress made on implementing its recommendations. I should start by saying that the report is good, which is my sincere opinion. The Committee was assisted by Professor Peter Hudson and Professor Tim Roper, who were excellent, stimulating and exciting advisers. The report was the first one produced by our Clerk, Lynn Gardner, who did a skilful and effective job writing it. The inquiry was well handled and I found it fascinating. I knew nothing at all about badgers before we produced the report—I had thought that they lived up in the Press Gallery. The report is a study of animal husbandry, farm procedures, wildlife and the activities of pressure groups on both sides of the issue, so its production was an educational experience.
The inquiry was undertaken because of the rapid spread of bovine tuberculosis. In common with Ministers and the report, I emphasise that bovine TB is not a human health issue, as the risk that it poses to humans is extremely low. However, the disease is an important issue, because herd breakdown is a devastating experience for farmers and destructive to their business. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association argue that compensation arrangements are inadequate, because, even though compensation is paid for slaughtered cattle, no account is taken of farmers' on-going finances. Herd breakdown is a devastating experience that has important repercussions on animal welfare, and it hits an industry that is already hard hit by the BSE crisis.
All those factors have to be taken into account when examining the problem of bovine TB, which is another of the good things that come from the south and spread to the north. Those things include high interest rates, although they have come from the south-east, whereas TB is moving up the country from the south-west. I see from the MAFF report that it has reached the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border, around Ashbourne. As it spreads up the country, its incidence and impact increase: in 1992, 1,626 compulsory slaughters were
114WH
carried out; in 1998, that figure had risen to 6,086; and in the first half of 1999, it had risen to 3,756. It appears that the figures will increase again next year.
That spread and the alarm it generated led to the commissioning of the Krebs report, which was completed in December 1997. It argued that there was compelling evidence of a link between badgers and bovine TB—a link that some badger supporters, including Friends of the Badger, still deny, pointing to other possible sources of infection. The Select Committee report said that all such sources should be considered and researched to see whether the badger is the animal responsible, as the Krebs report suggested. We argued for research on trace elements and for new guidelines on animal husbandry, which the Department has since produced. The Committee also argued that other wildlife species should be considered in the research, and the Ministry acted on that recommendation as well.
However, I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the National Federation of Badger Groups says—in a document that I received this morning, a copy of which I presume the Ministry has also received—that some of the recommendations have not been implemented. Specifically, the National Federation of Badger Groups states:
"The Committee recommendation that MAFF ensure that a thorough and well-designed sampling procedure of wildlife species other than the badger be put in place in the trial to determine if M.bovis can persist in other species when badgers are removed"
has still not been acted upon; the work has still not started. Nor has MAFF provided more funding for research into the relative importance of cattle-to-cattle transmission, which was also recommended in the Select Committee report. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and hope that he will tell the Chamber whether those accusations are justified or whether those recommendations have been responded to.
The Select Committee also recommended that other alternatives should be considered, which is only right and proper if the research is to be adequate. We must point the finger of blame where the blame actually lies and be satisfied that there are no other methods of transmission. The Krebs report was unable to prove scientifically that badgers are responsible—it was unable to demonstrate a causal connection—but it pointed the finger of blame in that direction none the less. As a result, people believe that badgers are responsible and badger extermination by angry farmers continues because they are worried about the risk to their herds.
To determine where the blame lies, Krebs recommended that a proper scientific study be conducted, with 10 triplets in TB hotspot areas. Three different research strategies were to be pursued in each area. The first two were: total extermination—the proactive killing or bumping-off of all badgers at the start of the study; and reactive culling, where badgers are killed as a result of a herd exhibiting TB. The third group was a control, in which there was to be no culling at all—in so far as it is possible to prevent farmers from killing badgers unilaterally.
The Government accepted the Krebs report and set up the Bourne group to oversee the study. Then, in August 1998, the Government announced that they

115WH
would go ahead with the Krebs recommendation, which is where the Select Committee came in. The Select Committee was somewhat worried that the experiment would be over-elaborate and difficult to carry out. The problem is not one of pure science: because it involves ecology, husbandry and human relations, it is not like a laboratory experiment in which it is possible to produce sound results.
The study was always likely to be subject to vagaries, such as whether farmers would continue to kill badgers illicitly. That is an inevitable human reaction, on which—unfortunately—I commented during one of the Committee's sittings. It was unfortunate because a friend from New Zealand had sent a group of badger enthusiasts down from Craven, having first told them that I would as least give them a fair and favourable hearing. The delegation then heard the hon. Member for Great Grimsby saying that, if he were a farmer, he would go out with a machine gun and mow the bastards down—not the delegates, the badgers. That incautious remark attracted an enormous amount of mail, mainly abusive and some of it purporting to come from badgers, but it made me realise that I should keep my mouth shut. Those are not my feelings—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) tells me that they are, but I was, as a representative of an urban constituency, merely speculating on the possible reaction of farmers to the disruption.
The trials could be disrupted by badger enthusiasts who decide, on humanitarian grounds, to make it harder to kill badgers. It was always going to be a difficult scientific approach and it will be hard to be consistent. I suggested that the trials should be cut down and speeded up. My amendment to that effect was vetoed tumultuously—the voting figures are in the back of the report, if hon. Members want to discover the extent of my sarcasm. However, the Krebs recommendations were simplified and modified by the Bourne report to make them acceptable to the Select Committee. Our main concern was one of speed and delay.
The Select Committee report is dated April 1999—a document of the last century, and it is distressing to find that it has not been implemented as fully, quickly and effectively as we wanted it to be. The delay puts greater pressure on farmers to act unilaterally and creates more difficulties in the areas in which bovine TB is spreading. Herd breakdown is a problem that is galloping ahead of us, and the Ministry must catch up quickly. If research is delayed, there will be increased pressure from farmers: they will want to know why we are floundering around when something more should be done immediately. Farmers will not view this as a scientific or academic issue, but as one that is vital to their livelihoods and continued activity on their farms.
I accept that MAFF is a piggy in the middle—that is, perhaps, not the best phrase to use, given that Agriculture questions today were largely devoted to the pig industry crisis. The Ministry is under pressure from Friends of the Badger and the farming lobby, yet has had a counsel of perfection urged upon it. However, the major delays in establishing the triplets that had occurred before the Select Committee met have continued. The Select Committee and the Bourne report
116WH
wanted the system to be up and running by February 2000, but here we are, in February 2000, and the Governments first report tells us that, although progress has been made, only six of the 10 triplets have been enrolled and culling has begun in only three.
We are well behind schedule. The latest Bourne group report, which was published last week, is moving the target for identifying the triplets to the end of this year, with culling starting in only seven of the 10 triplets. The problem has arisen because of disruption and the difficulty in recruiting staff and identifying areas, but it is longstanding and urgent action is required. We need accurate information that allows us to pin the blame where it belongs and to develop an approach to cope with the problem, but we may not get that information until 2005, or possibly later. Meanwhile, bovine TB will rampage on, and that is exactly what the Select Committee wanted to avoid.
Delays happen for all sorts of reasons. I deprecate the fact that badger lovers have interfered with the trials: by so doing, they have failed to put their case as effectively as they should have done. It is no use blindly or blandly asserting that the badger is innocent: we need to know, and there is no way to identify the problem without the research. Nor is it useful for the Friends of the Badger to put great emphasis, as that organisation did in its evidence to the Committee, on vaccines, whether for badgers—which would be difficult—or for cows. The Committee recommended greater research effort in respect of both, but laid the main emphasis on cattle vaccine. Effort must be made to develop vaccines, but we do not have one yet and a vaccine might not solve the problem anyway. In the meantime, the Krebs recommendations must be implemented so that we can discover what is responsible for herd breakdown.
I am not here to adjudicate between badger lovers, who in some ways have overreacted, and MAFF, which has in a sense underreacted. It has been too dilatory, perhaps for financial reasons. I know, from the impact on the fishing industry, the state of MAFF's accounts.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchell: I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding his head in worry. I hope that such problems are not blighting his life, but they are certainly not making the research any speedier.
The Select Committee's view was that research to secure an understanding of the matter needed to be expedited. One issue to be addressed is the delay in getting started, but another relates to research on the road traffic accident survey—post mortems on badgers killed on the roads. Unless we are to assume that a badger infected with TB is more vulnerable to being killed on the roads, because it moves less quickly or is more stupid, it is safe to suppose that sampling from badgers killed on the roads will give us an idea of the incidence, scale and spread of the disease. The CLA has stated in representations that post mortems have been halted because of health and safety concerns. Have they been halted? When will they restart? It is difficult to picture dead badgers in cold storage waiting for the research to resume—or for MAFF's period of

117WH
overspend to pass so that the funding can be provided, but it must be provided, because badger autopsies do not come cheap. The Government's latest reply on the issue is not very cheerful.
The Government need to get on with appointing an independent statistical adviser to verify the statistics and the results. MAFF's initial reply to the Select Committee was that that would be done, but I understand that it has not been done. The Select Committee made various suggestions on how to fine tune the research to make it more sophisticated and effective. We wanted more information and progress reports, better public awareness and education and better liaison with the Bern convention. We got action on that: in July 1999 the Government did what our report recommended and, in December 1999, a standing committee of the Bern convention agreed that the cull proposed in the triplets was in accord with the convention. One might wish that that statement had been made earlier, but it came and it was a direct result of the Agriculture Committee's intervention. We wanted more information: we wanted to know when cattle had their last tuberculosis test and better liaison with farmers.
The sophisticated recommendations have been acted upon, which narrows the focus of our concern to issues of money and speed of action. The report's main point remains the most important, nine months on. Bovine TB is a serious issue, and the short-term problem is getting worse, causing increasing anxiety in the farming community. The longer the research is delayed, the more long-term policies and proposals get put back. As the Committee's acting spokesman, my message to the Minister is, "Get on with it".
2.51 pm
Mr. James Paice: On behalf of the Opposition, I start by congratulating the Select Committee on Agriculture on its report, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on his introductory speech. He is not renowned for sycophancy and he lived up to his reputation this morning, but I am sure he agrees with my thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who was Chairman of the Agriculture Committee when it deliberated on the important issue that we are debating today.
I understand that either the Government or MAFF put a great deal of pressure on the House authorities to prevent today's debate from taking place. If that is true, it is a great shame. I regret that our debate is being held in Westminster Hall and not in the Chamber, because, as the Minister said in the Chamber earlier today, the issue is crucial. The former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), used to say that, as an issue facing MAFF, bovine TB was second in importance only to BSE, and I would not disagree with his conclusion.
I shall refresh hon. Members minds as to the scale of the issue. The Krebs committee, set up by the previous Government, reported in December 1997; it used 1995–96 statistics, which are now out of date because of the spread of the disease since that time. The latest figures, which go up to the end of October 1999, show that, in the preceding two full years, there was a
118WH
47 per cent. increase in confirmed cases of the disease in England and a 44 per cent. increase in Great Britain as a whole. Although we welcome it, no one can understand why the figure for Great Britain dropped to 14 per cent. in the first 10 months of 1999.
Equally serious is the number of incidents in herds that have not had breakdowns in the previous 10 years. In what was the county of Avon, 15 of 25 incidents were in herds that had not had a breakdown in the previous 10 years; in Cornwall, it was 103 of 139, and in Devon, 54 of 99. That shows that more than half the outbreaks take place in new locations, among herds that have not had an outbreak for 10 years. The frontier counties into which the disease is spreading show a similar, or worse, picture: in Staffordshire, 29 of the 30 cases were in herds that had not had an outbreak in 10 years; in Shropshire, four out of five cases; and all six cases in Derbyshire occurred in herds that had not had a case for 10 years. The figure on MAFF's website for England, excluding the west region, shows that there were 17 cases in 1995, rising to 57 cases in 1998, in herds in which there had been no previous incidents. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, the number of cattle slaughtered rose by 76 per cent. in those four years.
The Opposition support the outcome of Professor Krebs's deliberations, but we must recognise that the situation has worsened considerably since his committee considered it. Wherever I go in the country, there is talk about how helpless farmers feel and their threat—I shall use no stronger word—to take illegal action because they feel that nothing else is being done.
The Government abandoned the previous Government's policy of interim culling as soon as they took office. It is not unreasonable to conclude that that might be one reason why outbreaks in 1998 rocketed by more than 40 per cent. The Opposition do not advocate unnecessary culling, but a sense of proportion is required. The badger population in this country is not under threat—studies have demonstrated that there are between 300,000 and 450,000 badgers—and the animal health issue is an important one. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is not a major human health issue—touch wood; we hope that it does not become one—but we must address the animal health issue, which affects not only cattle but other wildlife species, including badgers.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend not see a paradox between the Government's attitude on taking a precautionary cull outside the Krebs trial plots where badgers are linked to TB and their precautionary principle in banning beef on the bone?
Mr. Paice: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall consider areas outside the trial plots later.
Paragraph 127 of the report says clearly:
"We are also concerned at the lack of urgency displayed by MAFF officials in implementing the trial and other aspects of the programme."
Paragraph 7.8.20 of the Krebs report says of the trial:
"We recommend that it is initiated within four months (by the spring of 1998)."

119WH
Professor Bourne's report, issued 19 months after Krebs, stated that culling had started in three triplets. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby incorrectly said that culling had started in seven.
Mr. Mitchell: I said that it would have started in seven by the end of this year.
Mr. Paice: I apologise if I had misunderstood. There are currently only three, with no more until the end of the closed season—culling will not take place until the summer.
In two years, only six out of 10 triplets at most will be up and running; four have not yet been identified. There are countless examples in the Committee's report and in the Krebs report of problems due to the delays, to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby referred.
The Opposition believe that the trials are essential and that they should be supported by those on all sides of the debate. The hon. Gentleman was right—we must find out the facts. Even those who are rightly and understandably concerned about the culling of badgers should accept that we must get as near the truth as it is possible to be, given the vagueness of science. We could finally clear up not only whether there is a link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB, but how significant the link is in the spread of TB and whether culling makes any difference.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers' anecdotal evidence should still be considered? It might not be statistical, but it could suggest what is going on.
Mr. Paice: I entirely agree—there is a mass of anecdotal evidence about badgers, which is widely believed in the farming community and outside. As Krebs himself recognised, everything points to that, although there is not the scientific evidence to prove a link. I hope that the trials will either prove it or disprove it.
I wholly condemn any disruption of those trials and any threats to or victimisation of the operators, who are fulfilling a need. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will use every method possible to protect the operators and ensure that the trials proceed as quickly as possible. However, given what the trials involve, it should be borne in mind that the Ministry and its operators are under an obligation to ensure that the trials are conducted as humanely as possible. Last year's television programme clearly showed that the guidelines were not being followed in at least one or two cases, so the Government must ensure that they are.
Conclusion (h) of the Committee's report states of the rate of incidence of bovine TB:
"MAFF should pay more attention to identifying the principal cause of this increased rate. One approach would be to apply models and examine whether the spatial and temporal patterns observed could be accounted for as a consequence of the cessation of the badger cull in 1997."
I entirely agree with that, but it is wishful thinking to believe that the Government would do it. MAFF would worry that such an approach would prove that the cessation of the culling had made the problem worse.
120WH
The Committee addresses the issue of vaccines at length. Krebs rightly points out that cattle vaccines would be easier to develop and certainly easier to administer than badger vaccines. We also need to develop a test to determine whether a cow is infected with TB that would not be compromised if the cow had been vaccinated. Thus, a double development is needed. Krebs also says—Professor Bourne said the same—that it will be 10 or 15 years before such a vaccine is developed. Interestingly, that has been the figure given for the past 20 or 30 years: in previous investigations into TB in cattle, a cattle vaccine has always been said to be 10 years away, so it does not seem to be getting any closer. That might not be surprising when seen in the light of one of Professor Krebs' statements. He said:
"Currently no money is targeted at this specific area although 26 per cent. of MAFF's total TB research budget is spent on the related area of badger vaccines."
Will the Minister tell us how much is now being spent on the development of cattle vaccines?
The question of husbandry rightly received some attention from the Select Committee. Professor Krebs made various recommendations, including one that
"the possibility of testing various proactive husbandry strategies should be explored with the farming industry."
I am aware that the Government have now set up a husbandry panel, but its first meeting was about a month ago—more than two years after the outcome of the Krebs report in December 1997 and therefore another example of immense delay. The previous Government published advice leaflets that, I acknowledge, were withdrawn more than five years ago; however they were replaced only in the middle of 1999, despite the advice of Krebs and Professor Bourne.
Mention was made of carcase testing and the Health and Safety Executive's prevention of the testing of badger carcases for TB, whether they come from the trials or are traffic accident casualities. I hope, but doubt, that the Minister will tell us that those laboratory tests are to recommence. There is a huge backlog to be dealt with, which will prevent the recommencing of any road traffic accident testing, although that approach has a lot to commend it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) suggested, I shall turn to the issue of farmers who are outside the trial areas.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend will be aware of the nine-point action plan recommended by the National Farmers Union in light of the Krebs report. Does he agree that farmers in the control areas are at special risk and remain completely exposed? Does he think that there is a case to be made for comprehensive compensation, bearing in mind the fact that those farmers are quite helpless and—mixing my metaphors like the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—are being made into guinea pigs?
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I would have made that point if I had kept going for another 30 seconds.
We welcome the Government's decision to increase the compensation rate to 100 per cent. of the animal's value. We have no wish to decry that. The Select Committee referred to the NFU's proposals and urged

121WH
the Government to give serious consideration to its nine-point plan. The NFU proposals were sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a year ago, but they have yet to be acted on. The Government's latest response is that discussion is in progress. A year on, we are no further forward; in the meantime, as has been said repeatedly, in the Select Committee and elsewhere, breakdowns are continuing at an ever increasing rate.
The NFU told the Select Committee that the average cost per farm of a breakdown is £3,000 a month. The whole process costs the vast majority of those who experience it at least £18,000. On average, about 1,200 herds are under restriction at any time. Therefore, the cost to the industry is more than £3.5 million a month, at a time when dairy and beef sectors are in serious difficulties. The NFU estimate that 50 per cent. of breakdowns may occur outside areas that are covered by the survey or by control areas of triplets in which there is no culling.
The independent study group examined the idea of culling outside trial areas and concluded that that would serve no useful purpose. I hope that that proposition has not been wholly discounted and that it will be re-examined when the Government panels have given the matter further consideration. However, the study groups's report, which was published only on Monday, stated that illegal culling would hamper the trial and would, at the very least, extend it before it had any sufficient statistical power in relation to triplet years. That is another reason why farmers and others, however desperate, will not take part in illegal culling.
Nevertheless, many farmers feel that they have been hung out to dry during the trials, which involve a much greater time scale than was envisaged by Krebs. It will be 2005 before the 50 triplet years are complete, which Krebs said was necessary for statistical power to be achieved. In the meantime, much of the country—involving, perhaps, 50 per cent. of the outbreaks—receives no help at all. The Government should re-examine consequential costs with a view to securing at least some compensation. That would discourage farmers from taking the law into their own hands.
I shall make a few more proposals in the spirit of productivity. There has been no study of the terms of the existing movement restriction rules, which have been the same for many years. They may be too lax, too tight or just right; what is certain is that they have a huge impact on farms, as the NFU figures demonstrate. Under those restrictions, farmers can only move their stock to slaughter, so they require extra housing, possibly extra winter forage and certainly more working capital, which is not easily come by at present.
At least the calf processing scheme provided an outlet for farmers who traditionally sold their calves at a few days old. Now, they are just one more example of animals being shot at birth, which is happening in all too many parts of the country today as a result of the crisis in the industry. I hope that the Minister will also consider introducing a specific calf processing aid programme for farms that are under restrictions because of an outbreak. He might also agree to instigate an immediate study of those restriction orders. It may show that they are perfectly correct, but in view of the huge impact that they have on farms, it is reasonable at this stage to ask that such a study be carried out.
122WH
My second point concerns TB testing. Most areas of Great Britain are tested every four years. According to EU directive 97/12, annual testing is required unless less than 1 per cent. of the herd is infected; testing is required every two years if infection is between 0.2 per cent. and 1 per cent. and every three or four years if it is under 0.2 per cent. I understand that, in practice, decisions about the frequency of testing are left to the local office of the Ministry and the State Veterinary Service. Annual testing is done only in the real hotspots. There is a strong body of opinion that says that we should change to annual testing everywhere, because it would identify infected cattle much more quickly, before they developed visible lesions.
I would not go quite that far, but I remind the Minister that, not only is the incidence rising, but it is spreading into frontier counties in the midlands, north-west and south Wales. He should immediately reintroduce annual testing in those areas to try to stop the disease spreading further, even while the Krebs trials are taking place. I know that not all farmers would welcome annual testing, but that would be better than watching the spread going on and on and the breakdowns continuing to rise at their current rate.
I am grateful to you for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to respond on behalf of the Opposition to an excellent report that covers a number of issues. It is a pity that the Government sent their response to the Committee, because it is not now available to the rest of us as a result of no longer being the Government's property. The Minister kindly said that he would have given it to me if he could, but he could not. He knows what is in it and members of the Committee know what is in it, but hon. Members who are not members of the Committee have not seen it because the Committee itself is required to publish it. That will obviously detract from the debate.
Overall the report is a sad indictment of MAFF and a tale of woeful complacency in taking action on the Krebs recommendations. The Government talk of urgency and all their rhetoric is about the need to address a serious problem, but they are taking years to do what should have been done in months. It is another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. At the end of the day the Government will be judged on their actions, not their rhetoric.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has an opportunity this afternoon to convince the industry, not only that he takes the issue seriously, but that he will put enough money into all aspects of the independent study group's recommendations. He could say that money is not a problem when addressing such a serious crisis. I hope that he will immediately decide what he is going to do in the rest of the country, which is suffering while these trials are taking place.
I am worried about how disillusioned and dispirited farmers, who are already desperate because of the economic situation in their industry, will react if they feel that nothing is being done to address the problem in the majority of the country. The Government have a lot of questions to answer, and I am not the only one asking them. Farmers the length and breadth of the country, whose livelihoods are under immense threat because of

123WH
the spread of this scourge of a disease, want answers. I hope that the Government will take heed of the Committee's recommendation and act now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me remind hon. Members that if the Government have replied to the Select Committee but the reply has not been published, the document is still privileged and its contents should not be referred to. So let us stop getting into trouble before we start.
3.14 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: As I have not seen the document, I shall not be falling into that trap.
Many aspects of this difficult and tragic problem are matters of dispute, mainly between farmers and their representatives and those who rightly want badgers protected. We often find ourselves in the crossfire and it is difficult to provide an objective way forward. I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, which is balanced and well presented. It should be read by anyone interested in the subject.
Three things are beyond dispute. First, delays are not due only to the present Government. I recall that the previous Conservative Government were undecided about what to do, even before the Krebs group was established. Time was lost and we are now many years down the line from when farmers first began to suffer from the problem. There were delays in getting the triplets study set up; the report, dated April 1999, was delayed; and the Government's response in June was delayed. We are now nearly a year on from when the report was first presented and we have heard about many other delays.
Secondly, we all recognise that the situation is complex and that there is no definitive explanation, despite an enormous amount of anecdotal and other evidence. It is not a simple problem and there is no simple solution. Those on either side of the argument who pretend that there is a clear and simple solution are doing themselves no credit.
Thirdly, no one can deny that the incidence of bovine TB is increasing. It is increasing as we sit here debating it today as it has over several years. The disastrous effects should be tackled urgently. We can surely all agree about that.
I am sure that Professor Krebs' proposals are scientifically sound, but they depend greatly on the link with bovine TB in cattle and the clear presumption that badgers are the culprits. The trials have sought to prove that link. However, we know that bovine TB is found in other animals—deer, rats, squirrels and other wildlife. It can be argued that the trials are insufficiently rigorous about causes other than the assumed badger-cattle link, which could prevent us from searching for other potential links.
The Ministry is vague about the impact on animal husbandry, another area of great difficulty. The benefit of improved husbandry on the incidence of disease is not examined fully enough. Are the arrangements in non-trial areas adequate, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)? It must be
124WH
worth examining the NFU's proposals about action against small satellite outbreak areas, even during the trial period. It is difficult to envisage how it would affect the scientific data arising from trial areas.
There is a lack of a sense of urgency to develop a vaccine for TB. I did not realise that it had been going for quite so long. However, research and development were always going to take a long time and there seemed no great urgency to begin. Now here we are so many years down the line and still there are no concrete proposals for developing a vaccine. That lack of progress is in a way a criticism. We are always focusing on the badger, which may be right, but if we do not keep an open mind and fail to put money into other potential aspects, the criticism is fair.
A triplet trial is taking place in my constituency. Some of the officers and others have undoubtedly suffered in that their vehicles have been vandalised and some badgers have been released and so on, which is deplorable. That does not assist experimental trials or the preparation of the relevant data. We need to speed up existing trials. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the trials have slowed down when the matter is clearly urgent.
Farmers who are asked to participate in trials and are part of a control area where no badgers are to be culled are clearly exposed to the continuing effects of the disease. It is difficult to understand why they should not be compensated for their negative role. They feel that they are contributing to the experiment and to information that comes from it, and feel keenly about being made to pay such a heavy price.
Post mortem testing has been mentioned. I have never seen quite so many badgers at the roadside as I have in the past year or two. I do not know whether it is to do with driving or the number of badgers, but there must be enormous potential evidence that should be of great assistance to the data that will be made available. Surely this makes sense in post mortem testing of badgers.
We also feel that the Government should work much more closely with the industry. We are delighted that the TB forum has been set up. It will help farmers to feel more involved in the process. I welcome that and hope that their deliberations and any reports will not be kept secret, because a certain amount of openness will be helpful, even if from time to time it brings emotions to the fore.
The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Government have decided to act on Krebs, and we welcome again the TB forum. The need is urgent, but the current trials are clearly going too slowly. It has been suggested that that is due to a lack of resources, but I hope that that is not so. Perhaps the Minister will say something about it. We hope that the post mortem of badgers will be restarted. The incidence of the disease in the country is increasing; in the far south-west it is an extremely difficult matter. Farmers are faced with it, and there is no slowing down. A sense of urgency needs to be re-injected into the whole process of experiments.
We trust that the Government will reconsider the compenation question, especially for farmers involved in trials and control, as well as—this was again turned down this morning—the consequential loss suffered by producers on account of herd breakdown. This disease has potentially the same devastating effect on the

125WH
industry as BSE. Part of the problem with BSE was that we did not get hold of it quickly enough. I hope that the same will not occur with bovine TB and that the Government will put resources in at the front end and inject a sense of urgency, to enable us to understand the disease, decide how it is spreading and tackle it as quickly as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I make clear my previous ruling? It referred to the document received by the Select Committee yesterday, not to the Government response dated 30 June 1999.
3.25 pm
Mr. David Drew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be wary about what I read. I am not sure which document we are talking about, because there have been so many, so I shall tread gently.
I am delighted to take part in the debate on what is clearly a complex, detailed and emotive subject. Those of us who have studied it in depth for some time know the conflicts and difficulties of trying to reach a preferred position. It is important to consider the position as a whole. We are here to discuss the Select Committee's report, which follows the Krebs and Bourne reports. This week, we received the report of the independent scientific group, which made many points about the progress of the experiment.
To me, the background is daunting. So prevalent is the disease that I do not think that there is a dairy farm in my area—which is mainly dairying—that has not been shut comparatively recently, or that is not shut now, or that does not live under continual fear of being shut. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out that the numbers tailed off a little last year. It is too early to say anything about this year. Gloucestershire is the focus of a major cluster, as the path of the disease leads out of the south-west.
We have to try to understand the complexities. Several hon. Members have commented on what might be deemed to be the cause of the disease, but we must tread carefully because, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said, we cannot be certain about the root cause. I should like to talk a little about the transmission mechanism which in some senses is more important than the cause.
I am fortunate in having within my constituency the Woodchester project, which has been investigating the issue for more than 20 years and probably knows more about it in the round than any other scientific investigation. As for my background, I have only recently joined the Select Committee so I have no ownership of the report. I sat in on some of the evidence-giving sessions and found them illuminating. They gave rise to a debate that was worth while, even if it offered no greater clarity about the cause of this dreadful disease.
The subject is sensitive and emotive, and my knowledge of some of the problems in the field is only second-hand. It is difficult to criticise the Government for things that may be only partly within their control. As anyone who knows anything about the trials is aware, there have been considerable difficulties in
126WH
attempting to carry them out. Given the pressure to get on with them, we must use common sense when describing what has taken place and in explaining the reasons why the trials have not progressed as smoothly as they might have done.
We agree that bovine TB is apparently getting worse. As it is apparently a cyclical disease, it should by now have begun to wane; there was some evidence of its waning last year, but the disease is spreading. the potential height of the peak causes us to fear what may happen in future, so we want to know what causes the increased incidence. We must look beyond the areas that traditionally suffer—the south-west is the core—and recognise that the disease is spreading outwards and causing alarm in places that have traditionally not feared it.
Although we must discuss animal welfare issues, about which various arguments are made, we should recognise that, fundamentally, we are dealing with raw economics. The suffering of farmers who have to deal with herd breakdowns should not be underestimated. At least one person whose farm is currently closed is present for the debate. I know what closure does: it has an enormous effect on income and expenditure, as well as on human beings. Having witnessed breakdowns, I cannot think of any worse psychological experience than having to sit and wait for your next test—at best a rather rudimentary procedure—and then wait for your results to emerge. Those of us who are not in farming cannot understand that unpleasant experience, but we can at least sympathise.
There is concern that bovine TB is attracting more of a stigma because of increasing knowledge about it. A farm that has been closed subsequently has to go on with its business subsequently. It may encounter problems in selling animals, although I do not want to emphasise that too much. Traceability makes the cause of problems more obvious, which does not make the job of the farmers concerned any easier.
We must start by considering what is ruled in and what is ruled out. For all sorts of reasons, the Government maintain that the wholesale slaughter of badgers should not be considered. In response to Krebs and in other statements, they have said that such a slaughter is not on the agenda, and previous Governments have concurred with that view. We are looking for solutions, and the Committee's report is clearly a part of that process. We are also trying to bring different parties on board: I remind hon. Members that, even with the best will in the world, some of those parties will not necessarily agree—there is a degree of conflict, not only about the practicalities, but about the science and the philosophy of which is the most important animal. We cannot hide from such disagreements.
Every other strategy tried has failed. We can see that by looking back to the early days, when my own county discovered the impact of bovine TB—I should say rediscovered, as the disease is not new. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) was just whispering to me about a series of programmes on farming in the 19th century. Bovine TB may not have been understood then, but some of its impact was realised. It came back to haunt us with a vengeance in the early 1970s—some would say that it returned even earlier. At that time, various badger control strategies were considered. Farmers were licensed to kill badgers

127WH
in those days, but that did not solve the problem. They then went through the gassing episode; that option was eventually ruled out, even though some would argue that it was the only effective way of dealing with the problem. Gassing was seen to be too cruel and it did not stop the disease, which came back yet again.
Attempts to tackle the problem included the Zuckerman review; the Dunnet review, which introduced the clean-ring strategy; and proactive culling in Thornbury, in a constituency next door to mine. I do not know whether any hon. Members have read the interesting report on the Thornbury experiment, which changed my mind to some extent. I am told that, although it was not a scientific appraisal, it gave a clear exposition of the impact on cattle of clearing an area of badgers and keeping it clear. The previous Government led us into a sort of moratorium, which, with the best will in the world, has not worked. There is now an even greater incidence of bovine TB.
That is the nature of the problem. Anybody who thinks that there is a quick fix—a strategy that can be implemented and will work within months or even years—is deluded. No scheme yet implemented has worked. That is the difficult background against which we must consider this awful disease. The Government have a clear five-point strategy, the first strand of which is to protect public health. The second strand is vaccine development, even though there is concern that the wholesale vaccination of cattle might mean that you affect TB-free status.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking about bovine tuberculosis. The hon. Gentleman's speech contains too many "yous", which refer to me, and I have not been tested for tuberculosis since I was 12.
Mr. Drew: I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not say that you were in any way part of the tuberculosis problem.
The Government's strategy also includes the prevention of cattle-to-cattle spread and research trials. We have concentrated on those trials, but they are only part of the overall programme investigated by the Select Committee. That is what we should be discussing.
The basis of my argument is that science has caused the problem and we must use science to sort it out. The background is immensely complicated and the disease itself is unpredictable. The problem involves animal welfare: we need to protect cattle, badgers and other species that might play a part in the spread of disease. Some of those animals—rats, deer, foxes, ferrets and feral cats—are being trapped as part of the Government's programme. I am trying to avoid what might be described as "speciesism", because there are dangers in that approach, but I am alarmed when people say, "It can't be the badger", or, "It must be the badger". Both arguments are wrong. We must learn how science can enable us to find real explanations.
One reason for the delay is that the Government's strategy has been questioned. In clarifying their intentions to the Bern convention, they proved that they are neither involved in the worst sort of animal welfarism, nor culling for the sake of it. There is a
128WH
rationale and we are in the midst of a long-term strategy. I hope that we will get some early evidence, but it must be borne in mind that it will be years before concrete results emerge. The issues are complicated, involving epidemiology, pathogenesis and immunology, all of which need to be investigated before we decide whether we can vaccinate.
I want to separate the causal features from the transmission features, because it is important that we examine both. Although one can lead to the other, they are not necessarily a sequitur. In terms of causes, we always start with the strong circumstantial evidence that there is a badger-to-cattle infection. However, if that is the case, why not consider cattle-to-badger or cattle-to-cattle transmission, or even a path of transmission involving other live animals? Such issues must be clarified.
People allege that differerent factors are involved in the transmission mechanism, so the Bourne group will test those in an effort to explain why the incidence may be getting worse. One factor is climatic change: the fact that we no longer have a winter has an impact on whether we can kill M.bovis, which is on the ground. Soil conditions, location and the ecology—including, of course, the ecology of the badger—are also relevant factors. Tuberculosis is a stress-related disease: those who oppose culling come what may argue that increasing stress levels could spread the disease, rather than eradicate it. There may be a question of trace element deficiency in what badgers or cattle eat. Are some animals more susceptible than others?
Animal husbandry and the movement of animals also need to be considered. It has been said that bovine TB might have been imported when so many farms had to restock as a result of BSE. I do not know whether that can be proved. [Interruption.] I see that the former Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), is nodding. I am sure that he will comment on that in due course.
I welcome much of what the Government have done, and I do not want to go over ground that has been covered by other hon. Members, save to say that I am glad that an attempt is now being made to increase data collection and analysis. Everyone seems to welcome the TB99 form and so do I. More support is being given to farmers, which is overdue. It is possible to criticise the two leaflets that have been issued on the grounds that they could contain more information, but at least it has been recognised that information is needed.
I want to discuss animal husbandry in more detail. It is not my way to criticise farmers or to say that their destiny is in their own hands. I do not think that that is entirely true. However, farmers could do more to help themselves if they could be persuaded that the transmission of the disease could be reduced. That is not necessarily a matter of doing anything complicated; it might be achieved by addressing such questions as where troughs are put and whether maize or silage is fed to cattle. The benefits that might be obtained thereby must be explained and demonstrated.
The issue is one of managing risk. Some, at the extremes of opinion, have argued that there should be no dairying in the south-west. That is pretty crass, because dairying is part and parcel of the south-west, but it was mentioned as a possibility in the Select

129WH
Committee report. That suggestion deserves to be ruled out just as much as removing all the badgers from the south-west. Neither option is acceptable or practicable.
The possible link with human beings must be recognised. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that, in Gloucestershire, there has been a couple of cases of young people apparently infected with bovine TB of the same strain that has caused the farm on which they live to break down. Although it is very rare, cases occur and the human dimension must never be underestimated, even though pasteurisation of milk seems to deal with that side of the problem. We still—wrongly—allow into the food chain animals that have gone to slaughter because they have been deemed to be reactors. I know that testing has always tended to prove that the likelihood of spread of bovine TB is very low, but that is one risk too many. I should welcome a response on that point. We need better tests that are able to show the path of the disease more accurately. Perhaps, as well as testing cattle, we should revisit the question of testing live badgers. That was ruled out before because the tests were so inaccurate, but it might help us show how the disease is spreading.
During Agriculture questions, I raised a point about consequential losses. Having talked to farmers in my constituency, I feel strongly that they could ask that several measures be adopted, some of which would be of limited effect, but all of which have a monetary value. They would certainly like MAFF to be a little more flexible with the budget, especially in relation to how and when money is paid. They have incurred costs, which there is no way of recovering, unless they are fortunate enough to have an all-embracing insurance policy. However, it must be increasingly difficult to get insurance because the likelihood of risks being realised is increasing.
There is also the cost of having to feed more animals, which is an animal welfare issue. Just as we may have to take action against badgers, it is also cruel to keep animals penned up: there are strict controls on closed herds and farmers, who might be without an income, must feed those animals. Likewise, there is pressure in terms of the milk quota. Farmers might have to milk more animals, but it is doubtful that they will receive any assistance in that. The very farmers who want to collaborate to farm their way out of the current problems may be those who are most disadvantaged: they might want to move their herds to the next-door farm to share milking costs, but they are faced with the terrible dilemma that, for several months of the year, they might be unable to do so because the herd is closed. As I have already mentioned, sale onwards may also be affected.
The tenor of the debate has been that the Government have been slow to act, more could have been done, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who is partly responsible for the matter, must talk to the people involved and try to gee things up but the answers are not as easy as that. Whisper it quietly—and slowly: causation might be as difficult to ascertain as it has always been. However, that does not mean that we should not work on transmission mechanisms as a means of controlling, if not eradicating, the disease.
The issue is one of money and securing the support of farmers. It is also about trying to get the support of those who oppose culling. I wish that badger groups
130WH
would understand that no one wants to kill badgers—no one goes out, gung-ho, to get badgers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made some light-hearted remarks about confrontation, but there is no point in exacerbating such problems. We must find solutions, even if they have to be for the long term. I hope that badger groups will understand what the Government are doing. The Government have the support of all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and anything that they and we can do should be welcomed.
This is an important debate, although it might have taken place some months ago. We can now begin to deal with an incredibly difficult situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that, if all hon. Members take more than 20 minutes, there will not be sufficient time for everyone to make a contribution, so it is up to hon. Members to limit their speeches.
3.48 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: During Agriculture questions this morning, I heard the Minister describe this exercise as an experiment: it is a trial, not an experiment, as we were forcfully reminded by the advisers during the inquiry. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who so ably opened the debate, is, in a sense, on trial himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is the experiment."] I shall not respond to that. The hon. Gentleman certainly demonstrated his usual wit and flair, coupled with a new-found sense of responsibility. I am told that he behaved himself well in Brussels earlier this week, which is a surprise to many of us.
Mr. Mitchell: It is difficult to do anything else in Brussels.
Mr. Luff: When I told the hon. Gentleman that he had to lead the Select Committee delegation to Brussels, he suggested that he might go armed. The usual cry from the Conservative Back Benches when a Member behaves so responsibly is, "Give him a job." The Government Whip is in his place and I commend that course of action to him. The time has come to give the hon. Member for Great Grimsby a job.
I approach the debate with mixed emotions. Technically, in the eyes of the House, I am still Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, even though, since I joined my hon. Friends the Members for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in the usual channels, I have had to relinquish that responsibility.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that that is not a criticism of me, because with another hat on, I am trying to do something about that.
Mr. Luff: I would not dream of criticising the Chair, especially not the current occupant.
I pay tribute to the Agriculture Committee. Its report was very good and I am glad that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby paid tribute to the authors of the report

131WH
and to the Committee's advisers. The Select Committee conducted its work in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship and examined issues on the basis of the facts before it. That greatly strengthened its criticisms of the Government and, occasionally, of their predecessors. I, too, pay tribute to Professor Krebs, and to Professor Bourne and his group, who so ably understood the problems and intepreted them. There are real problems, and I am delighted that the Government, at least in their rhetoric, take them so seriously. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that the Government, voluntarily, have responded twice to an Agriculture Committee report. I shall not breach the terms of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the current response may or may not be entitled the first progress report, which suggests that there is a determination to produce further responses, which I would welcome.
If the Minister wants to get such reports published, he has the option of publishing the Command Papers, which would be a speedier process than referring them to Select Committee. If he had taken that option, we would have been able to refer to the Government's response to the report—something that I would not dream of doing. I hope that the Minister will allude to one or two of the more important themes in the response when he replies to the debate.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who was deeply committed to the Krebs and Bourne processes and who spoke with great honesty and integrity, having changed his mind, I suspect, on the basis of the evidence put before him. That is a tribute to him. Baroness Hayman, who is the Government spokesman on the issue, is similarly committed to the process. I do not criticise the Minister, as the noble Baroness cannot be present. The authorities of the House may like to consider inviting Ministers in the House of Lords to reply to debates in Westminster Hall when they have Government responsibility for those issues.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: No.
Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend cries, "No," and, in my new position, I must defer to him, so I withdraw my suggestion.
The issue is urgent. All hon. Members with rural constituencies, whether they are in the south-west or the midlands—I believe that Shropshire is part of the midlands—know of farmers, many of whom are among our personal friends, who are in real difficulties because of the mounting crisis caused by bovine tuberculosis. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) quoted figures drawn from NFU statistics. It is not just a matter of money: dairy or beef farmers in such circumstances find it an emotionally traumatising experience, and the Government understand that. The welfare of farmers and that of badgers and cows must be weighed in the balance.
Previous speakers have referred to the NFU's suggestions and, in the interests of brevity, I shall not repeat them. However, I hope that the Government will seriously consider the NFU's action plan. It is a
132WH
moderate, sensible and practical way forward, which has considerable merit. I am sorry that it has taken so long for the Government to consider it.
The Government say all the right things, but do not go far enough in acting on them. I can refer to one document that tests that hypothesis: the second report of the independent scientific group on tuberculosis. The Select Committee hoped that there would be quarterly reports from that group. The National Federation of Badger Groups, in a helpful briefing document, drew attention to that recommendation and clearly hoped that the group would report more frequently. Far be it from me to be cynical, but I note that that response is dated December 1999; it is no small coincidence that the Government's new response document and the document before us were published this week, which shows the importance of debates on Select Committee reports, in principle, and on this issue. The second report is a helpful document, which justifies making further reports on a regular basis.
In his introduction to the report, in a letter addressed to the Minister dated 17 December 1999, Professor Bourne states:
"The field trial, which has inevitably received much media attention, is only one part of the overall research strategy."
We must remember that although debate on the issue focuses only on the field trial, there is so much more to it. It cannot be said too often that it is part of a coherent strategy; an holistic approach is being adopted, and however effective our debate, it is only one part of the process.
In his short letter, Professor Bourne also states that
"there have been some delays with implementing field work about which we have expressed concerns".
He acknowledges that there have been delays, about which he is concerned. The report re-emphasises in paragraph 1.0.4 that the field trial lies at the heart of our understanding of the process. It cannot be said too often how little we know about the processes involved. I fondly imagined that we knew all that there was to know, and it was a matter of collating, as a desk research exercise, what was known of the experiments in Ireland, for example; but that is not the case. Professor Bourne helpfully reminds us that the trial is essential to a proper understanding of the subject. The whole project, including the controversial field trial, is essential.
Professor Bourne says in paragraph 1.0.10:
"It is disappointing and frustrating that circumstances have limited the number of triplets put in place."
I say amen to that. The original MAFF response states that the Government recognise that in implementing the strategy there has been "some slippage" compared with the original aspirations, which is quite a popular word in political debate at present. It states that the Government fully accept the Committee's emphasis and the need to keep up the pressure to see the programme through. Keeping up the pressure on the Government to see the process through is what the debate is all about.
The non-compliance issues are important and they are highlighted in the most recent document. However, the act of non-compliance that really matters is the risk that farmers may partake of illegal culling, which would destroy the power of a trial. It is not a laboratory experiment; I have heard badger groups argue that,

133WH
because all the badgers in a proactive cull area are not killed, it invalidates the process. It does not: it is a real-world trial designed to encounter all the obstacles that may be faced. However, it would undermine the process if farmers took the law into their own hands. The evidence suggests that that is not happening, but I endorse the comments of other hon. Members who say that we should try to find a way of easing the financial consequences for farmers in the control areas who have to bear the knowledge and the fact of being able to do nothing about the problems on their farms. There is a strong case for improving the power of the experiment by considering that possibility.
One of the most puzzling features of the report from Professor Bourne's group is paragraph 4.34, in which reasons for delay are identified. It states:
"Recognised from the outset as factors which could not be managed, terrain and weather have significantly influenced progress on the ground. In particular, surveying work has often been hampered by unyielding geography and inclement conditions."
I know what rural England looks like, and what the weather is like. I find it surprising that the group has apparently only just woken up to the fact that it occasionally rains in Devon and Cornwall, and in Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Shropshire.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that statement is insulting to dairy farmers, who have to go out twice a day to get the cows in, regardless of the weather?
Mr. Luff: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that I was being insulting, but is referring to the report. That is a little uncharitable, but I agree with the spirit of what he says. The matter demonstrates a troubling ignorance of conditions on the ground.
Interference is alarming. A full triplet trial close to my constituency has been delayed as a result of activities by the animal rights lobby. Such interventions go well beyond what people expect and incredible threats have been made. The democratic process is being challenged. The Government have rightly decided to pursue the matter, which has been debated at length. Those who stand up for badgers' rights have had an opportunity to put their case, but the matter has been settled. That is regrettable and extremely worrying. Indeed, it raises important issues that go well beyond this narrow debate. From a local point of view, I selfishly hope that the Government will recommence abandoned operations as soon as possible.
I offer a small apology to the wildlife trusts which, regrettably, were criticised in the report for being noncompliant. I stand by that criticism, which sends farmers an important signal about responsible organisations' capacity for non-compliance. However, some operators of nature and bird reserves also failed to comply. I therefore apologise for singling out the wildlife trusts, but stand by the thrust of the criticisms. Mercifully, noncompliance is not a major issue and the report makes encouraging remarks about compliance levels. Trials that are working appear to be delivering the goods.
I want to emphasise the importance of the road traffic accident survey. Perhaps the most surprising thing of all in Professor Bourne's recent report are his remarks on
134WH
the road traffic accident survey. I have no recollection of the matter being raised during the Select Committee's extensive investigations. Professor Bourne says:
"During lengthy consideration of the possible ways forward, however, it has emerged that a considerable amount of data were already being generated by the informal, ad hoc collection of badger carcasses by a number of the State Veterinary Service's divisional offices. In 1998, some 1200 carcasses were collected and examined—a similar sample size to that envisaged for the seven counties survey."
That is a reference to the counties most at risk of bovine tuberculosis. Professor Bourne continues:
"MAFF agreed with the ISG that this ad hoc work was of limited value and could be put to better use."
That is hugely worrying. The Government have discussed the road traffic accident survey in the response to which we cannot refer. However, will the Minister comment in detail on the matter in his winding-up speech? Bizarrely, many badger carcases which we believed were going to waste were not.
I shall repeat the fundamental criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and several other hon. Members. Lack of resources seems to be the problem. The delay in getting the triplets up and running is a matter of great concern. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said in his opening remarks, we are seeing the fruits of MAFF's tight budgetary settlement. Why else is it thinking of closing down the Worcester regional service centre and other service centres?
I see someone screwing up his face. However, I have seen documents from the trade unions showing that there is a direct and genuine threat to MAFF's regional service centres. That is a matter of deep concern and another example of the financial pressures on MAFF. The issue is so serious that those pressures must not be allowed to get in the way of speedy implementation.
I do not know what the trial will eventually demonstrate. Badgers are a significant part of the problem, but other species are involved. Husbandry issues are also crucial, but I shall not elaborate on those matters again. Cattle-to-cattle transmission is of much greater importance than has generally been acknowledged.
The trial must continue. Farmers must sit on their hands and not interfere with the trials' effectiveness. Badger groups and the animal rights lobby must back off, otherwise more badgers than necessary will die as the trial is extended. If they do not do so, they will cause more suffering to the animals they claim to be helping. It is crucial that they allow the trial to happen and the results to come out so that a proper scientific policy can be developed. The Government must show that increased resources are available to enable the trial to be completed speedily.
4.4 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I will try to be brief. Unlike my contributions to other Agriculture Committee reports, I was relatively light on this one, mainly because the report was excellent and I agreed entirely with its conclusions. What have we learned since? First, I want to bring in a human element by referring to a farmer who works not far away from my constituency whose farm has suffered from TB. He illustrates the problems that farmers face when that happens. He says:

135WH
"I was absolutely devastated when I got the news. They are the words nobody wants to hear. Me and my family were tested … Thankfully we were all clear but I was holding my breath. Less than a week after that first case was discovered a badger roadside fatality was recovered near us which was riddled with TB. I had been told by the Ministry of Agriculture not to wash out the dog's bowl in the kitchen sink and make sure that the dogs are kept out of the way. The families should not get too close to the badgers, but tourists coming into the countryside to walk their dogs or for a day out wouldn't think about the possible risks that badgers and their waste pose. The dog could be sticking its nose and paws everywhere and still be petted the same by its owners. I think we are sitting on a time bomb here and unless something is done to control the badger population I think we are going to have a serious problem on our hands."
I do not share every intuition and thought quoted there, but it is a genuine comment and I have heard the same from other farmers. I am fortunate that bovine tuberculosis has not yet reached my constituency, but it is extremely close. My constituency borders that of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr.McLoughlin). He has the burden currently—and it is a major burden—but I regularly hear from farmers on the Staffordshire-Derbyshire border of their worries about the potential effect of TB on their herds. The problem clearly has dramatic effects on the economics of a farm and I shall speak later about what we should do about it.
The problem also has a wider impact on the rural community: it restricts movement, interferes with the normal social relations of the farming community and spreads considerable alarm and concern among people living in the area. That shows the impact on the locality, but it has a major national impact to.
If we allow TB to continue to spread slowly but steadily across our nation, infecting more and more of our cattle, it will place us in the role of international pariahs once again with respect to our livestock produce. We are gradually working our way out of the BSE problem and we do not want other countries to claim that our herds are riddled with TB and to have nothing further to do with our livestock industry as a result. Unless we take steps to control the problem, there is a real risk of that happening.
Animal health is another issue. It is worth saying that TB is an unpleasant disease for badgers as well as for cattle. We have a duty to seek solutions to the problem. As I said, the approach attempted so far is holistic. We have already debated field trials. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that some of the flaws are inherent to field trials. Professor Krebs never intended to transport the laboratory to the countryside and precisely replicate the scientific disciplines that would apply. He was testing two particular approaches to controlling TB and was aware of problems of non-compliance, deliberate obstruction and, occasionally, of farmers extending their responsibilities. He saw those problems as part of the trial; they were recognised from the start. The report has been criticised as flawed on that account. We all recognise that, although it was not a precise process, we could learn a great deal from it. I always felt that we should continue with the trial. I will not go into the criticism that has been made, but it concerns the speed with which we proceeded. Clearly, it has been much slower than we would have hoped.
136WH
What would I do in addition to the trial to extend the holistic approach? First, it would be useful to extend testing in herds beyond the immediate area affected, which is an approach similar to that suggested by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). There is merit in considering the frequency of testing and, when there is a TB outbreak in an area, we should consider the scope for an immediate review of the testing arrangements in that area and around the edge of it to discover the extent of the outbreak at the earliest opportunity. There is much to be said for that.
Secondly, there is merit, if we have the resources—and there is an argument for making available the resources for this—in extending the use of the TB99 form to other parts of the country. Currently, it applies in the test areas and where TB outbreaks occur outside the test areas. However, if we are taking a holistic view and wanting to find out more about the incidence and non-incidence of the disease as well as its relationship to animal husbandry, ecology, the environment and other species, that is a legitimate learning process which could also be applied to livestock herds in non-affected areas. Having seen the TB99 form, I know that completing it is a labour-intensive exercise; indeed, the Committee criticised it for that. Nevertheless, it would be valuable if, over a period, we rolled it out in other livestock areas to identify what other issues we might learn about outside the immediate TB-affected areas. I recognise that that would have a lower priority than some other activities, but we might learn a good deal.
Then there is the issue of how better to compensate and motivate farmers. I will not repeat what has been said, but those who are part of the control element within the trial areas deserve something for their forbearance when their living is being destroyed. The 100 per cent. compensation is a welcome step, but we all recognise that it does not cover a farmer's loss of income. A review of that would be welcome. Bearing in mind the fact that TB99 is also applied to areas outside the trials, we could extend that view to those outside the trials whom the law also prevents from taking pre-emptive action against their badger population. We should be encouraging those farmers to see that we recognise their plight. I would extend such compensation to all farmers who are affected by a TB outbreak on their farm, not just to those in the trial areas. In a sense, they are also part of the trial because they are providing data for it.
On road traffic accidents, there was discussion about the slightly inadequate intelligence that we had at the start of the exercise. However, there is evidence that the Government have not pursued with sufficient rigour the need to analyse the outcome of road traffic accidents among badgers. Resources are clearly required, and I imagine that there are health concerns among those who are given the task of examining the corpses. We need to review carefully how we provide the resources—as rapidly as possible—so we can analyse those outcomes as well as the corpses from the trial areas themselves, where there is currently some difficulty in collecting proper scientific evidence.
The Committee strongly recommended that, although there was evidence that badgers were a prime source of infection, research should be undertaken to try to understand the other possibilities that exist in the animal kingdom. I have seen no evidence of sufficient

137WH
vigour in that respect. I can understand why badger groups think that the finger is being pointed at badgers and that not enough attention has been given to other possible sources of infection—deer, rodents and so on.
Mr. Luff: Does the hon. Gentleman share my slight sense of regret that, by entitling our report "Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis", we have perhaps given the misleading impression of having prejudged the outcome of the process?
Mr. Todd: That is a fair point, and the hon. Gentleman may be right.
I love badgers, too. As a child, I used to observe them. Indeed, a badger either lives on my property or visits it regularly, and it is a delight to see, I do not hold any brief for the mass slaughter of badgers, and I hope that the exercise is as short term and focused as possible to achieve an outcome.
It is hard to criticise what has happened with vaccines because this country has a long history of vaccine research, both for badgers and cattle, although it has produced relatively little outcome. I am not persuaded that the Government have as yet produced a programme that is robust enough to reach a solution. We realise that vaccines are promising; they are possibly the only long-term solution, so research must be given the highest priority.
Mr. Luff: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to emphasise, as did the Committee, that the most promising way to find a vaccine is to piggyback on human tuberculosis vaccine research, rather than to rely on freestanding cattle vaccine research?
Mr. Todd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark, which is certainly true. I struck that comment out of my speech because I thought that I might have been speaking for too long already.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Vaccines are often cited as the hallelujah solution to the problem, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as long ago as 1980, the Zuckerman report said that a vaccine would be available in 10 years? Indeed, in 1997, the Krebs report said that a vaccine might take 15 years to develop. A vaccine could be a long way off.
Mr. Todd: I accept that willingly. Indeed, having taken the evidence in the Committee, I am well aware of the longevity of the problem and that the target appears to move further away as time passes.
The Committee was critical of the lack of proper husbandry advice for farmers. Husbandry advice has now appeared, but it has been produced too slowly and additional measures should have been taken. Badger groups have made the point that many common-sense measures could be taken. Farmers could be advised how to keep cattle away from badger latrines and other areas frequented by badgers and how to secure barns so that sick badgers cannot go inside. Those are reasonably obvious points, but they need to be reiterated. The advice documents were simply not available for a long time, which was an omission.
138WH
The Committee was critical of the communication about what the Government were trying to do and, at the micro level, about what was being attempted locally, including establishing trials. Those problems have continued. This is a highly sensitive and difficult issue about which none of us is especially comfortable. We must achieve as much openness as possible, consistent, sadly, with the possible actions of a tiny minority of people. This is not an accusation against badger groups in general. In my contacts with them, people have been responsible and have recognised that there is a problem. However, a tiny minority wish to take action that is dangerous to some of the people conducting the work and clearly that must be considered.
One of the reasons why I suggested using the TB99 more widely relates partly to communication. We must try to get it across to the farming community as a whole that this is a collective matter for farming to solve rather than an isolated issue relating to the south-west and parts of the midlands. We must try to share the process of collecting information and data across all cattle farmers, not just those in that part of the country. We also need to improve communications on a wider scale. One step that could be taken is to establish clearer lines of communication between farming and badger representation groups and scientists about how the exercises are proceeding. That is hard because there is a lack of trust within that exercise, but it should be attempted.
My final point concerns human health. I am aware of the cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to. There is a human health dimension. We should not be alarmist about it, but it exists. If we do not take firm action to find a solution, we risk human health implications already that exist on a micro scale. We should be aware of them. I was not entirely convinced how the relationship between the Department of Health and the Ministry was operating to ensure that risk to human health was clearly placed in the forefront of people's minds. I certainly would not want to take part in a debate of this kind in five or 10 years' time in which people were surprised that there was a human health implication. It is not a great surprise. It is possible and we should address it.
4.22 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: One of the problems in approaching any debate about agriculture in the south-west is that one keeps using words like "crisis" and "dire" and saying that people's livelihoods are being destroyed. One runs out of superlatives to describe just how bad it is to a lay audience. Certainly, if it were not for all the other crises in agriculture at present, one would say that this is a crisis of truly enormous proportions. It may say something about the context in which it finds itself that such a major crisis is debated not on the Floor of the House but here in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For all practical purposes we are on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Mr. Nicholls: That is why I kept my remarks about that deliberately short.
Moving on to less contentious areas, a great deal could be said to illustrate just how bad the crisis is. I will do no more in view of the shortness of time than to make

139WH
this point. According to figures from the National Farmers Union, 1,670 herds were placed under movement restrictions in 1996. In 1998 the figure had increased to 2,303 herds, which represents an increase of 32 per cent. The figures up to October 1999 show that that level has increased to 2,221.
When I first became the Member of Parliament for Teignbridge, I knew no more about this matter than any other layman. I was generally aware of the debate, but no more than that. When I had my first meeting with the NFU, I was struck, to put it as neutrally as I can, by the intensity of the feeling of people who were convinced that their livelihoods were being destroyed by a perfectly clear causal connection. They were convinced that the connection between badgers and their cattle caused the disease. We have had experience of TB in my family and, even though the link between animal and human may not be particularly direct, anyone with my background would be worried about it.
In common with other hon. Members, I read such evidence as was available at the time. Having read Zuckerman and Dunnet, it seemed that the case had been made. I say that not as a scientist, but as a lawyer. Sometimes laymen say that evidence is only circumstantial: there is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence, provided that people realise that it is circumstantial. My reading of the science then, as now, is not absolutely 100 per cent. However, I am left with the conviction that there is a centrality in the argument about the badger, which cannot be denied.
It was sad when the hon. Member for South Derbyshire rightly made the point that tuberculosis is a frightful condition for any animal. Some of the letters that I have received from people who view themselves as the badger's best friend were a model of moderation, balance and concern. However, I have received other letters from people who take it as a personal affront to the badger when it is suggested that that animal might have TB like horrible cows. I cannot understand the thought process behind the view that if a disease is caused only by cows and not by badgers, it is all right. It is a dreadful condition for any animal.
At my many meetings with farmers in Devon the subject inevitably arises. There is both despair and anger about it. There is despair at the devastation that the presence of TB can inflict on a whole way of life. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, it is not a question of sitting down and waiting for the next test to come through. There is anger, too, among farmers about politicians of all political complexions who have wanted to shy away from the issue. The politicians are reluctant to talk in public about a process that could lead to the death of badgers. The British population, brough up on "Tales of the Riverbank" in an increasingly urban age, do not want to contemplate that. Farmers are therefore desperate about the effect on their livelihoods and about the beliefs of an urban population who simply refuse to face up to what is happening.
I have seen no meaningful evidence of farmers following through their own conclusions and taking matters into their own hands, although there may be isolated incidents. It is remarkable and shows an extraordinary degree of restraint among the farming
140WH
community, which should make us acknowledge that less law-abiding, less decent and less honest people could have gone about things very differently.
It is easy for us in this marvellous Chamber this afternoon to ignore the experience of others. I used to be interested in fisheries. I am still interested, but it would be out of order to expand on it today, apart from saying that scientists did not believe that fishermen knew anything about the migratory habits of fish. Fishermen would tell scientists that the fish had gone elsewhere, which the scientists found hard to cope with. Similarly, scientists often find it difficult to cope with the anecdotal evidence of farmers. When you live on the soil, and you have been bred on the soil for generations—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is using "you" too much. Although I lived on a farm as a boy, I do not bear out the hon. Gentleman's descriptions.
Mr. Nicholls: I thought that I would be accused of having royal pretensions if I said "one" all the time. However, if one has lived on the land and one has lived there for generations, one comes to realise that one is wholly in tune with nature, does one not? Farmers have experience that may be hard to quantify in scientific terms, but it exists. We owe it to farmers to understand them when they say they believe that the badgers argument has centrality. They are probably right. So what do we do about it?
It is easy to indulge in party-political point scoring, but that is completely against my nature. We could say that the previous Government should have set up the Krebs group sooner, but the key point is that Krebs was set up and that it has reported to the Government. One of the fun things about being a Minister in a Government is that the buck stops with Ministers. Whatever has happened in the past, Krebs has now reported. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, who knows more about such matters than I do, reminded us that the trial areas were originally supposed to be up and running in 1998. It was then said that they would be up and running by the end of 1999, but they are not.
I want to hear from the Minister when the groups will be established, and an unambiguous assurance that the Ministry has the money to do the trials properly, comprehensively and speedily. I do not want to hear that he will do his best with the resources available. The job must be done, and we must hear today when it will be completed.
As many hon. Members have said, those in the control areas are putting their livelihoods on the line—there is unanimity on the issue. The matter is not about having another whinge on behalf of farmers of the west country, but about partnership. It must be recognised that such people are in a unique position and should be compensated.
Farmers have shown great restraint. Badgers are central to the argument; the studies may note other matters. Everyone must realise—both those who regard themselves to be "in loco badger" and farmers who might wish to take further action—that Krebs is the only show in town for dealing with the problem. We owe

141WH
it to animal lovers, and to farmers whose livelihood is being wrecked, to understand that. The sooner that there is a conclusion, the better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should note that three hon. Members wish to speak before I call the Minister. We have a little less than an hour to go, and the Minister will probably need time to respond, so will hon. Members please keep their contributions as short as possible?
4.31 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: So far, we have had a reasoned and responsible debate on a subject that is causing huge concern to the countryside, especially areas in which bovine tuberculosis is present.
I hope that the Minister will explain the situation. The Leader of the House announced the debate some time ago. The Government tell us that they take Westminster Hall and Parliament seriously. It was outrageous that they sent a report on the subject to a Select Committee yesterday, which might have been available to members of the Committee but not to other hon. Members. The fifth report was published last April. We have waited for an opportunity to debate it. We secured a debate and were then informed that the Government sent a report to the Select Committee yesterday.
Mr. Mitchell: That is not altogether fair. We have an advance part of a report on progress and the Committee's reports. It was given to the Committee before the main report—restricting it was a service to the Committee and not an insult to the House.
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not want to spend too long on the matter. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The simple fact is that the House has not had the opportunity enjoyed by the Chamber to discuss the report. To find that the Committee has papers giving an update, which are not available to other hon. Members, is a great pity. It has been said that it could have been issued as a Command Paper, so that we could have had such a debate in the House.
Mr. Luff rose—
Mr. McLoughlin: I do not want to get too bogged down on the issue. I have made my complaint and I hope that it will be taken seriously.
The fifth report starts by saying:
"Bovine tuberculosis … is a disease with a terrible history in the United Kingdom. In the decade before the Second World War, there were 50,000 new human cases each year and an annual death toll in excess of 2,500 people, largely caused by drinking unpasteurized milk from the national dairy herd where as many as 40 per cent. of the cows"
were infected. That is the history of the disease but, in truth, it is recent history for many farmers in my constituency.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) read a moving letter from a farmer from a neighbouring constituency that summed up the worries. The hon. Gentleman knows well that there have not yet been
142WH
cases of bovine TB in his constituency, but he also knows that there have been cases south of Ashbourne, which is close to the borders of his constituency. The worry shared in such areas is that cases might occur, as they have in mine. The NFU stated in its briefing that, while the disease essentially remained regional and has been confined so far to the south-west, Wales and parts of the west midlands, it is spreading.
I have been especially concerned by the rise of TB in Derbyshire. County-by-county figures of TB cases available on the MAFF website show that, in 1997, an incident of TB had been confirmed in one herd. In 1998, the figure was six. Provisional figures for January to September 1999 show that 16 new herds have been affected by TB. The increase in incidents has been dramatic in an area that has hitherto had none. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) noted that, in the south-west, the problem has existed for a considerable period; it has not in Derbyshire.
Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend touched on an alarming matter. I talked this afternoon to John Newell, the senior policy adviser of the NFU in the west midlands, who said that there were 11 new cases of TB in Derbyshire in 1997, 17 in 1998 and 48 in 1999. My hon. Friend cited MAFF figures, which were remarkably lower.
Mr. McLoughlin: I was going to come on to the issue. MAFF has tended to use a different criterion for its analysis from the NFU. I want to use MAFF's figures rather than the NFU's.
During the recent recess, I attended a special evening in Ashbourne about TB incidents, which was addressed by MAFF officials. I was struck by farmers' deep concern. The issue is one aspect of the severe crises facing agriculture, with declining farm incomes and falling prices for products such as milk. The Minister will no doubt say, "Well, it is all very well for Opposition Members to complain, but we do not have the money." The Government can find money when they want to—they can easily find £32 million to launch an inquiry into BSE when they think that it politically advantageous to do so. I find hard to accept that the Government cannot find the money.
Mine is a large rural constituency. When I was first elected to West Derbyshire in 1986, it was rare to see a badger that had been killed in a road accident, but it is more common now. The points made by many hon. Friends about roadside casualties were serious, and should help the Minister. Although I criticise particular aspects of the Government's approach, I accept that the issue is difficult and that there are no easy or straightforward solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) spoke about testing. One of the problems of testing about which farmers have expressed concerns to me is its effect on a herd. Earlier today, I spoke to a farmer called Des Simms, who farms in Ashbourne. He had to have a test on his herd and the result was clear; it showed that there was no problem with his herd. However, he told me that one of the cows tested was in a late stage of pregnancy and aborted after the test. He referred to the discomfort of cattle, to the obvious inconvenience, to restrictions and to other problems.

143WH
We have heard from many hon. Members about various reports that have predicted that a vaccine will be available by the end of the century, by 2005 or by 2020. I fear that we are being given the same sort of response about when implementation will start and about when the Krebs results will be available. First, it was 2003 and now it is 2005, and I fear that the date will for ever move on. There is growing frustration in the countryside. Nobody wants farmers to do things that may damage the end results of the tests, but some of them are living on a very short fuse. I hope that the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the Government are taking the matter as seriously as people in the countryside.
4.41 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr.McLoughlin) said, whatever the facts and prognosis on the problem of TB in our national bovine herd, it is compounded by the other difficulties that our farmers face. TB is a serious problem that is deep and far-reaching. Governments have initiated a number of reports, including the 1980 Zuckerman report and the Dunnet report of 1986. The Krebs inquiry was set up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) because he felt that we needed an update on the latest scientific thinking. He also felt that we needed to act on the basis of scientific evidence to justify embarking on a larger badger cull. I wholeheartedly support him in that prognosis; we must act on the best scientific evidence available.
One cannot deny that the problem is becoming considerably worse. It is especially bad in the south-west and, unfortunately, in Gloucestershire and in the Cotswolds escarpment, which I have the privilege of representing. Whether or not there is a link between bovine TB and the badger population, there is no doubt that the badger population is increasing at a huge rate. We all know that the badger has no natural predator. I like to see badgers and I have sat in a hide, fed badgers with peanuts, watched them come out at dusk and photographed them. They are wonderful animals to watch. However, if there is a link between TB in the bovine herd and badgers, the Government must take it seriously.
I have received many letters from constituents who sadly afflicted with the problem of TB. Sadly, one in five of all herds in Gloucestershire has had TB reactors or is now affected. Although farmers are grateful to the Government for increasing compensation from 75 to 100 per cent., they are faced with all the other pressures to which I have alluded and they have to carry out more testing. Last Friday, I attended a regular meeting with my branch of the National Farmers Union. I was told that carrying out the tests is a huge financial and physical burden for farmers who are doing all the work on their farm on their own, as other people must be brought in to help with the tests. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the tests are difficult, both physically and economically, for those farmers. I urge him to provide some compensation to cover the extra costs that are involved in carrying out the tests. That would ease
144WH
the day-to-day pain of testing, if not the psychological trauma that is experienced by farmers who are waiting for the next reactor to happen.
Hon. Members commented on the triplet trials that were supposed to be up and running by the end of 1998. Some of those, including the Gloucestershire trial, have been suspended as a result of illegal action. The Minister should urge on all the police services that are involved the utmost seriousness of the disruption of the trials. It is utter folly for them to be disrupted because more badgers end up being culled. I hope that the Minister and, through his colleagues in the Home Office, the police force, will take the matter seriously so that the trials can continue.
As for testing, the Gloucestershire laboratory can see no reason why its safety measures are not sufficient to carry on with laboratory testing of dead badgers. The Minister needs to consult urgently with the Health and Safety Executive to determine why it is not safe to carry out the tests in the laboratory when it is safe for the public to be close to badgers elsewhere. If the laboratory specialists in Gloucestershire are telling me that it is safe to carry out the tests, why does the Health and Safety Executive disagree?
Farmers and their families face great trauma as a result of the TB problem. Officials should take care when they test farmers' animals. I heard of cases on Friday in which officials were not as helpful, sympathetic or practical as they might have been. For example, they carried out tests on one day instead of doing half one day and half the next. The Minister should urge his officials to ensure that the traumatic testing of animals is done with the minimum disruption.
Much has been said about the triplet trials. Important though they are, there is also the issue of research, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) alluded. We should vigorously pursue other areas of research, including molecular models. I am certain that, given the correct resources and the Government's good will, a solution can be found. The Minister will tell us that substantial resources have been put into research, but with a bit more good will and vigour, the solution could be speeded up. There is a perception among the industry that the Government should put more resources into the problem, both in research and the triplet trials. When mink were released on the south coast, MAFF officials who were carrying out badger trials were diverted to retrap the mink. That is nonsense. We should have enough dedicated officials so that the triplet trials continue unhindered by other incidents.
This is a serious problem. I echo hon. Members' concerns about the difficulties of the triplet trials. We need to carry out as much research as possible to speed up the production of a vaccine, which I hope will be forthcoming in fewer than the 15 years that I mentioned in a previous intervention. No one can tell whether that will be the case, but I urge the Government to get the tripartite trial up and running. I also urge them to consider the sensible seven-point proposals produced by the NFU, especially outside trial areas.
Some of my constituents with farms outside the trial areas have been affected up to four times, but even when they suspect that there is a causal link with the badger, the Ministry will not take any action. It seems to me that

145WH
where tests have been carried out on cattle, the NFU's proposals for a wildlife survey should be carried out and a small proportion of badgers trapped, killed and tested to see whether they have TB. If so, further action should be taken, whether that is selective culling or moving badgers away from the area. Some farmers in hotspots have a near certain conviction that their cattle are being reinfected by badgers in their area, but there is absolutely nothing they can do about it and they see their livelihood going down the drain. That must be incredibly traumatic and frustrating. Therefore, the Government need to carefully reconsider their 100 per cent. no culling policy outside the triplet areas because further action needs to be taken in obvious hotspots. The Government should put more emphasis on completing the trials as quickly as possible, putting money into research and being sympathetic to farmers whose cattle are tested in what are often traumatic conditions.
4.52 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on initiating the debate, which relates to the subject that affects my constituency and those surrounding it.
I should begin by declaring an interest because I am probably the only Member of the House of Commons who kept a badger as a pet when I was young. A cub was washed up in a brook when I was about 10 and, for a brief period from April to October, I kept her until she decided that she preferred the company of badgers and dug her way out under the garden wall, although she used to come back for Polos.—[Interruption.] They are very fond of Polos—and very down on cats. Just like Mr. Benjamin Bunny Senior, she had no opinion whatever of cats. That experience taught me something about badgers and it is very important to get away from the sentimental idea that anyone who likes badgers should oppose the policy. I cannot understand any badger lover wanting badgers to be infected with TB, a loathsome and disgusting disease, which should be eradicated not only from humans and cattle, but from badgers.
No one in North Shropshire dislikes badgers. There is some exasperation at the huge increase in their numbers, but that has been caused by the protection they were given by the Badgers Act 1973, the Badger Act 1991 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I know of no farmers who object to those Acts, but the increase in badgers was enormously accelerated by the spread of maize as a high protein fodder for cattle. There has been a dramatic increase in the amount of maize being grown in the south-west of England and in my constituency. One peculiarity of the badger is that when the sow is pregnant, if her body weight drops below a certain level she can, uniquely among mammals, suspend the pregnancy. The increase in maize has enabled sow badgers to take large cobs of maize down into their sets so that they have a store of food, which maintains the body weight of the sow at a higher level. As they have that source of rich protein, they are breeding more young—a fact that has been established by several experienced farmers in my area. The two factors together have led to an explosion in badger numbers. A farm near me with 4,000 acres of land has 23 new setts.
146WH
One very experienced dairy farmer, who has been in the trade since his family set up business in the 1930s, estimated that there has been a 400 per cent. increase in badger numbers during the past 10 years. That increase is undisputed, as is the increase in TB in cattle. As Professor Krebs said, we do not know what the link is, but badgers seem to be the most obvious source of infectivity. All the farmers to whom I have spoken regard the badger as the main medium for the spreading of TB, just as the possum is held to be in New Zealand.
I quoted figures from John Newell, the senior policy adviser for the NFU in the west midlands. We have heard about dreadful cases from hon. Members who represent the south-west. There is real alarm in my area as TB is increasing in the north-west midlands and coming over from Derbyshire. I shall not repeat the figures as time is pressing. In Shropshire, there were 11 cases in 1998 and 17 last year. The last census of cattle in my area, which was taken by the Milk Marketing Board 10 years ago, showed that there were 65,000 cows within 10 miles of Market Drayton. I think that I represent the largest milk field in western Europe. The impact of TB is absolutely devastating in my area, as is the sheer uncertainty among farmers about what will happen next year. It is the completely erratic and arbitrary nature of the disease that is alarming people. Many of the farms that have been closed—about 10 per cent. of those in the Market Drayton area have been shut down in the past three to four years—are also closed in the sense that they breed their stock and have pedigree herds. Such farms do not buy in stock from outside, which must suggest that the only source of infection is the dramatic increase in badger numbers.
What is so awful about the disease is the difficulty of analysing it. A farm in my area that is currently closed owned a cow that was inconclusively tested. Sixty days later, the cow was tested again, and the result was again inconclusive. It was then tested yet again, another 60 days later, and the result was yet again inconclusive. The cow had visible lesions and was sent for slaughter. Usually, samples have to be sent off to the MAFF laboratory for analysis for TB, but the lesions were visible to the naked eye. The cow was dramatically infected but appeared to be a doubtful case in three tests. That is why we must push on with the Krebs strategy and continue the process started by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Everybody involved in the industry bought into that approach. We do not know the link: there is circumstantial evidence, but everyone is certain that we do not know whether there is a cast-iron link between TB in badgers and TB in cattle.
The Government have not performed. The Krebs report landed on their desk soon after they took power; 30 hotspots were identified and were broken into 10 triplet areas. Today, however, real work has started in only three of the six areas where survey work is going on, which is unacceptable. Given the severity of the disease and the appalling misery that it is causing to farmers, about which we have heard from hon. Members representing the south-west, there is simply no excuse

147WH
for the Government's straightforward incompetence. They should have grabbed Krebs, which had all-party support and support throughout the countryside and the farming community and got on with it.
I remind the Minister that paragraph 7.8.20 of the Krebs report, which is on page 129, states:
"It is important that MAFF does not delay the start of this experiment. We recommend that it is initiated in four months (by Spring 1998)."
Here we are, in spring 2000; only three of the triplet areas are working properly and the spread has increased. We have heard about Derbyshire, and the spread is approaching Shropshire. I urge the Minister to consider increasing the number of triplets. There is now a clear case for the establishment of triplets on the Derbyshire-Staffordshire and Staffordshire-Shropshire borders. While the dither has gone on the relentless march of TB has pushed across the borders.
I am aware of the time so I ask the Minister to respond to the following in quick succession. I am exasperated by my correspondence with the Ministry about the calf scheme for healthy bull calves that are unwanted by dairy farmers. I talked to one farmer today who did not even get the transport costs of sending three calves to Market Drayton. It is even worse for those who are closed up. They have to feed the animals with no prospect of remuneration. The Government must also consider the problem of farmers going over quota on milk production. Cows continue to produce milk whether the farm is closed up or not.
Will the Minister consider his links with the drug industry? We know that the cost of investigation and research into vaccines and drugs in cattle is huge and is linked to human research, but it is critical. Just like Tantalus constantly reaching for his glass of water, it is always in 10 years' time. We must establish a vaccine for TB in cattle and I suspect that that will have to be linked to research into TB in humans which, sadly, is also increasing in other parts of the world.
This matter is crucial. We are sitting on a human health time bomb. We have hysteria in the media about BSE and the possible link—it is not yet proven—with new version CJD. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said, the Government have blown £30 million on a report that tries to lay more blame on the previous Conservative Government. Here we have a potentially massive health problem. [Interruption.] If the Minister will just listen, TB is known to have been a killer for many centuries. Gross complacency is being shown here. The Minister has not really grasped the opportunity of Krebs. His heart is not in it. If in the next few minutes he is not prepared to show that he will get resources behind Krebs, he should make way for someone else.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I inadvertently forgot to declare my interest as a farmer. It is in the Register of Members' Interests, although I should stress that I own no cattle and therefore have no direct financial link in this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Have any other hon. Members anything that they wish to share with us before we continue?
5.2 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Elliot Morley): This has been a very good debate. As I would have expected from the Select Committee on Agriculture it has been very detailed. The contributions from all those who have spoken—with the possible exception of the last speaker—have been excellent. We heard from the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and from the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). There was a sensible theme to the contributions They dealt with the issue very responsibly and asked reasonable and pertinent questions that I shall do my best to answer.
I should also like to take the opportunity to wish the former Chairman of the Select Committee all the best in his new role in Parliament and to say how much I value the work that he has done. I have appeared before the Committee a number of times and I appreciate the quality of the reports and the contribution made by his Committee. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the role, if only temporarily. He presented the report extremely well. It demonstrates his grasp on the issue and his involvement in the Committee.
This is a serious issue. Bovine TB is one of the biggest problems that we face, perhaps the biggest problem after BSE. BSE is basically under control. It is on course for eradication All the safety measures are in place. We understand it well. Obviously, we still need to be careful about some issues. We must not be complacent about any outbreak. Bovine TB is spreading and increasing, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out.
When we came into government we made it clear that we intended to introduce a moratorium on the interim strategy pending the report from Professor Krebs that was set up under the previous Government. I make no bones about the fact that they were quite right to do that. If they had not set up the report, we would have had to do so. It was useful that the report was in train and was in a position to report and deal with some of these issues.
However, I must emphasise to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the interim strategy was a failure: it did not stop the spread of bovine TB; it simply did not work. Most independent observers would concede that and accept that MAFF clung to that strategy too long. The fact remains that there must be a strategy and Krebs is the only show in town. It will allow us to settle issues that have been hotly debated for more than 20 years. The time has come to test the science and decide on the best way to deal with bovine TB. Does culling work? If so, what sort of culling? What is the link with badgers? Other issues also need to be examined.
Mr. Paice: We all accept that the interim strategy was not working at 100 per cent.; otherwise, Krebs would not have been set up in the first place. My point was that by introducing a moratorium before there was anything

149WH
further to do—people had no idea what Krebs would say—the Government might have exacerbated the problem. The interim strategy was not working 100 per cent., but it still may have limited incidence of the disease. That could explain the sudden increase when the moratorium was introduced.
Mr. Morley: There is no evidence of that. The Krebs report will help to answer some of these questions. I repeat that large sums were spent on the interim strategy—money that could have helped to compensate farmers. We increased compensation from 75 to 100 per cent., but the strategy did not deliver. The merits of stopping the interim strategy will be part of the analysis of the trials: the issue is being examied.
My noble Friend the Minister of State has responsibility for these matters: I deal with them in the House of Commons and I am interested in the welfare aspect. I emphasise that there is a major welfare issue for badgers and for cattle in relation to the impact of TB. Testing is also relevant. There are also welfare implications for farmers themselves, who are under considerable stress, as I well understand.
Today I had the opportunity of discussing with farmers from affected areas, the NFU and the National Beef Association their anxieties about badgers. I do not accept the simplistic view about badgers; however, I cannot deny that TB is spreading or disregard the report from Professor Krebs, which shows evidence of a link between badgers and bovine TB. Even though there remains much that we do not understand about how exactly it is transmitted, I simply cannot deny that information, so we must follow the trial through: it promises some answers.
I echo the points made about the interference, which is not helping the cause of badger welfare. For those who do not want a culling programme for badgers, it makes no sense at all to interfere with the trial, which could result in even more badgers being culled. Similarly, it makes no sense for farmers taking the law into their own hands and killing badgers. It would be unwise of them to do so, because if the trial is undermined from that side, we shall go round in circles, as we have done for 20 years, trying to determine the problem and the best way to tackle it.
The National Federation of Badger Groups was mentioned. I have much respect for that organisation, but I was most disappointed to read its press release, which contained many claims that are not true. For example, its claim about the study of TB in other species is inaccurate. Two studies have been commissioned as part of the trial: the Oxford university study, which examined other wildlife species and TB, began in May 1999; the Central Science Laboratory's study, which has begun looking into aspects of the trials, started last month, so both trials are operating. The understanding of transmission routes is an important subject which we need to examine carefully, so a study of that is also under way. The independent scientific group is looking at whole herds in relation to the potential link with cattle. All those issues are being covered in the trial, and it is wrong to state otherwise.
The main criticism, which I wholly accept, is about the delay in setting up those studies. There is no denying it, and MAFF regrets it. However, setting up the trial
150WH
has been enormously difficult. Resources are not the problem: the issue of inadequate resources has never been raised by anyone to whom I have spoken, or in any of MAFF's dealings on the matter. There have certainly been problems recruiting staff and getting access to what, after all, is private landowners' land. We do not have statutory powers, so it must be done by negotiation and persuasion. The weather has caused problems. It is not as though this was not accounted for but, as hon. Members know, the south-west has had exceptionally bad weather this winter, which has delayed this work. There have been serious problems with interference, not only through trapping but because of staff being intimidated. This hardly helps when one is trying to recruit staff for a difficult job.
Mr. Paterson: The Minister blames the weather. Krebs recommended spring 1998 for the trial; it is now spring 2000. If the hon. Gentleman had trouble because of the weather, surely he should have devoted more people to the job.
Mr. Morley: It is not a matter of devoting more people to the job of survey work, although, if the hon. Gentleman had listened he would have heard me say that we have had problems with recruiting, and we are trying to recruit to bring the staff up to strength. In some instances, the terrain has been difficult. There is a combination of factors.
Mr. Luff: The Minister says that he has a problem recruiting staff. I have been concerned about the very low rates of pay offered to operatives. Has that been a factor in inhibiting recruitment?
Mr. Morley: It is a possibility that we might have to consider, but it is not the only issue. Factors such as weekend working also play a part. I concede that terms and conditions also have a bearing on the problem.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: If the Minister is saying that one reason for the delay in the trials is a problem with recruiting, will he tell me why some of my farmers who have offered constructive help have been turned down? They know the terrain and are used to the rough weather. Why was their offer rejected?
Mr. Morley: I do not know the exact details of that, but proper quality controls are needed in such trials. Although farmers might be offering to help, the issue might be how you manage those trials. I do not know the exact details.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had to pull up other Members for using the word "you." I am not carrying out any such trial.
Mr. Morley: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All the triplets will be in place by the end of this year.
Mr. Nicholls: This year?
Mr. Morley: Yes, this year. Proactive culling will take place in seven of the 10 triplets by the end of this year.

151WH
We are taking action on surveying, which will help to speed implementation and allow us to make further progress.
Mr. Nicholls: I compliment the Minister on the most attractive speech that he was making until a moment ago. I had accepted at face value what he said about resources, but he seems to be saying that he cannot get people to do the work for the rate that he is prepared to pay. If, on the one hand, he is saying that he cannot find people because no one likes the pay or the accommodation but, on the other, he can give an assurance that the triplets will be in place by the end of this year, what has changed?
Mr. Morley: We have recruited staff. The triplets are under way and we are confident that they will be in place by the end of this year. I have said that wages are a problem, but I do not know whether they are a big issue. I would not rule out pay and conditions as an issue. Nevertheless, we are on target to recruit the staff.
The road traffic survey is important and much can be gained from restarting it, but it has been held up because of Health and Safety Executive recommendations, which require new equipment to be installed in laboratories. Again, resources are not an issue. Money has been found for the new equipment, which is being installed. We hope to start the road traffic survey sometime in the spring, although it is fair to say that the backlog of deep-frozen carcases will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept the contradiction that although we can do nothing with the badger carcases, we are still moving cattle that are known to be infected with TB? It is strange that the HSE has taken action only on one side; although I do not want action to be taken on the other, it looks rather ridiculous.
Mr. Morley: The difference is that, if people dissect animals that may have lesions, it is not unreasonable to put proper safeguards in place in the laboratories. That is what the HSE is for, and we must take its recommendations seriously.
We have resolved the Bern convention issue. What we are doing has been found to be entirely within its rules. I was surprised that the Government were criticised by the Bern convention, given that badgers are protected in this country, and especially as they are not protected or hunted in other countries. There is no prospect of the wholesale slaughter of badgers to control TB, and they are not endangered.
I concede that getting the triplets up and running has been a problem. We are on target to get them all done by the end of this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby told us—going straight to the point—to get on with it. We are doing so, and intend to ensure that they are up and running.
We are reluctant to take action outside the trial areas because the independent scientific group has advised against it. Some of the National Farmers Union's proposals have not been implemented because the ISG
152WH
thinks that they could compromise the trial. We share farmers' concerns about the increase and spread of the disease, and we cannot ignore such matters. We are discussing the position outside the trial areas with the TB forum and we will consider carefully what it has to say.
Vaccine development is another issue. I was asked how much the Government were spending. This year we are spending £1.4 million. Once again, however, it is not an issue of resources. The problem with vaccine development is the process of looking for the vaccine, which is very slow. Spending more money will not speed the process up. I can assure hon. Members that the independent scientific group is also examining work on human vaccines to see what can be learned about any potential link.
As was recognised by members of the Select Committee, the issue is not just about badgers, but about vaccine development, bio-security on farms, researching trace elements, better testing procedures, social ecology and animal behaviour. All those issues—and indeed cattle-to-cattle transmission—are being examined as part of the evaluation of the independent scientific group. I have met Professor Bourne and Professor Krebs and I was impressed with the thoroughness of their work.
Mr. Todd: The scientific group was asked to examine the possibility of using the TB99 questionnaire outside the trial and infected areas. It recommended doing that as soon as practicable. Does the Minister agree?
Mr. Morley: We should reflect carefully on that issue. TB99 is a new questionnaire and even within infected areas it is a detailed and large-scale operation. Farmers have welcomed it and we are hopeful that information on TB99 will be helpful for the scientific study. We could contemplate extending it some time in the future.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister denies that it is a question of resources, but paragraph 58 of the Select Committee's report quotes Dr. Hewinson as saying that in the United States &800 million is being spent on trying to produce a human vaccine that would also be useful for cattle. The Minister mentioned £1.4 million, which seems a huge imbalance in relation to United States spending on the problem.
Mr. Morley: We may benefit from some of the research that is financed in America. Nevertheless, I am informed that it is a question not of resources, but of the process, the time and the way in which vaccines are developed.
We acknowledge the costs faced by farmers involved in cattle breakdowns. We recognise the burden on farmers in that respect. As I said, we increased compensation from 75 to 100 per cent. for cattle. There is presently no prospect of extra compensation: it is not within our budget. However, we are consulting the TB forum about what more can be done and we shall continue those discussions.
On rules about movement restrictions—
Mr. McLoughlin: Can the Minister tell us whether the Department is requesting additional compensation for farmers in the current spending review?
Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman said, the spending review is going on now: it is not yet completed.

153WH
[Interruption.] No, implications cannot be drawn from that either way. Annual tests are not likely to be applied nationally.
The Committee will know that an animal husbandry panel has been set up and has been given three months to produce its report. It commenced in January.
Mr. Paice: On annual testing, I did not suggest a national basis. My proposal was to consider it for the frontier counties in order to identify quickly where the spread was taking place. It could then be curtailed more swiftly than otherwise.
Mr. Morley: We would not close the door on any suggestion. Perhaps the TB panel could consider that.
I emphasise that the human risk is minimal. In fact, bovine TB used to be far more prevalent in this country than it is now. There is no evidence of an increase in outbreaks of the human TB that is linked with this strain, although there were two recent cases of infection linked with cattle. The pasteurisation of milk protects the consumer. There are also procedures in slaughterhouses to inspect carcases and identify animals showing signs of TB infection so that the appropriate steps can be taken to ensure that there is no risk in the food chain. Those procedures have been in place for a long time and there is no evidence of any risk to the population. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency; we are careful to ensure that these matters are monitored and we are in touch with the Department of Health in that regard.
I shall bear in mind the point about issuing reports through Command Papers. However, I think that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire misunderstood what was going on with the Government's response to the Select Committee. The usual Government response was made in June, but we have taken a new approach, in that as well as that response, we have also drawn up a report on the progress that has been made. That is a positive step forward. I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome being updated on what we are doing in terms of this important matter.
Mr. McLoughlin: All I was saying was that, bearing in mind that we knew of this debate about two weeks ago, if the Committee had had that report a little earlier, no doubt it could have been published so it would have been available to everyone. We are talking about freedom of information; some of us know that a report
154WH
is being submitted to the Sub-Committee which may contain information that the rest of the House has not had the opportunity to digest.
Mr. Morley: The point that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands is that the publication of the report was not linked to the timing of this debate. This debate could have taken place earlier or later. It was just a matter of making the information available.
Mr. Luff: I congratulate the Minister on keeping a straight face during that last remark.
Mr. Morley: I have a great deal of affection for the hon. Gentleman, but that was unfair. I would point out to hon. Members that, for example, the independent scientific group's report was received in typescript just before Christmas. We managed to get it printed and out by January, which is not a bad achievement. There is no evidence of delaying reports to ensure that people do not get them.
I understand that the collection of badgers continued under the interim strategy where farmers requested it until the Bourne advice was received in August 1998. Plans to stop it and launch the Bourne seven counties road traffic assessments were in place when the post mortem facilities at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency were suspended in the August. Information from that has been made available to the independent scientific group.
In terms of what we have been doing to implement the triplets, the independent scientific group in its report considered the programme sufficiently robust and felt that we were making progress.
I have to say that the hon. Member for North Shropshire rather exaggerated; he should not use words such as an "explosion" of badger population. I have heard that expression from time to time, but it is not the case. Our figures suggest that badger numbers may be up in some areas of the country, but there is no evidence of an increase at a huge rate. Moreover, where there is an increase, a population will stabilise at the carrying capacity of the habitat concerned. Indeed, in the proactive culls that have taken place so far, there seems to be evidence that badger populations were not as high as envisaged.
I must bring my remarks to a close. It has been a good debate which has raised some important issues. The Government take them seriously and I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that we are making progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Common Land
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for reviewing the legislation affecting common land and town and village greens. [110027]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today published a consultation paper on common land—"Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land in England and Wales". The paper looks at three key areas: issues concerning the registration of common land and village greens; the consent regime for fencing and other works; and wider management issues. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I have invited comments on the paper by 10 April.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the cost of the new building for the Greater London Authority; and if the rent will be at the market rate for similar buildings. [110064]

  Mr. Hill
  We have reached agreement with the developer, CIT Group, on a rent of £36.50 per square foot, £393 per square metre. This is frozen until 2007. The fixed rent at practical completion of the contract will be £4.75 million per annum. There are no similar buildings in the area; however, the £36.50 compares favourably with current rents, for top quality space in prime locations, of typically around £50 per square foot in the City and the West End of London. The developer will meet the cost of the base building which is estimated at around £40 million.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned which quantify the cost to the economy of traffic congestion. [108329]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department has not commissioned estimates of the costs of congestion from external sources. A number of external estimates have been made of the value road users might place on the elimination of congestion from the road network. The CBI have put this figure at £15 billion. Some estimates are lower, but agree that the figure runs into billions every year and is rising.

  The Department has made estimates of the amount of time lost on English roads as a result of congestion in 1996 and produced forecasts for 2010 under a number of illustrative scenarios. The results of this work are set out
  230W
  in our report "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published last month. We will be doing more work in this area as part of our follow up to that report.

  Neither the external estimates, nor those undertaken by my Department, can be translated directly into assessments of the cost of congestion to the economy. This is because they relate only to the benefits road users might derive from reduced delays and take no account of the costs of achieving these reductions. The true costs of road congestion to the economy are the net benefits we forgo if we fail to tackle it.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who determines the areas in respect of which bids can be made by water supply companies based outside the area served by an existing company; and, in the event of a successful bid, which company retains(a) ownership of water pipes and (b) responsibility for their maintenance. [108741]

  Mr. Mullin
  A company can be appointed as a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker by the Director General of Water Services under the Water Industry Act 1991. There is no restriction on the areas in respect of which appointments may be sought within England and Wales. A water company may seek to become the supplier for any area within that of another company by means of an 'inset' appointment: where that company consents to the appointment; where the appointment is in respect of parts of that area where none of the premises is served by that company; or where it is in respect of an area occupied by premises, each of which is supplied with, or likely to be supplied with, not less than 250 megalitres of water in any year. Ownership of water pipes and responsibility for their maintenance rests with the company holding the appointment for the area in question.

  The Competition Act 1998 comes into effect on 1 March, providing potential opportunities for greater competition. The Office of Fair Trading and Office of Water Services have issued guidance on the application of the 1998 Act to the water and sewerage sectors. If shared use of a water undertaker's network is agreed, ownership and responsibility for maintenance would remain with the undertaker, but with arrangements for sharing the costs between the two companies

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage industrial users of(a) kerosene and (b) gas oil to switch to cleaner fuels. [108712]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the Marketing of Gas Oil regulations 1994, the sulphur content of gas oil marketed in the UK is limited to 0.2 per cent. The Sulphur Content of Certain Liquid Fuels Directive (1999/32/EC), due to be transposed into member states legislation on 1 July 2000, will prohibit the use of gas oil with a sulphur content higher than 0.2 per cent. from 1 July 2000 and 0.1 per cent. from 1 January 2008.

  The combustion of kerosene and gas oil in industrial processes above 20 Megawatts thermal input is regulated under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Over the past decade the Environment Agency has encouraged

  231W
  operators of the processes they regulate under the Act to switch to less polluting fuels, initially from heavy fuel oil to gas oil, and then (over the last few years) to gas. For example, most gas turbines now use gas as their main fuel with gas oil or kerosene only as a backup in case of an interruption to the gas supply. The Environment Agency will continue to encourage these changes to cleaner fuels.

  Light Rapid Transit Systems
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to fund further tram or light railway systems; and if he will make a statement. [108725]

  Mr. Hill
  Central Government support is available to local authorities to fund light rapid transit systems in the form of grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968. Revenue support is provided through the local government finance system to meet the cost of borrowing undertaken by authorities to finance capital expenditure on major transport schemes and for eligible expenditure on local authority Private Finance Initiative projects.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into the benefits of tram/light railway systems(a) in the UK and (b) in other European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [108726]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department has contributed to studies on the impact of Manchester Metrolink, South Yorkshire Supertram and Croydon Tramlink. Reports on Manchester Metrolink and South Yorkshire Supertram have now been completed. The Department has also funded a report into light rail and complementary measures, which covers European systems. This was published in May 1998. A follow-up study is being undertaken. Copies of the completed reports have been placed in the Library.

  Debt Payment
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data he collects from local authorities on the proportions of invoices paid by them within the agreed contract time. [109049]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, authorities will be required to report annually their performance against specified national performance indicators. An indicator is included in respect of the percentage of undisputed invoices paid within 30 days, or mutually agreed terms. The Secretary of State has set targets for such payment of invoices of 95 per cent. for 2000–01, 97.5 per cent. for 2001–02 and 100 per cent. for 2002–03.

  Housing Transfers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources are available to his Department to make one-off payments to cover overhanging debt following the transfer of local authority housing stock in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [109102]
  232W
  Mr. Mullin
  There are proposals within the Spring Supplementary Estimates to allow for £25 million to assist with the repayment of overhanging debt in the current financial year. The sum required in future years will depend on Ministers' decisions in response to applications for a place on the housing transfer programme from local authorities with overhanging debt. The Government's contribution to extinguishing overhanging debt will be by taking on an agreed amount of a local authority's outstanding debt principal, rather than through the use of programme resources.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the rules regarding the location of the units of social housing which developers are required by local authorities to include within their developments, with particular reference to the scope for locating those units outside the local authority in question. [109023]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to review planning policy on affordable housing. Draft PPG3: "Housing" reaffirms existing policy that local planning authorities may require an element of affordable housing to be provided in suitable residential developments where a local need exists.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to develop the working relationship between National Air Traffic Services Ltd. and Military Air Traffic Control. [108526]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) already enjoy a good working relationship and provide a joint and integrated air traffic control service. These working arrangements are being formalised in order to facilitate the public private partnership for NATS. Copies of the heads of terms of what will be the contract between the MOD and NATS have been made available to members of the Standing Committee considering the Transport Bill. I have sent a copy of this document to my hon. Friend today.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of road congestion to business. [108529]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: A number of external estimates have been made of the value road users might place on the elimination of congestion from the on road network. The CBI have put this figure at £15 billion, some estimates are lower, but agree that the figure runs into billions every year and is rising.

  The Department has made estimates of the amount of time lost on English roads as a result of congestion in 1996 and produced forecasts for 2010 under a number of illustrative scenarios. The results of this work are set out in our report "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published last month. We will be doing more work in this area as part of our follow up to that report.
  233W
  Neither the external estimates, nor those undertaken by my Department, can be translated directly into assessments of the cost of congestion to business or more widely. This is because they relate only to the benefits road users might derive from reduced delays and take no account of the costs of achieving these reductions. The true costs of road congestion are the net economic and other benefits we forgo if we fail to tackle it.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the Government's planning guidance issued to local authorities relating to mobile phone masts over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [109288]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department has received a range of representations on planning guidance and procedures for telecommunications over the last three years. We issued proposals to improve the arrangements in "Telecommunications Development Control" published in July 1998. This attracted 269 responses. Changes were implemented, by way of amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, in July 1999 and explained in Circular 4/99. We also issued for consultation in December 1998 the draft of a joint DETR/DH circular on "Land Use Planning and Electromagnetic Fields". This received 147 responses. The circular will be finalised as soon as practicable after the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones has reported in the spring.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) number and (b) value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109302]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested cannot be provided on the ground of disproportionate cost, as it is not held centrally.

  My Department would normally engage external consultants and advisers to manage competitive tendering processes only where particular expertise or knowledge is required which is not available in-house.

  Minister for Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what registerable share holdings under the rules laid down for Ministers are held by the Minister for Transport; what board directorships he resigned on his first appointment as a Minister; and what matters pertaining to his Department's work the Minister does not handle in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest. [109386]

  Mr. Hill
  The arrangements put in place by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport for handling his financial interests on his first appointment as a Minister were made clear in a Press Notice issued by the Scottish Office on 3 August 1998. A copy was placed in the Library of the House. Investments which were not disposed of were placed in a blind trust with an instruction 234W
  to the solicitors administering the trust that the trust should not deal in shares which relate to my right hon. and noble Friend's ministerial portfolio. In line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code, my right hon. and noble Friend is not informed of changes in investments or the state of the portfolio. Consequently, my right hon. and noble Friend does not have any potential conflicts of interests.

  Local Government (Payment Culture)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to improve the payment culture in local government; and if he will make a statement. [109832]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, authorities will be required to report annually their performance against specified national performance indicators. An indicator is included in respect of the percentage of undisputed invoices paid within 30 days, or mutually agreed terms. The Secretary of State has set targets for such payment of invoices of 95 per cent. for 2000–01, 97.5 per cent. for 2001–02 and 100 per cent. for 2002–03.

  Grants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the initiatives launched by his Department since May 1997 under which specific grants are allocated, indicating in each case and for each financial year the funding provided by central Government. [109310]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table.

  £ million

  Initiative

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999– 2000

  New Deal for Communities

  0

  12.5

  48.5

  Rough Sleepers—London

  0

  0

  18.4

  Rough Sleepers—Outside London

  0

  0

  13.2

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust

  0

  117.7

  10.0

  Coalfields Fund

  0

  0

  5.0

  Grants to Audit Commission for Best Value Inspections

  0

  0

  5.0

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  32.5

  32.5

  Rural Bus Challenge

  0

  5.0

  15.0

  Rural Transport Partnership

  0

  4.2

  4.2

  Rail Passenger Partnership/ Infrastructure Investment Fund

  0

  0

  20.0

  1 Includes Coalfields Fund allocation for 1998–99

  Countryside Traffic Measures Group
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what dates the Countryside Traffic Measures Group has met; what matters have been discussed; what conclusions have been reached; and if he will make a statement. [109382]

  Mr. Hill
  The Countryside Traffic Measures Group has met formally on four occasions: 10 July 1997, 4 November 1997, 13 March 1998, and 3 November 1998, and at other times informally or to discuss individual schemes. The inaugural meeting agreed the main objective, which is to develop good practice guidance on rural traffic management designed with
  235W
  sensitivity to the countryside environment. Meetings subsequently have discussed and agreed the schemes to be included in the monitoring project and, latterly, progress of the schemes. Monitoring of the schemes is due to be completed in March 2001. Until then it would be premature to draw conclusions on the measures installed. My Department will continue to help the Countryside Agency and local authorities develop these measures.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what obligation is placed on Eurostar (UK) to offer reduced rail fares to senior citizens; and what plans he has to change this. [109381]

  Mr. Hill
  Eurostar (UK) Ltd. is not obliged to offer rail fares at reduced rates to senior citizens and there are no plans to introduce such an obligation.

  Road Noise Reduction
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what road noise reduction surfaces his Department has recently approved for use. [109378]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jon Seddon to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 10 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to respond to your question about what road noise reduction surfaces his Department has recently approved for use. In the absence of the Chief Executive I am responding to the question.
  In addition to porous asphalt and exposed aggregate concrete which are included in the specification for trunk road construction, to date the Highways Agency has approved, for use on trunk roads in England, fifteen proprietary surfacing products which have been shown to generate significantly lower noise levels than conventional surfaces. Six of these products were approved in the past year. They are already being widely used for surfacing roads that need maintenance.
  For the future, a new scheme for approving a range of innovative products has been set up with other highway authorities under which the British Board of Agreement will certify that products meet the specified performance requirements.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will treat applications in respect of properties on existing roads for double glazing as a method of noise reduction for residents in the same way as such applications in respect of properties on new roads. [109379]

  Mr. Hill
  The Noise Insulation Regulations apply to properties affected by existing roads which have been physically altered as well as to new roads. I have no plans to extend the scope of these Regulations to properties affected by unaltered roads.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current progress of genetically modified crop trials in the United Kingdom. [107886]
  236W
  Mr. Meacher
  The farm scale evaluation programme is now starting its second year. The studies are designed to evaluate the impact on farmland wildlife of the management of herbicide tolerant GM crops, with their associated herbicide, as compared with equivalent non-GM crops managed conventionally. The ecological studies are being funded by the UK Government and carried out by independent contractors on fields of GM and conventional crops provided by the industry body SCIMAC. The studies are being overseen by an independent Scientific Steering Committee reporting to the Secretary of State.

  The first year of the farm scale evaluations included plantings of oil seed rape and fodder maize in the spring, followed in the autumn by winter oil seed rape. The Scientific Steering Committee reported at the end of the first year that the methodology of the farm scale evaluations was scientifically robust, and gave a firm base from which to proceed to full-scale trials this year. A further announcement about this year's sites will be made shortly.

  In November 1999, a renewed agreement between Government and the industry body SCIMAC on the conduct of the farm scale evaluations was reached, to cover the three years through to harvest of crops planted in 2002, including agreement that no general unrestricted cultivation of GM crops will take place in the UK until the farm-scale evaluations are complete. Under the renewed agreement, the farm scale evaluations are likely to be extended in scope this year to cover a further crop, GM beet, dependent on the advice of the Scientific Steering Committee on the scope and validity under UK conditions of similar trials being carried out in Denmark.

  The fields grown for this year's trials will also be used to monitor the gene flow between the GM and non-GM crops to determine the depth of cross pollination.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the wind-up costs of the millennium experience. [108772]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The actual financial costs of winding up the New Millennium Experience Company would depend on the commitments and liabilities outstanding at the time when any such decision were taken. Neither the Government, nor the Millennium Commission, nor the Board of NMEC have plans to wind up the New Millennium Experience Company prior to the completion of its remit to run the Millennium Experience to 31 December 2000.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if loans made to the New Millennium Experience Company by the Millennium Commission may be subordinated. [106442]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Millennium Commission has not made any loans to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) or any other organisation. The Commission cannot make loans as it has no statutory powers to do so.
  237W
  All grant made to NMEC is repayable if any surplus is achieved from its operations or asset disposals after the organisation has met its other contractual liabilities. However, this grant does not constitute a loan as there is no guarantee of repayment or certainty of the amount which might be repaid to the Commission. It is open to the Commission to impose, as a condition of grant, the terms on which it will be repaid.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the foods sold in the Millennium Dome that(a) do and (b) do not meet standards required of food produced in the United Kingdom. [108957]

  Janet Anderson
  There are over 35 catering outlets in and around the Dome at Greenwich selling a wide range of food from snacks to cordon bleu. All are required to meet the same statutory requirements as apply to commercial catering and food outlets in the UK.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the target number of visitors to the Millennium Dome for 2000. [108963]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's target is 12 million. Visitor numbers in the first month, at just over 366,400 represent just under 4 per cent. of the target. This mirrors the visitor attraction industry norm for January.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the daily capacity of the Millennium Dome. [108962]

  Janet Anderson
  The licensed capacity of the Dome site, at any one time during the day, is 35,000 plus 2,000 staff.

  Millennium River of Fire
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) public and (b) Lottery funds were used in connection with the Millennium River of Fire; and if he will make a statement. [105904]

  Janet Anderson
  The "Big Time" event on New Year's Eve in central London incorporated a wide range of activities and entertainment throughout the day attended and watched, safely, by about 3 million people. The River of Fire was one part of a spectacular firework display which itself was one part of Big Time. The 17 minute display was enjoyed by people along the Thames embankment and from other vantage points, as well as by a world-wide television audience. No public or lottery funds were involved in paying for the pyrotechnics. The New Millennium Experience Company, who were asked by the Government, the Millennium Commission and other public agencies and organisations involved in the event to co-ordinate and manage it, have, in the absence of major commercial sponsorship for the London-wide event to complement Millennium Commission's grant under their Millennium Festival programme, underwritten these costs.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 472W, on computers, if any of the hackers accessed computer files containing (a) the personal details of jurors or witnesses and (b) details of the jury selection procedures. [109388]

  Jane Kennedy
  There has only been one recorded instance, in 1995, when a member of staff was found to have possible unauthorised access to juror details. The person, a casual employee, had discovered a supervisor's password and had altered system access permissions. Subsequent investigation found no evidence of tampering with data. The staff member was dismissed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 472W, on computers, what action has been taken to prevent internal hacking incidents on Court Service computers, particularly files containing (a) the personal details of jurors or witnesses and (b) details of the jury selection procedures. [109387]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service carries out security risk analyses on all its major computer systems to ensure they comply with the security guidelines laid down in HMG's Manual of Protective Security. The countermeasures implemented include unique user names, secure passwords and access to systems and areas of systems on a 'need-to-know' basis. Passwords are changed regularly. All staff are provided with guidance on how to maintain system security. Some juror details are held on systems which are owned and managed by the Department's PFI partners. Security measures have been conveyed to them and are contractual.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000,Official Report, column 472W, on computers, what type of information was accessed by the hackers from computers in the Court Service; and what action was taken (a) to identify the hackers and (b) to discipline Court Service staff involved in the incidents. [109389]

  Jane Kennedy
  The type of information potentially available to an internal 'hacker' varies according to the system accessed. Approximately half of the incidents involved stand-alone PCs or networked PCs used in the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department for administrative purposes; the remainder involved operational systems, such as those used for case management. Most incidents involved misuse of another member of staffs user name and password. The information potentially at risk was either a person's own work in progress, or in a few instances, details of cases. All incidents were investigated and remedial action applied. No evidence of compromise of Protectively Marked (or classified) information nor of a breach of the Data Protection Acts was found.

  The staff responsible were identified in half of the incidents and all received verbal warnings, except for one who received a written warning and one who was dismissed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the police did not contact the Committee on the Administration of Justice seeking originals of threats for forensic examination until some days after Mrs. Rosemary Nelson was killed [103821]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The investigation into the murder of Mrs. Nelson is being directed by Mr. Colin Port, the Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk. While his investigation is in progress it is not appropriate to comment in detail on it. I understand from the Chief Constable that once the original threatening note to Mrs. Nelson was obtained it was immediately forwarded for independent forensic examination. That examination has not produced results which have, at this point, assisted the investigation

  Surveillance Operation, Monaghan
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from(a) the Irish Government and (b) Sinn Fein Assembly Members with regard to an alleged incident of RUC officers crossing the border to mount a surveillance operation in Monaghan. [107583]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have received one request for information from the British Irish Intergovernmental Secretariat concerning an alleged border incursion by the RUC on 12 January. No representations have been received from Sinn Fein.

  Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officers currently serve in(a) the Special Branch and (b) the Criminal Investigation Department of the RUC. [107819]

  Mr. Ingram
  At 1 February 2000, 684 officers were serving in the Special Branch and 809 in the Criminal Investigation Department of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make the Chief Constable of the RUC responsible for assessing the security situation; how often he will be required to make this assessment; and in what form his findings will be made public. [107808]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable has been and continues to be the Secretary of State's principal security adviser. The Chief Constable gives his assessment to the Secretary of State on a regular and confidential basis.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, column 410W, what communication he has received from bodies other than the US Congress about US-sponsored training and exchange programmes; and what response the RUC will make to fulfil conditions that will be imposed upon joint training and exchange programmes. [107822]
  240W
  Mr. Ingram
  I have received no communication from other bodies about US sponsored training and exchange programmes. The Royal Ulster Constabulary will make every effort to fulfil any conditions that may be imposed upon US joint training and exchange. It is the RUC's policy that officers are selected solely on the eligibility criteria applicable to any proposed training/exchange programme. In keeping with the Royal Ulster Constabulary equal opportunities policy, officers are selected purely on merit.

  Disqualifications Bill
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) oral and (b) written representations he has received from members of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the subject of the Disqualifications Bill, indicating in each case the date on which representations were received; and if he will place all written representations in the Library. [107638]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Disqualification issues have been discussed with the Irish Government, the UUP, Sinn Fein and the SDLP. I have a large number of contacts with these and other parties at which disqualification and numerous other issues arise and I am unable to supply an exhaustive list of such.

  On 20 December, prior to the introduction of the Disqualification Bill, I wrote to the Northern Ireland parties represented in the Commons and the Home Secretary wrote to the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties, notifying them of the Government's intentions with regard to the Disqualification Bill. No response, written or oral, has yet been received.

  The only written representation I have received on the subject is a letter, dated 14 December 1999, from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As a result of this and subsequent discussions the Bill was amended.

  It is a matter for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann whether he wishes to publish this letter in the House Library.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to amend the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [109974]

  Mr. Ingram
  As the result of Devolution of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for Northern Ireland shown in table 3.1 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1999–2000 has been split into two, one for the Northern Ireland Office £995,487,000 and the second for Northern Ireland Departments £4,856,247,000.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XV, Vote 1 the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £29,790,000 from £995,487,000 to £1,025,277,000. The running costs limit will be increased by £7,783,000 from £193,523,000 to

  241W
  £201,306,000. The increase is the net effect of take-up of end year flexibility of £15,545,000 and an additional £5,868,000 for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Other changes to the DEL include £8,144,000 from Northern Ireland Departments and £233,000 from the Home Office.

  The increase will be offset by a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library copies of the material supplied by BNFL to members of the Fukui Regional Assembly regarding the problems with their MOX fuel. [106714]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: I understand that BNFL did not pass any information to the Fukui Regional Assembly.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many licences to export goods to Iran have been(a) granted and (b) refused, in the last 12 months; [108474]

  (2) how many applications for licences to export goods to Iran have been rejected in the past 12 months on the grounds that there was an unacceptable risk that the goods might be diverted to a weapons of mass destruction programme. [108475]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 1 January 1999 and 28 January 2000, 91 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and one Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Iran. During the period 18 applications for a SIEL and no applications for an OIEL were refused. Individual applications and licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued and applications refused for such licences between 1 January 1999 and 28 January 2000 covering the export to Iran of goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of SIEL Number of SIELs applications refused covering goods with this rating

  ML3

  0

  1

  ML13

  1

  0

  242W

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued and applications refused between 1 January 1999 and 28 January 2000 covering the export to Iran of other goods

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of SIEL applications refused covering goods with this rating

  IC008

  1

  0

  IC110

  1

  0

  IC229

  1

  IC350

  5

  0

  2B350

  1

  0

  3A001

  3

  0

  5A002

  2

  0

  5D002

  1

  0

  6A001

  1

  0

  6A003

  1

  0

  7A103

  2

  0

  8A990

  7

  4

  8D990

  0

  2

  9A990

  30

  6

  9A991

  0

  1

  9E990

  4

  0

  End-use

  36

  7

  The one OIEL issued covered goods with the rating 5A002.

  The paper records for the 18 applications for a SIEL that were refused have been examined and seven were refused because of concern that the goods would be diverted to programmes relating to weapons of mass destruction. I am disclosing this information in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08W.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last discussed state aid for the UK deep coal mining industry with DG VII; and if he will make a statement. [109021]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Officials in the Department are in regular contact with the European Commission on issues concerning the coal industry and the European Coal and Steel Community State aid regime that applies to it.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the life span of British natural gas resources at the current rate of depletion, and taking into account the consents for gas-powered electricity generating stations which have been granted but not implemented. [109115]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: Estimates of the United Kingdom's remaining recoverable reserves of gas are given in the Department of Trade and Industry's "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom 1999", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This shows that discovered reserves could yield 1,795 billion cubic metres (bcm). This is equivalent to 18 years of production at current rates. If the full potential from as yet undrilled structures were to

  243W
  be realised, this could raise discovered reserves to 3,625 bcm. Estimates of reserves are, however, not constant over time and exploration may add to these estimates.

  Whether production from these reserves will fully meet UK demand for any future period depends on a number of variables such as the timing of commencement and cessation of production in particular fields. As the Government indicated in their Energy White Paper in October 1998 (Cm 4071), it is likely that some gas imports would be required by the end of this decade.

  Metric and Imperial Measures
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he has given to enforcement officials in respect of sales of goods sold from loose stock by measured weight in metric and imperial units.
  [109442]

  Dr. Howells
  Local authorities have an independent statutory responsibility to enforce weights and measures legislation. As with the earlier stages of metrication, DTI has encouraged the local authorities to provide small traders with information and advice about the change to metric weights for the sale of loose goods, and to recognise the difficulties that some small traders have had in changing to metric weights by 31 December 1999.

DEFENCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, dated 17 December 1999, referring to an unanswered letter from the Trident Ploughshares campaign, dated 31 August 1999. [105908]

  Mr. Spellar
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 22 January.

  Punishment Warrants
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of summary trials resulting in punishment warrants in the Royal Navy in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998 and (e) 1999. [107869]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  284

  1996

  220

  1997

  218

  1998

  196

  1999

  1128

  1Reported to date

  Land Mine Clearance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research his Department has 244W
  (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effectiveness of methods currently in use for anti-personnel land mines clearance. [108633]

  Dr. Moonie
  My Department has not conducted any recent research specifically on the effectiveness of methods currently in use for anti-personnel land mine clearance. However, we have carried out limited trials on commercially produced hand held metal detectors.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning the Dervish anti-personnel land mines clearance project. [108632]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1997, my Department has received a number of representations concerning the Dervish anti-personnel land mines clearance project and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) has been in correspondence with the head of the project team. The Dervish device is intended for area clearance of anti-personnel mines and while it may have a role in humanitarian mine clearance, the system does not currently meet the requirements of the Armed Services.

  Project Horizon
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the UK's decision to pull out of Project Horizon on the future integration of European defence (a) policies and (b) industries. [109036]

  Dr. Moonie
  In April 1999, the participating nations—UK, France and Italy—decided not to proceed with the tri-national Horizon programme upon completion of its Project Definition phase in October 1999. We are, however, continuing to develop collaboratively the Principal Anti-Air Missile System.

  The continuing commitment of European nations to strengthen their military capabilities, and to develop the means for undertaking crisis management, was demonstrated in the conclusions of both the European Council and North Atlantic Council meetings of Defence and Foreign Ministers in December 1999.

  The Government remain committed to facilitating European defence industrial restructuring. We have negotiated a Framework Agreement with European partner nations designed to remove unnecessary obstacles to defence restructuring and hope to sign this Agreement shortly.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  European Charter on Human Rights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council if, pursuant to her answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 532W, concerning the proposed European Charter of Human Rights, she will list the meetings which the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and the Baroness Howells have (a) attended or (b) plan to attend; and if a Minister will report to the House on progress in the work of the drafting body prior to its submission to the European Council. [108754]
  245W
  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been two meetings of the Charter of Rights Convention: on 17 December 1999 and 1-2 February 2000. The two parliamentary delegates were present at both. The next Convention session is an informal meeting on 24–25 February. The individual delegates and alternates are best placed to say which future meetings they plan to attend.

  The House will have several opportunities to discuss the Charter, for example in the six-monthly debate before the June 2000 European Council.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ukraine
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the approximate expenditure to date of the European Union in respect of the Partnership Agreement with the Ukraine; how much is budgeted for 2000; what(a) proposals and (b) reports concerning such expenditure have been compiled; and whether each of these has been made public. [105083]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is a wide range of Community and bilateral programmes which support the EU/Ukraine Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. The main Community programme is TACIS, from which over 600 million euro was committed between 1991–98. The TACIS 2000 budget for Ukraine has not yet been decided. Since 1991, Ukraine has also benefited from EU grants towards the closure of Chernobyl (210 million euro), EU macro-financial loans (565 million euro) and humanitarian aid (12 million euro). In addition EU member states have provided bilaterally some 2.5 billion euro in loans and grants between 1991 and 1997. The European Commission's proposals for TACIS spending appear in its Country Strategy Papers, which are not made public. Reports of TACIS expenditure are, however, published annually. An independent evaluation of TACIS in Ukraine was published in 1998.

  Middle East
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the middle east peace process. [109053]

  Mr. Hain
  We are greatly concerned by the recent escalation of violence in Lebanon and the suspension of Permanent Status Talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

  We urge all parties in Lebanon to exercise restraint and to respect the April 1996 Understandings. These incidents confirm the pressing need for renewed efforts to achieve a comprehensive negotiated peace in the region, including implementation of UNSCR 425.

  We have high-level contact with all the parties to the peace process and offer what help we can in the search for agreement.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affarirs what plans he has to attend the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [109175]

  Mr. Hain
  I represent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at the NPT Review Conference and deliver the UK address to the plenary session. I would welcome any thoughts my hon. Friend might have on the matter.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy in relation to the sectarian conflict in Maluku; what discussions he has had with the Indonesian President on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [109109]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I discussed the sectarian conflict in Maluku with President Wahid and his Foreign Minister when they were in London on 1 February. We expressed our concerns to President Wahid about the violence and loss of life. President Wahid reaffirmed his commitment to secure lasting peace between the two communities. We shall support him vigorously in his efforts and stand ready to help him in any way possible.

  NATO
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the Wilton Park Conference report on NATO's role in maintaining European security.
  [109051]

  Mr. Vaz
  This report has now been placed in the Libraries of the House. All reports of Wilton Park Conferences are publicly available, including on the Wilton Park website (www.wiltonpark.org.uk.).

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for the financial year 1998–99(a) the number and (b) the total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisers that (i) were put out to competitive tender, (ii) were not put out to competitive tender and (iii) were let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109263]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. FCO procurement policy requires goods and services to be acquired by competitive tender unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary or they are below £500 in value. Sole source and single source procurement is subject to special safeguards.
  247W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number and value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109449]

  Mr. Hain
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the next report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. [109973]

  Mr. Battle
  The sixth report in this series, covering the period July-December 1999, was published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report includes a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements will be made in the interval between the departure of the Governor of Gibraltar and his successor taking up his appointment; and if he will make a statement. [109505]

  Mr. Vaz
  During the interval between the departure of the present Governor of Gibraltar and the arrival of his successor, the Deputy Governor will be Acting Governor.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason there has been a delay in announcing the appointment of the new Governor of Gibraltar; and when he expects the announcement to be made. [109506]

  Mr. Vaz
  There has been no delay. The announcement of the appointment of the next Governor of Gibraltar will be made in the near future.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the background of the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. [107913]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS Inspectorate was established in 1997 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS. The Glidewell report recommended that the Inspectorate should be retained and that its role should be expanded. There were also recommendations for introducing a more substantial lay element. These recommendations have been accepted, but the Government have gone further and wishes to place the Inspectorate on an independent statutory basis. This House will shortly be asked to consider the CPS Inspectorate Bill.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proportion of the files referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the Police do not lead to prosecution in(a) England and Wales and (b) West Yorkshire. [109054]
  248W
  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service records case outcomes in terms of the number of defendants whose case was handled by the Service, rather than in terms of the number of files dealt with. During the year ending December 1999, a prosecution did not proceed in respect of 250,738 defendants in England and Wales, representing 18.4 per cent. of completed cases. In CPS West Yorkshire, a prosecution did not proceed in respect of 15,635 defendants, representing 18.5 per cent. of completed cases.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the Crown Prosecution Service's performance in Merseyside on speeding up the process towards the trial of young offenders. [107915]

  The Solicitor-General
  When I visited CPS Merseyside in September last year, I observed at first hand the efforts made by the CPS and other local agencies to reduce the time it took to prosecute persistent young offenders. The Area, in conjunction with other criminal justice agencies in Merseyside, is implementing practices that should make further significant reductions for all young offenders.

  Financial Crime
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what recent discussions he has had with the Financial Services Authority about tackling serious financial crime. [107912]

  The Solicitor-General
  As my hon. Friend is aware, the Law Officers do not have statutory Ministerial responsibility for the Financial Services Authority. I have visited the Financial Services Authority, although not in the recent past, and was given a general introduction to their work, including enforcement work. The Financial Services Authority share responsibility for tackling serious financial crime with the police, Department of Trade and Industry, Serious Fraud Office, DPP in Northern Ireland and the Crown Office in Scotland. Officials are developing guidelines on the co-ordination of the work of these bodies in relation to suspected financial crime. It is proposed to publish these guidelines when they have been agreed.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the potential conflict of interest in the practice of further education colleges(a) employing and (b) receiving on secondment, staff from companies engaged as the college's auditors; and if he will discuss this matter with the Further Education Funding Council prior to issuing guidance on practice. [107972]
  249W
  Mr. Wicks
  It is for individual colleges to determine whether to use auditors for other services. Audit arrangements in FE have been strengthened by the requirement that auditors cannot be responsible both for internal and external audits. The Further Education Funding Council for England require all colleges to disclose in their accounts remuneration to auditors for their services.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education colleges have employed external consultants to advise on unit farming; and if he will make a statement. [107973]

  Mr. Wicks
  This information is not held centrally. But in designing the new funding systems that will be employed by the Learning and Skills Council, subject to the passage of legislation, we intend that arrangements should be simpler to understand, administer and audit than current arrangements.

  New Deal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the total expenditure on each of the new deal schemes. [109279]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The allocation of the Windfall Tax receipts between the New Deal programmes, as currently estimated, is set out in Table 4.1 of the 1999 Pre Budget Report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms have been misappropriated over the last five years from(a) the police, (b) the Ministry of Defence police, (c) the Atomic Energy Authority police and (d) the armed forces. [108825]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the misappropriation of firearms from the police service is not collected centrally, but inquiries of 41 police forces in

  Table 1: Total asylum applications received by European Union countries from 1990 to 1999

  Countries

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Grand total

  Germany2,3

  193,100

  256,100

  438,200

  322,600

  127,200

  127,900

  116,400

  104,400

  98,600

  95,300

  1,879,800

  United Kingdom3

  26,200

  44,800

  24,600

  22,400

  32,800

  44,000

  29,600

  32,500

  46,000

  71,200

  374,100

  Netherlands

  21,200

  21,600

  20,400

  35,400

  52,600

  29,300

  22,200

  34,400

  45,200

  39,300

  321,600

  France3

  54,800

  47,400

  28,900

  27,600

  26,000

  20,200

  17,400

  21,400

  22,400

  30,100

  296,200

  Sweden

  29,400

  27,400

  84,000

  37,600

  18,600

  9,100

  5,800

  9,700

  12,800

  11,200

  245,600

  Belgium3

  13,000

  15,200

  17,700

  26,900

  14,400

  11,400

  12,400

  11,800

  22,000

  35,800

  180,600

  Austria

  22,800

  27,300

  16,200

  4,800

  5,100

  5,900

  7,000

  6,700

  13,800

  20,100

  129,700

  Spain

  8,700

  8,100

  11,700

  12,600

  12,000

  5,700

  4,700

  5,000

  6,700

  7,100

  82,300

  Denmark

  5,300

  4,600

  13,900

  14,400

  6,700

  5,100

  5,900

  5,100

  5,700

  6,500

  73,200

  Italy

  4,800

  26,500

  6,000

  1,700

  1,800

  1,700

  700

  1,900

  7,100

  n/a

  52,200

  Greece

  6,200

  2,700

  1,900

  800

  1,300

  1,300

  1,600

  4,400

  3,000

  n/a

  23,200

  Ireland

  4—

  4—

  4—

  100

  400

  400

  1,200

  3,900

  4,600

  7,700

  18,300

  Finland1

  2,700

  2,100

  3,600

  2,000

  800

  900

  700

  1,000

  1,300

  2,800

  17,900

  Luxembourg

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  400

  300

  400

  1,700

  2,900

  5,700

  Portugal

  100

  300

  700

  2,100

  800

  500

  300

  300

  300

  n/a

  5,400

  250W
  England, Wales and Scotland indicate that firearms have been misappropriated from the police in only one incident over the past five years.

  On 24 January 1997, an MP5 carbine was misappropriated when the police vehicle in which it was carried was hi-jacked by armed criminals. The vehicle and the weapon were recovered two days later.

  No firearms are recorded as having been misappropriated from the Ministry of Defence police or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary during the period concerned.

  Dangerous Weapons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further restrictions he will place on the sale and possession of swords and bayonets. [108755]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 for any person to have with them an offensive weapon in a public place, including private premises to which the public have access. In addition the Criminal Justice Act 1988 banned the manufacture, sale and importation of 14 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons in addition to flick knives and gravity knives, the sale of which was already banned under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

  We are currently considering the appropriateness and feasibility of amending this legislation.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of asylum seekers registering in each EU country(a) in the last 10 years, (b) in each of those years and (c) in total for each country ranked by number of asylum seekers per 1,000 of population. [109182]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on asylum applications received by each European Union country is collated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The annual figures for 1990 to 1999 for each European Union country are given in table 1.

  Table 2 shows the number of asylum applications per 1,000 of population within each European Union country.
  251W

  Table 2: The number of asylum applications within European Union countries compared to their respective population sizes

  Countries

  Asylum applications in 1999

  Estimated population in 1998

  Asylum seekers per 1,000 of population

  Luxembourg

  2,900

  430,000

  6.79

  Belgium3

  35,800

  10,141,000

  3.53

  Netherlands

  39,300

  15,678,000

  2.51

  Austria

  20,100

  8,140,000

  2.47

  Ireland

  7,700

  3,681,000

  2.10

  Sweden

  11,200

  8,875,000

  1.27

  Denmark

  6,500

  5,270,000

  1.23

  UK3

  71,200

  58,649,000

  1.21

  Germany2,3

  95,300

  82,133,000

  1.16

  Finland1

  2,800

  5,154,000

  0.55

  France3

  30,100

  58,683,000

  0.51

  Italy

  13,900

  57,369,000

  0.24

  Spain

  7,100

  39,628,000

  0.24

  1 Includes a government estimate for December 1999.

  2 "New" applications only, that is, excluding applications which are "re-opened".

  3 Applications exclude some or all dependants.

  4 Indicates that value is zero, rounded to zero, or not applicable. Data refer to the number of persons unless otherwise stated.

  Notes:

  1. Applications rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Estimated population in 1998 rounded to the nearest 1,000, 1999 population not yet available.

  3. n/a indicates not available.

  4. The figures for Greece, Italy and Portugal are unavailable.

  Source:

  UNHCR and The Home Office.

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has taken to ensure that current overstayers will not lose the right to a suspensive appeal against a decision to remove them taken after 1 October. [109670]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend, to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 167W.

  Sexual Offences
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Sex Offences review will report; when the consultation period will commence; and when consequent legislation will be introduced. [109091]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Sex Offences Review hopes to report to Ministers in the spring. Its proposals will be published for consultation in the summer. The timing of any subsequent legislation has yet to be decided.

  Racial Harassment
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were reported to the police alleging racial harassment in(a) Cleveland, (b) Northern Region and (c) the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and how many in each category resulted in a conviction. [109459]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of alleged racial harassment cases reported to the police is not available. The number of offences of racially aggravated harassment recorded by the police in the six months ending September 1999 is given in the table. This offence has been recorded separately by the police since 1 April 1999.
  252W

  Number

  Cleveland

  5

  North East Government Region

  110

  England and Wales

  5,385

  No details of the convictions for this offence are currently available for this time period.

  Child Abuse
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were reported to the police alleging child abuse in (a) Cleveland, (b) Northern Region and (c) the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and how many in each category resulted in a conviction. [109460]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of alleged child abuse cases reported to the police is not available. Recorded crime data do not give information about victims unless this is implicit in the description of the offence. The offences of gross indecency with a child, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 are the only sexual offences recorded which explicitly involve children as victims. Offences of violence against the person which explicitly involve children as victims include cruelty to and neglect of children, abandoning a child under two years, and child abduction. There are many other violent and sexual offences which could involve children as victims. Cruelty to and neglect of children has been a recorded crime since 1 April 1998. The recorded crime figures for the other five offences given, and cruelty to and neglect of children, are as follows:

  Year ending

  Cleveland

  North East Government Region

  England and Wales

  March 1997

  19

  119

  3,080

  March 1998

  23

  106

  2,999

  March 19991

  12

  129

  3,125

  Cruelty to and neglect of children

  March 19991

  8

  89

  2,300

  1Compiled under the revised counting rules in force from 1 April 1998.

  Conviction data, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, are not directly comparable with recorded crime figures, as they relate to individuals found guilty rather than offences. The number of persons convicted for the five offences given above from 1996 to 1998 (calendar years) are as follows:

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Cleveland

  5

  3

  7

  North East Government Region

  25

  28

  46

  England and Wales

  475

  451

  546

  The number of persons convicted for cruelty to or neglect of children from 1996 to 1998 (calendar years) are as follows:

  253W

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Cleveland

  3

  1

  4

  North East Government Region

  19

  21

  14

  England and Wales

  293

  390

  390

  Domestic Violence
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were reported to the police alleging domestic violence in (a) Cleveland, (b) Northern Region and (c) the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and how many in each category resulted in a conviction. [109461]

  Mr. Boateng
  "Domestic violence" is not a specific offence, but a means of describing a number of offences when committed in particular circumstances. This means that the available information is derived not from the usual recorded crime statistics but from specific returns

  Domestic Violence—Incidents

  Domestic Violence—Persons Arrested

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Avon and Somerset

  2,058

  2,483

  4,791

  741

  873

  1995

  Bedfordshire

  4,470

  n/a

  4,923

  210

  n/a

  269

  Cambridgeshire

  700

  995

  1,113

  213

  834

  929

  Cheshire

  7,516

  8,997

  9,503

  1,609

  1,593

  1,481

  City of London

  12

  33

  83

  1

  n/a

  2

  Cleveland

  4,566

  4,580

  4,818

  1,028

  870

  843

  Cumbria

  2,845

  2,875

  3,268

  634

  885

  921

  Derbyshire

  10,672

  11,574

  12,585

  1,433

  1,751

  1,666

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,796

  3,278

  3,453

  1,143

  1,405

  1,423

  Dorset

  1,637

  1,716

  2,116

  319

  286

  362

  Durham

  2,190

  2,174

  1,930

  676

  687

  587

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,507

  1,524

  2,106

  431

  515

  662

  Essex

  7,635

  8,780

  10,850

  1,817

  1,957

  2,262

  Gloucestershire

  6,278

  1,309

  1,421

  726

  685

  990

  Greater Manchester

  50,792

  56,762

  56,203

  5,830

  6,577

  6,752

  Gwent

  7,000

  4,458

  4,250

  514

  901

  889

  Hampshire

  5,791

  7,424

  3,128

  690

  1,162

  1,765

  Hertfordshire

  4,676

  4,258

  6,363

  604

  418

  809

  Humberside

  1,111

  1,187

  1,148

  982

  1054

  1,009

  Kent

  7,155

  7,966

  9,605

  1,995

  2,762

  2,902

  Lancashire

  6,216

  5,760

  6,778

  1,847

  1,615

  1,922

  Leicestershire

  6,015

  2,632

  7,246

  1,027

  573

  1,591

  Lincolnshire

  n/a

  n/a

  1,519

  n/a

  n/a

  331

  Merseyside

  18,112

  16,864

  20,612

  2,297

  2,315

  2,497

  Metropolitan police

  15,650

  14,403

  41,531

  1,743

  0

  5,310

  Norfolk

  n/a

  4,517

  4,973

  n/a

  n/a

  1,041

  North Wales

  5,802

  5,387

  4,305

  864

  996

  3,916

  North Yorkshire

  n/a

  399

  4,024

  n/a

  243

  551

  Northamptonshire

  2,638

  2,401

  2,620

  623

  582

  611

  Northumbria

  12,749

  13,154

  14,442

  2,361

  2,253

  2,082

  Nottinghamshire

  3,248

  3,397

  3,803

  1,471

  1,432

  1,473

  South Wales

  6,759

  9,791

  7,252

  1,412

  1,989

  1,963

  South Yorkshire

  950

  168

  12,209

  108

  154

  999

  Staffordshire

  1,744

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Suffolk

  1,225

  1,683

  1,962

  517

  608

  640

  Surrey

  1,217

  1,308

  1,653

  460

  400

  463

  Sussex

  5,795

  6,910

  8,174

  1,480

  1,491

  1,749

  Thames Valley

  n/a

  9,904

  10,885

  n/a

  2,082

  2,340

  Warwickshire

  493

  485

  2,500

  389

  388

  500

  West Mercia

  1,867

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands

  14,011

  16,538

  20,217

  2,280

  3,615

  5,409

  West Yorkshire

  18,304

  22,191

  23,658

  4,567

  5,986

  6,469

  Wiltshire

  423

  5,952

  7,563

  366

  1,244

  1,307

  Provincial Total

  238,975

  263,514

  310,052

  43,665

  53,181

  66,372

  England and Wales Total

  254,625

  277,917

  351,583

  45,408

  53,181

  71,682

  NE Region

  19,505

  19,908

  21,290

  4,065

  3810

  3,512

  254W
  submitted by police forces in England and Wales to Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. The figures are set out in the table.

  The definition of domestic violence used for these returns was:
  "Any form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse which takes place within the context of a close relationship. In most cases, the relationship will be between partners, married, co-habiting or otherwise; or ex-partners".
  Unfortunately, this definition was interpreted in differing ways by different police forces, for instance because some forces included child abuse. This prevented proper statistical comparisons or a clear understanding of what the returns indicated. From 1 April 1999, the definition of domestic violence for the purpose of statistical returns to Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary has been:
  "The term 'domestic violence' shall be understood to mean any violence between current or former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional or financial abuse".

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 596W, how many curfewees charged with an offence while on home detention curfew were charged with an offence similar in character to that for which they were serving a sentence of imprisonment prior to being released on the curfew. [109509]

  Mr. Boateng
  According to Prison Service records, of the 174 curfewees referred to in the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 February, who have been charged with a further offence while subject to Home Detention Curfew, 69 have been charged with an offence similar to that for which they were serving a sentence of imprisonment prior to being released on curfew. In one case it has not been possible, in the time available, to confirm whether the further offence is similar in nature to the original offence. I will write to the hon. Member when this information is available.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of extending the requirement for a certificate of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 to private legislation. [107914]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Human Rights Act 1998 applies equally to Public and Private Bills, once they are enacted. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, Acts of Parliament will have to be interpreted compatibly with the Convention rights if possible. Where this is not possible, a higher court will be able to issue a declaration of incompatibility. This applies to all primary legislation as defined by the Human Rights Act, which includes private Acts, 1998.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 December 1999, Official Report, column 493W, when the hon. Member for Torbay will receive a reply. [109448]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 9 February. I am sorry for the delay.

  Drugs
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend his policy on (a) cannabis and (b) class B controlled drugs; and if he will make a statement. [109507]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have no plans to amend their existing policy in relation to cannabis and other Class B controlled drugs.

  Racially Aggravated Offences
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish figures for race hate crimes committed in each year between 1990 and 1999 as a proportion of all reported crime; [109464]
  256W
  (2) if he will publish figures for successful prosecutions of race hate crimes committed in (a) the Thames Valley police area, (b) the Metropolitan police force area and (c) England in each year between 1990 and 1999; [109463]

  (3) what were the annual police figures for reported race hate crimes in (a) England, (b) the Thames Valley police area and (c) the Metropolitan police area in each year between 1990 and 1999. [109462]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is available on the new racially aggravated offences which were introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act in October 1998. The latest information indicates that 10,982 offences were recorded by all police forces in England and Wales for the period 1 April 1999–30 September 1999, 218 in Thames Valley and 7,473 in the Metropolitan police.

  Additional information is also available on the number of racist incidents that were recorded by the police which is wider in definition than crimes. Information covering 1993–94 to 1998–99 was published in December 1999 in Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, a copy of which is in the Library. Owing to the broader definition of such offences than those covered by the recorded crime statistics it would be misleading to compare the two figures. It is currently not possible to say what proportion of such offences resulted in successful prosecutions.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many licence applications involving the administration of tobacco smoke to conscious animals were granted in (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998; how many animals, broken down by species, were involved in the research in each year; into which severity banding the research fell; and how many animals died as a result of the research in each year; [109078]

  (2) what account he took of section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 before deciding to grant project licence applications PPL/70 04972 and PPL/70 04956; and if he will make a statement; [109079]

  (3) how many animals broken down by species were involved in PPL 170 04972 and PPL170 04956; how the tobacco smoke is administered to the animals; how many convulsive spasms each animal is expected to suffer; into which severity banding his research falls; how many animals have died to date as a result of the research; and if he will make a statement. [109077]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to ban live testing for the effects of tobacco smoke; and if he will make a statement; [109080]

  (5) if he will withdraw licences authorising companies to conduct live animal testing into the effects of tobacco smoke; and if he will make a statement. [109076]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government stand firmly by their ban on the testing of tobacco products which was announced in November 1997. There will be no approval for any such tests. Two recently approved applications are for programmes that do not test the effects of tobacco smoke, but enable the development of treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema, which seriously debilitate many people. These health problems derive mainly from smoking,
  257W
  including passive smoking, as well as occupationally related lung diseases, such as those caused by the inhalation of coal dust. Tobacco smoke is the only test material to model reliably the effects that will enable a better understanding of the disease processes and improved medical treatments. The licensed research programmes are to investigate medical treatments, not the safety approval of tobacco products.

  The Inspectorate and the Animal Procedures Committee have advised that the licences are justifiable and that the benefits to man and animals would outweigh the costs to the animals involved. As with all project licence applications, these two licences were issued only after a full and careful assessment, including whether there were alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the experimental design to minimise suffering.

  Strict conditions were made in authorising these two programmes of research. The maximum number and species of animal that may be used per year are 1,100 mice and 1,100 guinea-pigs in one; and 2,000 mice, 1,000 rats and 1,000 guinea-pigs, in the other. Tobacco smoke is to be administered by placing the animals in inhalation chambers for set periods. They are not expected to suffer convulsive spasms. the severity bands for both project licenses are classed as moderate. To date, no animals have died as a result of the research.

  Table 5a of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals shows the number of animals used in non-toxicology procedures each year. Figures for the use of tobacco as a pharmacological tool or standard are not separated out, but there were no instances where tobacco smoke was administered to conscious animals in 1996, 1997 and 1998. No licenses were issued for the administration of tobacco smoke to conscious animals and no animals were used for tobacco research in any of these three years.

  Table 10a of the annual statistics gives details of the number of animals used in toxicology (safety) testing. In submitting the data for this table, licensees are instructed to include tests on tobacco alternatives with data for protocols that have used tobacco in any form. Again, the tables show that no animals were used for the safety testing of tobacco of tobacco substitutes during 1996, 1997 and 1998.

  Evaluating research proposals involving the use of animals is difficult and requires a delicate moral balance to be struck. Scientific developments have saved many human lives and cured many illnesses and have contributed to the health of animals and the protection of the environment. Much knowledge has come from experiments on animals. To have failed to allow that work may have resulted in many humans dying and suffering where instead they have been cured or helped. The Government want to prevent unnecessary experiments involving animals but it would be immoral, in our view, to deny victims of diseases like bronchitis and emphysema the assistance that new scientific knowledge could bring from work such as projects PPL 70/04972 and PPL 70/04956.

  Hillsborough Inquiry
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when copies of the information which formed 258W
  the background to the Hillsborough inquiry will be moved to Liverpool; and where in the city they will be made available for public access. [109342]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Copies of the evidence considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith were placed in the Library following the scrutiny of the Hillsborough disaster. In response to earlier representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), it was confirmed the House is willing to loan the material to a nominated library in Liverpool.

HEALTH

  Quality Protects Initiative
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the time currently taken by each police force to make police checks under the Quality Protects Initiative. [108214]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply. Separate information in the form requested is not available centrally.

  Geriatric Care
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the weekly cost of keeping an elderly person(a) in an NHS ward and (b) in a residential home; and if he will make a statement. [109477]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost per week of patients using a bed for the medical speciality of geriatrics was estimated to be £903 in 1998–99.

  The weekly cost of keeping an elderly person in a residential home during 1997–98 is estimated to have been £252. Figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are not available.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prostate cancer operations there were in each health authority in each of the past 10 years. [102592]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Influenza
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(a) how many cases of influenza per 100,000 there have to be for an influenza outbreak to be defined as an epidemic and (b) how many cases of influenza per 100,000 there were on 11 January. [105677]

  Yvette Cooper
  The epidemiologists' definition of an epidemic is an increase in the frequency of occurrence of a disease in a population above its baseline level for a specified period of time. The term epidemic can be used when describing the pattern of either infectious or chronic diseases in the population.

  Administrative definitions can be set for diseases in which an arbitrary threshold is selected above which the term "epidemic" is applied. In the case of influenza, the Department introduced in 1996 an administrative

  259W
  definition of an "epidemic" for a rate of consultation (with a sample of general practices) of 400 per 100,000 population in a week.

  Such influenza activity in England is thus monitored through the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) sentinel surveillance scheme. This records the number of first visits to a general practitioner with influenza-illness. Other respiratory illnesses prevalent at this time of year are recorded separately.

  This system does not and cannot measure the real incidence of influenza since it is restricted to those people who visit their general practitioner. This year a major campaign was run to encourage people to choose their own remedy, to consult a pharmacist and to use NHS Direct, as alternative sources of advice.

  The severity of the disease itself can also vary from year to year. This year the elderly have been particularly affected by the complications of influenza. The level of cases of acute bronchitis, a serious complication of influenza, is the highest the RCGP surveillance system has seen for 15 years. In describing epidemics some other countries formally include measures of severity in the definition of an epidemic. For example, the United States declares an epidemic when the proportion of deaths due to pneumonia and influenza passes a certain threshold.

  The latest confirmed figures from the RCGP show an overall rate of consultation of 236 per 100,000 for England for the week ending 16 January 2000.

  Priority Health Targets (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made by Shropshire Health Authority on the Government's priority health targets of cancer, coronary heart disease, mental health and accidents. [105529]

  Yvette Cooper
  Shropshire Health Authority is making good progress in relation to these four priority areas. The local trend in premature mortality from all cancers has been declining over the past decade. Data for September 19991 show that all referrals for breast cancer are being seen within the standard two weeks at both the Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals National Health Service Trust and the Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust.

  The health authority is well on course to meet its target to reduce the death rate from coronary heart disease and stroke in people under 75 by at least 40 per cent. by 2010. The health authority is hopeful that it will meet the target in 2006.

  The mental health target is to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least 20 per cent. by 2010. Shropshire has one of the lowest rates of suicide in the West Midlands and there is a downward trend in the figures.

  Shropshire has identified a need to focus on preventing serious and fatal casualties from road traffic accidents. Particular attention is being placed on the 15–24 years age group and the health authority is planning several actions to take this forward.

  Source:

  1 Quarterly Monitoring Cancer Waiting (QMCW) 1999–2000 Q2

  BCG Vaccinations
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how stocks of BCG vaccine are allocated on the basis of clinical need; who makes the applications; and who determines the allocation. [105193]

  Yvette Cooper
  BCG vaccine is currently being made available at the request of clinicians who have determined, on the basis of clinical need and in accordance with existing recommendations, that an individual is at higher risk from tuberculosis and that immunisation with BCG vaccine is necessary. The Department is advised on BCG vaccination policy by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The recommendations are contained in the Health Departments' handbook, "Immunisation against Infectious Disease". Those at higher risk of tuberculosis include health service staff who may have contact with infectious patients or their specimens; veterinary and other staff who handle animal species known to be susceptible to tuberculosis; staff of prisons, old people's homes, refugee hostels and hostels for the homeless; contacts of cases known to be suffering from active pulmonary tuberculosis; and, immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis and their children and infants wherever born.

  Vaccine is distributed through Farillon who are the national distribution agent of all vaccines supplied as a part of the routine childhood immunisation programme. While supplies are limited, orders are accepted only for those at high risk; ultimately, the distributor has to trust the integrity of those placing orders.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the routine BCG vaccination programme for school children in the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar will recommence. [105194]

  Yvette Cooper
  The schools BCG vaccination programme will recommence in England once we have assurance that uninterrupted vaccine supply can be guaranteed. The problem with the supply of BCG has been due to manufacturing problems with Medeva Pharma who provide the only licensed source of BCG vaccine. The assurances we have received so far do not allow us to give a date for restarting the programme.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school children in the Brentwood and Ongar constituency are waiting to receive BCG vaccination. [105191]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the categories of children at greatest clinical risk from tuberculosis ranked in order of risk. [105176]

  Yvette Cooper
  The categories of children at greatest risk from tuberculosis are as listed in Chapter 32 of the 1996 edition of the health departments handbook "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Vaccines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of vaccines to GP surgeries and community health clinics, with particular reference to triple vaccines and TB vaccines. [105519]

  Yvette Cooper
  The only childhood vaccine that is currently in short supply to general practitioner surgeries is the pre-school Diphtheria/Tetanus (DT) booster vaccine. A new manufacturer has recently had its DT vaccine licensed for use in the United Kingdom and the first batches are likely to be released and available at the end of February 2000. This should resolve the recent shortages of this vaccine.

  TB vaccines are normally used in hospitals, chest clinics and at schools sessions, and are not usually ordered by GPs. Both BCG and Tuberculin PPD vaccines have been in short supply over recent months, but continue to be available for high-risk patients.

  Clinical Staff (Temporary Contracts)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to offer temporary contracts in the United Kingdom to Canadian consultants, doctors and other clinical staff. [109114]

  Ms Stuart
  None. Current arrangements give health authorities and National Health Service trusts flexibility to offer contracts without term (i.e. permanent), fixed term contracts (i.e. short fixed term) and fixed term rolling contracts as appropriate to the circumstances of a particular appointment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mrs. J. Duffy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will pay compensation to Mrs. J. Duffy of Kingsbridge, following the outcome of her appeal against the Benefits Agency on 6 October 1999 and the reinstatement of her benefit. [108995]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 9 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question if he will pay compensation to Mrs. J. Duffy of Kingsbridge, following the outcome of her appeal against the Benefits Agency on 6 October, 1999 and the reinstatement of her benefit.
  Mrs. Duffy's case has been carefully considered and an award of £50.00 consolatory special payment has been made for gross inconvenience. Mrs. Duffy has been invited to submit evidence to allow consideration of further ex-gratia payments for her out of pocket expenses.
  Compensation by way of interest on delayed arrears of Disability Living Allowance is not payable in Mrs. Duffy's case as she has not been deprived of benefit as a result of clear and unambiguous official error or exceptional delay. Guidelines for which are laid down in the Department's "Financial Redress for Maladministration" manual.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number and value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109454]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have been no contracts let by the Department to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes during the period May 1997 to date.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the reason for the numbers of ethnic minority interviewees on the New deal for lone parents who are subsequently found to be ineligible for the caseload. [109508]

  Angela Eagle
  All lone parents on income support are eligible to join the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP). The rate at which lone parents from ethnic minorities agree to participate in NDLP following an initial interview is in line with the equivalent figure for all lone parents (currently 90 per cent. and 89 per cent. respectively).

  The latest results show that 6.7 per cent. of all leavers from the NDLP caseload left because they became ineligible for the programme. The equivalent figure for ethnic minority lone parents is 5.1 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Ethnic group is recorded for only 62 per cent. of clients at present.

  2. Lone parents on the NDLP caseload may become ineligible owing to a change in circumstance, for example lone parents who re-partner.

  Incomes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people of working age lived in(a) households with incomes below (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 60 per cent. and (iii) 70 per cent. of median household income, and (b) households with incomes below (x) 40 per cent., (y) 50 per cent. and (z) 60 per cent. of average household income, (1) before and (2) after housing costs in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1998–99, with median and mean household incomes fixed at their 1996–97 value in real terms. [109346]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of working age people, in 1997–98, living in households below various income thresholds defined as percentages of 1996–97 averages in real terms

  Percentage of 1996–97 Median1

  Percentage of 1996–97 Mean1

  50

  60

  70

  40

  50

  60

  BHC

  8

  14

  21

  7

  14

  22

  AHC

  14

  19

  24

  13

  19

  25

  1 Thresholds are calculated as percentages of 1996–97 averages in real terms

  Notes:

  1. The information comes from the 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) series. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) in line with HBAI conventions. All the estimates in the table relate to adults in families where the adult male is of working age, or the adult single female is of working age.
  263W
  2. Estimates are derived from the Family Resources Survey for 1997–98, and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  3. Information for 1997–98 is the latest year available.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children lived in(a) households with incomes below (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 60 per cent. and (iii) 70 per cent. of median household income and (b) in households with incomes below (x) 40 per cent., (y) 50 per cent. and (z) 60 per cent. of mean household income, (1) before and (2) after housing costs in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1998–99, with median and mean household income fixed at their 1996–97 value in real terms. [109347]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of children, in 1997–98, living in households below various income thresholds defined as percentages of the 1996–97 averages in real terms

  Percentage of 1996–97 Median1

  Percentage of 1996–97 Mean1

  50

  60

  70

  40

  50

  60

  BHC

  12

  24

  35

  10

  25

  37

  AHC

  22

  32

  40

  20

  33

  42

  1 Thresholds are calculated as percentages of 1996–97 averages in real terms.

  Notes:

  1. The information comes from the 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) series. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs in line with HBAI conventions.

  2. Children are defined as an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18-year-old on a course up to and including 'A' level standard or 'Highers' in Scotland.

  3. Estimates are derived from the Family Resources Survey for 1997–98, and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  4. Information for 1997–98 is the latest year available.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many adults aged under 60 years were in families in which they or their partner had been in receipt of(a) income support and (b) income based jobseeker's allowance for two years or more in (i) May 1998 and (ii) May 1999. [109348]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table:

  Caseloads of claimants and partners who are aged under 60 and have been in receipt of IS/JSA(IB) for two years or more in May 1998 and May 1999

  Thousand

  Date

  Benefit

  Number of claimants

  Number of partners

  May 1998

  Income Support

  1,364

  210

  May 1999

  Income Support

  1,330

  210

  May 1998

  Income Based JSA

  213

  50

  May 1999

  Income Based JSA

  181

  41

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures are based on cases where either the claimant or their partner or both are aged less than 60 years.

  3. Income based JSA figures may include cases which have entitlement to benefit via the contributory route.

  4. Based on a 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling error.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistical Enquiries, May 1998 and May 1999.

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries 1999.
  264W
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the median income for the bottom quintile of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples (i) before housing costs and (ii) after housing costs in (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99, with median household income fixed at the July 1996 value in real terms. [109343]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Median net income of the bottom quintile of the net income distribution—1997–98

  £ per week1

  Income distribution

  Median income of the bottom quintile

  Net income before housing costs

  Pensioner couples

  122

  Single pensioners

  66

  Net income after housing costs

  Pensioner couples

  102

  Single pensioners

  52

  1 July 1996 prices

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are derived from the Family Resources Survey for 1997–98, and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  2. Single pensioners are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over State pension age (65 for men, 60 for women); pensioner couples are defined as couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State pension age.

  3. All estimates are expressed in July 1996 prices and are rounded to the nearest £ per week, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  4. The distribution of income has been calculated separately under the before housing costs and after housing costs measures of income. The distribution of income is also calculated separately for each group, i.e. estimates for pensioner couples show the median income for the bottom quintile of the pensioner couples' income distribution.

  5. Information for 1997–98 is the latest year available.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in(a) households with incomes below (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 60 per cent. and (iii) 70 per cent. of median household income, and (b) households with incomes below (x) 40 per cent. of average household income, (y) 50 per cent. of average household income and (z) 60 per cent. of average household income, (1) before and (2) after housing costs in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1998–99. [109344]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of pensioners living in households below various income thresholds

  BHC

  AHC

  Percentage of Median

  50

  11

  12

  60

  22

  27

  70

  36

  38

  Percentage of Mean

  40

  10

  11

  50

  23

  29

  60

  40

  42

  Notes:

  1. The information comes from the 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) series. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) in line with HBAI conventions.
  265W
  2. Pensioners are defined as adults in couples where the male is of state pension age or over, or single adults of state pension age or over.

  3. Estimates are derived from the Family Resources Survey for 1997–98, and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  4. Information for 1997–98 is the latest year available.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people of working age lived in(a) households with incomes below (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 60 per cent. and (iii) 70 per cent. of median household income and (b) households with incomes below (x) 40 per cent., (y) 50 per cent. and (z) 60 per cent. of average household income, (1) before and (2) after housing costs in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1998–99. [109345]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of working age people living in households below various income thresholds

  BHC

  AHC

  Percentage of median

  50

  8

  14

  60

  15

  20

  70

  21

  25

  Percentage of Mean

  40

  8

  14

  50

  15

  20

  60

  23

  26

  Notes:

  1. The information comes from the 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) series. The estimates are presented on household income both Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) in line with HBAI conventions. All the estimates in the table relate to adults in families where the adult male is of working age, or the adult single female is of working age.

  2. Estimates are derived from the Family Resources Survey for 1997–98, and relate to Great Britain. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  3. Information for 1997–98 is the latest year available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities collect accurate and verifiable information to meet the reporting requirements of the housing benefit best value performance indicators numbers 176–180 for 2000–01. [109191]

  Angela Eagle
  Best value performance indicators will from this April be the main yardstick against which local authorities' performance is judged. Authorities are required to set out each year in published best value performance plans details of past performance against the indicators and challenging targets for future improved performance. These plans and the performance information they contain are subject to statutory audit.

  Auditors are responsible for ensuring that authorities have adequate systems in place for producing accurate performance data. In addition, the Department has made arrangements for performance data to be reported periodically by authorities as part of the normal provision of housing benefit management information.

  Guidance on the Housing Benefit indicators and revised statistical forms were issued by the Department to all authorities in December last year. The Benefit Fraud
  266W
  Inspectorate will also test the robustness of local authority performance data both as part of its on-going cycle of inspections of housing benefit administration and in its role as a best value inspectorate.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the cost of making the disability living allowance mobility component available to children aged two and under. [109385]

  Mr. Bayley
  The mobility component of Disability Living Allowance is payable at two rates. The higher rate is payable to people who are unable or virtually unable to walk and the lower rate is paid to people who need guidance and supervision out of doors on unfamiliar routes.

  Currently both components are payable to children from the age of five years. From April 2001, we are extending the higher rate of the mobility component to severely disabled children aged three and four years old in recognition of the fact that many children are able to walk reasonable distances unaided by the age of three years.

  Estimating the cost of extending either component to children aged two and under would not produce a meaningful result. This is because all children of this age have limited walking ability and will require constant guidance and supervision whilst out of doors.

  Minimum Pension Guarantee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects (1) the review of the minimum funding requirement to reach a conclusion; [109349]

  (2) the review of the minimum funding requirement for the minimum pension guarantee to reach a conclusion. [108965]

  Mr. Rooker
  The review of the minimum funding requirement is being carried out by the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries in partnership with the Department of Social Security. It is due to report in spring this year. We will then consider what changes should be made. There will be full consultation with the pensions industry on any changes.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local authorities(a) did not submit information to his Department about fraudulent Housing Benefit cases for input into the Housing Benefit Management System in 1997–98, (b) have not installed the verification framework and (c) do not use non-redirection of benefit post powers. [107454]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: The local authorities (LAs) in the following list did not submit any information regarding fraudulent Housing Benefit cases in Great Britain for the period 1997–98 as outlined in the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit management information system guide.

  267W

  Amber Valley

  Arun

  Basildon

  Birmingham

  Breckland

  Brentwood

  Bridgnorth

  Caradon

  Cardiff

  Carrick

  Craven

  Croydon

  Dacorum

  Dumfries and Galloway

  East Dorset

  East Lothian

  Enfield

  Epping Forest

  Falkirk

  Glasgow

  Hertsmere

  Highland

  Leominster

  Mendip

  Mid Sussex

  Midlothian

  Mole Valley

  Monmouthshire

  Neath Port Talbot

  Newport

  North Ayrshire

  North Cornwall

  North Warwickshire

  North Wiltshire

  Norwich

  Peterborough

  Powys

  Richmondshire

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Scottish Borders

  Slough

  South Norfolk

  Tamworth

  Torfaen

  Trafford

  Uttlesford

  Waverley

  West Dumbartonshire

  West Lothian

  Westminster

  Wigan

  Wokingham

  We have made it clear to all LAs that an additional £100 million was available to enable them all to implement fully the Verification Framework (VF) by March 2001. At 7 February 2000, 237 authorities have already been funded or accepted the offer of funds to implement fully the VF and we are processing a further seven recent applications for funding. Of the remaining authorities, some have started to implement parts of the VF or are operating their own local versions and others have not yet informed us of their intentions to implement. It would be inaccurate to describe such authorities as not implementing the VF.
  268W
  The following list names those authorities that have either already been funded or have accepted a recent offer of funds or have submitted an application for funding which is currently being processed.

  Aberdeenshire

  Adur

  Alnwick

  Amber Valley

  Anglesey

  Argyll and Bute

  Arun

  Ashfield

  Ashford

  Aylesbury Vale

  Babergh

  Barking (LB)

  Barnet (LB)

  Barrow in Furness

  Basingstoke

  Bassetlaw

  Bedford

  Birmingham

  Blaby

  Blaenau Gwent

  Bolton

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Breckland

  Bridgend

  Bristol

  Broadland

  Bromsgrove

  Broxbourne

  Burnley

  Cambridge

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Carrick

  Castle Point

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Chester-le-Street

  Chesterfield

  Chichester

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Clackmannanshire

  Colchester

  Congleton

  Conwy

  Costwold

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Croydon (LB)

  Darlington

  Daventry

  Derwentside

  Dover

  Dudley

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Durham

  Ealing L.B.

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  East Dunbartonshire

  269W

  East Hampshire

  East Hertfordshire

  East Lothian

  East Northampton

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  East Staffordshire

  Eastbourne

  Eastleigh

  Eden

  Ellesmere Port

  Enfield (LB)

  Epping Forest

  Epsom and Ewell

  Erewash

  Exeter

  Falkirk

  Fareham

  Gateshead

  Gedling

  Gosport

  Gravesham

  Great Yarmouth

  Greenwich (LB)

  Guildford

  Gwynedd

  Hackney (LB)

  Halton

  Harborough

  Haringey (LB)

  Harrow (LB)

  Hart

  Hartlepool

  Herefordshire

  High Peak

  Horsham

  Hounslow (LB)

  Huntingdon

  Hyndburn

  Inverclyde

  Ipswich

  Isle of Wight

  Islington (LB)

  Kennet

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Kerrier

  Kettering

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk

  Kingston Upon Hull

  Knowsley

  Leeds

  Leicester City

  Lewisham (LB)

  Lichfield

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Macclesfield

  Maldon

  Malvern Hills

  Medway Towns

  Melton

  Mid Devon

  Mid Sussex

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  Monmouthshire

  Neath Port Talbot

  New Forest

  270W

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Newham (LB)

  North Cornwall

  North Dorset

  North East Derbyshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Hertfordshire

  North Lanarkshire

  North Norfolk

  North Shropshire

  North Somerset

  North Warwickshire

  North Wiltshire

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Nuneaton

  Oadby and Wigston

  Oldham

  Oswestry

  Oxford

  Penwith

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Purbeck

  Reading

  Redbridge (LB)

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Reigate and Banstead

  Renfrewshire

  Restormel

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  Ribble Valley

  Richmond upon Thames

  Richmondshire DC

  Rochdale

  Rother

  Rugby

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Scarborough BC

  Sedgefield

  Sevenoaks

  Sheffield

  Shepway

  Slough

  South Ayrshire

  South Bucks

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Gloucestershire

  South Kesteven

  South Lakeland

  South Lanarkshire

  South Norfolk

  South Northants

  South Ribble

  South Staffordshire

  South Tyneside

  Southampton

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southwark (LB)

  Spelthorne

  St. Albans

  271W

  St. Edmundsbury

  Stafford

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stevenage

  Stockport

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  Stroud

  Sunderland

  Surrey Heath

  Sutton (LB)

  Swansea

  Swindon

  Tameside

  Taunton Deane

  Teesdale

  Teignbridge

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Thurrock

  Tonbridge and Malling

  Torbay

  Torridge

  Trafford

  Tunbridge Wells

  Vale of White Horse

  Wandsworth (LB)

  Waveney

  Wear Valley

  Wellingborough

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Dorset

  West Lancashire

  West Oxfordshire

  West Wiltshire

  Weymouth and Portland

  Wigan

  Winchester

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wirral

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Worthing

  Wychavon

  Wycombe

  Wyre

  The Royal Mail has advised that as at the end of January the 248 local authorities in the following list have implemented in full the Royal Mail "do not redirect" service. Of the remaining 161 authorities, a number are preparing to implement the service and some are operating their own local arrangements. It would be inaccurate to describe such authorities as not operating "non-redirection" of post. However, information on which authorities fall into these categories could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  272W

  Aberdeen City Council

  Aberdeenshire Council

  Adur District Council

  Allerdale

  Alnwick

  Amber Valley

  Angus

  Ashfield

  Ashford

  Aylesbury

  Babergh

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  Basildon

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bassetlaw

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Berwick Upon Tweed

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Blaby

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool

  Blyth Valley

  Bolton

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell Forest

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Brent

  Brentwood

  Bridgnorth

  Bristol

  Bromsgrove

  Broxstowe

  Caerphilly

  Calderdale

  Cambridge

  Camden

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Carmarthenshire

  Castle Morpeth

  Cheltenham

  Cherwell

  Chester

  Chichcester

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Christchurch

  City and County of Swansea

  City of London

  Clackmannanshire

  Congleton

  Conwy

  Corby

  Cotswold

  Craven

  Crawley

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Croydon

  273W

  Daventry

  Denbighshire

  Derby

  Derbyshire Dales

  Doncaster

  Dundee

  Durham

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Hampshire

  East Lindsey

  East Northamptonshire

  East Renfrewshire

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Eastbourne

  Edinburgh

  Epping Forest

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Fife

  Forest Heath

  Forest of Dean

  Fylde

  Gedling

  Glasgow

  Gloucester

  Gosport

  Greenwich

  Guildford

  Hackney

  Halton

  Hambleton

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Harlow

  Harrogate

  Harrow

  Hart

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Herefordshire

  Hertsmere

  High Peak

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Ipswich

  Kennet

  Kerrier

  Kingston Upon Hull

  Kirklees

  Lancaster

  Lewes

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Maldon

  Manchester

  Melton

  Mendip

  Merton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Suffolk

  Mid Sussex

  Middlesbrough

  Midlothian

  Monmouth

  Neath Port Talbot

  274W

  New Forest

  Newark and Sherwood

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  North Ayrshire

  North Cornwall

  North Devon

  North Dorset

  North East Derbyshire

  North Kesteven

  North Lanarkshire

  North Wiltshire

  Northampton

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Oldham

  Orkney Islands

  Oxford

  Poole

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Purbeck

  Reading

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redditch

  Renfrewshire

  Restormel

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Ribble Valley

  Richmond upon Thames

  Richmondshire

  Rochdale

  Rochford

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Rotherham

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Rushmoor

  Rutland

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Scarborough

  Scottish Borders

  Sedgefield

  Sedgemoor

  Selby

  Sevenoaks

  Shepway

  Shetland Islands

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Buckinghamshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Holland

  South Lanarkshire

  South Norfolk

  South Oxfordshire

  South Ribble

  South Somerset

  South Staffs

  South Tyneside

  Southampton

  Southend-on-Sea

  Spelthorne

  St. Albans

  275W

  St. Helens

  Stafford

  Stevenage

  Stirling

  Stockport

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  Stroud

  Sunderland

  Surrey Heath

  Tameside

  Tandridge

  Taunton Deane

  Teesdale

  Telford and Wrekin

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Thanet

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Tunbridge and Malling

  Torbay

  Torridge

  Trafford

  Tynedale

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Vale of the White Horse

  Vale Royal

  Wakefield

  Warrington

  Warwick

  Waveney

  Waverley

  Wealden

  West Berkshire

  West Lancashire

  West Oxfordshire

  West Wiltshire

  Western Isles

  Wigan

  Winchester

  Wirral

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wrexham

  Wychavon

  Wyre

  York

PRIME MINISTER

  Iran
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 4W, what discussions he has had with the Government of Iran concerning the supply of heroin from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom via Iran. [108234]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: I did not discuss this issue with Dr. Kharrazi during his recent visit, but the subject was covered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Co-operation between the United Kingdom and Iran to stem the flow of drugs from Afghanistan forms an important part of the developing UK/Iran relationship. We have provided
  276W
  nearly £1.5 million over the past year for anti-drugs projects in Iran, and with our EU Partners will continue to support Iranian efforts to counter this mutual problem.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister who will represent the United Kingdom at the conference on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in April and May 2000. [109107]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will deliver the UK address to the Plenary Session of the Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 1036, what arrangements will be made to ensure that those who wish it may continue to collect their benefits in cash. [109504]

  The Prime Minister
  We are moving to automated credit transfer from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. As I made clear in my reply of 2 February, I expect that by then the Post Office will have developed more agency arrangements with banks to provide banking services—it already has arrangements with Alliance and Leicester, Lloyds TSB and the Co-operative Bank. This will enable benefit recipients to withdraw the full amount of their entitlement in cash at the Post Office if they want.

  In addition, the Post Office is planning to install 3,000 cash machines in local Post Offices.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 2000,Official Report, columns 673–74W, on the Council of Europe, if he will list each case relating to an Independent Commonwealth State heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the past five years, and the sums received in reimbursement of the United Kingdom's costs of hosting the appeals, including the costs of the judges. [109242]

  The Prime Minister
  The table shows the numbers of appeals and petitions for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from independent Commonwealth countries in each of the last five years. No direct contribution to the costs of running the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is made by the countries concerned as such, save that certain countries, especially New Zealand, provide (at their own expense) serving judges to sit as members of the Judicial Committee from time to time. However, court fees are payable by the parties to proceedings, which in some cases are the governments or other public authorities of the countries concerned. The table also shows the total fee income of the Judicial Committee in each of the last five years, the greater part of which will have been paid in respect of petitions and appeals from independent Commonwealth countries.
  277W

  Year

  Appeals heard

  Petitions heard

  Total fee income (£)

  1995

  42

  55

  35,439.59

  1996

  51

  62

  67,914.10

  1997

  46

  60

  70,715.36

  1998

  42

  74

  71,421.45

  1999

  44

  77

  31,228.90

SCOTLAND

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1999,Official Report, columns 385–86W, 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. [108199]

  Dr. Reid
  The various Departments within the Scottish Executive have their own devolved research programmes and strategies. While there are some differences in the precise detail of contracts relating to each programme, generally researchers are actively encouraged to publish their work.

  The Scottish Executive's standard Conditions of Contract do however specify that consultants cannot disclose the results of research they are working on without the prior approval of the commissioning body. This is consistent with HM Treasury guidance on procurement and the use of confidentiality clauses (CUP Guidance 59D).

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to amend the Scotland Office departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000.[108700]

  Dr. Reid
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XIII, Vote I Scotland and Transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £74,385,000 from £14,123,448,000 to £14,197,833,000.

  The change consists of: increases of £21,500,000 for the 2000 Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme; £4,852,000 for local authority funding of Kosovan evacuees; £26,440,000 for the cost of the Lockerbie trial (which are to be met from the Reserve); £32,583,000 from a draw forward of ERDF funds; £13,857,000 for clinical negligence costs (announced in the Chancellor's pre-budget report); £3,980,000 transferred from the Home Office (Class IV Vote I) for the costs of grants to Asylum Seekers; £1,500,000 from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland for tuition fees for students domiciled in Northern Ireland undertaking courses of higher education in Scotland; and £3,600,000 from the DEL reserve for additional support to the Forestry Commission; a decrease of £35,000,000 for a transfer to the Department of the Environment,
  278W
  Transport and the Regions (Class III, Vote 6) for the bus fuel duty rebate scheme; and other minor transfers giving rise to a net increase of £1,073,000.

  These increases will be offset by transfers to and from other Departmental Expenditure Limits or be treated as a charge on the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number and value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109453]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department's competitive tendering processes are overseen by officials. Specialist external support is commonly obtained in connection with such exercises, for example, to provide professional advice on construction projects or specialist technical advice on IT projects. Information on contracts placed for external advice in connection with competitive tendering exercises is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the financial year 1998–99(a) the number and (b) the total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisers that (i) were put out to competitive tender, (ii) were not put out to competitive tender and (iii) were let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109267]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: It is Government policy that all goods and services, including consultancy, should be acquired on the basis of value for money and therefore on a commercial basis, following competition, unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Information regarding the breakdown between contracts which were, and which were not, awarded following competition is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Secondees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109294]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. The Private sector inward secondments to The Scottish Office for the periods requested are as follows:

  279W

  Private sector secondments

  May 1997 to April 1998

  May 1998 to April 1999

  May 1999 to June 1999

  Balfouf and Manson (Solicitors)

  2

  2

  1

  Bank of Scotland

  1

  1

  —

  BP

  1

  —

  —

  Fife Careers Ltd.

  1

  1

  —

  Project Management International PLC

  1

  1

  —

  Shepherd and Wedderburn (Solicitors)

  —

  1

  —

  There have been no inward secondments in my Department since 1 July 1999.

TREASURY

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average time taken for the Government Actuaries Department to complete the headroom check where a pensions mis-selling case involves excess contributions; and if he will make a statement. [109220]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: The information requested cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. The Government Actuary's Department (GAD) has no general responsibility for work on compensating victims of pensions mis-selling, but it does provide actuarial services to a number of public service pension schemes whose members were mis-sold personal pensions in the past. In most of the main public service pension schemes the number of cases involving excess contributions is relatively small, and the normal procedures for carrying out headroom checks have been applied without causing delay. In the Teachers' Pension Scheme there has been a large number of such cases and new procedures are being implemented to allow the scheme administrators (Capita Teachers' Pensions) to carry out most of the calculations using tables supplied by GAD. This should allow speedier processing.

  Tobacco Tax
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from each of the taxes payable on each category of tobacco products in the last year for which figures are available. [109100]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Excise duty receipts for each category of tobacco products are shown in HM Customs and Excise Annual Report 1998–99, table E2. The VAT received on cigarettes is estimated at £1,655 million in 1998–99, and the VAT on all other tobacco products is estimated at £115 million. VAT has been estimated from Office for National Statistics figures for household consumption on cigarettes and other tobacco products. No separate figures are available for VAT on cigars, hand-rolling and other smoking and chewing tobacco.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 579W, if he will estimate the yield from tapering away child benefit in the hands of the highest earner in a couple according to the thresholds and tapering mechanism envisaged for children's tax credits, whereby benefit would be tapered away from couples containing a higher rate tax payer. [108616]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government will introduce a new Children's Tax Credit from April 2001. To ensure that support for the family is increased in the fairest way, it will be tapered away from families where there is a higher rate taxpayer. The long-term goal is to bring together the different strands of support for children in Working Families Tax Credit, Income Support and the Children's Tax Credit to create an integrated and seamless system of financial support, building upon the foundation of universal Child Benefit.

  However, if Child Benefit were to be tapered away from families where there is a higher rate taxpayer along the lines envisaged in the hon. Member's proposal, the estimated yield would currently be £600 million in a full year.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the(a) gross earnings, (b) earnings after income tax and national insurance contributions and (c) entitlements to the working families tax credit of a dual-earner couple with two children under the age of 11 years, both earning the minimum wage and where one works full-time and the other 16 hours a week; [107801]

  (2) what are the (a) gross earnings, (b) earnings after income tax and national insurance contributions and (c) entitlements to the working families tax credit of a single parent with two children under the age of 11 years, earning the minimum wage and working (i) full-time and (ii) 16 hours a week. [107739]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures requested are given in the table.

  £/week

  Couple, one working full-time, one working 16 hours a week

  Lone parent working full-time

  Lone parent working 16 hours a week

  Gross earnings

  183.60

  126.00

  57.60

  Earnings net of income tax and National Insurance Contributions

  175.33

  117.73

  57.60

  Amount of Working Families Tax Credit

  56.12

  87.80

  92.00

  Childcare Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the responses he has so far received to his consultation on an integrated child credit set out in the Treasury Paper, "Supporting Children Through the Tax and Benefit System". [108753]
  281W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury receives Budget representations and letters on a range of topics, including the Integrated Child Credit. As is usual practice, it is not our intention to publish them.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the steady-state cost of providing the childcare tax credit to all households with a child below the age of one year on the current tapers, irrespective of whether anyone is in work, assuming that households with a mother in the first(a) 18 and (b) six weeks of maternity leave are not included. [107651]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The childcare tax credit is available to families in receipt of the Working Families' Tax Credit or Disabled Persons's Tax Credit who meet the work requirements and have eligible child care costs. There are no plans to make it available to families where no-one is in work.

  If a separate weekly credit of £70 were to be given to all families with a child under one, subject to a taper of 55 per cent. for net income over £90 per week, the estimated cost for 2000–01 would be about £800 million. If households with a mother in receipt of statutory maternity pay are not included, the cost would reduce by about £30 million for the first 18 weeks of maternity pay and by about £10 million for the first six weeks of maternity pay.

  It has been assumed that the start of maternity pay coincides with the birth of the child, and that those mothers on Income Support would still receive the £70 credit, since statutory maternity pay is taken into account when calculating Income Support.

  Children (Merseyside)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children aged 15 years or under live in(a) the Birkenhead constituency and (b) at Merseyside constituencies in total. [109350]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger, on behalf of Dr. Holt, to Mr. Frank Field, dated 10 February 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking for the number of children aged 15 years or under who live in a) the Birkenhead constituency and b) Merseyside constituencies in total. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  Mid-year population estimates are not compiled for areas such as parliamentary constituencies. The lowest level at which these are available is the local authority level. Each local authority in Merseyside Metropolitan County is made up of at least two parliamentary constituencies. Data is therefore unavailable for the parliamentary constituencies within the county, one of which is Birkenhead. The table provided shows the numbers of children aged 15 years or under resident in each local authority in Merseyside as well as Merseyside as a whole. Also shown is how the local authorities are made up of parliamentary constituencies. These estimates are the mid-1998 population estimates which are the most recent available.
  282W

  Mid-1998 population estimates for the number of children aged 15 or under in Merseyside and its constituent local authorities

  County/local authority

  Number of children aged 15 and under

  Parliamentary constituencies contained in each local authority

  Merseyside

  294,400

  Knowsley

  37,000

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East1

  Knowsley, South

  Liverpool

  98,600

  Liverpool, Garston

  Liverpool, Riverside

  Liverpool, Walton

  Liverpool, Wavertree

  Liverpool, West Derby

  St. Helens

  35,700

  St. Helens, North

  St. Helens, South

  Sefton

  56,400

  Bootle

  Crosby

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East2

  Southport

  Wirral

  66,800

  Birkenhead

  Wallasey

  Wirral, South

  Wirral, West

  1 Part in Knowsley and part in Sefton

  2 Part in Sefton and part in Knowsley

  Note:

  Figures may not add exactly in this table because they have been rounded to the nearest hundred

  Source:

  ONS, Population Estimates Unit

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the annual figures from 1970 until the present for the overall number of births outside of marriage by teenagers as a percentage of the overall number of births by teenagers in the United Kingdom. [109466]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger, on behalf of Dr. Holt, to Mr. Shaun Woodward dated 10 February 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the annual figures from 1970 until the present for the overall number of births outside of marriage by teenagers as a percentage of the overall number of births by teenagers in the United Kingdom. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  The attached table shows the percentage of live births for teenagers (aged under 20) outside marriage from 1970 to present in the UK.

  Year

  Percentage of births outside marriage

  1970

  25.2

  1971

  25.6

  1972

  26.9

  1973

  27.6

  1974

  29.6

  1975

  31.4

  283W

  Year

  Percentage of births outside marriage

  1976

  33.3

  1977

  35.8

  1978

  37.5

  1979

  39.5

  1980

  41.5

  1981

  45.5

  1982

  50.6

  1983

  55.1

  1984

  59.7

  1985

  63.9

  1986

  68.4

  1987

  72.4

  1988

  75.6

  1989

  78.2

  1990

  80.2

  1991

  83.0

  1992

  83.9

  1993

  85.2

  1994

  85.9

  1995

  87.2

  1996

  88.6

  1997

  89.3

  1998

  89.7

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the annual figures from 1970 until the present for the overall number of births outside of marriage (1) for teenagers of ethnic minority groups as a percentage of the overall number of ethnic minority teenage births in the UK; [109465]

  (2) for ethnic minority groups as a percentage of the overall number of ethnic minority births in the UK. [109467]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger, on behalf of Dr. Holt, to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 10 February 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions on the percentage of births outside marriage by ethnic minority. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
  The current form of birth registration does not include ethnicity. Figures on live births by country of birth of mother are available in Birth Statistics 1998, FM1 which is available in the House of Commons Library. However, it should be noted that birthplace does not necessarily indicate ethnic origin or race. More information on these statistics can be found in an article in Population Trends 52, 1988.

WALES

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what talks he has had concerning nurses' pay with(a) other departments and (b) the First Secretary; and if he will make a statement. [108827]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I recently met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to discuss health issues generally and health issues in Wales in particular. I also meet regularly with the First Secretary to discuss health issues in Wales.
  284W
  On 17 January, the Department of Health and the National Assembly for Wales accepted the Review Body recommendations for nurses pay.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals there are to amend the Wales Office departmental expenditure limit for 1999–2000. [108699]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XIV, Vote 1 (The Welsh Office, the Wales Office and payments to the National Assembly for Wales) the Welsh Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £8,285,000 from £7,217,489,000 to £7,225,774,000. The increase is a result of net transfers to other Government Departments of £74,000 and additional funding of £7,939,000 and £420,000 for Health and Agriculture respectively.

  There is an increase in the provision of Welfare to Work of £548,000 as a result of end-year flexibility entitlement of £300,000 and additional funding of £248,000 announced in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Transfers are from Class 1 Vote 1 (£200,000), Class 2 Vote 1 (£11,000), Class 3 Vote 2 (£113,000), Class 3 Vote 3 (£150,000), Class 18 Vote 1 (£300,000) and to Class 2 Vote 1 (£177,000), Class 10 Vote 2 (£260,000) and Class 4 Vote 1 (£411,000). The balance will be met by a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve for the increases announced in the Pre-Budget Report and the Aid Package for farmers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the farming industry to discuss the levels of sheep annual premium; and if he will make a statement. [107890]

  Ms Quin
  We regularly meet representatives of the farming industry who raise many topics including the sheep annual premium.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce further measures to support exports of pigmeat. [107892]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have made representations to the Agriculture Commissioner in Brussels to increase export refunds as a way of proving additional support to the pig sector.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on state aid to the pig sector. [107899]

  Ms Quin
  We are well aware of the representations that continue to be made for some form of aid to be introduced as compensation for what the industry sees as the imposition of unfair additional costs as a result of BSE. This matter has been discussed many times with the pig
  285W
  industry. The points they are making are well understood, but this is not an easy issue. The cost would be considerable and it would have to conform with strict EU rules. Communications with the European Commission have shown how difficult this would be. This is an issue which Ministers have looked at very closely and will continue to do so. As the Prime Minister said on 1 February any investment by Government must be linked to long-term change in the structure of the industry. It must also be part of an agrees overall strategy; to this end, my officials are in touch with the National Pig Association and others.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions has he had with(a) producers and (b) others on the problems facing the United Kingdom pig industry. [107900]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers are in frequent contact with a number of organisations representing producers and others to discuss the state of the UK pig industry. We have also discussed this matter with the European Agriculture Commissioner.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress made towards an EU-wide ban on the stall and tether system for raising pigs. [108601]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU Commission's proposals for a new Directive on pig welfare are well overdue. Its Scientific Veterinary Committee's report, on which these proposals must be based, was published in 1997, and we lose no opportunity to remind the Commission of the need for progress in this area.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the horticulture industry. [107893]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met a wide cross-section of the horticultural industry when he opened Hortex 2000 at Telford on 18 January.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote the institutional reform of the common agricultural policy. [107896]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  We will pursue opportunities created by anticipated market pressures, the reviews contained within the Agenda 2000 agreement and the existing commitment to review the sugar regime by 2001 to push for the reform process started at Berlin to be completed.

  Mobile Abattoirs
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to encourage the introduction of mobile abattoirs. [107897]

  Ms Quin
  Mobile abattoir facilities can have attractions for a range of interests and may provide welfare benefits. MAFF have recently awarded a grant to the Humane Slaughter Association to support the development of a286W
  mobile slaughtering service in central southern England. MAFF Veterinary Meat Hygiene Advisers are available to advise those interested in developing mobile abattoirs.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the level of financial support for organic farming. [107898]

  Mr. Morley
  A review of aid for conversion to organic farming is in progress. The results of the review will provide the basis for a revised organic aid scheme under the England Rural Development Programme, for which I have announced an allocation of £140 million over the life of the programme.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits of organic farming. [107902]

  Mr. Morley
  Evaluation of the environmental impact of organic farming is one of the three main objectives of the Ministry's organic R&D programme, for which £2.1 million has been allocated for 1999–2000. Field studies on biodiversity and soil fertility on organic farms, following earlier desk studies and a study of nutrient cycling are in progress. Work on nitrates and ammonia emissions has recently been completed.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report progress on implementing a new system of meat inspection. [107901]

  Ms Quin
  The Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group recommended in its report published on 13 December 1999 that the current meat inspection rules be replaced by a risk-based system of checks applying Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) principles. We have accepted this recommendation, but a new meat inspection system to replace existing controls will entail changes to EU legislation. We strongly support the Commission's initiatives to review and modernise meat hygiene controls and will be pressing for early progress.

  Food Chain Group Report
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received following the publication of the report of the Food Chain Group. [107903]

  Ms Quin
  The Food Chain Group report has been welcomed by many interests across the supply chain as a significant contribution to the drive to improve agri-food competitiveness. Over 1,000 copies have been sent to interested parties. We intend to review progress in the summer.

  Labelling
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote compulsory country of origin labelling within the European Union. [107904]
  287W
  Ms Quin
  Following consultation with industry and enforcement authorities we published revised guidance on origin labelling on 1 February making it clear that origin labels on food must be clear and unambiguous. This is an important step forward in our drive for better labelling and more informed choice. We will encourage the European Commission to take similar steps at EU level and raise the issue for wider international discussion at the forthcoming meeting of the Codex Committee for Food Labelling in Ottawa in May.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the English regional development agencies on strengthening the regional aspects of policies and programmes for supporting agriculture. [107905]

  Mr. Morley
  I met Vincent Watts, Chairman of the East of England Development Agency, and Rural Board Members and officials from the other RDAs on 27 January. We had a useful discussion about the England Rural Development Plan 2000–06 among other issues. The ERDP contains proposals for supporting the rural economy of each region, tailored to meet specific regional needs, which were drawn up in full collaboration with the RDAs and other regional partners.

  Farming (Government Support)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of financial support provided to farmers by the Government in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [107906]

  Ms Quin
  The total value of EU and UK Exchequer funded subsidies for farming paid in the UK in 1997–98 was £3,582.8 million. This includes market support measures which are not paid directly to farmers, but which benefit them indirectly.

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of animal welfare organisations to discuss progress on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. [107895]

  Mr. Morley
  I am in regular contact with representatives of animal welfare organisations on a wide range of issues. It is of course true that their concerns on fur farming would be met by the proposed ban, although the basis of the ban is that fur farming is wrong in itself, apart from any considerations of animal welfare.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the Minister of State's letter of 16 December, reference 133662, when he expects to receive advice from the Veterinary Products Committee in relation to organophosphorous sheep dips; and if he will make a statement. [104398]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The Veterinary Products Committee (VPC)'s report was published on 20 December 1999, Official Report, column 446W. Following consideration of reports from the
  288W
  Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) and the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), the VPC advised the temporary withdrawal from the market of all organophosphorous sheep dips pending the introduction of improved containers for concentrated dip. That advice was accepted and action has been taken on implementation. Copies of the VPC's and COT's reports are in the Library of the House.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what pesticide approvals for glufosinate ammonium have been given in respect of trials of genetically modified crops carried out under Part B of Council Directive 90/220 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. [109221]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: To date we have granted four experimental approvals under the Plant Protection Products Regulations 1995 (as amended) for the use of glufosinate ammonium on genetically modified crops. These would permit uses in trials of genetically modified crops carried out under Part B of Council Directive 90/220.

  Details of experimental approvals have not been published for reasons of commercial confidentiality. We have initiated a review of the current arrangements to see if there is scope for greater openness and transparency.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the antibiotic marker genes, and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, that have been used in the genetic modification of crops from which genetically modified foods available in the United Kingdom have been produced in the last five years. [108624]

  Ms Quin
  The only foods available in the UK which have been produced from GM crops containing antibiotic marker genes are highly processed products in which all the genetic material, including antibiotic marker genes, has been rendered inactive through extensive degradation. The two marker genes, in either a complete or disrupted form, that have been used in these crops are kanamycin and ampicillin resistance genes. The intact genes convey resistance to aminoglycoside antibiotics including kanamycin, neomycin and geneticin; and narrow spectrum . lactam antibiotics such as ampicillin and amoxycillin respectively.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent research has been undertaken into the possible effects of antibiotic resistance gene markers retained in foods produced by the genetic modification of crops on(a) humans and (b) animals; and if he will make a statement. [108620]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF is funding the following research into the possible effects of antibiotic resistance gene markers retained in foods produced by the genetic modification of crops, all of which are due to be completed in 2001.
  289W

  Project code

  Title

  Contractor

  FS0225

  Evaluating the risk of the transfer or DNA between micro organisms in the gut and between micro organisms and gut cells

  Newcastle University

  FS0227

  Assessment of the risks of transferring antibiotic resistance determinants from transgenic plants to micro-organisms

  Leeds University

  FS0228

  Dissemination of DNA and antibiotic resistance genes via rumen micro-organisms

  Rowett Research Institute

  FS0229

  Risk of gene transfer from genetically modified crop plants to gut bacteria

  Institute of Food Research

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement setting out the criteria employed by the Intervention Board in determining the selection of slaughterhouses to carry out the requirements of the over 30-months-scheme; [105292]

  (2) if he will make a statement setting out the reasons why the Interventions Board terminated its contract with the Nottingham processing company for the over-30-months scheme. [105299]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: OTMS slaughter contracts, effective from 4 January 2000, have been awarded to 20 abattoirs. Decisions were reached following a competitive tender under which bids were evaluated against previously published objective criteria, including quality of service, price, ability to offer a dedicated service, ease of supervision, throughput and location.

  All the bids for a particular area of the country were scored against each of the criteria and aggregate scores were compared. Nottingham Processing Company scored well, but their aggregate score was less than the scores of the five successful companies in the Midlands region.

  Beef Sales
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote the sale of beef to non-EU countries. [107562]

  Ms Quin
  I am currently leading efforts to persuade the Governments of those countries that the trade have identified as key potential markets, to lift restrictions on the import of British beef. The programme includes direct approaches to these administrations by our local Posts, and continuing liaison between veterinary authorities; Ministers on visits abroad are briefed to raise the issue as appropriate and similar opportunities are identified when Ministers for relevant countries are in the UK. I am also in touch with their relevant overseas representatives in London.

  Furthermore, promotion of British meat generally at home and abroad is the responsibility of the Meat and Livestock Commission. The Department routinely works with them and other interested organisations to try to open
  290W
  up new (and expand existing) markets and to promote exports via trade fairs and other events world wide. A number of such events are planned.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the sales of food surpluses from the European Union to countries outside the union during the last 12 months. [108013]

  Ms Quin
  Details of UK intervention stocks sold outside the European Union during the 12 months of 1999 are:

  Commodity

  Tonnes

  Beef

  0

  Barley

  687,916

  Wheat

  25,346

  Butter

  0

  Skimmed milk powder

  10

  1 Although no skimmed milk powder was "sold" outside the European Union in 1999, 15,000 tonnes was supplied to Russia under a Community food aid scheme.

  Figures for similar sales from other member states are not yet available.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters he has received since I 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. [108404]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: I am unable to provide this information. Details of correspondence between Members of the House and my Department—including the number received—must be treated in confidence.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated 16 November 1999, concerning the transfer of responsibility for the private water supply at Harwood Village. [108626]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member on 7 February 2000.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated 27 October concerning the Government's policy on organic farming. [108627]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on 31 January 2000.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Minister of State will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire of 16 November 1999 about leaf minors. [109008]
  291W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  A letter to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was sent on 4 February 2000 by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman.

  Badger Culling
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the Randomised Badger Culling trial; [108571]

  (2) how many of the badger culling trials are fully operational. [108572]

  Ms Quin
  Six triplets have so far been enrolled into the badger culling trial. Culling has taken place in three of these, and surveying has started in the others. Work is currently suspended in one triplet. We expect to announce the remaining triplets this year.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of TB compensation paid to farmers(a) within the Krebs Trial areas and (b) outside the trial areas during 1998–99; and what is his provision for compensation payments in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [108377]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: The cost of TB compensation paid within the Krebs trial areas is not separately recorded.

  The TB compensation paid to farmers in England in 1998–99 amounted to £3.775 million. The estimated outturn for 1999–2000 is £5.0 million, and the provisional allocation for 2000–01 is £5.99 million. The provision for 2001–02 has yet to be determined.

  Beef Special Premium Scheme
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the most common reasons for rejecting claims made under the Beef Special Premium Scheme. [108483]

  Ms Quin
  The most common reasons for rejecting claims as a percentage of the total rejections are as follows:

  1. Beef cattle stocked more intensively than two livestock units per hectare (58 per cent.).

  2. Significant claimant errors which cannot be disregarded under EU regulations (10 per cent.).

  3. Discrepancies discovered during inspection (5 per cent.).

  Departmental Secondees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109290]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) May 1997-April 1998: One, duration three months, Royal Bank of Scotland;

  (b) May 1998-April 1999: One, duration three weeks, Manor Bakeries;

  (c) May 1999-January 2000: None.

  Cattle
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the last two years for which records are available(a) the total number of cattle slaughtered for food in the UK and (b) their gender. [109338]

  Mr. Morley
  The requested figures are shown in the table. The gender of slaughtered calves is not collected.

  (a) UK cattle slaughtered for human consumption1

  (Th. head)

  1998

  19992

  Adult cattle

  2,297

  2,217

  Male

  1,445

  1,338

  Female

  853

  879

  Calves

  32

  75

  1 Excludes cattle slaughtered under the over thirty months scheme and the Selective Cull and calves slaughtered under the Calf Processing Aid Scheme

  2 Provisional

  Animal Slaughter
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will meet his French counterpart to discuss the Eid el Kebir festival and the steps being taken by the French Government to enforce the law relating to animal slaughter; and if he will make a statement; [108651]

  (2) if he will prevent the export of sheep destined for the festival of Eid el Kebir; and if he will make a statement. [108650]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The Government have no legal power to ban the export of livestock to another member state (in this case France) because of the way they may be treated there. The French authorities are responsible for enforcement of EU welfare rules in France, and we have drawn their attention to the very serious breaches of welfare rules that have occurred during this festival in recent years.

  As the European Commission have responsibility for ensuring that member states implement and enforce the rules my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection pressing very hard for suitable action to be taken.

  Redundant Agricultural Buildings
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants his Department makes available to farmers to help them convert redundant agricultural buildings; and if he will make a statement.
  [108710]

  Mr. Morley
  The England Rural Development Plan sets out my Department's proposal to run a new Rural Enterprise Scheme, under Article 33 of the Rural Development Regulation, to aid farm diversification and other activities. These grants would cover the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings, subject to planning permission being granted. The Plan proposes expenditure of £152 million between 2000 and 2006, subject to the Spending Review 2000 and approval from the European Commission.

  Flooding
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many leaflets that describe flood risks to a specified area of the UK have been produced by the Environment Agency; and how many members of the public have (a) contacted the Environment Agency's Flood Line and (b) been sent such leaflets. [109003]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is responsible only for England and Wales. As part of its national flood awareness campaign launched last October, the Agency published 160 local flood warning information leaflets detailing local flood warning arrangements and contact numbers. In addition, approximately 311,000 flood kits, comprising a waterproof reusable bag and the relevant local flood information leaflet, were mailed to homes and businesses in England and Wales. The campaign marked the launch of Flood Line which, as at 28 January, had received a total of 57,211 calls. Of these, some 30,000 were received over the Christmas period when severe weather affected the south and south west of England.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how many houses are at risk from flooding in the UK; and what estimate he has made of how many houses will be at risk from flooding in (a) five, (b) 10, (c) 15, (d) 20, (e) 25, (f) 50 and (g) 100 years; and what assumptions he has made in determining whether a house is at risk from coastal and river flooding. [109005]

  Mr. Morley
  UK figures are not available as flood and coastal defence is a devolved responsibility. The Environment Agency is continuing its work to estimate the number of properties within the natural flood plains of England and Wales. Based on the best available scientific and forecasting knowledge, this figure was last year estimated to be 1.6 million.

  There are no forecasts for future years as it is not possible to predict where development will take place, nor what decisions will be made about future defences. The Government will be issuing revised guidance in support of its policy of discouraging inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. In addition, the Agency is working with local planning authorities to ensure that its "Policy and Practice for the Protection of Floodplains" guidance is implemented to reduce the likelihood of new houses being built in flood risk areas in the future.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times the Environment Agency and his Department have given advice to (a) individuals, (b) local councils, (c) building societies and (d) any others to desist from building new houses in floodplains and other areas at risk from flooding; whether the Environment Agency and his Department have discussed with insurance companies, their trade associations and similar corporate entities the risks of insuring such properties in such areas at risk from flooding; and whether exchange of data, estimates, calculations and assessments with regard to flood risks in the UK has taken place between his Department and the Environment Agency and such bodies since May 1997. [108996]
  294W
  Mr. Morley
  Government policy is to discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. Advice to English local planning authorities is contained in DoE Circular 30/92 entitled "Development and Flood Risk". This guidance is currently being revised and a consultation document is expected to be issued shortly.

  Neither MAFF nor DETR have been directly involved in specific advice to desist from building new houses in floodplains. However, in 1998–99 the Environment Agency received 77,502 requests for information for England and Wales, but this total is not broken down into individual categories. An individual can receive information on flood risk by visiting the Agency's offices or through correspondence. The Agency also dealt with 23,896 searches from solicitors, which would include information on flood risk if relevant.

  The Agency commented on 110,764 planning applications, which include information on flood risk. In line with new Government targets, the Agency will, from June 2000, be reporting on their response to planning applications, identifying cases where:

  1. the Agency sustained objections on flood risk grounds; and

  2. final decisions, either by the LPA or on appeal, were in line with, or contrary to Agency advice.

  My Department, the DETR and the Environment Agency have fairly regular contact with the insurance industry about flood risks. This includes sharing the results of a number of R&D projects undertaken by the insurance industry, and attendance at seminars about managing flood risk. The information in the Agency's flood risk maps is being made publicly available and so may be used by the insurance industry.

  The insurance industry generally continues to offer flood risk cover, in all areas, as part of ordinary household policies.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many uninsured properties have been flooded since 1990 in the United Kingdom; what records he keeps of individual incidents; and if he will open those records to public scrutiny. [109002]

  Mr. Morley
  No records are available on uninsured properties that have been flooded since 1990. The industry estimate that some 65–70 per cent. of domestic properties have household and building insurance which generally includes flood cover.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average cost of building and maintaining one kilometre of flood defences in the UK for (a) coastal areas and (b) river basin areas in the last 12 months; what percentage of these costs will be borne by (i) central Government and (ii) local government; and what (1) were the total costs in the United Kingdom of building and maintaining flood defences for coastal and river basin areas for each year since 1990 and (2) are the projected costs for 2000 and 2001. [108997]

  Mr. Morley
  Full UK figures are not available, as flood and coastal defence is a devolved responsibility. Also, figures are not readily available for local authorities or Internal Drainage Boards. This reply covers England and Wales figures as provided for the Environment Agency only.
  295W
  The average cost of building and maintenance of one kilometre of flood defences for coastal areas is £2.5 million and £0.65 million for river basin areas. The costs will vary according to the location of the defence, with higher costs for exposed coastal regions and heavily urbanised areas in river basins.

  In 1998–99, the income raised for flood defence totalled £252 million, with the Government providing direct grants of £34 million; £203 million was provided through the levy from local government and the remainder from Internal Drainage Boards and other sources. Local Authorities are reimbursed in the following year through the Revenue Support Grant mechanism.

  The total flood defence expenditure from 1989–901998–99 and planned expenditure for 1999–00–2001–02 is as follows:

  £ million

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  1989–901

  74.6

  92.9

  167.5

  1990–911

  93.1

  103.0

  196.1

  1991–921

  116.8

  114.1

  230.9

  1992–931

  110.8

  120.2

  231.0

  1993–941

  105.7

  124.0

  229.7

  1994–951

  113.9

  126.8

  240.7

  1995–961

  131.1

  119.0

  250.1

  1996–971

  131.4

  125.1

  256.5

  1997–981

  136.5

  137.1

  273.6

  1998–991

  117.7

  144.1

  261.8

  1999–20002

  124.5

  147.8

  272.3

  2000–012

  133.8

  152.9

  286.7

  2001–022

  131.4

  154.1

  285.5

  1 Actual

  2 Planned

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish maps produced by the Environment Agency of the Floodline programme of flood risks that threaten houses at(a) regional and (b) other levels. [109006]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's 24-hour Floodline telephone information service was launched on 18 October 1999 as part of an integrated public awareness campaign to raise awareness of flood risk and flood warning. The service covers England and Wales and enables the public to find out what flood warnings are in force, to report flooding and to request an information pack about how to prepare for floods.

  As a separate exercise, the Agency has released Flood Plain Maps to local authorities in England and Wales for development control and emergency planning purposes. The Agency is developing proposals to place the maps on its web site to make them freely accessible to the public. Paper copies can also be supplied upon request.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the guidance given by (i) his Department and (ii) the Environment Agency to maritime district councils and county councils to deal with sea level rise and flooding from climate change; and if he will specify the funds directed to(a) coastal defences, (b) the UK climate change impact programme and (c) public awareness campaigns aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the years 1995 to 2000; how
  296W
  much will be made available over the next three years; and what plans he has to increase the amounts spent on such items. [108998]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1990 my Department has issued allowances for sea level rise to be taken into account by flood and coastal defence operating authorities in planning future defence options. These allowances, which take account both of the predicted impact of climate change coupled with the effect of long term geological "tilt", are as follows:

  Environment agency region

  Allowance (mm per year)

  North East (South of Flamborough Head), Anglian, Thames, Southern

  6

  South West, Wales

  5

  North West, North East (North of Flamborough Head)

  4

  These allowances are intended to be applied to defences with a design life up to 2030. Defences with an expected life beyond this period should be adaptable to allow for any future change in predictions.

  These allowances have been published by the Ministry in a number of documents, including our Project Appraisal Guidance Notes for flood and coastal defence operating authorities and in the Ministry's Strategy flood and coastal defence. They also appear in DoE Circular 30/92 entitled "Development and Flood Risk" which was aimed at local planning authorities.

  These predictions have been reviewed against the climate change scenarios for the UK, published in October 1998 by the UK Climate Impacts Programme (DETR). Preliminary indications are that, if extreme events follow the predicted pattern of global sea level rise, these allowances should be adequate to the middle of the next century.

  MAFF has provided grants to operating authorities in England for new and improved sea and tidal flood defences and coast protection defences as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  71

  1996–97

  75

  1997–98

  61

  1998–99

  51

  Figures are not yet available on this basis for the current and next three years, but the total provision available for Ministry funding (both grant and Supplementary Credit Approvals) of all flood (including inland) and coastal defence is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–2000

  71

  2000–01

  77

  2001–02

  79

  297W
  These plans reflect the increased provision announced following the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. The provision available beyond 2002 will depend on the outcome of this year's Spending Review.

  The UK Climate Impacts Programme was established in April 1997. DETR have allocated £930,764 to the Programme Office until 1 April 2000. They have also funded the production of climate change and socio-economic scenarios for the UK to underpin the work of the Programme. For the next two years the Programme's total budget is set at £918,852. Decisions on support for the Programme beyond this will be made in the light of on-going reviews of its work.

  DETR's main environmental public awareness initiatives have been "Wasting Energy Costs and the Earth" and, more recently, "Are you doing your bit?". One of the key aims of the latter campaign is to encourage people to make simple lifestyle changes to fight global warming by using energy efficiently and by changing their travel habits. The budget figures for these campaigns are:

  £ million

  Wasting Energy Costs the Earth

  1995–96

  13.6

  1996–97

  12.0

  Are you doing your bit?

  1997–98

  11.3

  1998–99

  11.7

  1999–2000

  26.5

  2000–01

  27.7

  2001–02

  27.7

  1 UK figures.

  2 England only, post devolution.

  The future campaign budget beyond 2002 will depend on the outcome of the Spending Review 2002.

  The DETR also provides grant funding to the Energy Saving Trust (EST) which runs a number of programmes designed to promote the efficient use of energy including information on energy efficiency matters for the public. EST spend on public awareness campaigns funded by DETR is:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  5.5

  1997–98

  3.1

  1998–99

  4.3

  1999–2000

  4.4

  The figures include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland up until devolution. Post-devolution DETR have retained responsibility for all budgets except Scotland. Expenditure on public awareness campaigns by the EST funded by the Scottish Executive is £0.4 million for 1990–2000. EST Budgets for 2000–01 and 2001–02 have yet to be set.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if farmers in Objective 1 areas are eligible to apply for rural development regulation money; and if he will make a statement. [108747]
  298W
  Mr. Morley
  Farmers in Objective 1 areas will be eligible to apply for the Rural Development Regulation measures which the Government proposes to use. Those proposals are set out in the England Rural Development Plan and the Single Programming Document for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. Both documents are subject to approval from the European Commission. Funding arrangements are subject to the Spending Review 2000.

  Departmental Staff
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what child care provision was made available in the financial year 1998–99 for use by (i) his departmental staff and (ii) employees of executive agencies under the control of his Department; what was the cost to parents of this child care; and how many parents used the facilities. [1088341

  Mr. Morley
  Departmental and agency staff had access to 130 nursery places at six sites during 1998–99 and the subsidised cost to parents was £56 to £85 per week depending upon location. Due to shared use of some places by part-time staff, at some sites the number of users was higher than the number of places available.

  During the same period, holiday playscheme places were available to departmental and agency staff working at 10 sites and the subsidised cost to parents was £3.50 to £9 per day depending upon location. The number of users varied at each site and for each school holiday period.

  It is not possible to give separate figures for departmental and agency staff: facilities are used by both, and uptake fluctuates.

  Energy Crops
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the environmental benefits of energy crops. [107885]

  Ms Quin
  When used instead of fossil fuels energy crops can bring about significant reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases. Studies have also indicated a range of other positive effects including benefits to biodiversity.

  Italian Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received on compliance with EU directives regarding abattoirs in Italy; and if he will make a statement. [R] [107474]

  Ms Quin
  It is for the European Commission to monitor individual member States' compliance with EU Directives. The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out regular programmes of inspection visits to all member states, including visits to abattoirs and other meat plants. The last mission to Italy to check on controls in fresh meat establishments took place from 4 to 8 May 1998.

  We do not receive copies of FVO reports, on inspection visits, other than those to the UK, but have access to them on the European Commission's website on the Internet in the same way as anyone else. The index for the Commission's inspection mission reports is: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports/index en.html.
  299W
  We publicise the availability of such reports in our monthly Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report.

  Specified Risk Material
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which European Commission measures relate to sheep in respect of the regulations that require the removal of specified risk material. [107239]
  300W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: No such measures are in force. A Commission Decision has been adopted (97/534 of 30 July 1997, on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies), which defines certain sheep tissues as specified risk material. Its date of application has however been repeatedly postponed and it is not currently due to enter into force until 30 June 2000.

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

Millennium Dome Experience: Ticket Sales
Lord Lukeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the forward sale of tickets to the Millennium Dome Experience is adequate to ensure that the whole project will run at a profit by the end of the year.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the New Millennium Experience Company never expected a full house in January—very few other visitor attraction sites are full at this time of year. NMEC is extremely encouraged by the continuing upward trend in visitor numbers and is confident that it will sell enough tickets to break even. Independent polls show that visitors have overwhelmingly enjoyed the Dome and would recommend it to their friends.
Lord Luke: My Lords, setting aside the merits and demerits of the Dome project and while thanking the Minister for that reply, I ask him whether he will accept how sorry I am about recent events. Will he say whether he considers that the chairman and board of directors of NMEC have been properly supportive of their erstwhile chief executive? If so, why have they not shouldered at least some of the responsibility for the present crisis and resigned? If they did not wish to support the former chief executive, why did they not take action earlier?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the former chief executive of the Dome company, Jennie Page, did a magnificent job. She delivered the Dome on time and on budget on 31st. December 1999. I do not believe that any other person could have worked so well as she has done. However, the board of the company concluded that the Dome needed a different kind of management for the way forward; namely, running a visitor attraction. That was a matter for the board. The decision was taken earlier last month that that would be the way forward. I believe that it was the right decision to take.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in the interests of bringing more young people to the Dome, can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to have Mickey Mouse shaking hands at the door?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the new management will not "Disneyfy" the Dome, but will manage it as efficiently as possible as a visitor attraction.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question that relates to one I put to him
766
some time ago? He gave me a very reasonable answer at the time. The question I then asked was: what would happen if the projections in terms of turnover were not met and the sponsors became restive? I presume that they have agreed to the content, to which they have contributed money. However, now we are in the position of knowing that the projections have not quite come up to the original estimates and some sponsors have expressed concern. How does the Minister see the progress of the relationship between the company and individual sponsors, in particular those sponsors who have not yet put into the pot the full sums that they pledged?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, like everyone else, the sponsors had concerns about the first few weeks of the Dome's operation. Those concerns have been discussed with the management of the New Millennium Experience Company. While they have made clear their precise concerns, they have also all made it clear that they remain firmly behind the Dome. In addition, short-term finance has been made available by the Millennium Commission to deal in part with the fact that visitor numbers at the beginning of the year have not been as high as was expected. However, everyone—the sponsors, NMEC and the Millennium Commission—is satisfied that the Dome can continue and can be a success.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I speak as one who has visited the Dome. Does my noble friend agree that people would not recognise the experience from the one described in press reports? Would he further agree that if people go along to see for themselves, they are sure to enjoy it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. A large number of polls have been carried out that show how much people have enjoyed their visits to the Dome. The polls—the majority of them produced by the media, which have not been altogether enthralled by the Dome—indicate levels of 80 to 90 per cent satisfaction and record 70 to 80 per cent of respondents as saying that they would recommend the Dome to a friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, further to the question put to the Minister by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, does the Minister recall telling the House on 12th January that he was proud to say that he was the sole shareholder of the company and that no taxpayers' money of any kind would be used to make good a shortfall? Does he still stand by the comment he made, that he personally could afford to make good the result of any such shortfall?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip says that even now they are holding a whip-round behind me. I stand by the point I made on a previous occasion that not a penny of taxpayers' money will be used to make good any shortfall.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most remarkable achievements of the Dome has been to get the Christian Churches to work together? That in itself is a remarkable achievement. However, leaders of the other faith communities also joined in with those consultations to produce the Faith Zone. Not only does it celebrate all that is good about Christianity and its contribution to society, but it also celebrates the other faith communities of this country. Does the Minister agree that this is a valuable contribution to the celebrations we are rightly enjoying that Britain is now a multi-faith and multi-cultural society?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with all that the noble Baroness has said. The Faith Zone is a great tribute to the Christian Churches and other faiths all working together. When one visits the Dome, one sees significant numbers of people visiting the Faith Zone. They are entranced by what they see and are enjoying a useful and purposeful experience.
Lord Paul: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that no business can be run effectively if earlier projections do not materialise? Projections are made on the basis of a management team ensuring that those forecasts will be accurate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that all businesses start with sensible projections. Sometimes they become knocked off course, but usually they are able to get back on course and make a success of it.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, was it not the case that the sponsors took a view that attendances were disappointingly low? Is that not totally at odds with the statement with which the Minister first began?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the sponsors were concerned about a number of matters. The statement which I made at the beginning was that NMEC is extremely encouraged by the continuing upward trend in visitor numbers and is confident that it will sell enough tickets to break even. Nothing that I have said is inconsistent with the views that have been expressed by the sponsors.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, was the post to replace Jennie Page advertised, and were the Nolan procedures followed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it was not advertised. It would not be appropriate to apply the Nolan procedures to a post such as this. It would have taken approximately five to six months to go through the procedures and, in any case, they do not apply.

British Hallmarks: Status
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the status of established British hallmarks following the possible implementation of a draft harmonisation directive of the European Union.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the answer to this Question will depend upon the exact terms of EU harmonising legislation, if and when that is finally adopted. The wording of the current Commission proposal for a directive on the control and marking of articles of precious metals is ambiguous on the status of established hallmarks. However, it could be interpreted as prohibiting national hallmarks in favour of an "e" mark denoting compliance with the directive's requirements. The Government cannot accept the proposed directive in its current form.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am very pleased to hear his last sentence? Does he agree that for 700 years the British hallmark has been the earliest form of continuous consumer protection but is now seen as a barrier to trade? Furthermore, does he agree that, under new European legislation, the marks of many European countries will become valid here, thus creating consumer confusion?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that our hallmarking system is extremely good. I believe that, if it had not been invented in the Middle Ages, we would now be looking forward to it as a new piece of consumer protection. The situation regarding the EU directive is a little more complicated. It involves all three kinds of marking: that of the manufacturer's declaration, product quality assurance and hallmarking. However, we feel that it would lead to a diminution of consumer protection and that is why we have opposed it thus far.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, will the Minister make available the draft directive referred to in the Question? My noble friend will be aware that there have been two draft directives: one issued in October 1993 and the other, following a debate in this House, in April 1996. It would be helpful if the document could be identified. Will my noble friend ensure that, in accordance with the Cabinet Office directive of June last year, a regulatory impact assessment is made of the directive and circulated to all those concerned, including Members of this House and larger interested parties in the country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I should make it clear that this directive was first discussed in 1992. A compromise was raised in the autumn of, I believe, 1998

769
under the Austrian presidency. The Portuguese presidency does not intend to re-open the issue, and it is opposed both by people such as ourselves, who have a very good hallmarking system, and those who do not have one. It is rather difficult to see how both those parties' interests can be met. I shall of course ensure that the documents are produced and, if it appears that a directive is forthcoming, I am sure that a regulatory impact statement will be produced.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the Government say that they intend to oppose the directive in any of its present forms, will the Minister confirm to the House that the issue is being taken under single market legislation, which will, of course, allow the United Kingdom, as usual, to be outvoted, and that therefore the Government's opposition is worth nothing in that circumstance?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I made clear, the directive was opposed by ourselves, those countries which have strong hallmarking traditions and those which do not have any. Therefore, even under the system of qualified majority voting, a strong group is against the directive and we shall make certain, as far as we can, that the legislation does not go through.
Earl Russell: My Lords, without wishing to dispute anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, says about the antiquity of the hallmark, will the Minister confirm that no institution has been British for 700 years and that the adoption of the hallmark as a British institution is the result of a process of harmonisation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as always, we are entirely in favour of harmonisation as long as it is on our terms.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, for once, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not correct? Has the House of Lords not been a British institution for 700 years?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that for us simple grocers such a historical matter is far too complicated. I was merely concentrating on the commercial aspects.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, if the EU directive comes into force, the quality of silver and other precious metal products will be diminished because a lower quantity of silver will be allowable in such products than is allowable at present?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that that issue will be affected. In all cases products will be marked with the amount of fineness in them. Therefore, I do not believe that lower quality
770
products will come into the country because of that directive. We are concerned with distinguishing the basis of the quality control or hallmarking.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, under British hallmarking, do we not have 92.5 per cent silver in products, whereas, under the EU directive, products will contain only 80 per cent pure silver?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that a system already exists whereby products containing different standards of silver can come in with different amounts of fineness in them.

Transatlantic Aviation Rights
3.20 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Taraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to take any action following the decision of the American cargo airline FedEx to cancel flights to Prestwick.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the decision of FedEx to cancel its daily Memphis-Prestwick-Paris service within a year of its inauguration will have disappointed all those who had believed that the airline was making a genuine commitment to Scotland. However, although it is not for the Government to question the logic of the company's decision, I am confident that Prestwick will commend itself to competing cargo carriers intent on developing the market.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I am as disappointed as he is that FedEx has decided to pull out. Is it not embarrassing for the Government, having given a unilateral gift to the Americans, for which our airlines received nothing in exchange, that FedEx should have pulled out so soon after commencing the service? Perhaps I can quote the Minister who said that that was,
"a gesture of goodwill which will see FedEx on our side in their attempts to try and woo the American position because our main priority as we have stressed is still to get the rights for British carriers in the United States".
Can the Minister say precisely what progress was made a couple of weeks ago in talks with the United States Government on aviation rights? How long did those talks last? What can we hope to achieve from them?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the rationale behind the Government's original decision was eminently sensible. FedEx's decision to invest in the service promised to deliver benefits to the airport and to Scotland. The decision calls into question not only the regional economic benefits that would have come from the service, but also FedEx's commitment to Prestwick, given that the prize that FedEx really

771
sought was fifth freedom rights from Stansted. I believe that we are now entitled to speculate on whether they would have closed their Prestwick operations in any event if and when rights at Stansted were granted. Certainly the company's tenuous commitment to Prestwick tends to support that pessimistic speculation.
In terms of what influence the company brought to bear on the United States Government, it had offered, as others have done, to use its best endeavours to try to bring the Government round to seeing that our policy of liberalisation was preferable to the policy of "open skies" advocated by the Americans. In conducting any negotiations I was always mindful that I had been warned by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the phrase "open skies" means one thing to us and something different to the Americans. As far as the noble Lord was concerned, it would mean that ownership and control, cabotage, wet leasing, the instruction for American state employees to "fly America" and so forth would all be taken into account in any dealings that we had. Indeed, that was never far from our minds.
We believe that we have shown a flexibility and willingness to help the Americans to solve their problems. However, they still deny our carriers the rights that they demand for theirs.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, given the disappointing news about the FedEx decision to withdraw from Prestwick, will the Minister comment on the general strength of our aviation relationship with the United States? In particular, can he tell the House whether he believes that the Americans are behaving as unreasonably as they appear to be?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, since the early 1990s the United Kingdom has promoted full liberalisation in transatlantic aviation. We have been willing to help the United States to solve their problems with flights from Pittsburgh to London. Over a number of years, compared with the United States, we have been far more willing to act; for instance, to enable Virgin to operate a service to Las Vegas we have made a number of proposals that would allow it to operate a Pittsburgh-London service—only to be castigated for intransigence and unhelpfulness. However, we remain willing to work for a balanced deal.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in future will the Minister enter into only reciprocal agreements, combined with long-term commitments? What success was there in gaining wet lease access by UK carriers into the US market?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we had a limited response to the suggestion that our carriers may be allowed the same kind of freedoms that the Americans have in the United Kingdom and in Europe. A suggestion was made that our carriers should be able to fly into America under wet leasing
772
arrangements, but after arriving their hire would be restricted. That was not an attractive proposition for us. We believe that we must show flexibility and willingness, but we must also assume that any deal must be a balanced deal.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister accept that his last comment about showing flexibility merely suggests to some noble Lords that once more he will go down the path of giving a concession without getting one in return, and that that applies as much to the important aspects of freight carriage as it does to passenger transport? On a wider matter, will he agree that it is time to start talking to the Americans, who have the largest airline market in the world, on a Europe-to-America basis rather than on a UK-to-US basis which always puts us at a disadvantage as we are a much smaller operator?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, our belief is that we should not give any concessions to the United States unless there is a balanced deal. We shall weigh the merits of any proposed deal to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom aviation industry, its consumers and the UK economy are taken fully into account.
On the point of giving the Commission a mandate to negotiate with the United States, the Transport Council of the European Union remains to be persuaded that it should grant the Commission a mandate to negotiate with the United States. In the United Kingdom, our position has not changed. We do not believe that effective bilateral negotiations could proceed simultaneously with community-level talks. Our priority has been, and still is, bilateral negotiations with the United States.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, has the Minister any information on whether reports that American officials are seeking to ban British Airways Concorde flights across the Atlantic are true? If they are true, what attitude are the British Government taking in the face of that threat?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government view any threat to abrogate treaty obligations as a potentially serious development. Of course, it would be possible to take proportionate retaliatory action. I hope that the United States Government will recognise that such action would be bad for consumers on both sides of the Atlantic.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, did I detect at least a slight note of optimism in the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, regarding prospects at Prestwick? Does he envisage the possibility that another cargo carrier may come into Prestwick?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the decision of any employer to suspend operations in a particular location is always bad news if that results in lost jobs. In this case the number of jobs that may be

773
lost at Prestwick is 17. In the light of the growth that that airport has displayed recently, we are confident that in future the attractions of Prestwick will be shared by others in the industry. I am hopeful that other air freight carriers will take advantage in the near future of the fifth freedoms that are still extant at Prestwick.

Rural Areas: Access to Services
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What importance they place on access to services when measuring the quality of life in rural areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we realise that access to services is an important component of quality of life in rural areas. The Government featured that both in the sustainable development strategy published in May 1999 and as one of the core set of sustainable development indicators in Quality of life counts published in December. The rural White Paper, which will be published later this year, will set out the Government's approach to ensuring reasonable access to services in rural areas.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that there is some confusion on the part of the Government between quality of life indicators and minimum standards of access for service delivery? Perhaps it was that confusion which led the Prime Minister last week to say that the quality of life of elderly people in rural areas was quite rosy because they lived longer, ignoring the fact that in rural areas 92 per cent of parishes have no daycare facilities and many have no GP or daily bus service. That confusion means that rural communities do not know what standard of access to expect. Does the Minister feel that developing a minimum standard of access would be helpful so that we have factual rather than emotive replies to questions concerning rural areas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the balance of the quality of life in rural areas is a complex matter, as it is in urban areas. There are minimum standards in relation to some social services and it is quite clear that there are real problems of access for elderly people and others in rural areas. The remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister related to the general standard of living and well-being comparing rural with urban areas, but recognised at the same time that there are huge disparities in both. Many people in rural areas experience real problems with access, low incomes and a poor quality of life. Any rural policy White Paper will heed to address those complexities.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, will the Minister explain why in distributing local government grant the
774
Government do not pay due attention to population sparcity, despite the explicit recommendation of their expert advisers that they should do so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, geographical disparity is one of a number of criteria. Local indicators of deprivation and other factors are being developed which include that criterion. That will feed forward in relation to local government finance. Of course, there are a huge number of other criteria. One may particularly favour rural areas, but others will favour urban areas. Again, there is no simple answer to the balance of distribution of services.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that one of the measures of quality of life in rural areas is the provision of police services? Having been a village bobby many years ago, I fully appreciate that resources do not permit the level of coverage that we used to have in villages, but will my noble friend encourage chief constables to provide police surgeries in villages from time to time, perhaps with mobile police stations? Not only will that provide reassurance to the community, but it will also be an invaluable source of intelligence about rural crime.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, without wishing to interfere in the operational decisions of chief constables in my noble friend's area or anywhere else, we need to look at innovative ways to ensure greater access in rural areas to advice and support from the public services, including policing, which have been cut in recent years. I welcome the police force, and other public services, looking at those aspects.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that out-of-hours medical services will not be cut in rural areas? Does he agree that if that happened, it would put elderly and disabled people in a dangerous position?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health indicated that we want not only to maintain services, but also to improve access to services. Again, however, it may be that in certain respects more innovative access to health services may be particularly appropriate in rural areas; for example, NHS Direct may play a major role in that respect.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, what importance do the Government attach to the retention of post offices, usually associated with a village shop, in terms of the quality of life in rural areas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the presence of, and the distance the average citizen has to travel to, a post office are part of the criteria forming our general indicators. The Government are committed to maintaining a network of rural post offices.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that "services", within the meaning of the Question, include benefit offices? Is he aware that there is a case in Somerset, not one of the most remote areas in the land, of a single parent having to pay £6 in bus fares every time she visits the benefit office? Does he agree that more cases like that may make pressure for an increase in benefit levels irresistible and teach the Treasury—not for the first time—that economy is a very expensive habit?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that there will be difficulties of access to benefit offices but in a sense there always were, and rationalisation of the provision of benefit is bound to create a few problems. Again, the question of access to benefits and to the services of the Department of Social Security could be addressed more effectively in rural areas by more innovative approaches. Of course, in many of the areas of delivery of social security benefits, the Post Office plays an important part.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred in passing to the index of local deprivation, which I understand is being reviewed at present by a bunch of assorted academics from Oxford University. I understand that one of the reasons why there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of London districts which are contained within the top 65 deprived areas is this issue of access to local services. Does my noble friend acknowledge not only that the data backing up those changes should be published, but also that it does not make a great deal of sense to compare very different areas in the country and then try to produce one composite index of deprivation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these issues are complex. Nevertheless, it is important to be able to measure one form of deprivation against another, as long as one understands the context of the components of that index. My noble friend is right. However, the people to whom he refers as a "bunch of academics from Oxford", I refer to as "eminent independent advisers". The basis of that index is out for consultation. I have no doubt that my noble friend's colleagues in London will have comments on it, as will those from rural areas.

Financial Services and Markets Bill
3.38 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.39 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, after ("statutory") insert ("or standing").
The noble Lord said: Clause 1(4) opens up a range of committees and the amendment seeks to protect all persons who might be drawn, perhaps inadvertently, into membership of ad hoc committees or who are inveigled or elected to serve thereon. The subsection could expose Ministers, chairmen and deputy chairmen who might want to serve on the Northern Ireland Select Committee or Grand Committee.
There is a degree of overlap and vagueness in the Bill. I refer, in particular to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who currently serve on such committees by virtue of being elected to the other place. There should be no room for doubt in the interests of those who, perhaps through ignorance, might breach the law as enforced by the Bill.
On the wider question of Northern Ireland Committees, I suggest, as a contribution to avoiding or filling the dreaded vacuum in Northern Ireland, that it might be a good idea to encourage the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to meet more frequently— as required by law. It has not been fulfilling its potential for two or three years, although that is no reflection on any party. That committee can have up to six meetings per year but, disappointingly, it has not met since last summer. Meetings of the Grand Committee would be a way of making people in Northern Ireland of all parties and creeds feel that they were not being neglected or forgotten.
Membership of the Grand Committee is open to all elected representatives who have taken their seats, so there are good grounds for assuming that they will continue to work together, as they did when they met more frequently. That would in itself do much to reassure the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that we can rely on the Minister to use his considerable influence to remove what appears to be a blockage in the usual channels and thereafter to ensure that meetings of the Grand Committee are restored to their authorised frequency.
The Northern Ireland Select Committee was established in the face of a good deal of opposition, mainly from the Northern Ireland Office. Its remit was faulty and still is. Like the Grand Committee, the

777
Select Committee was encouraged to range over all Stormont departments, thereby duplicating the scrutiny and other excellent work done by United Kingdom government departments. Trade and industry is one example. The first excursion by members of the Northern Ireland Select Committee was to Korea to consider how exports to that country from the United Kingdom might be improved. That issue was being tackled from another angle by the Department of Trade and Industry, resulting in unnecessary duplication of effort.
It was my responsibility to spearhead the campaign for the Select Committee. My proposed terms of reference, which I tabled at 10 every morning that the other place was sitting, were:
"There shall be a Northern Ireland Select Committee to scrutinise the decisions of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, for which there is no counterpart in Great Britain".
I lost that battle. Consequently, successive Secretaries of State were deprived of the opportunity to meet Members of your Lordships' House and benefit from advice and assistance on matters that could not be touched upon by any other committee— such as law, policing, security and constitutional issues. I am not suggesting that we should invite the other place to amend meaningless terms of reference that it has operated for several years, but noble Lords might consider the formation of a Select Committee of their own on the terms originally proposed. I am convinced that such a committee would provide the Secretary of State with the means of valuable contact with your Lordships now that the House of Lords is rapidly acquiring a legitimacy that allegedly did not exist until a few months ago. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I join the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in his amendment—partly because it is identical to one introduced by one of my honourable friends in another place. The purpose of this simple amendment is consistency, so that all who hold office in the Assembly are treated equally.
The Bill allows some committee chairs to perform their functions without their committees. Clause 1(3) states that no committee of the Assembly,
"is to hold a meeting or conduct any business",
during a suspension. However, subsection (4) states that only the chair or deputy chair of statutory committees will not continue to hold office. In effect, the chair and deputy chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Procedures Committee, Committee of the Centre, Audit Committee and Public Accounts Committee can continue to carry out their functions without their committees being able to meet to discuss the issues and without chairs and deputy chairs being able to take account of the opinions of their committee members, which seems illogical and indefensible.
In the other place, the Minister focused on the role of the chair within the committee, but there is nothing to hinder the chair continuing his work with the clerk to his committee and external bodies. The chair of the Audit Committee, for example, routinely meets with
778
the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Failure to suspend the chairs of standing committees means that it will not possible for certain elements of the Assembly to continue working through suspension. Is that what the Government intend?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment would ensure that the chairman and deputy chairman of all committees of the Assembly would cease to hold office during suspension, not just the chairman and deputy chairman of statutory committees. I hope to offer both noble Lords reassurance that will go some way to allaying their concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out that Clause 1(3) makes it clear that no committees of the Assembly can meet or conduct any business during suspension. That includes statutory and all other committees. All Assembly committees, statutory or standing, will cease to function for the duration of the suspension. Subsection (4) deals only with individuals who hold statutory office under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, just as Clause 3 deals with their reappointment in line with the provisions of that Act.
The Bill does not address the various non-statutory appointments such as the chairmen of standing committees. Nevertheless, they too will cease to exercise any of their functions during a suspension because their committees cannot meet and conduct any business. While emphasising that the suspension provisions in Clause 1 will impact on all committees of the Assembly, I express the hope, on the basis of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I should like to deal with the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. As he knows, this Bill deals only with the committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It does not deal with either the committees of this Chamber or those of another place. In particular, in does not deal with the Northern Irish Select Committee or the Grand Committee.
It is a matter for both Houses to decide the terms and frequency of the meetings of these committees. As the noble Lord implicitly acknowledges, the frequency of meetings is not affected by this legislation. With respect, I do not think that this is the appropriate place to try to deal with the points he has made. It is a matter for each individual place to decide how best to proceed. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful for the clarification provided by the noble and learned Lord in regard to the points made, especially those made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who may wish to say something in response. In regard to the second point, I freely acknowledge that I was pushing my luck a little and going beyond the terms of reference. However, there is a relationship here. If we can illustrate that the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom is using its mechanisms to the full to look after the needs, wishes and desires of the people of Northern Ireland, it will be much easier to find a

779
solution and an end to the vacuum. That is why I ventured to go a little wider than I should have done. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord but renew my appeal that he should use his very considerable influence to ensure that something is done to restore those committees to their former operational efficiency. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would feel able to accept at the next stage of the Bill a small amendment to Clause 1(3), simply adding at the end the words,
"save that the Secretary of State may enable them to meet in a consultative role".
That wording would meet the point I endeavoured to raise yesterday on Second Reading, to which the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to reply in responding to the debate.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is a novel way to propose an amendment by asking, "What about thinking about this wording at the next stage?" I dealt with this matter on the last occasion. I said then that the reason why the suspension is being considered is to allow a breathing space because of where we are in relation to the process in Northern Ireland. As I said at the time, Clause 1 prevents the Assembly meeting or conducting any business during a suspension. That means it will not be able to function in a shadow or consultative mode. The Bill is not about providing an alternative role for the Assembly; it is about providing a complete breathing space to allow people to focus their energies on resolving the current difficulties. In the light of that, I am not in a position to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Ending suspension]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord: For the sake of convenience Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have been grouped together. I made clear yesterday that my reservation with this subsection is solely in connection with the word "review". I note that in earlier copies of the Bill—this is not just a niggling point; it is something that has puzzled many of us—the clause was printed in italics. The italics have now been dropped. I wonder whether they were intended to give a degree of prominence to that wording in another place, or whether the earlier version was drafted in haste. I suggest that it was somewhat unusual, but I shall not press the point.
I expressed the hope yesterday that it is not the intention to inflict upon the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland another dose of summitry which would be destructive of what little stability remains.
American-style summitry—involving, as it does, the isolation of the participants and starving them of nourishment and sleep—is always welcomed by the news industry. However, the process invariably leads to the downfall of leaders and, on occasions, governments. Instead of dramatic summitry, I suggest that we need a period of reflection. Then we need a thorough examination of the mechanisms of devolution against the background of yesterday's turmoil in Wales and the Scottish "hot-pot" bubbling away nicely, soon to overflow.
Having been present during nearly all the debates on devolution in this Chamber concerning all three parts of the United Kingdom—indeed, four if we count London—it was, and is, clear to me that the problems are not really understood. Regrettably, Parliament has condoned or ignored certain facts of life. We certainly ignored the fact that the Stormont experiment had no counterpart anywhere in this world and that its flaws and unworkability made collapse almost inevitable. I can think of no nation that requires every party to be involved in cabinet or executive and where, if any one element withdraws, the whole structure collapses. Surely we can do better than that. I repeat my plea for modest beginnings.
I was greatly encouraged by the words of Mr George Howarth, the Northern Ireland Minister in the other place, who said on 8th February:
"Right hon. and hon. Members can envisage circumstances in which some talks would need to take place away from the public gaze. In the past, some talks between parties have taken place in a way that protected the participants and allowed them the space to decide in which direction to move".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/00; col. 202.]
I believe we are entitled to assume that those wise words of a junior Minister represent the views of his fellow Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and also—dare I suggest it?—the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government in general. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I listened with care to the remarks he made. If I interpret the amendments correctly, they would effectively break with the Belfast agreement and could lead to its suspension. I have to point out that all the way through this process my party has linked with the Government in believing in the Belfast agreement and supporting all those who worked for it. We certainly could not countenance any alteration or amendment to the Bill that would endanger the Belfast agreement.
Lord Smith of Clifton: On behalf of these Benches, perhaps I may concur with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Glentoran.
Lord Hylton: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, is trying to achieve with these amendments. It is possible that they are just a probe. I am not quite clear as to their intention. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has drawn attention to an important point; namely, that the fullest possibly dialogue should proceed in parallel

781
with any review. I say that because dialogue between citizens, politicians and members of parties is, I believe, capable of changing attitudes. Changing attitudes is extremely important for the generation of trust that we all know has been somewhat lacking. That is why I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State will do their very best to promote dialogue at all levels whether or not there is a review going on.
4 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister had noticed that I would be raising an issue at this stage rather than at the further reading because I think it is the time for it to be considered, and it is relevant.
I was not clear yesterday exactly what the two governments expected to review and under whose chairmanship they would do it. I am clear that if the Government has taken us up to the wire, purports to intend to call Sinn Fein/IRA's bluff and to challenge them to make good their implicit commitments, then they should not be offering yet another sop to Cerberus at this late stage that would commit Her Majesty's Government to fall short in its duty to defend the people of Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom whose people, by a substantial majority, voted to stay within the United Kingdom.
In the debate yesterday I referred the possibility of tacit deals that might be proposed to equate the paramilitary arms with those of the regular forces and to lower our defences. I pointed out then that when the IRA speak of the issue of arms they are speaking about the armed forces of the Crown and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, not decommissioning their own paramilitary arms,.
Press reports today suggest—and this is the point on which I should like the view of the noble Lord the Minister—that the Irish Government, in its usual helpful and generous way, is to propose a plan which would involve significant demilitarisation measures by the British in Northern Ireland. By a curious coincidence, Gerry Adams has also been talking about demilitarisation. He is usually aware of what is happening. It is also reported that any initiative from the Republican Movement will be strictly conditional on demilitarisation and the continuation of the new institutions.
The courageous decision, in which I found so much to praise yesterday, may prove to be yet another fudge, purporting to suspend the institutions and appearing to bring a minute amount of pressure to bear on Sinn Fein/IRA, but with both sides knowing that the decision to suspend the institutions is only a manoeuvre and that there is yet another deal under the table designed to give Sinn Fein/IRA yet more, in return for what?
Can the Minister tell us what is the position? I recognise that negotiations are secret and have to be carried on behind the scenes. But since they are creeping out of every crevice of the Irish Times and our own press, I think that we are entitled to have a view; and I did give the Minister notice that I would want it.
782
I should like to know how the Government propose to justify dismantling defences in IRA "country" in South Armagh and withdrawing forces from a part of Britain while the situation is not, and cannot possibly be considered to be, normal. I have no doubt that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence will be delighted for their own different reasons, such as severe overstretch in the army. It will be nothing short of disgraceful to offer Sinn Fein/IRA yet one more major act of appeasement. I should not be at all surprised if this—combined with the determination of the Government to proceed also to emasculate the Royal Ulster Constabulary to appease a tiny violent minority—will be the last straw for most of the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government have reflected very carefully on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall first deal with the preliminary point about the italics which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, raised. It is customary in another place for provisions which may incur financial expenditure to be printed in italics. Clearly, if and when a review is put in place, there will be associated costs. That was the only reason for the print being in italics.
The essence of Amendments 2 and 3 that we are taking together is to remove the requirement for a review. Suspension will come into effect only if it becomes clear that the political institutions no longer carry cross-community support and confidence. If that is, indeed, the case and the institutions are suspended, it will be essential that we bring the process back on track to a process of discussion and negotiations; in other words, a review. This was recognised during the negotiations that resulted in the Good Friday Agreement. That is why there is a whole section entitled "Validation, Implementation and Review". If suspension occurred without being followed by a review we could find ourselves in a dangerous political vacuum that could lead to the destruction of everything on which we have been working for so long. It would almost certainly cause the end of the Good Friday Agreement. I think it is that view that has led the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, to express the views that they have in this debate.
As has often been said, here and in another place, this legislation is not intended to suspend the agreement. It is intended to save the agreement. I am convinced that it is only through the twin proposal of suspension followed by review that we can reach a positive outcome, not by suspension alone. Consequently, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
I deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. There have been articles in the Irish Times yesterday and other newspapers today. I make our position clear. The onus is on the paramilitaries to provide parity on whether, how and when they will decommission. All our efforts with the Irish Government are directed to achieving that. Security measures are determined by the level of

783
threat. As the threat reduces, we will make progress on normalisation. We have already published a paper setting out our strategy for doing so.
There is no equivalent between security measures and the decommissioning of arms that we seek. In relation to security measures we act on the professional advice of the chief constable. We are determined not to relax our guard. The safety of the public is absolutely paramount. Decommissioning is essential because illegal arms, even if not used, are part of the threat. Substantive and verifiable decommissioning would have an impact on the overall level of threat alongside other important factors. I repeat that security measures are determined by the level of threat. We act on the professional advice of the chief constable.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry to intervene at this point. I just wanted to agree with and support what the Minister has said about the level of threat and the rumours that are in the newspapers today and were in the Irish Times yesterday. It is extremely important that security measures involving both police and the army are solely determined by the level of threat. After all, Irvinestown has reminded us once again, although we needed no reminding, that the threat does not come only from those who belong to the larger and better known paramilitary organisations but potentially, increasingly, from break-away movements of one kind or another. It is the threat from them, just as much as from any of the larger organisations, that has to be taken into account by the Secretary of State and his security advisers in deciding when to reduce any security measures that there are, including troop numbers and everything else. That has always been the policy, and I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed that it is still so.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I felt that I had made it abundantly clear in my opening words that the one target word in that sub-section was the word "review". I did not mention anything likely to be destructive of the Belfast agreement. I know that we used to be told in former times—last year and the year before—that the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" or vice versa would unravel the whole agreement, none of which I believed. That was the kind of theology. It was that word "review" to which I took exception and which I made clear I regarded as highly dangerous. I should have perhaps suggested the word "amendment" or "consultations". I did try to make it clear that on occasions when we have had these high-wire acts in the way of reviews, cameras and the law, ambushing everybody as they come in and out, putting their own slant and interpretation on what has been said, that was quite frankly destructive of any peaceful way forward. I derive some comfort from the fact that I am in line with the junior Minister in another place. I quoted the words to the Committee. I do hope that he will not be accused by certain Members of the Committee here of trying to destroy the Belfast agreement. In the light of the curious reaction I have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: A study of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—which, after all, is the governing Act at the moment—reveals that only two years ago we asked why—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that we have yet to come to Clause 3. This is Amendment No. 3.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Effect of restoration]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
("(2) Sections 16 to 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (relating to the election of the first minister and deputy first minister, the determination and filling of ministerial offices and the appointment of junior ministers) shall apply.".).
The noble Lord said: I am grateful for the correction, as I had indicated that I was discussing Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together as they are grouped together on the groupings list.
Given that so much study was devoted to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 during its progress through this Chamber only two years ago, we have to ask why what we approved without even a Division—namely, the complicated mechanism for appointing the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—has now been largely set aside by Clause 3 of the Bill before us. One can understand the desire to avoid delay in appointing, or perhaps reappointing, those two senior Ministers. However, in the likely event of the period of suspension—renewed or otherwise—lasting for perhaps a year, does it not seem likely that the situation, including the political situation, may have changed to such an extent that the original mandate of one or both of those two Ministers will be no longer sustainable? In that situation, would it not be prudent for those two senior Ministers to be reinstated to begin with in designate form and thereafter to seek a renewed mandate in the form of fresh internal elections in the Assembly, perhaps after a period of four weeks?
I understand that in another place a junior Minister took the line that any election during or immediately after suspension would be, to use his words, a very delicate matter. It might be said that Ministers had foreseen the events in the Welsh Assembly yesterday and those which may yet occur in the Scottish Parliament. All of us who have had to submit ourselves to election may feel that all elections are delicate matters, particularly in a marginal constituency. It is not clear whether the juggling between Section 16 of the 1998 Act and Clause 3 of the Bill perpetuates the requirement for a kind of joint departure of both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; in other words, if one goes, the other must go. One might call that a kind of legislative suicide pact. In the light of

785
yesterday's confusion in Wales, is it possible that there is now a need for a rethink, not to damage the sacred agreement but simply to clarify the rules governing present and future mechanisms within the Assembly? I believe that it would be disastrous if, following a restoration, there was confusion and chaos on the first day back. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: Once again, I regret to say that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment. It seems to me that if suspension occurs (whatever the period of time it takes for democracy to be restored), it would be less than just after all the work, the negotiations, the effort and leadership of both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon, respectively—that they should not resume their posts when democracy is restored. If, as the noble Lord suggests, their mandate has run out, surely the democratic processes will take their own natural course within the Assembly and within the Province, and new elections will follow in the normal way. I believe that it is absolutely right that when democracy is restored after a suspension, those in post should remain there until the democratic processes of the system decide otherwise. As I say, we cannot support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On Tuesday in another place my right honourable friend Mr Mandelson, set out the rationale behind the Bill. He made it clear that the intention was to suspend the institutions in order to create a temporary pause, a breathing space, in which a short review could take place, after which a restoration order could be made.
Fundamentally, the enabling power in this Bill will suspend only the operation of the institutions. The institutions themselves will remain intact. In particular, the Assembly will not be collapsed or dissolved. Similarly, members of the Executive and the First and Deputy First Ministers are not being permanently discharged. Their functions will simply be exercised, for a temporary period, by the Secretary of State. A restoration order will then return all of the institutions intact, to the point before suspension took place. Clause 3 has been drafted to allow a smooth, uncomplicated and swift return to devolution.
If Clause 3 were drafted in the way proposed by the noble Lord, in effect one would have to have new elections for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—and that would suggest that the suspension was intended to be a long-term proposition, which it is not. In addition, it might suggest some permanency that would be damaging to the process of building the trust and confidence which are necessary for the restoration of the institutions.
The vast majority here and in another place have expressed their disappointment at the need to present this Bill. These views are based on the fact that most people want to see the Good Friday agreement work. They want to see power successfully devolved to Northern Ireland. They do not want to see a return to direct rule. The Government are in total agreement
786
with those views. That is why, instead of dissolving the institutions and repealing the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we are putting arrangements in place to allow for what we hope will be a short suspension. It would not be conducive to a swift and positive return to devolution to have to re-establish the Assembly from scratch after suspension. It would not help to create stability; it would have the opposite effect. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's response. I can only hope that the obvious conflict between the 1998 Act and the present Bill will not, when the Assembly is eventually restored, cause the whole operation to end in chaos and tears yet again. I hope that the gentle warnings that I have given may at least enable some consideration to be given to the possibility that the experts may not be entirely right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Orders made under this Act: supplemental provision]:
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("(except one under Section 9(2))").
The noble Lord said: The premise on which this amendment is based is to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes an order to suspend the Assembly, it must be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This is an enabling Bill which, as I said at Second Reading, gives very wide powers to the Secretary of State. It gives him the ability to suspend the Assembly at any time without any further requirement to consult Parliament or to make a Statement.
Yet Parliament has to pass an order to allow power to be restored. That seems to be somewhat illogical. The Act, as it will be, does not have to be used now or at the weekend. In future there may be very different circumstances and the Act would be used without any consideration of the matter being given by Parliament. It is an extremely broad and sweeping power that is being given to the Secretary of State. It may have very serious implications. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has just said. Obviously, it is extremely important that the order which sets the suspension in motion should be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Sadly, that is not how I read his amendment. It appears to mean that the Act would not come into force, and would not become available to the Secretary of State, unless there had been approved a draft of such an order by both Houses of Parliament. There would have to be a subsequent order and another pair of approvals in order to set the suspension in motion. I do not believe that is desirable.

787
It would be unusual to require an affirmative resolution simply for the bringing into force of the Act. Secondly, it may delay permission being given for the actual suspension owing to the necessity of having two measures of approval, one for the Act itself and the other for the resolution. Therefore, while agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, I cannot agree to the amendment as I read it.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I cannot support the amendment. Last week the Secretary of State himself in another place had a timetable in mind. He seemed to suggest that, with everyone's co-operation, the Bill could complete all its stages in both Houses and receive Royal Assent at a given time, followed by commencement, in his view, almost automatically. That seemed to be what he had in mind. I believe that is desirable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Through his amendment the noble Lord seeks to provide that the commencement order bringing this Act into effect should be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny and approval. Although the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, raised questions about its efficacy, I understand that he supports the principle. Although I understand the reasons for moving the amendment, I believe that it is inappropriate.
It is customary for the power to make a commencement order not to be subject to parliamentary approval. In giving its approval to this Bill the House will, with regret, I believe, be giving my right honourable friend in another place authority to suspend devolved government. He has made it clear that he will act on that authority by the end of this week if clear and credible progress has not been made on decommissioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, has said. That is the reality of the position. To be required to return to the House within days for further approval is neither sensible nor appropriate.
Members of the Committee may also wish to note, first, that the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which considered these matters, has given the legislation a clean bill of health. Secondly, subsequent restoration and revocation orders under the Bill, should it become law, would require parliamentary approval. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I accept the impeccable logic of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and consequential amendment]:
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert ("within 24 hours of Royal Assent").
The noble Lord said: I risk repeating what I said a few minutes ago. In another place the Secretary of State expressed the expectation and hope that the Bill would complete all its stages. He also said that he hoped that it would receive Royal Assent before the end of this week. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, that is the normal custom for a Bill as important as this, and that any commencement should not be delayed in any way by reference to any other bodies at any other level.
As a loyal subject, I would not presume to anticipate Her Majesty's decision. Therefore, my amendment is designed to ensure that the commencement follows closely on receiving Royal Assent. It suggests a round figure of 24 hours after Royal Assent. But in view of the deterioration in confidence within Northern Ireland and all the rumours, reports, forecasts and so forth, I suggest that, subject to the Royal Prerogative, the commencement announcement could be made perhaps as early as 12 noon tomorrow. We certainly should not allow the situation to drift over the weekend: that would be absolutely disastrous. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: I have some sympathy with this amendment but, after considerable thought, I believe it is best to leave the Secretary of State with maximum flexibility as to when he operates the suspension, if indeed he has to. However, I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, as regards the suspension being sooner rather than later if the deterioration continues, according to the press and one thing and another. We must not forget that the Ulster Unionist Party conference meets on Saturday. The First Minister, David Trimble, will be in serious trouble by then if we have not got either the product or the process has not been suspended.
Furthermore, the people attending that meeting will come from right across the Province. If they have not heard in due time of the suspension and arrive in the knowledge that it has not happened, there could be considerable difficulties in getting the decision that we want from them. I am being very practical and recommend to the Government that if suspension is seen to be necessary—I still hope that it will not—it is made in adequate time to be announced in Northern Ireland on the six o'clock news.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that a prompt decision is made as to when suspension should take effect, particularly as it is such a major step. But as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said, the effect of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to make a commencement order within such a short timescale thereby negating the flexibility of allowing an order to be made in the first place.

789
In practice, this amendment to the Bill would not allow my right honourable friend in another place to take account of any developments that occur before the Bill receives Royal Assent or even just after that. I am sure that the Committee is aware of the rapid changes that can occur in the political process in Northern Ireland, particularly the propensity for developments at the eleventh hour. We must not assume, even at this late stage, that commencement will be necessary. Indeed, many of us hope that there will be enough progress so that suspension is no longer needed.
Equally, the Government must be able to react quickly to preserve the progress that has been made so far and to ensure good governance in Northern Ireland. Assurances have been given, both here and in another place, that those developments must occur by the end of the week or devolved government will be suspended.
Emphasising again that the amendment will require the Secretary of State to trigger suspension of the devolved institutions even if the political context did not warrant it, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his qualified support of the amendment. I am grateful to him also for issuing a little reminder of certain crucial timetables and crucial meetings taking place in the early part of the weekend, which I was too timid to mention.
I understand the constitution and niceties of these matters. I hope that, at least, the amendment and what has been said in support of it will be taken on board by the Secretary of State—sensitive, as he always is, to the possibility of dangers and troubles further down the road. I am confident that we can leave the matter to his judgment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Schedule [Provisions Applicable During Suspension]:
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 5, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10.
We all hope that this will be a short suspension but, were it not to be, these amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to review his decision on the payment of Assembly members every six months. Before devolution, there was a great deal of controversy about the level of payment of Assembly members. That was exacerbated further by the salaries they voted themselves when devolution took place. To allow any public suspicion in Northern Ireland that payments will be carried on over an extended period would be most unfortunate.
There is no political advantage in arguing for the retention of Assembly members' wages if there is little or no work being carried out. I envisage that if the Assembly is still in suspension after six months and no
790
serious attempts have been made to resolve the impasse—we still do not know what the Government will do by way of review—it would be useful if the public could be assured that Assembly members' wages will not be continued ad infinitum without a check. I hope it will not be necessary for the amendment—should it be incorporated in the Bill—to be implemented, but I think it would be a reassurance to public opinion that this will not be another process of delay with payment. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation of his amendments. Whether or not intended, the effect of the amendments would be that the Secretary of State would have power under Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to vary Assembly members' salaries; however, he would not have power to stop salaries altogether without making an order which would be subject to approval by Parliament. Furthermore, such an order would lapse after six months unless replaced by a further one.
The approach currently set out in the Bill is more appropriate. This transfers to my right honourable friend in another place the relevant functions currently exercised by the Assembly. He will have discretion to vary or stop salaries as appropriate. I am confident that he will discharge this responsibility carefully and with all due consideration. It would not significantly enhance the interests of either Assembly members, Members of this Parliament or your Lordships to introduce a further element into this process. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his assurances. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 5, after ("salaries") insert ("or allowances").
The noble Lord said: It is not my intention to inflict hardship on members or Ministers of the Assembly but to clarify beyond doubt the position in regard to subventions from public funds to opposition parties. As it stands, the position is very vague. This issue is relevant because I believe that within the framework of the Assembly a committee—perhaps a finance committee or a body of that kind—is studying how it might benefit from what is called "Short" money—a name derived from its introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, the Leader of the House of Commons in the Wilson government, and a very good friend of many of us on this side of the House.
As leader of a party at that time, I was involved in the discussions. I can certify that the grants were designed to assist opposition parties in Parliament to employ staff and to increase their efficiency in dealing with legislation and related matters. I have reason to believe that the committee at work—it may not, at the moment, be formally at work—in the Stormont

791
Assembly has been in touch with its Edinburgh and Cardiff counterparts. It is important that during this period of suspension—this vacuum, whatever one wants to call it—a gentle word of advice is given to the three Assemblies to ensure that they do not build up false expectations.
I am not seeking to deprive the back-benchers in any of those Assemblies of assistance if Parliament so decides, but the rules of the Short money scheme clearly define the fund as being available to assist opposition parties. Surely that means that a second party in coalition with another party could not benefit, even in an assembly. I do not see how it could be accepted in regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly because the parties are all in a compulsory coalition; there are no opposition parties.
I seek to issue a good-natured word of caution for them not to build up their expectations or, worse still, to make plans for lavish expenditure, in the belief that somehow or other the scheme will be applied to them. In those circumstances, it should be made clear that Short money can be paid only to opposition parties and not to a coalition of parties, some of which are in government. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, did not speak to Amendment No. 9 and I shall deal with that amendment after he has moved it.
The effect of Amendment No. 8 would be to allow the Secretary of State to determine allowances as well as salaries at zero. Paragraph 9(2) of the Schedule was included because the power transferred to the Secretary of State to determine salaries under Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is such that the Secretary of State would be able only to vary salaries, not to withdraw them altogether. While no decisions have yet been taken on those matters, it is right that the Secretary of State should be given full discretion.
The scope for the Secretary of State to determine the allowances payable to Assembly members is much greater and he already has discretion to withdraw all allowances under the present statutory provision in Section 48 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998. Consequently, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it. I should point out that Sections 47 and 48 of the Act deal with the payment of salaries and allowances to individuals. They do not deal with the payment of moneys to parties, which is to what I believe the noble Lord was referring when he mentioned "Short" money. I am not sure that either Clause 9(2) or Section 47 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998 touch the issue he raised.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I agree that the Short money would not be in the terms of the Bill as printed, but under the 1998 Act that did not stop the Finance Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly from exploring, I understand, in company with its Scottish and Welsh counterparts, the possibility of making an
792
application—I presume to the other end of the building—for access to the Short money. It was to avoid any embarrassment that I tabled the amendment. I shall therefore withdraw it and I shall not move the other amendment in my name to ensure that there is no distinction between members of the Assembly and Ministers in the Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th February), Bill read a third time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that inescapable duties prevented me from hearing the Second Reading debate. I realise that I must not now make a Second Reading speech, but I hope that a brief Third Reading speech may be permissible.
I have, of course, had the advantage of reading in Hansard yesterday's Second Reading debate here and that in another place. I do not see how the Secretary of State could possibly have avoided bringing forward the Bill in the light of such information as is in the public domain, any more than I see how, on the basis of such information, the Secretary of State can avoid bringing in the order implementing the suspension of the institutions forthwith.
I take issue with the Explanatory Notes, helpful though they are, because paragraph 3 states that,
"the Secretary of State also indicated that should future circumstances require it"—
referring to the Statement of 22nd November in another place
"the operation of the Assembly (and other institutions) could be suspended".
The Secretary of State did not say so. In the most robust language, he said that they would be suspended. It is worth bearing in mind the language that he used:
"However, if there is default, either in implementing, decommissioning, or indeed for that matter devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions—the Executive, the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the north-south implementation bodies".
He continued,
"Nobody should doubt my resolve to ensure that no party profits from preventing progress in all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/99; col. 346.]

793
It is clear from a reading of yesterday's debate in your Lordships' House that none of your Lordships appeared in any doubt that circumstances require the suspending of the institutions because the republicans have defaulted on decommissioning. I want to make it clear that I agree—lest anyone in any quarter should suppose that I was reluctant to be counted on that matter at this critical time—because of the collapse of confidence in the Executive and in other institutions that the default has caused, at least among the Unionists in Northern Ireland, and, I suspect, probably more widely.
That collapse of confidence is not irrational. It derives from the fact that trust has to be at the centre of the operation of the institutions of devolution. Furthermore, a crucial expectation which Sinn Fein colluded in creating has been dashed. There is also a further reason. Genuine deliberation and, more especially, genuine compromise, are inhibited if one party refuses to give up its arsenal. Either a compromise will have been extorted by threat of force, or it will have been withheld for fear of such an accusation. Yet surely in Northern Ireland, of all places, the art of judicious compromise needs to be encouraged.
There will be time in due course to review recent history and the Government's handling of those extremely difficult matters with the great benefit of hindsight. At this point, I do not feel disposed to criticise Her Majesty's Government for having travelled many painful extra miles—with one exception which I attacked at the time and to which it is not now necessary to allude. In my own time, I travelled some painful extra miles knowing full well the obloquy that they would attract. The consequence of the Government's extra miles at the very least has surely been this: that Sinn Fein/IRA defaulters are today in the unprecedented position of being universally seen for what they are, at least at present—that is, obstructers of the very process which they claim to support, and blackmailing obstructers at that.
Among their resulting multifarious critics are those who have been driven to denounce even John Hume for "inappropriate" remarks—by which they mean uncongenial remarks—calling for a start to decommissioning by them. The Secretary of State rightly described that in another place as "arrogant". I am afraid that he also described it as "lordly", which your Lordships would not recognise. For that action on the part of Sinn Fein to be noted by all the world is surely not a negligible development; nor is its significance likely to be lost on Sinn Fein/IRA. They are on their own, and, I suggest, for the first time.
I agree with the remarks made in the same vein yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Eames, and others about the need to keep doors open, not to slam them. I agree also with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, in this debate about the availability of other modes of discourse and discussion. There are ways of talking other than in the Executive and the Assembly. Those ways must continue to be taken. We should always travel in hope. But for the immediate future, the Bill must surely be
794
passed and the implementing order made—not least because, otherwise, Northern Ireland will at once lose the leadership of two politicians in particular without whose courage and vision the huge progress noted by noble Lords in yesterday's debate would not have been made.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I indicated to the Government that I wanted to say a few words at this stage. I do not intend to go into any great detail. I have had the experience of the "treble"—of seeing three governments in Northern Ireland abolished. In 1972, I saw the wiping out of the Stormont parliament, which had been created in 1920. In 1974, I was there when the Sunningdale executive was wiped out. I then saw the abolition of the convention a few years later. Now, I am witnessing the current events.
All noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have expressed a great deal of regret. No one in this House seeks with any enthusiasm the passage of this legislation. I do so very reluctantly. But some things should be pointed out. A great deal of criticism has rightly been levelled at Sinn Fein/IRA and their refusal to decommission their arms. But when the review takes place—and I hope that it will be successful—as much consideration and pressure should be applied to the UFF, the UVF and the other loyalist so-called paramilitaries who also have a large number of lethal arms at their disposal.
During the suspension, we are asking the IRA to decommission. The IRA are the Irish Republican Army. Without arms, they are nothing. The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) is nothing without its murderous weapons. The only reason that the LVF and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) have any legitimacy in their own minds is that they have lethal arms at their disposal by which they threaten to murder those who disagree with them. So when the review takes place, the same pressure should be applied to all those organisations. If the IRA does decommission, then there will be no need: it will be voting itself out of existence. What is an army without arms? So the IRA must face the consequences—as we must. If it hands in its arms, as I passionately advise it to do, there will be no need for an Irish Republican Army. The same applies to the UVF and the other so-called "loyalist" organisations.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will have made many friends among Northern Ireland Assembly members by querying their salaries. I know how sensitive the matter can be, and has been every time there has been an abolition order.
I should like to ask an important question. During the suspension, when no meetings will be allowed at Stormont—there will be no committees—will members of the legislative assembly be able to attend as individuals? They have offices there, with their computers, word processors and various writing facilities. Will they be able to use the facilities in the building?

795
We all know the symbolism of the Stormont building. In my mind I have a clear picture of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being held outside the building before they were elected as MLAs. I can readily foresee that the symbolism of the building will be used by MLAs of different political persuasions to put forward their particular point of view.
An editorial in the Irish Times fully expresses my wish and my sentiments at this time. It was written last year, not last week. The final paragraph states:
"The core of the decommissioning issue is no different today from what it was six months ago. No democratic system can function while some participants reserve the right indefinitely to fall back upon violence and maintain an armed force to do so. The IRA and Sinn Féin do not appear to accept this and believe they can force those who are fully-committed democrats to bend to their will".
That last sentence is of great import to everyone at this time.
"It would be unthinkable that the Belfast Agreement, with all it represents, should founder. But that would be a lesser price to pay than embracing the corruption which would be implicit in a surrender to such demands".
That speaks for the vast majority of people in the island of Ireland.
Lord Patten: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We all listen carefully to what he has to say. How true his words were about the critical importance of decommissioning. For it is arms that confer legitimacy on terrorists on either side of the political divide, whether the possession of the pike in the thatch in the 18th century or the Armalite in the loft in the 21st century. The noble Lord's remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, should be listened to with great care.
I must apologise as I, too, was unable to be present for the Second Reading debate. The same kind of inescapable duties kept me away from this House. I shall not detain your Lordships long in this debate, except to say that I hope that we shall indeed have good fortune in the next few days. If we do not, I hope that there will be a period of reflection which may lead to good fortune and the restoration of the arrangements which many in this House wish to see.
I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that, during that period of reflection, they look and think hard about whatever Plan B it may be necessary to bring back to this House and to another place, perhaps in a few months' time. I believe that it will very soon become clear that such a plan may be necessary. I look for reassurances from the Minister that the Government are prepared to take into account the sad possibility that such a Plan B may be necessary. I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden that we must travel with hope, but this House, as well as the Government, must also travel with realism.
5 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his observations about keeping doors open and other modes of talking. It is nice to have confirmation of what I sought to say both yesterday and today from someone who bore principal responsibility for these matters for a number of years.
This situation places a considerable responsibility on organisations such as the British-Irish Association, the Irish Association, Queen's University, Corrymeela Community and others, who did a great deal over many years to keep some kind of political dialogue going, to do the same if, as looks likely, the institutions find themselves in a state of suspension.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I refer very briefly to the routine extension of an order providing an arms amnesty to be debated by another place on Monday. In my view, there would be misunderstanding if that debate were regarded as in any way linked to our exchanges this afternoon.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we have had a long debate on this important issue. We must not lose sight of the fact that a great deal was achieved under the Good Friday agreement. The issue of decommissioning is one area in which there has been no progress at all. The people of Northern Ireland have gained much from the agreement, and we should audit what has been achieved: an inclusive power-sharing government; cross-border implementation bodies; a North-South Ministerial Council; a British-Irish Council; very importantly, the only human rights commission within these islands; the opportunity to have a police service that has the trust and respect of all; and a significant reduction in the number of troops on the streets. Substantial moves have been made towards the establishment of a normal society.
The Assembly had a long—far too long—period of gestation. In its brief period of effective operation it has proved that it can work well for all the people of Northern Ireland, and we have much to lose if it collapses altogether. Therefore, we believe that immediately all parties in Northern Ireland must come together to resolve the situation. The Bill allows the parties some breathing space to ensure that that task can be carried out quickly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. As I said yesterday, it takes time to build up an institution; it takes a matter of hours to finish it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave testimony to the number of institutions that he had seen come and go. It is vitally important that we do not allow the suspension to go on for too long and that we restore full power to the Assembly as speedily as possible.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this debate illustrates that your Lordships' House is at one in supporting the Bill, with some provisos. Warnings have been given to Her Majesty's Government. However, we are all still hopeful that miracles will happen and that suspension will not be necessary. I restate the stance of my party. We believe in the Belfast agreement and in the need for

797
the IRA to disarm. We also believe that everything humanly possible must be done to keep the Executive together. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will have the courage, skill, luck and good fortune to do that which we all know is necessary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their co-operation in allowing all stages of the Bill to take place in this House in the course of two days. In particular, I thank the Front Benches of the two parties opposite. The House is practically united in the views expressed over the past two days. We face a very serious situation in Northern Ireland this week. The Bill before the House is one that none of us would have chosen to consider, let alone bring into effect, but there is a serious risk that cross-community confidence in the institutions will diminish to the point where those institutions are in danger of collapse. The Government cannot stand idly by and watch; they must take urgent action to ensure that they have the necessary powers so that the continuing good governance of Northern Ireland is safeguarded.
All in this House want the agreement to succeed and every aspect of it to be implemented in full. We want to see devolution and decommissioning—both are voluntary aspects of the agreement but both are essential—take place. We want to see substantive progress being made on decommissioning immediately. If that progress does not materialise the Government recognise the need to take action to safeguard the institutions. The Bill provides a breathing space for the parties to come together to review the current situation and resolve the very real problems which exist. It is pause or bust. That is potentially the only choice which lies before us. If that situation is reached I do not believe that it is a choice at all. We cannot allow the institutions to perish; there is too much at stake. A pause will at least preserve the institutions and enable us to focus all our efforts on finding a way forward. All of us want to see the Good Friday agreement succeed: there will never be a better agreement. It is for that reason that the House supports the Bill.
I conclude briefly by referring to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. Next week a draft order under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act is to come before this House and another place. The effect of it is to extend the amnesty period during which decommissioning can take place under the Act until 23rd May 2000. The draft order will be subject to full and open debate here and in another place. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt that debate, save to say that the order is essential in order that decommissioning can take place within the time-frame set out in the Good Friday agreement. That is what we all want to see.
On Question, Bill passed.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
5.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): 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.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Methuen) in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: Not moved.
Baroness Blackstone: The Committee has previously divided on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has now decided not to move her Motion. Before we turn to the new amendments to be moved by the noble Baroness, perhaps she will deal with one matter. I note from the Official Report that the noble Baroness who called Tuesday night's Division in the first place did not see fit to vote herself. Perhaps she can tell the Committee why.
Baroness Blatch: It is not for me to account for my actions on that evening. I called the Division and, to the embarrassment of the Government, they did not even have the payroll vote in the Chamber to support the clause. The truth is that I sat here so bemused by what took place on the other side that I forgot to vote.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 79A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—

SECTION 11: SUPPLEMENTARY
(". The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on—

(a) the quality of education or training provided by the institution; or

(b) the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution.").

The noble Baroness said: My embarrassment at not voting on Tuesday evening was greatly overshadowed by the Government's inability to produce even the payroll vote late that night. I remember waiting, with some anguish, night after night, for the House to adjourn in order that I could go home because it was always deemed necessary that at least the payroll vote, if not others interested in the Bill, should remain until the end of business. However, the noble Baroness not only offended some in this House who actually believe in further education, but also others outside the House. Since that evening, phone calls that I have had

799
from further education colleges and people representing them have shown how deeply offended they were by the sweeping statement made by the noble Baroness when she said that the Government's inheritance on taking office was one of sleaze and mismanagement in the further education sector, that had been allowed to flourish by a government who took a back seat whenever they could—
Baroness Blackstone: Let there be no mistake about this. I was saying that the previous government totally failed to ensure that there was a proper system in existence, when there was a breakdown in the performance that we expect from colleges of further education, with respect both to the standards of educational provision being provided and to financial probity. I was referring to the previous government's total failure to create a system in which those problems could be dealt with. I was in no way suggesting that the entire further education system was performing inadequately or suffering from a failure to achieve the kinds of standards that we expect. I was suggesting that there were a number of colleges—and I will name them a little later during the debate—where sleaze, incompetence and financial mismanagement as well as poor educational standards were allowed to flourish because of the previous government's failure to institute a proper system to ensure that such things did not happen.
Baroness Blatch: The words used by the noble Baroness were "sleaze" and "mismanagement". I have gone back to the statute to look at this, and in fact the powers to deal with such situations were there and still are there. The people who did not take action were those on the Further Education Funding Council. They had the powers to intervene; they had the knowledge of what was going on and in fact they did not use the powers as early as they might have used them, or indeed in the way that they should have used them. Certainly the colleges themselves were very concerned at the way in which the noble Baroness referred to the further education sector at that time.
I have some sympathy with them, but they believe that the powers were there and could have been used by the Further Education Funding Council. However, those powers were not used by the council. Several speakers from the Liberal Democrat Benches also spoke of the powers that could have been used. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness will know that when I spoke on the evening in question I spoke of intervention, and especially of intervention at a point when it could either prevent trouble or prevent trouble getting worse in any college. That is important, and the noble Baroness will know that I have no objection whatsoever to the system that she described, of additional governors who could be put in place to help a college and either prevent difficulties arising or, if the intervention has come rather late, to prevent the situation getting worse. They could help a college in such a situation to get back on track.
800
However, the powers in the Bill are open-ended. There is no trigger mechanism for them and there are no qualifying clauses which would dictate how the powers are to be used. There is no way in which the colleges could know what processes could be put in place if these powers were to be triggered. Therefore it is important that this power which, as I say, is open-ended at this moment, should be qualified in some way. The noble Baroness will notice that I have put forward a suggested clause which would follow Clause 11 which says that,
"The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have"—
which is what the noble Baroness was wanting the other evening—
"an adverse effect on—

(a) the quality of education or training provided by the institution; or

(b) the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution".

These are what the noble Baroness said were the conditions under which these powers would be used. I think it would be helpful to the colleges to have that on the face of the Bill, knowing the situation in which they would be used.
Another matter which is greatly troubling the colleges is that there have been discussions with the department for some time now regarding the limited liability of governors. They are in a very vulnerable position in this sort of situation, especially those governors who do act reasonably and in good faith. We all know that acting reasonably and in good faith is normally a defence. However, it is very important that in some way the Government are able to clarify the position and liability of governors. I have in fact put down an amendment today, which will be seen on the Marshalled List on Monday, that will attempt to help this situation.
The important thing is that if there is to be intervention in the colleges, it should not be subjective. It should be on the basis of having concerns either about the standards of education in a college or the administration of the college and the effective use of resources. These resources are, as the noble Baroness rightly said the other evening, public funds and the protection of public funds is important. I believe that this qualifying clause would help. If the Government are minded not to include the suggested clause, one really has to join the colleges and wonder what it is that the Government are planning in terms of the use of these powers.
Perhaps I might just say before the noble Baroness rises to speak that I am not speaking to Amendment No. 168A. I shall leave that amendment to my noble friend Lord Roberts when he comes to deal with the Welsh clauses. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I believe that there is real concern about the open-ended nature of the powers given to the LSC in Clause 11. It was for that reason that we from these Benches put forward Amendment No. 79, which was debated the other evening. Since that time I have reread in Hansard our debate, and have thought carefully about the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness the Minister.
As I said on Tuesday night, we were all disappointed at the attitude of the Government on this issue. The Minister made it clear that the power to appoint governors would be used only in the last resort when things are going badly wrong. It was in that spirit that Amendment No. 79 was put forward: that the powers granted under Section 27 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 were sufficient to cover the position. We objected that using these powers would be too cumbersome and would prevent action at an early stage when things were beginning to go wrong, arguing that the L SC should not operate by a ministerial fiat but should have powers of its own.
This new amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would seemingly overcome this obstacle, in the sense that it would give the Learning and Skills Council the power to intervene in its own right in these exceptional circumstances. From these Benches we have some reservations about the powers granted to the council, even under this amendment. For that reason, although we would support it in spirit, we are inclined to prefer to think further on it and perhaps return to the issue at Report stage.
Lord Dearing: I rise for the first time in this House to take part in the discussion of a clause. In doing so I now realise how much more comfortable it was to sit with the files, as an official, as I did 30 years ago, to write notes for the Minister, rather than to stand up and without the benefit of the files try to make a contribution.
For some years I was the chairman of a body called the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Baker, appointed me to that office. It may be that an experience I had on one occasion, imperfect though my memory may be, will be of some relevance. It made me wonder, with respect, whether the very understandable concern to introduce safeguards, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, might circumscribe the ability of the council to respond to a situation, because it is very difficult to anticipate in a safeguarding clause the kinds of circumstances which may arise.
The circumstance which I imperfectly remember was that of a college of higher education. It got into financial difficulties and then received an adverse report on its academic standards. A very real crisis had developed. The governing body responded by proposing, in effect, the closure of the college and the transfer of all the students to another institution. When the case came before the funding council, it
802
seemed to us, first, that the procedures adopted by the college had been imperfect and, secondly, that the decision it had reached was not in the best interests of the students.
The governing body had taken its decision in good conscience, but we thought the decision mistaken. The council indicated that it opposed the decision and there could have been a very difficult impasse. Happily, the situation was resolved by the honourable resignation of the chairman and one or two other members. I was then able to use my good offices to suggest certain other appointments. So the problem was resolved in a way preferable to what had been originally intended and in the best interests of the students.
If there had been an impasse, I am not sure, without powers to bring in new people and thus unlock minds, that the matter could have been solved satisfactorily. Any powers of the kind proposed by the Government should be used sparingly and only after every attempt has been made to resolve matters by agreement and negotiation. However, sometimes that is not possible. I believe that it is in the interests of students for the council to be able to make two appointments and then be accountable for the action that it has taken.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I respond to this amendment at some length. I believe that we are discussing an important matter. We are agreed that the LSC should have the power to intervene. There is nothing between us on that. I return to the points I made when debating amendments to Clause 11 about the need to intervene early. I understand that the concerns of the noble Baroness are about the actual circumstances in which the powers may be used. She referred to the need for triggers on the face of the Bill for determining when the power should be exercised. She has now produced an amendment which would set out the circumstances in which the LSC could exercise the power. But again I am afraid she has missed the point. We must look back at the kind of circumstances which gave rise to the need for this power in the first place.
In our earlier debate I mentioned Halton College. The report published by the Comptroller and Auditor General with the title, Investigations of alleged irregularities at Halton College, lists 14 allegations that were received and investigated by the Further Education and Funding Council. Some were found not to be substantiated. Some were found to be partly substantiated. Some were found to be fully substantiated. In the PAC's 37th report, published after its consideration of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the committee drew out some of the devastating consequences of what went wrong. I should like to quote from the PAC's first conclusion:
"It is highly unsatisfactory that Halton College overclaimed almost £14 million, and that to a large extent these overclaims evaded financial controls in place at the college and in the Funding Council. One immediate impact of the need to repay this money is that 114 people will lose their jobs, and this will cost the taxpayer £1.8 million".

803
The committee went on to give details of a range of other serious concerns about what had happened. As many noble Lords will know, this committee is not known for issuing plaudits, but in this case I think it is worth noting two of the committee's comments. First, in respect of the action taken by the FEFC, the committee said:
"We welcome the steps taken by the Funding Council and the college to improve governance, internal control, management and audit arrangements at Halton College".
Incidentally, I think that what the noble Baroness said, arising, she says, from discussions she has had with the AoC about the funding council, is grossly unfair. I would wish to place on record my appreciation of the efforts that the FEFC has put into tackling problems at colleges. I wish to note also that the provisions in Clause 11 reflect points made to me by its chairman, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham and its chief executive, Professor David Melville. They are the practitioners in the front line and it is only right that the form of that clause is informed by their unfortunately all too considerable experience of dealing with problems in certain colleges.
Secondly, on the measures that we introduced to improve the accountability framework for further education colleges, the committee had this to say:
"We strongly support the positive response of the Department to the problems uncovered at Halton and Bilston Community College on which the Funding Council has recently published a highly critical report".
The committee referred to Bilston College and I should like to mention a number of points about it as well. The FEFC commissioned an inquiry into the future of this college which was published in March last year. It was headed by Terry Melia, the former chief inspector of the council. The college had been the subject of the most critical inspection report on a further education college ever published by the council up to that time. The inspection report highlighted deficiencies in both the governance and the management of the college. It found serious weaknesses in many curriculum areas and cross-college services that impact directly on students.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for giving way. Can she tell the Committee what powers the FEFC lacked for picking up these points earlier and for taking action even earlier than it did?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall come to that later in my response to the noble Baroness's amendments. I shall return to the particular case of Bilston Community College. The college's financial position was "parlous". Terry Melia's report found that the management and financial systems of the college were unreliable. Indeed, his inquiry team could not with any certainty be sure of the financial position of the college. The report noted that the corporation had not been conducting its business in accordance with its instrument and articles of government. It had not fulfilled its responsibilities under its financial memorandum with the funding council. College
804
budgets did not provide a sound basis for the college's continuing solvency. Financial planning and monitoring had been imprudent. There was no systematic management of the college's provision. There was no coherent management of student support. I am afraid I could go on at some length.
The sad conclusion reached by the inquiry team was:
"We see no future for the college as an independent corporation".
Following the normal statutory processes, it was my task to consider the proposal made by the council to the Secretary of State to close the college. Regrettably, I saw no option but to agree to this last summer.
The reason why I have illustrated these issues at some length is not to restate the case for having these provisions in the Bill. We have already agreed that and there is common ground between us. Rather, it is the very wide-ranging nature of the issues that the FEFC at present, and the LSC in future, may have to tackle. I can assure the noble Baroness that since we last debated these issues we have thought long and hard about whether we could go some way towards meeting her concerns. But as soon as we begin to look at the realities on the ground—and I have only illustrated two of a number of cases in which I have had personal involvement—it immediately becomes evident that as soon as we start classifying or prescribing circumstances and situations or conditions to be met, we run into problems. I remain extremely unhappy that we should impose restrictions of this kind on the face of the Bill.
The issue is this. When we start limiting the power and ruling certain things in, we automatically rule everything else out. As I have tried to indicate through the examples that I have given, the kind of problems that have been encountered cannot always be readily categorised and pigeonholed. The LSC must be able to act flexibly and responsively if concerns arise at a college.
I turn now to the existing power. The existing power for the FEFCE to nominate two additional members to governing bodies was provided without constraints by the previous government in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I must repeat that if we did not include anything in this Bill, the LSC could be given a power to nominate additional governors in the same way as the funding councils do now, and it would be without constraint. However, the power is limited to nomination, not appointment, leaving the LSC open to the possibility that it could be frustrated by delaying tactics. This provision, which is designed to allow swifter intervention, would avoid that kind of delay and make the operation of the power more effective. We are making effective the use of an existing power upon which the previous government saw no case for including constraints. Therefore, I find it particularly surprising that the noble Baroness, who was a member of that government, now wants to impose such constraints on the LSC.
If the noble Baroness's amendment is accepted, it could prove less effective than the existing provision under which the FEFC has power to nominate two

805
people for membership of a governing body. That power of nomination is not limited in any way by the factors which are identified in this amendment. Therefore, the noble Baroness has, I am afraid, committed herself to an amendment which, in practice, will make it more difficult for the LSC to make an early intervention. At the same time, she has gone on record as saying that there is a case for early intervention and that it is right that additional governors should be appointed. I do not feel that the noble Baroness can have it both ways.
Given the ever-present threat of judicial review, there can he little doubt that the noble Baroness's amendment will act as a disincentive to early action by the LSC. I really do not understand why the noble Baroness has persisted with the matter when she has confirmed her agreement to the principles involved. I am grateful for that agreement.
Her amendment introduces a new condition before the triggers. The councils must have "reasonable cause to believe". Of course, the councils must act reasonably, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has already said. They are public bodies and we require no less. Therefore, that is quite unnecessary.
However, I shell return to that particular point concerning reasonableness a little later as I should also like to comment on a separate point, relevant to this debate, that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, when she spoke to her amendment to Clause 11. I take this opportunity to address that matter more fully. She was concerned that this power,
"seems an unreasonable interference with the autonomy of individual colleges".—[Official Report, 8/2/00; col 647.]
I am afraid that I believe that to be overstating the case. We intend to respect the autonomy of FE colleges. We are not proposing an unlimited power of appointment, which, I agree, would undermine autonomy, but simply a maximum of two additional governors. For example, all further education corporation governing bodies have a minimum of 12 governors before any additional appointments are made. Therefore, the LSC appointments would always be in a minority. But the LSC must have a seat at the table so that its voice can be heard and listened to when things go wrong.
As for the noble Baroness's concern that Clause 11 gives the LSC carte blanche to act unreasonably, that is a misguided concern. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, such a power would be used sparingly. No one has suggested that the FEFC is currently abusing its power to nominate members of governing bodies, and I have never heard the AoC even suggest that. Clause 11 merely expedites the process whereby the LSC gains representation on the governing body. In the unlikely event that the LSC proposed to act wholly unreasonably and appoint, governors for absolutely no good reason, not only would the ordinary process of judicial review be available, but the Secretary of State would be able to give a binding direction to the LSC under Clause 25, which we shall come to later. To the extent that Clause 25 does not
806
already make that absolutely clear, we propose to bring forward an amendment in due course to put the matter beyond doubt.
The powers would be along the lines of similar powers that already exist in respect of the current FE funding councils. If a college considered that it was being treated improperly, the funding councils would enable it to ask for intervention by the Secretary of State. It would include as a matter of course the powers under Clause 11.
I must repeat that the Government cannot accept these amendments, for the reasons that I have given. However, I hope that the amendment that I propose will go part of the way to meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That will put directly on to the face of the Bill a way for a college—or, indeed, anyone—to approach the Secretary of State if it considers that the LSC is acting unreasonably. It would also address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendments. However, if she decides to divide the House, I hope that on this occasion she will not forget to vote.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: Before the Minister responds, I thank her for explaining the Government's position so fully. I believe that, in spite of the slightly adversarial start to today's proceedings, we are not very far apart on this matter. I believe that we share the concerns expressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of course, speaks for herself, but she has said, and I echo, that we understand and share the intentions of the Government.
On the other hand, I hope that the Minister recognises that the concerns which the noble Baroness's amendment seeks to address are shared not only by our Benches but by the FE sector generally. I am pleased that apparently she has recognised that point sufficiently to want to bring back an amendment at Report stage. Perhaps I may ask that we have early sight of that, when possible. I am sure that we can return to the matter at that stage.
I believe it is important that the Government recognise that, while their objective is shared, I am sure, by all, there is great concern, not only in this Chamber but outside, too, about the apparently open-ended nature of Clause 11. It may be that the amendment she intends to table will help to resolve some of that concern. We shall await it with interest.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a full and comprehensive answer. I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that there is a great deal of agreement about the principle and about the policy intention behind this issue.

807
I am sorry that the noble Baroness believes that my amendment is narrowly drawn. It covers absolutely every aspect of a college: the quality of the education and training provided—that is, its whole rationale for being—and the whole of the management. It states,
"where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by … the … Acts".
In other words, it covers every aspect of the college. The amendment refers to "Education Acts"; that is, those that have been passed and this Act, in particular, which is about to be passed and which, as I say, is likely to have an adverse effect on the quality of education or the management of the college and/or the use of public funds. There is nothing narrow about that. It includes all the activities of the college.
I turn to the particular examples given by the noble Baroness. A number of us are still bemused that the FEFC, which continued to fund those colleges—and that was not the only example; there were one or two others—continued to fund them in the full knowledge of what was happening. The only eyes and ears for any Secretary of State past or present—in this situation are the inspectorates and/or the FEFC. It seems to me extraordinary that such a parlous situation was allowed to develop at that college and that the report to which the noble Baroness referred was the first manifestation of what was going on there. Therefore the appointment of two governors was extremely late in the day. I absolutely agree with the point made by the noble Baroness that early intervention would have been much more appropriate. An early exposé of what was going on at that college would have helped a great number of people, not least the students and the people in the local community.
It is not a narrowly drawn amendment. The noble Baroness has talked about strengthening the powers. I still believe that it is important for the colleges to know that any additional governors are nominated and/or appointed because of a reasonable view that there is something wrong. That is precisely what my amendment provides.
I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, before coming into the Chamber today. I know that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to give more thought to this matter because there are concerns about the use of a power.
What needs to be said and put on the record is that for every college that went wrong, many more colleges had no problems at all and served their local communities and students extremely well. They have enjoyed and made the most effective use of their autonomy. Therefore, it is important to balance the autonomy of the governing body and the running of an institution with taking sensible precautionary action where that becomes necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, gave us some examples. Throughout what he was saying, I was thinking to myself that it was much too late in the situation which the noble Lord described. One would want to appoint the governors at the point at which the

808
signs were picked up, either through auditing and/or inspection or by the funding council, which in future will be the skills council, that something is going seriously wrong. That would be on the basis of having some suspicion that problems were beginning and things were beginning to go awry. Intervention would then be wholly justified.
That is linked to another point, to which I shall return on a later amendment; namely, governors' liability. It is extremely important that, from time to time, governors see these matters for themselves. Some people operate in some institutions in such a way that the governors are not aware that something is going wrong until it is too late.
But I return to my original point. It is very odd that the FEFC waited so long to expose the problems in that particular college. I shall withdraw the amendment. I hope that discussions can continue and that we can reach an accommodation before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will withdraw her amendment. Just before she sits down, I want to make two or three small points.
First, I too want it on the record, as I think I said earlier this afternoon, that the vast majority of colleges do a very good job. But unfortunately, a small minority has not done so and it has been able to get away with that partly because the structures were not in place which allow the FEFC to intervene as quickly as it needs to.
It is precisely because of the autonomy of those colleges which the noble Baroness wants to see that the FEFC's position must be one whereby it abides by the law and takes care in how it operates. It must also collect the evidence before it can intervene. But once that evidence is collected, it must be untrammelled in its ability to do so.
The primary power existed under the previous government's 1992 Act but, unfortunately, an order had never been brought forward until this Government did so in October last year, making it possible for the FEFC to nominate up to two additional governors. We are now taking that one step further and allowing it to make that appointment.
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Baroness saying that the FEFC could continue to fund for specific purposes, knowing that the money and resources given to those colleges was being abused and misused and could continue without any power whatever to do anything about it?
Baroness Blackstone: Unfortunately, most of the continuing funding of those colleges went on under the government of whom the noble Baroness was a member. As soon as this Government came into power, they immediately took action through the FEFC to sort out the appalling mess which had existed as a result of the failure of the previous government to have a proper structure in place.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: That was not my question. Where was the lack of power which would have prevented the FEFC from saying to a college, "You are not receiving any more money until resources are being properly used"? The FEFC had power to hold moneys back. No Secretary of State can know what is going on unless he is told what is going on. Where was the lack of power? Under what power did the FEFC continue to fund a college knowing that things were going so badly wrong?
Baroness Blackstone: The issue at stake here is that the governing bodies of further education colleges have very considerable autonomy with respect to spending the money which has been allocated to them. There may be subsequent changes to the allocations but a large college already has substantial resources. A couple of those colleges got into a deficit position. At that stage, the FEFC was able to intervene.
Baroness Blotch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Research and information]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 6, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The Council shall carry out research into specific groups of learners and the learning process as relevant to such groups.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, we return to something of a hobby-horse of mine; that is, the provision of information and making sure that the correct information is available. It deals also with something of a parliamentary old friend; namely, "may" and "shall".
At present the Bill provides that:
"The Council may carry out research".
My amendment seeks to ensure that:
"The Council shall carry out research into specific groups of learners and the learning process as relevant to such groups".
Effectively, we are seeking to build up the bank of information. Most people who have been dealing with this problem—I referred to it during our previous debates in Committee—encounter enormous difficulties in trying to secure the right sort of information and to take the right sort of action. That leads to a prolonged process in trying to obtain the appropriate help for individual students, and it is probably the greatest bugbear of all the organisations which are dealing with those issues.
I suggest that this Bill provides us with the opportunity to build up a great pool of information on which it will be possible to call. It will be of tremendous help also to other sectors of education as it will set precedents which will be relevant to the schools and higher education sectors. We should grab that opportunity as it will make life easier for the whole sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 92, which is grouped with this amendment. Also, I support the noble Lord, Lord Adeington.
810
I wish to qualify the word "adequate" which is difficult fully to understand in legislation. I know that those concerned with people with learning difficulties believe that whatever is provided should be "sufficient" and it certainly should be "appropriate" to the particular needs of the individual. Therefore, the words "sufficient and appropriate" would be more specific, understandable and reassuring for those who are concerned about meeting the relevant needs of people with learning difficulties.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to our debate on Tuesday 8th February at cols. 578 and 581, when I queried whether the provision provided by social services would remain adequate for mentally handicapped young people to complement the education supported by the new LSC. Understandably, the Minister said she could not speak from the Dispatch Box for social services, but she said that the Government were doing their best to improve social services in this area. I am sure that we all accept that and are very grateful for it.
Even if the noble Baroness cannot make commitments for other departments, which I am sure we all accept, the collaboration between government departments is something I would like to pursue in this area because education on its own, however excellent (certainly for all children with learning difficulties and especially for those with severe learning difficulties) cannot succeed unless social services, and indeed the Department of Health, is collaborating fully. I mention health because we must not forget that these children often have quite severe health problems as well.
I hope I may be pushing at an open door with the Government, because I am aware that for mentally handicapped adults—adults with learning difficulties—the Government are wisely encouraging more collaboration between health, social services and local authorities. I feel sure that the Government deserve congratulation on that initiative. Indeed, I have suggested to the Minister in another place that for mentally handicapped adults the Home Office should also be invited to join the loop because a disturbingly high proportion of the prison population is now mentally disordered—I believe the figure given is some 40 per cent. A growing number of those people may have learning disabilities.
Better collaboration between health and social services in areas indicated by the Home Office might prevent some of these people going to prison, which is obviously damaging for them—they are already unfortunate—and it is also, of course, very expensive. One fears that some prisoners will be in the age group covered by this clause—up to age 25.
And so, for the young people concerned it seems to me that we cannot provide even "adequate" education, let alone "sufficient and appropriate" education or training, as proposed by my noble friend's amendment, unless there is full collaboration between the noble Baroness's department, social services and

811
health. I submit, for what it is worth, that it might also be worth consulting the Home Office for the reason I have given.
Finally, I think it would be worth having a representative of the Treasury present in this proposed inter-governmental collaboration because I am sure that the Government want to look at education which is effective, care-effective and cost-effective. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: In addressing the amendments in this group I shall first speak to Amendment No. 80 and to Amendment No. 169, the parallel amendment for Wales.
Clause 12(1) and subsection Clause 39(1) empower the LSC and the CETW to carry out research relevant to any of their functions. Clearly, those functions include provision for all learners, including people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Identifying and meeting the learning needs of those groups will be part of the core business of the councils.
The LSC and the CETW will certainly therefore have all the powers that they require to carry out research into the needs of specific groups of learners, including those with disabilities and learning difficulties, and into how the learning process is and should be serving them best.
The FEFCs, working with organisations such as FEDA, have a good track record of research in this area and I certainly expect the LSC to maintain that level of priority. Indeed, further research is an important part of the consideration of plans for our future provision for disabled people which the LSC will be under a statutory duty to compile.
While research into the needs of such key groups will be an important part of the work of the LSC and the CETW, I see no need to give them statutory duties to that effect. Therefore, with the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
With regard to Amendment No. 92, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 recognised the importance of specialist provision and boarding accommodation as part of the learning opportunities available for people with learning difficulties. We have continued that approach and the good practice that currently exists in this Bill.
Our intention is that in discharging its duties in Clause 2 and 3, the LSC must give consideration to whether or not it can provide an adequate standard of education for a person with learning difficulties. Where it cannot, it must consider provision of boarding accommodation if a person is under 25, and may do so where a person is over 25. That is what Clause 13 means. Our use of the term "adequate" has a meaning similar to that at Clause 2(2)(b)—page 2 at line 8 where it alludes to the "quality" of provision adequate to meet the needs of a young person, and reflects the priority that we have given to meeting young peoples' needs.
812
It is not necessary to amend the clause by inserting the word "appropriate" because, in effect, it is already there. The council's duties at Clauses 2 and 3 stipulate that its provision must be,
"suitable to the requirements of persons".
In short, it must be "appropriate" in the sense that the noble Baroness intends.
Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said, I entirely accept that in this area there is a need for collaboration across departments, just as there is a need for collaboration across departments in the setting up of the ConneXion service, where young people in various kinds of difficulties may require the services not just of my department but also of the Department of Health, which, of course, is responsible for social services, and in some cases the Home Office, where the young person has got into trouble with the law. As for the Treasury, that department always makes its presence known in departmental discussions of this kind. I take the point that the noble Lord makes. We are trying to have more effective joined-up government thinking in this and other areas.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that reply. If I heard her correctly, I believe her reply was that the Government intend to do that anyway so there is no need for a specific duty to be placed on the face of the Bill. That is roughly what I understood her to say. However, we must bear in mind that so far we have never had enough information to allow people to find the right kind of help or the right processes are not available to them. That point lies behind the amendment. I do not know whether we shall ever achieve that. We can certainly do better and we can stop wasting time.
I said that this is a "may" or "shall" argument, although I do not believe that we should delay the Committee on this matter. However, I give notice that I shall return to the issue, on this Bill and others, because unless we get it clear and unless we know where to start looking people will continue to chase around and miss years in their education because they cannot find out what is going on.
I thank the Minister for her description of "adequate", which makes one consider the bear minimum as opposed to what is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").
The noble Baroness said: I travel hopefully on this amendment because it is purely a change to the grammar. I am sure there are no politics whatever in it because I had a jolly good look. I feel the provision should say "systems are" rather than "systems is" and I hope we will not be going through the Division Lobbies on this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 82 to 85 are grouped with Amendment No. 81 and I shall speak to them also. The noble Lord, Lord. Haskel, will speak to Amendment No. 86 and the Welsh Amendment No. 170.
My amendments relate to the same theme as that of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel; that is, to put into the public arena information in relation to the further education and post-16 sectors. Amendment No. 82 seeks to provide that, where the Secretary of State commissions work from the council, he will publish any such request in the interests of open government. Amendment No. 83 requests the council to,
"publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort obtaining any qualification approved under section 87".
Amendment No. 84 asks again for annual information,
"about the number of students in each age cohort working towards any qualification approved under section 87".
Amendment No. 85 suggests that the council should publish each year,
"information about the number and percentage of people in each age cohort achieving each level of qualification approved under section 87, making due allowance for individuals achieving more than one approved qualification".
We have gone a long way to produce this kind of information from the school sector. The amendments would do a service to the further education sector because in terms of its achievement it is an unsung part of the education service. It is a continuing bank of information which would be enormously useful, not only to show what our colleges are achieving, but also to help the Government and local communities using the colleges quantify the way in which the aims and objectives of the colleges are being achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 86 and 170. My reasons for tabling these amendments are close to the reasons stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. But this is not the time or place to make a long speech about the benefits of openness and freedom of information.
The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to continue collecting the data which is at present collected by the Further Education Funding Council. It collects data, including staffing information on FE colleges and other information, which is not published regularly but which is valuable both to unions and local authorities. My amendments ask the Government to ensure that that information continues to be collected and is published regularly. It is the regular publication of the data which is helpful to those trying to plan staffing and other aspects of FE education.
Lord Tope: First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on Amendment No. 81. I see the Minister shaking his head. I have no doubt the previous government got it wrong as well. I pledge the noble Baroness our support at least if she feels the need to
814
divide the Committee on this important issue. It may be that this will be the most significant victory that she scores in these Committee proceedings.
I support the intention behind the other amendments, which is to obtain from the Government what I hope we are about to hear; namely, an assurance that this information will continue to he collected and published. Whether or not it belongs on the face of the Bill I have some doubts, but I welcome an assurance from the Minister that, if it is thought appropriate, the council will be asked to provide and publish this information, in guidance or whatever.
Lord Lucas: I rise to support my noble friend. A freedom of information Bill is coming to this House in due course and one of its great effects, should it become law, will be to open up this closed box of information that is kept by the likes of Ofsted and the FEFC. It is important information on how schools are run and managed, to which access to the public: and researchers is far too restricted. Outside researchers hardly ever have access to that information and analyses of how schools do and what kind of education works well. That access tends to be restricted to authorities' researchers alone. The freedom of information Bill will open that up and make this sort of information much more widely available on much better terms.
I hope the Government will recognise that the freedom of information Act is coming and adjust the terms of this Bill to accommodate the kind of openness that will be the ruling feature of the Act. It is important that information is collected—information cannot be made available if it is not collected. It must be clear that the right information is collected, that there are duties on the council to collect information that will be useful to people on a wide scale and not just to the limited clientele described in the Bill. I hope the Government will see their way to supporting my noble friend's amendments.
In relation to Amendment No. 81, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, appears to wish to dispute it. If he does he will misunderstand the nature of "information''. We cannot design information. Information is something that is collected. We can design systems for collecting it; but we cannot design it. If we design information all we get is lies.
Lord Bach: I should like to take in turn Amendments Nos. 81, 82 to 85 and then 86 and 170, all of which relate in different ways to the provision of information.
I start by saying that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that Amendment No. 81 does not concern any political issue. I am impressed by how closely the noble Baroness scrutinised the Bill. But that is as far as I can go. I cannot accept the amendment, which is based on a belief that there is a grammatical inaccuracy in the Bill as it now stands.
I do not want to spend too much time on this; there are other matters with which we must deal. The effect of the amendment, and indeed what the noble

815
Baroness means by it, is that it is the systems which the councils set up which could, in and of themselves, secure that the funding and other decisions are made on a sound basis. The Government argue that it is the information—for example, on learner and labour market needs—which will do the securing and not the mechanics and structures of the systems which will hold and process the information. So it is "information is" rather than "information are". I am afraid therefore that we reject the amendment and ask her to withdraw it.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage and thank the Minister for his explanation. I read the wording with different breaks in it and feel that I must now withdraw my unqualified support for the noble Baroness that I gave earlier.
Lord Bach: This must be the first time, certainly in my experience, that I have ever persuaded any Member of the Committee of the strength of my argument. It gives me encouragement for the future.
I turn to Amendment No. 82. The intention is to amend line 21 and Clause 21(2), which deals with requests from the Secretary of State, and not Clause 21(4), which links to line 27. I only say this for the sake of clarity and not to be clever, but I believe the amendment should read "Page 6, line 21" and not "line 27". I give way of course if I am wrong.
Baroness Blatch: On a quick reading, I still think that I am right. I am less interested in where it goes than in whether the Minister thinks the point is good, and that information should be in the public arena.
Lord Bach: Let us move straight to that aspect. It is neither surprising nor exceptional that the Bill contains a requirement of the LSC to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information or advice on matters relating to its functions. Such a prevision—like its precedent in the 1992 Act—helps lay the foundation for good governance and a good working relationship between a Secretary of State and a non-departmental public body.
As to confidentiality, I had the pleasure of serving with the normal Lord, Lord Lucas, on the Select Committee that considered the draft Freedom of Information Bill. The revised Bill is still in another place. No doubt we will spend many hours, if not days, examining that Bill in due course.
Lord McNally: Weeks.
Lord Bach: I see another member of the Select Committee in his place, when he was not a few minutes ago.
Lord McNally: But it will still be weeks.
Lord Bach: I question whether a requirement to publish would not cut across good practice in relation to confidentiality. I believe that everyone, including
816
those in your Lordships' House, is committed to the principle of open government, but due regard must be paid to ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially important policy information.
The publication of requests for information or advice, which might relate to the circumstances of individuals or future expenditure plans, may not always be appropriate or constructive. On that basis and with the law as I stands, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press Amendment No. 82.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would require the LSC to obtain information about all external qualifications, whether they are pursued in the secondary or further education sectors—including those delivered by private providers. Approvals will be made for qualifications under Clause 87 for the purposes of public funding by the LSC or LEAs, but approved qualifications may also be provided without any recourse to public funds. The amendments appear not to distinguish between qualifications that are publicly funded and those which are not. The LSC would have to supply information about the uptake and achievement of approved qualifications regardless of who funds them.
The amendments would impose a disproportionate additional burden on learning providers in both the public and private sectors. The information required would probably exceed the use to which it would be put—and far more than the LSC requires to meet management or financial information needs. It might replicate information that providers already supply to meet other requirements. Schools provide information about provision and achievement for various purposes under the Education Act 1996. The governing bodies of FE sector institutions will continue to be required to publish information on provision and achievement under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
We want to ensure that information on achievement will be published. The current secondary and 16 to 18 performance tables and measures to monitor progress against national learning targets for young people and adults already provide the appropriately focused information that we all require, so we cannot accept the noble Baroness's three amendments.
As to Amendment No. 86 and—the Welsh connection—Amendment No. 170, I am conscious that there are Welsh experts seated in all parts of the Committee. Providing high-quality learning requires people with the necessary skills. In the prospectus we said that all providers will need to demonstrate to the local LSC that their employees have appropriate nationally recognised qualifications or at least have plans to acquire them. The LSC will base its requirements on work by the employment and further national training organisations—NTOs. That is the right approach to developing high-quality standards and recognises the independence of providers, whether they are FE colleges or private or voluntary sector training providers. The proper approach for the LSC as the purchaser is to set the standards its providers

817
should meet, then support them in a process of continuous improvement using the best-quality management systems.
The amendments would make that a bureaucratic process, with costly and time-consuming data collection. It may be necessary from time to time—I hope this gives my noble friend some comfort—for the LSC to undertake surveys on matters such as staff qualifications, as does the FEFC with its annual survey of FE sector colleges. It would not be right to impose that practice by statute. The remuneration of staff employed by providers is a matter for employers rather than the LSC. I have to disappoint noble Lords, saying that I cannot accept the amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dearing: I presume to intervene on this greater matter of the "is" and have considerable sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the way that she has been misled by the construction of the sentence. I have never heard of information that is designed. Information is information. Surely the provision is stating, in simple English, that the council must establish systems to collect the information needed to provide a sound basis for its decisions. The draftsman has been less than lucid in expressing his intentions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, because it is not just a grammatical point. Information cannot secure a decision, whether by design or otherwise. It will not be information that produces a sound decision but the council—based on the information that its systems should have provided. Even then the clause is not right; even systems cannot make sound decisions. I suggest that the Minister and his advisers have another look.
Baroness Blatch: What is in a word? It is a clumsy sentence. Whether or not "is" and "are" present a problem, I implore the Government to take another look. However one reads the sentence, it does not make sense. It would be better for it, to make sense, especially as other practitioners will have to use the legislation as a working manual for delivering what the Government want.
The Minister was concerned about the split between publicly-funded a rid privately-funded education and training. Therefore, before I decide what to do about these amendments, I have a question for the noble Lord. If I bring forward amendments that refer to "publicly funded" education, will that make a difference to the Government's response?
Lord Bach: I can tell the noble Baroness that if she did so we would certainly look at them carefully before deciding what our attitude would be. I do not think that she can expect more than that today.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that helpful indication and I shall certainly look at them again. However, I return to the school sector. Independent schools do provide information, although one cannot compel them to do so. That information is valuable
818
and dovetails in with the information that comes from all the state and publicly-funded schools. It seems to me that it could be a feature of the 16-plus education.
I take most seriously the Minister's point about the burden on providers, especially when they are very small and medium-sized businesses. I should like to reconsider the wording of these amendments, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 86 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 6, line 29, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert ("(including employment)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

TRANSPORT PROVISION FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
(" .—(1) The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties to participate in post-16 education and training.
(2) The Council must make and publish a plan for the delivery of appropriate transport services and support for people with learning difficulties.
(3) The Council may pilot dedicated transport schemes, in partnership with statutory and voluntary organisations, for people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25.
(4) In undertaking an assessment of the transport needs of people with learning difficulties and in establishing pilot schemes, the Council shall have regard to individual needs in relation to orientation and personal safety when utilising transport options, such as the prevention of bullying and abuse.
(5) Local learning and skills councils must secure the provision of mobility training requested by people with learning difficulties participating in post-16 education and training.
(6) For the purposes of this section transport includes—

(a) the use of public transport;

(b) the use of general transport provided by institutions, employers and training providers;

(c) the use of transport provided by voluntary sector providers;

(d) the use of private hire vehicles and other forms of private transport;

(e) the use of specialist transport provided for disabled people.

(7) For the purposes of this section a recipient of financial resources shall include people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25 who have extra transport costs in accessing post-16 learning.
(8) For the purposes of this section mobility training includes enabling disabled people to access vehicles safely, orientate themselves on vehicles, travel in safety and deal confidently with the street environment.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to deal with one of the major problems that affects those with learning difficulties; namely, transport to colleges. Students' limitations as regards transport may mean that they cannot actually,
"participate in [the] post-16 education and training",
which is available to them under certain circumstances, and reach the appropriate level in that educational process.
The proposed new clause would mean the introduction of a training programme and strategy to enable people with learning difficulties to gain access to the appropriate college. They would be given training and back-up facilities would be available. The amendment emphasises "training", which is designed to get people to use public transport independently.
I hope that the Government will endorse this proposal. It would mean that people with learning difficulties would, as members of a society, actually be integrated into the process of being out in society. Moreover, a large part of their experience in the education system means that they will be mixing with their peers and, indeed, the outside world. Once again, if the transport system does not work and they cannot gain access to such educational establishments, such integration cannot take place. I hope that the Government will give us a very favourable response. However, if they feel that my amendment is not needed, I trust that they will clearly state why it is not needed and tell us how they are going to address these problems. At present, much of the evidence I have gathered and most of the comments from people in this field seem to suggest that it is not happening: it is down to chance and luck as to whether "persons with learning difficulties" can get to such courses. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I warmly support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already put forward most of the arguments. I very much like the amendment because it spells out the huge mix of transport needs for these people. It suggests ways of solving such problems and also emphasises the need for mobility training, which is very important. We tried to address this issue in 1992 and failed.
We are all agreed that post-16 learning is important for all, and especially so for people with learning difficulties. I should stress that I mean "learning difficulties" within the meaning of Clause 13, and not just those with learning disabilities. The Bill recognises this fact but, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, without the proper, planned provision, many disabled learners will not be able to benefit from what the Bill offers; and it offers a lot!
I turn now to the consortium on post-16 education. I should mention briefly and in parenthesis that SKILL is involved here and I declare an interest as I am its president. The consortium recognises the difficulties surrounding the transport issue. It is willing
820
to assist the DfEE and the councils in finding solutions and, if it would be helpful, to address the practical implementation of the legislation in this respect. I very much hope that there will be an extremely positive response from the Government. This issue is crucial to the success of a Bill that has so much to offer.
Lord Rix: I intended to speak to this issue on Second Reading, but I had to delete that part because my speech was already so long. Therefore, I should like to say a few words today to illustrate the importance of appropriate transport; and, indeed, the importance of training to negotiate public transport, especially for people with learning disabilities and those with learning difficulties. It is often assumed that the only barriers to transport are physical ones and that, therefore, people with learning disabilities are at no great disadvantage. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Travelling by public transport can be an extremely complex procedure, especially where a change of route or mode of transport is necessary. As we have just heard, for those who can eventually travel unaided, travel training is often a necessary pre-requisite. For many young people and their families there are also wider issues to consider, particularly issues relating to personal safety. Mencap's report, Living in Fear demonstrated that 25 per cent of people with learning disabilities who were surveyed had been bullied on public transport within the past year. This is an offensive and an unacceptable statistic, which will need to be tackled before transport can really be considered to be truly accessible.
I should like to give Members of the Committee an example, which may help to highlight some of my concerns. A young person I know through Mencap had great difficulty in using public transport. Her parents feared for her safety as she had been verbally and physically abused on her local bus service many times. She attended a college with a large and complex campus and needed some assistance in finding the pick-up point for the taxi that she used to travel to and from college because the meeting points varied from week to week. No one saw it as his or her job to give this help and, in the end, her parents had to withdraw her from the college because of fears for her safety.
I am, or have been, chairman of three other charities other than Mencap, each of which has been involved in funding transport for young people with disabilities and supporting the purchase of a large number of buses—not just for recreational purposes, but also for educational purposes. Public transport is not serving the wider public and local authorities are not meeting demand for specialist provision. In my view, this issue should be at the forefront of the efforts of the learning and skills councils to ensure, as we are promised, learning for all.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I should like to express my support for this amendment. I should also declare an interest as I am president of the Royal London Society for the Blind, which maintains a school for blind and visually-impaired children, and also a college for students aged 16 to 19 who are blind or visually

821
impaired as well as having other multiple disabilities. I strongly support the amendment on the grounds adduced by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.
It does not really matter whether the education is adequate, sufficient or appropriate if it cannot actually be accessed. If a child under 16 has been statemented and goes to a school, the local authority has a statutory obligation to en sure that he or she gets to the appropriate school. However, that does not apply to those young persons aged 16 to 19.
I made some inquiries of our students to see how they coped with the situation. Some students are in residential boarding accommodation, so they have access to the college immediately. Others make a daily journey. For some it is hazardous and very difficult. In some cases parents or friends help out. For the most part, the students have to make their way themselves, often bearing the cost themselves. Some may benefit from the mobility allowance; others do not.
I hope very much that the Minister will recognise that this is an appropriate amendment. I congratulate her on both Clauses 13 and 14. Undoubtedly, they are a considerable improvement on the present arrangements. To have matters so clearly set out on the face of the Bill in statute is an enormous benefit for anyone aged 16 to 19 who has a learning difficulty. However, in the debates which took place last week the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wanted the age extended to age 25. I agree. But that is for another occasion. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment. It will not have escaped her attention, because she is quite an astute Minister, that it has all-party support. However, she may have some hesitancy in welcoming subsection (1) which says very clearly,
"shall secure the provision of financial resources",
that is, cash.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that this is an area in which the Treasury will be interested. The Treasury will pay great attention. The dead hand of the Treasury will settle upon it. I hope that the Minister resists that dead hand and welcomes the intention and spirit of the new clause. I am sure that she would not want to be embarrassed at a later stage of the Bill by this Chamber imposing its will on a reluctant government in this area.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David: As a member of the Labour Party whose name is to this amendment, I strongly support it. In speaking to education Bills throughout my many years in this Chamber, I have always tried to enable children to get to their place of education. The Government have moved a long way forward in helping with financial resources for over-16s. That is admirable. I hope that my noble friend can give some encouragement on the point we are discussing.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It must be obvious from what I said earlier today and on Tuesday that I support these amendments. It is not only that if the transport
822
is not available the person cannot get to the education in question, but, speaking of mentally handicapped young people, if they are left hanging around outside the school or the course for a very long time, the effect can be quite traumatic and can nullify any good effect that the education may have had. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and hope that the Government can do likewise.
Baroness Blatch: My name is attached to the amendment. I want to make two points. First, the pressure will fall on local authorities for this head of expenditure. Therefore, it will present them with difficulties. The other point is that over-16s in many authorities are at present losing transport whether they have special needs or not.
I have had interesting discussions with Conservative colleagues in local government in different parts of the country where transport has been removed for those aged over 16. If a young person lives in a village some miles from the nearest town and they do not have transport, they simply cannot reach the college. It is too far to walk. The bus services do not operate at times that help them. The one car, if there is a car in the family, has usually been used in the morning by whoever is working in the household. There is an issue about transport for young people in the 16 to 19 age range. But for people with learning difficulties and people with disabilities, the problem is compounded. It does not end at age 19: we are talking here about people up to age 25. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking says that the obligation to provide is strengthened by the Bill. However, providing adequate provision for this age group will not be worth anything if they cannot physically arrive at the institution.
Baroness Blackstone: I am extremely sympathetic towards the sentiments that I believe lie behind the amendment. I do recognise, as the noble friend, Lord Baker, said, that there is all-party support for the amendment. Incidentally, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of Clauses 13 and 14 and to my noble friend Lady David. I fully accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says about the availability of suitable transport being fundamental to equal opportunities and enabling some people with learning difficulties to take part in post-16 education and training.
The problem about the amendment is that it goes much further. It would require the LSC to fund transport for all students with learning difficulties regardless of the nature of their difficulty and irrespective of whether assistance with transport was helpful in enabling them to participate in learning. Certainly, the Treasury would want to resist such a change. I would have some sympathy with that approach in the sense that this might not be the most sensible way of supporting some young people who have learning difficulties but who do not have a problem with transport.
There is already provision in place to help post-16 students, including those with learning difficulties, with the cost of their transport. Under Section 509 of

823
the Education Act 1996 local education authorities have a duty to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the provision of transport for the purposes of facilitating the attendance of people attending schools and FE institutions. Where transport is provided it has to be free of charge. Local education authorities also have power to provide other forms of assistance for any other student. Many students with learning difficulties or disabilities are helped with transport in this way. Colleges can and do supplement what is provided by local education authorities by providing transport themselves or by offering financial assistance towards the cost of provision by transport companies. Much of this support comes from the access funds which the Government provide to all colleges in recognition of the importance of transport. The Government have significantly increased the size of the access fund from £47 million this year to £89 million in the year 2000–2001.
The Government recognise that more needs to be done to improve transport for post-16 year-olds and are currently examining how this can be done. We have recently introduced measures, through the local authority standards fund, which will provide financial assistance for those on low incomes who remain at school after the age of 16. The fund will enable local education authorities to support a range of needs which include transport. Later this year we will begin a new pilot initiative to support 16 to 19 year-old students in full-time education with their transport costs. As with the education and maintenance allowance scheme, it will target support at young people from low income households. It will be piloted in both rural and urban areas. The pilot areas are currently being selected. Our intention is that the scheme should help those students living in areas with particular transport difficulties. We are also considering whether both the LEA pilots and the proposed new transport pilots should be extended to cater for circumstances where people with learning difficulties or disabilities may have finished compulsory education at a later age or have taken longer to complete a course, as is sometimes the case. We will consult the disability organisations before making a decision about whether and how this might be taken forward. Through these improvements in the general level of transport and support for students, I think we will increase the provision which can be used to help students with disabilities. The Government believe that this is a better way forward than identifying specific groups to be given an entitlement which would not be available to others in education and training.
These issues were discussed by the Disability Rights Task Force which, as the Committee is aware, recommended in its report at the end of last year that the transport exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act should end. The Government are considering how to respond to that recommendation.
824
I share the view of Members of the Committee that people whose learning difficulties or disabilities make travelling a difficult and stressful experience should have access to the transport they need. That is why we are strengthening our existing arrangements. However, I do not think that we can grant an entitlement to transport for all people with learning difficulties regardless of the nature of their learning difficulties. That would work directly at the expense of others such as those in deprived or rural areas who may also be dependent on assistance with transport to take up learning opportunities.
Moreover, the Bill includes powers to enable the LSC to fund institutions and to fund the provision of ancillary activities, such as transport, under Clause 5(3). The LSC planning framework will enable gaps to be identified. The LSC could also consider using discretionary funding. I hope that those who have spoken in the debate will accept that the Government are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. However, I hope that in the light of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope that I may ask her one question. I absolutely take the point that the noble Baroness has just made; namely, there are problems as regards providing a blanket entitlement to all people with learning difficulties. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in the amendment states,
"The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties".
If one then inserted the words,
"who otherwise could not access adequate provision",
under the relevant measure in the legislation, one would restrict the measure to those people for whom provision is being made but who cannot access it.
Baroness Blackstone: If the noble Baroness or any of the other speakers in this debate wishes to table an amendment along those lines, the Government will certainly consider whether it is acceptable. Of course, in doing so we would have to consider problems of definition.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank those who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, congratulated the Minister on Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. I very much admire the elegant way in which he waved a parliamentary rapier at the Government with regard to certain issues.
We seek to ensure that there is coverage across the board on this matter. Every time disability problems arise, we are invariably told that good practice exists. As I say, one of the main aims of the amendment is to seek coverage across the board. The Minister did not properly address that point, probably because she could not do so as provision depends on the scheme someone is involved in. I suggest that the most important provision is mobility training to enable

825
people to access public transport. We should all reconsider other approaches to this issue to push the matter further at a later stage. I shall certainly return to the matter. I encourage everyone else to rack their brains in this regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Disabled persons]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert ("and to each local authority").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 14 concerns a report to be prepared by the council. Amendment No. 94 seeks to include a requirement that a copy of the report should be sent to each local authority. Clause 14(2) states,
"The Council must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State".
We have all said that local authorities constitute the democratically elected people on the ground. They will be intensely interested in all the activities of the council. I believe that if the Secretary of State is to receive a copy of the report it should be stated on the face of the Bill that each local authority should also receive a copy. That is necessary not simply because they are interested in the provision of education and training and links with employment in their areas but also because, under the local government legislation, they also have e n obligation to become involved in economic regeneration in their areas. Therefore I believe that they are entitled to receive a copy of the report. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Clause 14 will make sure that the learning and skills council accounts for the provision of post-16 education and training that it makes for people with disabilities. It carries forward the duties placed upon the FEFC by the Disability Discrimination Act. As Members of the Committee have already said, Clause 14 will be of help in creating wider access for adults with disabilities, as the Disability Rights Task Force has recommended.
I also take the view that we should leave this matter to the good sense of the learning and skills council. At present, for example, although the FEFC is not under a duty to send copies of its report to anyone other than the Secretary of State, it nevertheless sends a copy to each FE college. That is good practice and common sense. I would expect the LSC to adopt a similar approach and, reflecting its wider responsibilities, send its report not only to LEAs but also to employers, FE colleges and voluntary organisations with whom it will work. However, these arrangements should be a matter for the LSC and not for legislation. I hope that the Committee will be reassured that local authorities will have access to the LSC's reports in this area, and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness apply also to the
826
Secretary of State. One could argue that if the council is to produce the report, that is clearly intended for someone and therefore the Secretary of State would receive a copy. I suggest the wording "all relevant bodies" as the Disability Rights Commission will presumably take an interest in the report as it concerns disabled persons. I shall reflect on what the noble Baroness has said. I believe that either Clause 14(2) should be deleted as the council will in any case send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, or the words "all relevant bodies" should be included in the provision. Local authorities are worried that they appear to be "airbrushed out" of the system here. As I say, under local government legislation, they are obliged to become involved in certain matters. They certainly will be concerned with education, training and links with employment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Plans]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 7, line 29, leave out from second ("year") to end of line 31 and insert ("and which should reflect the education and training needs of each local learning and skills council area").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment will not be misunderstood in the context of the council being accountable. However, as the noble Baroness will know, I am concerned about what appears to be a very "top down" system. Directions will come from the Secretary of State to the national council. They will cascade down to 47 local councils and to local education authorities. In addition, rural development agencies and other such bodies have to be taken into account. As regards education, particularly training and links with industry and employment, plans should reflect needs at a local level and should not necessarily conform to the directions of the Secretary of State. This is merely an attempt to make sure that where the council publishes a plan for each financial year it should cover all the things that one would expect. In Clause 15 (4)(a) the council has to set out how it intends to achieve within any financial year objectives which should be achieved in that year. It is about setting out in its plan how it intends to achieve the aims and objectives. The Bill should reflect not what the Secretary of State is saying but what are the education and training needs of each local skills area. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches have considerable sympathy with this amendment. Many organisations, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TEC National Council, British Chambers of Commerce and the Local Government Association have all been very concerned indeed that plans drawn up by the LSC, and in particular by the local bodies, should reflect local needs. At national level there should also be some consideration of the overall national skills needs. In particular the CBI is very concerned about that issue.

827
However, I am not convinced that this amendment rightly fits at this point in the Bill. I have pondered the issue. It is concerned with the annual plans of the council itself, but local needs come later on under Clause 22. We shall be putting forward a number of amendments to take account of local needs. However, generally we support the spirit of the amendment because of the strongly expressed views of a number of organisations that the council should take into account the users of skills as well as the providers.
Baroness Blackstone: The LSC as a whole will draw its strength from having both a coherent national strategy and strong local arms which will ensure that local needs are met. That is at the centre of the new arrangement. We believe in the importance of local arms, contrary to what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was suggesting in saying that we were adopting an excessively top-down approach. That is why we are recruiting influential people to the local councils of the LSC. It is also why we are devolving decision-making on the allocation of the majority of the LSC's budget to local level and why we are establishing a system which makes possible a bottom-up approach to drawing up local plans which will encourage local providers to put forward their proposals for meeting the needs and requirements that have been identified locally.
Therefore, I believe it is self-evident that the plans of local LSCs, as provided for in Clause 22, will set out how they propose to discharge their responsibilities in the light of the education and training needs of the area. That is exactly what these plans are for.
But it is not what the national LSC's operational plan is for. The purpose of that document is to set out how the LSC will deliver the objectives set for it as an NDPB which has agreed with the Secretary of State what targets it plans to meet and how it will spend its budget. Where the Secretary of State directs the LSC in accordance with his powers in Clause 25, it is surely essential that the council should set out how it proposes to comply with the directions in making and publishing its plan. If it did not do so, its planning would be neither effective nor transparent. Having heard those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My nervousness is shared by so many people outside. Clearly, from what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said and the list of outside bodies mentioned by her, there are concerns about this matter. It is all very well to say that the national council will reflect local needs. The truth is, whatever the local councils and the LEAs do, they will be obliged under this Bill to act only in conformity with what is happening at national level.
There is a worry that a straitjacket will be created and movement within that will have to be in conformity with the framework sent down from on high. I heed the cautionary words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in that this might not be the right place in the Bill to deal with this issue. What we
828
all want is something in the Bill which gives force to what the noble Baroness aspires to; namely, that the process should be bottom-up and not top-down.
At the moment everything in the Bill emanates from the Secretary of State through the national council down to the local skills councils. There needs to be something on the face of the Bill to indicate that that is not so. The plan will be business driven, skills and local education needs driven, but very much at a local level. When we speak about people moving from education training into the workforce, it is only the local influence which is going to work and not national plans or strategies, which may dovetail together in some parts of the country but not in others. We all know that this country is very diverse. The idea of a single plan coming from on high within which everyone has to operate is a cause of concern. We shall continue to badger on this point until we find something on the face of the Bill which gives strength to the points that we are making. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 7, line 33, at end insert—
("(5) The Council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment suggests that the council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority. It is important. This amendment is also linked with Amendment No. 98 where the council has to set out how it intends to achieve its objectives within the budget.
We have had a good deal of aspirational talk. I have been reading the document ConneXions. I reached about paragraph 5 and said to myself that I could not disagree with a single word of it. It uses aspirational and reassuring language which makes one feel good, but when one asks what will happen on the ground and what are the practical policies to deliver the aspirational hope, it is difficult to find real material and practical points and policies. It is very hard.
All policies begin with the grand visionary statement, but ultimately the devil is in the detail. Where aims and objectives are set out, however laudable they are, it is important to set out in a practical way how they are to be achieved within the set financial parameters. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 96 is not necessary. The plan will be published and made available, including on the Internet, for whoever wants to see it. We have to take into account new technology even in areas of this kind. Local authorities may well have an interest in the plan, but a statutory requirement to send hard copies to each of 388 local authorities in England is unnecessary. It is also bureaucratic and not quite in touch with the 21st century. Given the concerns expressed by noble Lords earlier this week about the need to reduce bureaucracy, I am surprised that this amendment has been tabled.

829
As we made clear in the prospectus, local authorities already have a dual role in the new arrangements that this Bill will secure as key providers of adult and community learning and as bodies which have a vital strategic role to play in furthering the social and economic interests of their communities. Our arrangements reflect that dual role. Clauses 22 and 23 provide ways of preparing the plans. Local LSCs will set out the provisions which LEAs will be expected to secure and the resources to be made available.
Turning to the issue of the Secretary of State being sent a copy, we would expect DfEE officials to discuss with the LSC its proposed annual plan in the course of the normal relationship between a sponsor department and an NDPB. A specific provision to send a hard copy to the Secretary of State is therefore not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Turning now to Amendment No. 98, the rolling strategy document provided for in Clause 16 will have a medium-term scope of at least three years. It is designed to identify strategic objectives and priorities for post-16 learning and as an account of the role that the LSC will play, alongside others, in pursuing those objectives and in achieving targets set by the Secretary of State—for example, the national learning targets.
This document is not the place to set out in detail what the LSC will purchase with its budget indeed, it may not know in detail its forward budgets for the whole of the period in question. The place for this more detailed information is in the annual plan provided for in Clause 15. I hope, therefore, that this amendment also can be withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: There is an inconsistency in the Bill and in what the noble Baroness said. The Minister's argument on Clause 14(2) was that it was important to put on the face of the Bill that the council will send a hard copy of the report to the Secretary of State. Her argument on Clause 15 is that of course the Secretary of State will receive a hard copy of the report and therefore there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. That seems I o me to be an inconsistent argument. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 16 [Strategy]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 7, line 34, after ("a") insert ("workforce development").
The noble Baroness said: Although Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 are grouped together, they are separate amendments and I shall speak to them separately.
Amendment No. 97 seeks to require the National Learning and Skills Council to formulate a development strategy at national level which expressly reflects national workforce needs. The amendment
830
picks up the proposal from the National Skills Task Force that the Government should develop a national workforce development strategy.
As we know, in this country we have for many years had problems in terms of skills and we suffer from inherent skill shortages from time to time. The concept of the national workforce development strategy is that there should be within the rolling plans to which the Minister referred a short time ago—which are the strategic plans—some consideration of how such national needs should be met.
That, of course, is complemented by developments at local levels as well, and I shall speak later about local needs and the need to reflect local needs. We spoke a little about that in the previous amendment.
The amendment reflects the desire of the employer organisations that proposals put forward by the Learning and Skills Council should reflect needs at a national level and also at a sectoral level, and the involvement of the national training organisations here is another example. The amendment reflects the deeply held view that the Learning and Skills Council should develop a strategic overview of its functions. Without the amendment, the clause implies that a broad overview strategy should be involved. We feel that it is important that such an overview should take account of the supply and demand situation within a broad national market.
Turning to Amendment No. 99, this amendment concerns a somewhat different issue. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Learning and Skills Council to consult with government departments other than the Department for Education and Employment and to consult also with local authorities. Again, we are looking not at the question of consultation at a local level but of consultation at a national level. Other government departments and local authorities are important as providers, commissioners and users of skills and it is important that there should be some discussion with them. The amendment is, if you like, seeking that joined-up government be put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: On the issue of workforce development, let me reassure the noble Baroness that that will be an important part of the LSC's remit. That is partly why we have said that 40 per cent of the members of the national and local LSCs will have substantial recent business or commercial experience, together with the national chair and most local chairs. The LSC will work at both national and local levels with a wide range of other bodies with an interest in workforce development.
At national level this will include NTOs, trade unions, the Small Business Service, RDAs, Investors in People UK and the UM Working with these partners the national LSC will be responsible for articulating a clear agenda for action on workforce development, for driving this forward through its local arms and for working in partnership with others. For example, it will work very closely with NTOs in developing frameworks for sector workforce development plans.

831
Local councils will prepare workforce development plans for their areas, taking account of the national framework and the skill priorities identified by the RDAs. We have a real opportunity with the new arrangements to build on the success of TECs, with initiatives such as Investors in People, and to strengthen links between learning and work—links which are at the heart of what we are striving to achieve.
But the amendment that we are considering, in seeking to emphasise the importance of workforce development, would mean that the LSC's three-year rolling strategy would only cover workforce development and nothing else. I am sure the noble Baroness does not intend this. I hope that she will withdraw Amendment No. 97. I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that the plans that the LSC draws up at both national and local levels will give full weight to workforce development.
The sentiment behind Amendment No 99 very much chimes with our expectation that the LSC should be an inclusive body which reaches out and works effectively with all relevant partners. We want to see meaningful consultation ingrained into its culture. We expect that the people we recruit to the most senior posts will be people who can network effectively across a wide range of interests.
As I said, we certainly intend that the LSC will consult widely with all its key partners in putting together its strategic plans. We stated that clearly in the LSC prospectus. This will be essential if it is to draw on the experience that others can offer.
However, we see no reason to set this out as a specific obligation in the Bill. Consultation is already required with a number of bodies, including LEAs, on the national LSC's guidance to its local arms. There is also already provision for wide consultation on the important local plans, and we will consider how we might secure the involvement of all local authorities in this. Key partners will also have a direct input into the direction of the national LSC through their links with members of the council itself, and, of course, with members of the adult and young people's learning committees, and through links at sectoral, regional and local level.
With these assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I take on board the reassurances she has given us on both issues. It is good to have it on the record and I am grateful to her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Supplementary functions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 8, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: Often when one wants to have a discussion on a matter, the only way to do it is to table an amendment. It will therefore come as some relief to the Committee that I shall not be pressing Amendment No. 100.
I understand that there is some qualification about how the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, will impose new powers or duties on the council for post-16 education. I have not had time to study the qualification, but I admit also that I have always found legalese difficult to read. I am anxious to know whether any order imposing a new power or duty would be caught by regulations that would need to come before both Houses through either the negative or the affirmative procedure. If it would not, I should be concerned to know that it should do so. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: The provision in the Bill follows the precedent of Section 8(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which gives the Secretary of State a similar power in relation to the funding council. That power has been used on only one occasion, when last year the Further Education Funding Council took responsibility for the Government's new dance and drama provisions for talented students.
Just as the power under the 1992 Act has provided a useful safety net for an important scheme which the primary powers of the FEFC would otherwise rule out, so I should expect the similar powers in respect of the LSC to be used rarely. The Government set out their reasons for advocating the use of secondary legislation in that area to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The noble Baroness will know that that expert committee did not see any need to draw any difficulties over such a power to the attention of the House.
The Secretary of State's power to confer or impose supplementary powers or duties on the LSC is limited in two important ways. First, any supplementary powers or duties must be within the ambit of the Secretary of State's functions. Secondly, they must be relevant to the provision of facilities for post-16 education and training. In response to the noble Baroness's question, as I understand it those regulations would be of the negative rather than the affirmative kind. I hope that that is to some extent the discussion that the noble Baroness sought on that topic. Having listened to what has been said, no doubt she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister. I wanted to know whether the regulations would come through the negative or affirmative procedure. From what the Minister said, my understanding is that they will come through the negative procedure. That reassures me. If the Minister had not explained that point I was going to come back to say that I recollect seeing a negative order concerning dance and drama

833
when the power was transferred. I am looking across to the Front Bench opposite for nods in my direction, but there are none. I was simply going to ask for the same facility, but if the regulations are to come through the negative procedure, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I have tabled the Motion because Clause 18 begs so many questions that I believed that the best course of action would be to oppose it standing part of the Bill in order to try to discover exactly what it means.
We know that there are training and enterprise councils on independent corporations, but also that they have considerable assets. A number of issues arise from that point. First, the TUPE arrangements for the transfer of staff. I know that the Government have not yet pronounced on that matter. It would be helpful to know quite what that is to be. As I understand it, the assets of the training and enterprise councils will, as they wind up, in fact revert to the Secretary of State. If that is the case, where do those assets lie? Do they become subject to possible disposal or acquisition on the part of the clause?
Secondly, the powers relating to the acquisition and disposal of land and property are considerable. In Clause 18(2)(c), there is a reference to investing, "sums not immediately needed"—in other words, if there is money in the purse, there is the facility for investing. However, Clause 18(3)(c) states that they would be prevented from.
"hold[ing] shares in a company, or otherwise becom[ing] a member of a company, unless the Secretary of State consents".
Does that mean that the only place that the money may lie is in a building society or a bank? It is difficult to know how free a body would be to invest money that is not around. We all know the importance of that: if money is lying around and not appreciating, its value is of course depreciating.
I turn to the reference to "gifts". I am slightly unnerved to see that the council will be free to accept gifts. I am not quite sure what that will mean and what the accountability system for receiving gifts and accepting financial resources will be. I am assuming that the reference to accepting financial resources relates to other providers in the field, but, again, I do not know. Subsection (3) states that the council will not be able to borrow or to lend money, with the caveat,
"unless the Secretary of State consents".
I know that there have been instances from time to time where money has been lent. I am not so sure whether the local authority in Hammersmith and Fulham was given powers to lend money to some of the establishments in its authority because it was in particular difficulty this year. Not surprisingly, the
834
Prime Minister has a direct interest in that authority. I do not know whether or not that was the reason for permission being given. I am concerned about the powers to lend and the criteria that would be used by the Secretary of State in agreeing to allow the council to lend moneys.
I have many questions about the clause, including the issue of risk. Will the Minister make some comment about risk: risk management; the degree to which the council will be able to engage in any activity when it is preserving and conserving its funds; the degree to which risk will be allowed and could be managed; and the degree to which the council would be accountable? Precisely which bodies would be making their land, property and assets available to the council for disposal and acquisition? I oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Bach: I fear that I shall not be able to answer all the important questions raised by the noble Baroness. Of course, Clause 18 gives the national LSC additional general powers which it may exercise to enable it to perform its core functions. As she will know, that is a standard approach to ensure that an independent corporate body such as the LSC has the necessary powers to underpin its main functions. The powers enabling the LSC to form companies or take shares in a company may in practice involve facilitating appropriate partnership working at the local and national level for local workforce development or regeneration and economic development objectives. The powers of the FEFC were more limited in that area. If the LSC is to play an important role in local partnerships, as TECs do now, it is important that it has the appropriate powers.
I am sure that most noble Lords would support such activities which can add value and make a difference in local areas, in particular through levering in wider resources. Clause 18 provides the LSC with important supplementary powers to enable it to play the strategic powerful role in the community which we advocated in the White Paper and in the prospectus.
As regards TUPE and the assets of TECs, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to be patient and to wait until we debate Amendment No. 202 after Clause 84. That may be a more appropriate point to discuss assets.
As regards lending money, the circumstances in which we see that as both possible and a good thing, would be, for example, to help a provider with cashflow difficulties, and possibly also in the field of individual loans.
The noble Baroness referred to the use of gifts. That is nothing new. There is a provision to the same effect under Schedule 1 of the Act relating to the FEFC. As to her other detailed questions, it may be that some will be answered when we deal with the later amendment. Those are the considerations that we ask the Committee to bear in mind when asking that the clause stand part.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may follow up the noble Lord's remarks with a couple of extra questions. I

835
should like him to take advantage of the extensive amount of time that we have available to us this evening to see whether he might reach into the resources available to him and give some explanation as to the kind of balance that the council will be asked to apply in regard to assets, risks and rewards.
The wording of the clause is very strange. It seems that the council will be able to speculate without restraint in land and property. It will be able to enter into contracts—so it can dance around the futures market if it can find a good reason for doing so. But it will not be able to lend money—in other words it will not be able to place money with a bank or building society, because that is letting out money at interest; it is lending money in any ordinary sense of the word. The clause provides no picture of the degree of prudence that the institution is meant to exercise. It will be allowed to invest sums, but if it cannot put them into a bank or building society (because it cannot lend) and it cannot invest in company shares, is it supposed to have some kind of weird gilt-edged "stock-swap" arrangement with the Bank of England? What exactly is going on when it comes to the management of short-term assets? I should appreciate some enlightenment from the noble Lord. I hope that he will find the time and resources to afford it to us this evening.
Lord Bach: I am glad the noble Lord thinks that we have plenty of time on our hands. I am not sure that I agree.
The noble Lord's questions can be answered in the following way. The clause gives the LSE wide powers to manage its funds. We shall look at Hansard tomorrow and at the questions raised in order to see whether we can give a more satisfactory answer, possibly in the form of a letter.
There is nothing unusual in Clause 18. Much of the provision is to be found in the 1992 Act in relation to the FEFC, although, as I have said, this Bill strengthens the powers of the new LSC compared to the previous organisation. We shall take away the questions and comments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness and see what we can do to help answer them.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful if the noble Lord is going away to think about what has been said in the course of discussion on this clause. It raises questions about the parameters in which the provision will operate; risk and risk management; accountability; and the definition of lending. I had ruled out almost everything except putting money into a building society; but, technically, that would be lending. Therefore, some clarification would be helpful.
I entirely take the point about TUPE. That is the only subject that I raised which will be specifically dealt with later in the Bill. I shall not insist that the clause is taken out of the Bill at this stage. However, I should welcome a fulsome, comprehensive letter answering all the points raised.
836
The noble Lord referred to previous arrangements when the FEFC was set up. There is something rather different happening here. There is a national council, 47 local councils, the wind-up of 72 training and enterprise councils, and there will be a massive movement of liabilities, assets, land and property. Some understanding of how all that will be managed would be helpful. I shall not press my opposition to the clause.
Clause 18 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Local councils]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 8, line 31, at end insert ("and a co-ordinating committee for the five committees in London").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 114 and 133 standing in my name and that of my noble friend. Perhaps I may comment also on Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
At the start of our debates in Committee, I proposed that there should simply be one learning and skills council for each of the nine English regions. It follows that I should prefer to see one learning and skills council for the Greater London region. However, if we are to have five local learning and skills councils in Greater London, as is proposed, it is essential that there is also a strong—I stress the word "strong"—co-ordinating committee. That is not just my view, or the view from these Benches. It is widely shared across London. So far I have heard no dissent. I hope also to be able to say that by the end of our debates. The board of the London Development Partnership put forward those recommendations to the Secretary of State; namely that there should be five learning and skills councils within London, with a strong co-ordinating body, to ensure that London-wide challenges were tackled. I understood that the Secretary of State had accepted that. I hope to hear from the Minister that that is the case.
The proposal is particularly important, with the coming of the Greater London authority, the elected mayor, and the transformation of the London Development Partnership into the fully-fledged London development agency, with all the work that that has done. It is important that a co-ordinated view comes from the learning and skills councils so that they are able to make strong representations to the various bodies in London and represent their views. I hope we shall hear from the Minister that the Government accept the need for a co-ordinating committee. I hope also for some indication of what the Government see as the necessary co-ordinating arrangements in Greater London between the five learning and skills councils that they are determined to establish.
I now turn to Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. The amendment helpfully goes into more detail about both the suggested membership and the suggested functions of a co-ordinating committee. That is extremely helpful. My amendment was a simple proposal merely

837
to establish the need for such a committee. Amendment No. 110 goes further and gives substance to the proposal. In general, I support the amendment.
Perhaps I may make two comments. One is that subsection (3)(b) suggests that,
"there shall be a majority of members with business experience and members with experience of local government".
I certainly support the intentions behind that provision. However, I am slightly concerned about the way it is described It would meet that requirement, for instance, if there were eight business people and one local government person, or vice versa. I suspect that that is not the intention behind the amendment but the noble Lord will no doubt make that clear.
The other comment relates to subsection (5), which suggests that the chief executive of the co-ordinating committee should be a member. We have discussed the point previously in relation to the national council and I suspect that it will arise in relation to local councils in the future. It is our view that the chief executive should not be a member of the committee, although I accept that, if that is to be the case everywhere else in England, it will have to be the case in London. I should not wish that point to pass without comment in case it comes back to haunt me at a later stage in the Bill. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Can the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tell the Committee what the co-ordinating committee is to co-ordinate? If there are five committees it is inevitable that from time to time there will be disagreement in the sense that they will regard themselves as their own masters and able to do as they wish. That question must be answered. The other side of the coin—perhaps I am wrong—is that the co-ordinating committee will be given supreme power. If I correctly understand the noble Lord, he believes that there should be one committee instead of five but that that has not come about. Therefore, he believes that the amendment will do what he thinks should be done. The noble Lord shakes his head. However, if there are five committees is extremely unlikely that that will happen. I believe that the Committee is entitled to more information.
Lord Tope: I hesitate to respond at this stage because I suspect that in a moment the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will answer some of the points. I shook my head because I wondered whether I was being criticised for tabling an amendment which sought to achieve what I wanted to achieve. I am sure that that was not what the noble Lord meant but that was how I understood his comment.
I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 110 in the name of his noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. Subsection (4) of the new clause describes very well the functions of a co-ordinating committee. I do not argue with that. I believe it to be a necessary and important function. The fragmentation into five local councils in London weakens the input into the London Development Agency and the GLA. There is a great
838
need to co-ordinate the activity. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, describes the position very well.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Since there has been so much mention of the amendment standing in my name, perhaps it is appropriate at this stage to say a few words about it. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment accepted the recommendation of the board of the London Development Partnership that there should be five learning and skills councils within London. I am sure that I do not disclose privileged information when I say that the matter was widely debated by the board of the London Development Partnership and that the recommendation that there should be five learning and skills councils was agreed by only a very narrow margin.
A number of the partners felt strongly that, given the nature of London's labour market, which is distinct from elsewhere in the country, one learning and skills council was appropriate. But even those within the board who argued for five learning and skills councils—in the end, they formed a majority—were clear about the importance of having some kind of co-ordinating body to ensure that London-wide challenges were tackled and that there was a pan-London approach to some of the issues that might arise. Therefore, the recommendation of the London Development Partnership, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment accepted, was that there should be five learning and skills councils with a co-ordinating body for the purpose of ensuring that London-wide challenges were tackled.
Unfortunately, there is no mention of the co-ordinating body either in the Bill or in the learning and skills prospectus. I am well aware that during the Second Reading debate a number of noble Lords spoke of the need for such a London co-ordinating body. While acknowledging the recommendations of the London Development Partnership, the Minister stopped short, according to my reading, of giving a firm commitment that such a co-ordinating body for London would be established. For that reason I have put my name to the amendment which the Committee is to consider today.
My noble friend has asked what this co-ordinating body might do. I do not believe that it is the intention of anyone that that body should act as a learning and skills council for London as a whole; otherwise, the five learning and skills councils would be redundant. But it is important that the co-ordinating body ensures that across London the skills needed throughout the city are addressed. It is extremely important for the UK economy as a whole that London gets the skills agenda right. London drives one-fifth of the nation's GDP—possibly more, depending on the definitions used—and it is in no one's interest to have skills gaps because of a failure to co-ordinate the actions of five separate councils. We must ensure that we provide the skills and expertise to enable London's economy to

839
prosper. The co-ordinating body will assist in that process. I am sure that that is something which all Members of the Committee support.
It is also of critical importance that an overview is taken of issues to do with social exclusion so that work on promoting skills and work in the city can be addressed across London as a whole. It is difficult to understand how the challenges can be properly addressed in isolation by five free-standing learning and skills councils if London's population is to benefit from the new arrangements proposed in the Bill. The arrangement will work only if there are strong and effective mechanisms for co-ordination to ensure that the councils, albeit using their independent expertise, are able to work together effectively.
In addition, London will be the first city with an elected mayor and assembly, and the only city region in the United Kingdom. It is of particular importance that in London the five learning and skills councils fit their strategies to those of the London Development Agency, which the Bill supports. That can be done much more conveniently if there is proper co-ordination of their work. How can five learning and skills councils work effectively with the other vital pan-London partners, such as the Single Small Business Service for London, if there is no mechanism to do it?
The pace of change in London is very rapid, and people must adapt their skills if they are to stay and progress in work. A recent survey by the London Skills Forecasting Unit showed that employers judged that almost 10 per cent of their employees did not have the skills to carry out their current job responsibilities. It is important that the five learning and skills councils work together to anticipate employers' needs based on a London-wide assessment and analysis of labour market information.
I hope that the good work of the London Skills Forecasting Unit can be made available across London to the new learning and skills council. That can be best achieved if there is a co-ordinating mechanism. Therefore, a new co-ordinating body is needed with powers to enable it to predict future skill needs, secure the continued growth and vibrancy of London's economy, promote social inclusion and address the skills and training needs associated with all of those issues. I hope very much that the Minister will recognise the need to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the London Development Partnership by making provision for a powerful co-ordinating body for London.
Baroness Blatch: It is difficult to argue for yet more committees given the Bill before us. We must be the most over-governed country in the world. We start off with the European Parliament, followed by the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, rural development agencies, county councils, borough and district councils, town and parish councils, the London mayor, the London assembly and the London Development Agency. We now have a national learning and skills council and 47 local councils. The
840
only argument that resonates with me is the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, which was then dismissed as one that had been lost some time ago; namely, that if there is real force in the argument that London should be regarded as an entity and that policies should apply to the whole of it, it is better to have a single local learning and skills council than five, which entail the creation of another body to ensure that all of them work together.
In view of the time that will be taken up and the mixed messages that will come from the Secretary of State through the national council, and sideways through the rural development agencies, the London Development Agency, the co-ordinating council and the local councils, there is a powerful argument for saying that London should be looked at again. To have a co-ordinating committee on top of five committees is not an answer.
Lord Lucas: If we are trying to make sense of the arrangements the Government propose for London, we have to realise that London is an integrated whole with a very good transport system, which leads to large numbers of people living in certain areas and working in others, so that across the five areas of London there will be patches where the training requirements occur in one area for an industry in one area but actually the people live in a different area. There will be a great need for co-operation and indeed cross-working between the five London areas if we are to get an effective system for London.
What concerns me, therefore, is the apparent prohibition in Clause 22(3) of a local council paying for provision in another council's area. Given the particular skills which are going to be available in the educational institutions in the middle of London and the ease of getting to the middle of London, I suggest it would always seem appropriate for some of the rarer skills in particular to be catered for in the middle as a matter of co-operation between all five councils. To have a system which appears to mean that councils cannot pay for that provision out of area, or at least cannot plan for it, would give me considerable cause for concern. I hope the Government will be able to provide reassurance that whatever structure we have for these five councils working together, they will be able to invest training money in each other's areas so that there can be a combined provision between the five areas, though the provision may be located in only one of the areas.
Lord Dormand of Easington: May I ask my noble friend, before she replies, to say whether she feels that London is unique in this respect? What about Birmingham and what about Manchester? Is this something which would have to be done in other parts of the country?
Baroness Blackstone: These amendments confirm the arrangements for managing pan-London issues for the five London councils which will cover different parts of London. I should like to say straight away to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington that

841
neither of the cities that he mentioned are anything like the size of London and therefore rather different issues pertain.
Let me take this opportunity to place on record my gratitude for all the work which the RDAs did, and particularly the London Development Partnership, in consulting and advising on the appropriate boundaries for all parts of England. Inevitably there were a number of difficult areas where it was hard to reach a final judgment and, not surprisingly, London was particularly difficult.
In responding to these amendments I do not want to reopen the debate on whether there should have been one pan-London local learning and skills council or whether there should be five or more. A huge amount of argument went on about this. On the one hand, there are a variety of issues where a pan-London view is appropriate and, on the other hand, there are many issues where a local response is necessary and appropriate so that the needs of particular communities in London can be met.
I was a little surprised by several things the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. He suggested that transport right across London is easy and integrated. I am afraid that after 18 years of Tory rule there is still quite a lot to be done to improve transport across London and I do not think it is that easy for someone living in Enfield to get to, say, Richmond. Perhaps the noble Lord knows of routes that I do not and can get there quickly. It is of course the case that in central London some specialist provision is already made available and will continue to be so in further education because it is easier to get into I he centre from some parts of London than from others.
I should also say to him that I do not think it would be terribly sensible for an individual local learning and skills council to be investing money in other such councils. This would be rather a messy approach and would get us into difficulty. That does not mean to say that councils cannot pay for out-of-area provision. Of course Clause 22 is about plans. We want them to plan for their own areas but not for others.
The solution recommended by the London Development Partnership was for live local councils covering London, with a co-ordinating mechanism to make sure that those pan-London issues to which I referred are dealt with effectively. I was happy to accept this recommendation and I say to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I am equally happy to place on record here today our commitment to making this arrangement work in practice. However, we do not need a provision on the face of the: Bill to make this happen. As your Lordships will see, we specify very little about local functions on the face of the Bill anyway. After all, the LSC is one organisation, so the duties and powers that the Bill will give are in principle available to the whole of the national LSC. We set out in the prospectus how we will capitalise on the benefits of a strong national council and strong local councils. The Bill provides for the power for the council to delegate to local arms the appropriate powers.
842
The same approach has guided our thinking on the London co-ordinating mechanism, and for these reasons I do not think it is necessary to include this provision on the face of the Bill. Of course it is the case that the London council, which provides a similar co-ordinating role for local TECs, has done so without a statutory basis. I am confident that a London co-ordinating mechanism committee will do the same thing effectively in the future.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 110 and 133, there is a risk in specifying the functions on the face of the Bill that we build in conflicts between local councils in London and the co-ordinating mechanism. These matters are best worked out by local people in a spirit of partnership and co-operation, and I am sure that is what we will see. The exact form that the co-ordinating mechanism in London will take will be for the learning and skills council and for the five local councils to determine together. However, I should like to take the opportunity to make it clear that we do not want to see a new tier of management or bureaucracy. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about this. We do not want to see this imposed on the London LSCs: nor do we want to see direction of the five London councils by some form of central committee. In fact that was not what the London Development Partnership recommended. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: If I might help the noble Baroness with her transport problems, the north London line provides a very adequate link between Enfield and Richmond—indeed it is almost direct—and if the noble Baroness wished to do so she could stop off in Camden and visit Camden School for Girls, which is one of the jewels of the state system but which is sadly in need of new buildings which have been denied for far too long.
Baroness Blackstone: I knew when I was searching in my mind for a difficult route across London that the noble Lord would come up with a perfect answer! As for the Camden School for Girls, I know it well since my daughter attended it. It is a very good school.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I might suggest to the noble Baroness that she should try travelling between Sutton and Richmond by public transport: the link is spiritual only.
I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record that the Government accept the need for what I think she described as a co-ordinating mechanism. I am sorry she was rather longer on what she thinks that mechanism should not be rather than on what it should be. Of course I will read carefully what she has said, but I understood her to say that this is a matter to be determined by the local learning and skills councils when they are established; in other words, quite a long way down the road. It would be helpful to have a little more from the Government, perhaps not tonight but

843
certainly before Report stage, not on what they think the mechanism should not be but on what they think it should be.
I understand why she thinks it would be inappropriate to have this on the face of the Bill. It is here today of course to enable us to have this debate and to try to understand better what the Government have in mind for a co-ordinating mechanism. We shall look forward to hearing more about that, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Northern Ireland Act
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Act
United Reformed Church Act
Alliance & Leicester PLC (Group Reorganisation) Act
Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Act.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.51 to 8.30 p.m.]

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 19.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) No less than 40 per cent. of the members shall include persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience.").
The noble Baroness said: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I return to this fray. The Government have talked about two things. One is that there will be a predominance of people with business experience on the councils, both national and local. Forty per cent has been mentioned in a number of places: at meetings with Ministers and when Ministers have talked to people in business and commerce.
I was pleasantly surprised by the number of contacts that I had following our first day in Committee. People said how pleased they were that the subject had been raised but how disappointed they were at the way in which the Government appear to be extremely reluctant in relation to two matters. One concerned a definitive statement by the Secretary of State and other Ministers in the department about the 40 per cent of people with business experience. The other concerned what appeared to be prevarication about the definition of a person with business experience.
Therefore, I believe that it is essential, especially at national level but more especially at local level, that two-thirds of the membership of the training and enterprise councils, as they exist at present, are business people; that is, people with business experience in their local areas. However, it appears that that number may be reduced not only to 40 per cent but possibly even lower. If that does not appear as a commitment in the Bill, it does not necessarily have to be repeated in every single local skills council nor, indeed, at national level. I believe that this issue is terribly important.
One argument that has been made is that one cannot prescribe membership of the committee in advance. The reason given by the noble Baroness was that there are many representative groups out there and they will all want their slice of the action. In responding to two of my amendments on the first day in Committee concerning 25 per cent local government authority nominated membership and the 40 per cent minimum non-sector business membership, the noble Baroness went on to say, "What about all the others?" However, I believe that there is a case for this one group. I say that because there was a very specific commitment on the part of the Government.
The Government's rationale for moving to this form of committee is that it will be business led. "Business led" is a phrase that has been used by the Secretary of State and by Ministers, and it was certainly used in the briefing that I attended—not the noble Baroness's briefing; I was unable to attend that, but I attended the previous one. It can be made a reality and meet the expectations of business, which expects that only if it is on the face of the Bill. One must take into account the Nolan procedures and the way in which appointments are made. After my amendments for the national council had been rejected, the noble Baroness said that the Government would take the best of what came through the Nolan process. Unless it is prescribed through Nolan that is, using the Nolan procedures but prescribing that a percentage will come with business experience—then it will be an incidental rather than a positive factor.
While I am addressing the subject of the Nolan procedures, which I know will be invoked again by whichever Minister replies to this amendment, I wish to say that I was—as, indeed, were many of my noble friends—quite shocked today at the exchange between the two Benches on one of the Starred Questions at the beginning of the day when we discussed the appointment to the Dome with the noble and learned

845
Lord, Lord Falconer. I know that that comes under a different category and that the arrangements may be different. However, one of his answers stated that we could not have advertised the post of chief executive and, certainly, we could not have used the Nolan procedures because they would take at least six months.
In this case, there are many appointments to be made—a huge number of appointments if one takes into account the national and the 47 local councils—and the Secretary of State is responsible for all the working posts, too. Therefore, there are some real concerns about this matter. The business world is listening hard to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: We have already debated the issue of the composition of the national councils. This amendment, of course, relates to the composition of the local LSCs. I really have little more to add to the discussion that we had when we debated the national council.
The Government oppose the equivalent amendments in respect of the local councils. I am afraid that I must disagree here with the noble Baroness. We are extremely reluctant to put quotas on the face of the Bill, either nationally or locally. Incidentally, the TECs cover a much narrower range of provision than will the local LSCs.
I was not intending to invoke the Nolan procedures, although, of course, they will apply. However, Members of the Committee may recall that during the debate on Amendment No. 2 we made clear that stimulating and supporting workforce development will, of course, be a central part of the LSCs' remit. That is why we gave the assurance that 40 per cent of members on both the national and local LSCs will have recent business or commercial experience. Therefore, we are firmly committed to ensuring that local councils have a business perspective so that we can create a system where skills and innovation are the foundation for the success of this economy.
However, I do not accept that it is either necessary or appropriate to set ratios in legislation. I said that it was not appropriate at the national level, and I am afraid that I do not consider it to be appropriate at the local level either. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are committed to what we have stated. I hope that she will accept that it is not necessary to put this on the face of the Bill or, indeed, appropriate, and that, therefore, she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before I decide how to proceed with the amendment, perhaps I may press the noble
846
Baroness to answer a question. Are the Government still committed to approximately 40 per cent on each local council and on the national council?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes. We are not distinguishing and suggesting that on only a certain number of councils will the 40 per cent apply. It should apply to all the local councils as well as to the national council.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may come back again. Are the Government putting on the record that there will be 40 per cent or more, but not less than 40 per cent, on each of the councils, including the national council?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes. We have said that there will be not less than 40 per cent on each of the councils.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 8, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) No less than 25 per cent. of the members shall be nominated by the local authorities within the local council area.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 111. Amendment No. 106 is also in this group. That amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who will deal with that.
Amendment No. 105 returns to the issue of the nominated posts by local authorities within the local area. I shall return to the issue of business membership at the next stage of the Bill. The Nolan procedures are always invoked as part of the answer to this question. But it would be helpful if the noble Baroness is as committed as was her honourable friend Mr Wicks to local authority representation on the national and local councils. I seek a definitive commitment in relation to that.
I shall be urging—as will, I believe, Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches—that those selections should not be made simply by the Secretary of State through those procedures but that there should be nominations to which the Nolan procedures would apply.
Amendment No. 108 seeks a change of emphasis. This is an important point. We want members of a local council not to be members also of the national council. The national council will comprise only between 12 and 16 people. The idea that it needs to take anybody who is also serving on a local council is extraordinary. The selections will be made through rather complicated procedures. Anybody who becomes a member of the national and/or local council will be fairly important either in the field of business and commerce, with a background in national training organisations, with a background in local government and so on. The idea that such people would have the time in their lives to be dual members of a national committee, which will be relatively small, and a local

847
committee, is absurd. The principle of dual membership should not be supported. That is my rationale for that amendment. Amendment No. 109 goes to the same argument.
Amendment No. 111 seeks to remove paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 2 which states:
"A notice under this paragraph requires the Secretary of State's approval".
Again, the Secretary of State has a handle on absolutely everything to do with any activity whatever in the Bill. He appoints the members, the chairmen, the chief executives. He appoints every single member of the 47 councils. He also appoints all the members of staff to all those councils. It is not possible in practical terms to deliver that level of control and I do not believe it is entirely democratic. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 106 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford.
I said earlier in the debate that I have some sympathy with the Government to the extent of not wishing to be prescriptive on the face of the Bill about the exact percentages of various categories of membership. Therefore, I prefer the wording in Amendment No. 106 which states, slightly less prescriptively, that,
"the Council shall ensure that the majority are representative of the different providers of education and training within the area, and of local authorities, and that all members have experience relevant to the Council's functions".
I turn in particular to the local authority question. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has referred to the meeting which we both attended at which the Under-Secretary of State, Malcolm Wicks, said quite specifically that each council would have as members representatives of the local authorities. He was unequivocal about that.
So far in the proceedings in this House, I have not heard such an unequivocal statement from the Minister. I hope that that is about to change. I should have checked and I did not but, if my memory serves me right, on Second Reading she said that the councils would have representatives who were knowledgeable of local government. She is shaking her head. Perhaps I have got it wrong and she will correct that when she replies. But such an expression could embrace a very wide number of people.
Let us leave aside for the moment the proportion. Local government is concerned that it should be represented as of right on each learning and skills council. That is extremely important, not only for local authorities as providers, which is important, but these days even more so because they will soon have a duty, under the Local Government Bill also before this House, to promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area. Therefore the community leadership role of a local authority is equally important in that regard.
848
We really need to hear from the Government clearly and unequivocally exactly how local government is to be represented on each learning and skills council. Amendment No. 106 to which I am now speaking will at least confirm that they and other providers should form the majority.
Some would go so far as to say that local government should be nominating a number of members. That is an important point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said, under the proposals in this Bill, the Secretary of State will have power to appoint 600 or 700 people, most of whom he will certainly not know. He will have to be guided by somebody else's say so. It seems to me that if people are to be representatives of local government in any sense, then local government should have the right to choose its own representatives, subject to the Nolan procedures. Nobody argues about that. We understand that. We do not just want place people on those relatively small councils. We want people with the relevant knowledge and experience who will play a full part there.
Local government can provide the required proportion of such people. I hope to hear a clearer response from the Government than I have heard so far.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope that I have already made it clear that we see a very major role for local government in the new arrangements. Local government will be a central partner, not just in providing and securing learning opportunities through schools and in adult and community education but also as organisations which can provide both vision and leadership for local communities.
Indeed, under the arrangements, local government will have a far more important role to play in post-16 education than was allocated under the previous government. So as I said on Second Reading and earlier this week in Committee, I am rather surprised by the Conservative Opposition's new-found commitment to local government's involvement here.
But the new arrangements will offer local authorities greater influence over the whole range of post-16 provision since local LSCs will be required to consult on their plans and set out in them the LEA contribution. I am happy to confirm also to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we expect the local LSCs to have someone with current local authority experience. I do not believe that those are quite the words which the noble Lord used.
But it would be wrong to go further and build in 25 per cent of places for local authority representatives. We want members who are appointed on merit because of what they can offer rather than to be delegates of other organisations.
I turn now to Amendment No. 106. It is vital that all members of local councils have experience which is relevant to councils' functions. They will not be much good on those councils if they do not have such experience. We shall publish a specification of the

849
knowledge, understanding and skills for which we are looking among LSC members when we advertise those posts.
We have already set out in the prospectus that we expect local LSC members to understand the needs of employers; employees, through trade union representation; local communities, through local authority experience; people who are disadvantaged or excluded, through voluntary sector experience; young people and adult learners; people with special learning needs, learning difficulties or disabilities; and people who face discrimination. That is quite a long list already.
We have also said that the views of learning providers should be represented on local LSCs, but that the vast majority of those serving on councils should speak for the views of the consumers of the learning system—individuals who may benefit from what the system offers, and employers who will benefit from the greater skills that people have obtained from the system.
That is a vital point. We want a system that is driven by the needs of individuals and communities and of employers and the economy. It would be wrong, given that, to have a majority of places for providers, as this amendment proposes. I must therefore ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I was a little surprised to see Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 as I can see no reason why a member of a local council should not also serve on the national council if so appointed. Indeed, there may be benefits from some cross-fertilisation of local and national experiences for both councils. At the same time I entirely accept what lies behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, that that will not be a frequent occurrence. Few people could find the time to do both.
Any potential conflicts of interest for a national council member who is also a member of a local council are adequately and comprehensively dealt with in that part of Schedule 1 that is dedicated to "Members interests".
On Amendment No. 111, the power of the national council to remove a local council member from office is a necessary one. The council must be able to remove members, for example, if they have failed to attend local council meetings for a substantial period, or if they have otherwise become unable or unfit to carry out their responsibilities. They may, for example, become mentally ill. But in order that local council members feel secure, for example, to speak out against what they may see as incorrect or unfair policies by the LSC, it is important that that power to remove local council members is balanced by the need to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that such a measure is justified. It is a matter of checks and balances. I believe that this is correct.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Tope: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, decides what she will do, perhaps I can tease out a little
850
more from the Minister as to exactly what she means. My memory of what she has just said is a little better than my memory of what she said at Second Reading. I believe I heard her say that each local council will have someone with current local government experience. Does that mean one person out of the 12 to 16 members? Does it mean at least one, or does the Minister envisage that there will be more than one? Does "current local government experience" mean that that person will be an elected member, or a council officer, or someone who experiences a local government service? What exactly does the phrase mean?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can add to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Having just listened to the Minister I do not believe that she said "each local council" or "each council both local and national". The matter would be made clearer if the Minister were able to use the words that she used for the business representation.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not believe that we want to be as precise as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, expects us to be. We are looking for the best people. We want to appoint people on merit, people who have something to add to the work of the councils. Some elected members have such qualities and some appointed officials and officers of local authorities may have such qualities. It may be right in some cases that a chief executive or a chief education officer may be appointed to one of the councils. Similarly, in some cases it may be appropriate that an experienced elected member, who has the kind of wisdom and expertise that will be needed, can bring that experience to bear in the context of the work of the council.

I believe it would be quite wrong for the Government to constrain applications to a particular category from people with local government experience. We would like to see applications for membership of the councils from a wide range of people who have—I shall use the phrase again—current local authority experience. I would expect that to be the case on all these councils. I do not believe I can go further than that. I hope that that helps the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
Lord Tope: The Minister has made clearer what she has in mind. I now want to press her on the number or the proportion of such members. She has been specific in saying that at least 40 per cent of the members will be people with business experience. I do not ask her to give a precise figure, but can she give an indication of the number of people who will have current local government experience? Will it be just one person? This is a matter of considerable concern to people in local government who will want to know to what extent, as well as in what way, they will be represented. One person out of 16 is a fairly minimal representation and four or five out of 16 is a substantial representation. What sort of role does she have in mind for local government?
Baroness Blackstone: I thought I had made the point clear. We are looking for applications from people

851
with merit in relation to the kind of criteria that we are specifying for membership of the councils. We are not specifying a particular proportion. All we have said is that at least one person should have current local government experience. In some LSCs it may be one person or in others it may be two, three or four, depending on the people who come forward.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that the Minister will not give a percentage or say how many members on each council, local and national, will have current local government experience, but is it right that there will be someone who has that experience?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall repeat what I have already said. We expect that any local LSC will have on it someone with current local authority experience. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: No, it does not. The Minister did not preface the 40 per cent business representation by saying "we expect". She was unequivocal and said that there will be 40 per cent of business people, although of course they will be subject to the Nolan procedures. There has been no definitive commitment to there being local authority representatives in the form of one or more people on each council, both local and national. We shall continue to press the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("( ) The council must elect one of its members as Chief Executive for a period not exceeding 5 years.").
The noble Baroness said: I know that the Clerks do not read in Hansard every word that we say, but on Monday I did ask that the word "Chairman" should be substituted for the words "Chief Executive". I gave the Committee notice that that was what I meant. I have no idea whether I am culpable or what happened between me writing this amendment and it arriving in the Public Bill Office. I accept responsibility for the fact that the amendment, as written, is wrong and that "Chief Executive" should read "Chairman". My arguments are the same as I used in an earlier debate. There is probably a marginal argument for the Secretary of State to say who shall be the chairman of the national council but at local level the council itself should be able, from within its membership, to elect a chairman.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said at the previous stage that the Government were minded to consider a period of office not less than three and not more than five years. That is normally put on the statute book or in regulation, and I should like the Government to consider doing that. If not, we shall certainly find a way that uses the words of the Minister; that is, that it would be for a period of three years, not exceeding five. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness indicated in the earlier debate that there was a mistake in this amendment and that we should understand it to refer to a chairman and not a chief executive. Although it has not been altered, I am happy to take the amendment in that way.
The post of local chair is a pivotal one in the LSC. Local chairs will exercise a real influence on local council decisions, on resource allocation and priorities, and on the appointment and removal I—hope not too frequently—of key staff such as the local executive director. On average the local LSCs may have budgets in excess of £100 million. In those circumstances it is surely reasonable that the Secretary of State has the final say in appointing local chairs. We will look to appoint people who are widely respected for the contribution that they have made to various interests and who can manage and take forward local views in a positive and constructive way.
The amendment would have the effect of delaying the appointments of the first local chairs since the whole of the local councils would need to be appointed before the chairs could be identified. That would cause serious delays in establishing the local LSCs since the local chairs have a key role in appointing the directors who will set up the local arms. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Again, it is a disappointing answer. It strikes me that certainly the national council, which is only 12 to 16 members, and the local councils, which are of a relatively modest size, will have members capable of making the contribution described by the noble Baroness. One would want all members of those councils to have the experience which gives them a real understanding of the functions and powers of the council, and that they should be capable of being chairman of it.
Tensions will exist in the councils because they are all given equal status. There will be one chairman who will be totally full-time and one chief executive. The relationship between the two will be interesting. One is a deliverer of the policies and the other a policymaker. But here we have a mixture of the two. I am disappointed but may return to the matter at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Local councils]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 58, line 42, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—
("4.—(1) After seeking the advice of a local council's chairman, the Council must appoint one of its employees as the director of the local council.
(2) The Council may appoint such of its other employees as it thinks fit to act as the staff of a local council.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the name of my noble friend and invite the Committee to see it in conjunction with Clause 20 of the Bill. We set out in the White Paper and in the LSC prospectus how we would combine the benefits of a single unitary organisation with local delivery and decision-making. The LSC will be one corporate body working through and delegating functions to its local arms; that is to say, the local councils. The employees of the LSC at national and local level will be employees of the one organisation, subject to the same terms and conditions. Of course, in practice local councils will be responsible for selection, recruitment and management of their staff. But it is important for the character and the success of the one unitary organisation that staff should be appointed as LSC staff.
Therefore on reflection the Government do not believe that the current wording of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 accurately provides for that policy. Its effect would be that staff appointed at the local level would be employees of the local council under separate terms and conditions from other employees of the LSC. The Government's amendment provides that it is the LSC as a single body which appoints employees, though in practice, through the delegation of functions to the local councils, all recruitment decisions will be made at local level.
In the case of the director of the local council, the amendment makes clear that the local chairman will play a crucial role. The director can only be appointed after the LSC has sought the advice of the local chairman. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that we are not able to continue dialogue on the whole issue of transferring posts and the TUPE arrangements until we reach Amendment No. 210. This is the second time today that we have come across an issue involving some understanding of the degree to which the local skills councils and the national skills council will have to absorb existing staff, the degree to which their conditions of work will transfer with them, and also some of the financial consequences of that happening. If we are not to hear about that until Amendment No. 210, I rest my comments on the record that it is an area about which we should like more information.
Lord Bach: Of course we hear what the noble Baroness says.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 59, line 18, at end insert—
("Committees 8.—
8.—(1) A local council must establish a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee.
(2) Members of a committee may be (but need not be) members of the council.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment proposes that local councils will mirror the national body by establishing two separate committees, one for young people and another for adults, with duties parallel to those of the national committees. The interests of adults and young people frequently diverge. Local councils will be the executive arm of the national body and it is vital that the needs of the two separate communities are effectively represented locally. Replicating the two committees locally will ensure wider representation and a greater range of interests being heard.
We are particularly anxious that there will be adequate representation for adult learners whose needs, with the current emphasis on the social exclusion agenda, may tend to be overlooked locally. The Government must consider the amendment seriously. If they are to live up to their words that the ethos behind the Bill is to encourage bottom-up rather than top-down initiatives, it is important to provide a focus for such initiatives locally.
Baroness Blackstone: I agree with the noble Baroness that the LSC should focus clearly on adult learning as well as the needs of young people. An approach that will attract adult learners will often be different from that appropriate for 16 to 19 year-olds. To ensure that the needs of both groups are fully reflected in the LSC's decision-making, we have made provision in Schedule 3 for a young people's learning committee, whose role will be appropriate at a national level. Local LSCs will wish to seek the advice of experts and may want to establish committees for that purpose. Nothing in the Bill prevents them doing so.
There are many circumstances in which that would be beneficial and will happen. Our guidance to the council will reflect that view. We want to preserve a local flexibility to allow LSCs to manage their own business, so it would not be appropriate to stipulate that every LSC must establish two committees in the form proposed. The decision to set up an adult or young people's committee should rest with the local councils. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I much appreciate the emphasis that the Minister placed on local flexibility. It is valuable to have on record the Government's expectation that there may frequently be local replication of the two committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Functions of local councils]:
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Guidance to local councils]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert ("including the need to ensure maximum flexibility in the application of funding formulae at local level, with the aim of ensuring that good sixth-form provision can be sustained, and where possible, strengthened").
The noble Lord said: With this, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119. It is extremely important to maintain maximum flexibility in the application of funding formulae locally to ensure that good sixth form provision can be sustained and strengthened. It is important also that local LSCs have the flexibility to vary national guidelines and funding tariffs, so that they may respond to local circumstances and needs.
It is crucial that LSCs locally are free to enter into partnership agreements such as regeneration projects. LSCs, using their flexible local budgets, also need to complement national, regional and local priorities on ERDF funding, mainstream funding as it contributes to economic development and regeneration and area-based programmes such as the single regeneration budget and the new deal for communities. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 117 and 118. I am not possessive about the forms of wording because I think that we are all approaching the same issue though in a slightly different way—the importance of flexibility at a local level. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned some of the complications that arise at local level, like the way in which the single regeneration budget and some of the local initiatives work.
I should like to give a little force to some of the things that have been said by Ministers in the course of our discussions on the Bill; for example, that there will be room for local flexibility. Indeed, in at least one of the briefing meetings that I attended 15 per cent was mentioned and I have also heard 10 per cent mentioned.
In determining allocations it seems to me that a proportion of a local council's budget that is used flexibly at local level ought to be determined and made public. In that way, the local council would not simply receive a sum of money which then moves onwards, with people literally sitting on the edge of their seats wondering just how much will be allowed to deal with very local and parochial issues as they arise. I will either support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or ask that my amendment be taken into account.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 116. The Government have already said on a number of occasions in Committee that we want to ensure that young people have the best possible range and choice of good quality opportunities at this critical 16 to 19 stage. We have also said that effective school sixth forms have a key role to play in our drive to raise standards. I repeat: sixth forms that are providing good quality provision have nothing to fear from these proposals. We promised a real-term safeguard of funding levels where numbers are maintained.
856
We have gone on to make it clear that LSC funding to LEAs for their school sixth forms must be spent on schools with sixth forms and not diverted into other services. We have also said that LEAs will continue to be able to add, if they wish, to the funds provided by the LSC for the sixth forms in their area. This is important local flexibility. But the Government could not subscribe to a concept of "maximum local flexibility" in legislation. This would inevitably lead to funding decisions that were arbitrary and incoherent—indeed, quite the opposite of what I am sure all of us want. The amendment speaks of sustaining and strengthening good provision, but that is what the Bill is about right across post-16 learning. It is also a fundamental part of our approach to school sixth forms. We argue that the amendment is unnecessary.
I turn now to Amendment No. 117, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The budgets set for local LSCs will of course influence how they will achieve their objectives. We would expect there to be a dialogue between the local arms of the LSC and the national arm about resources and what local arms can sensibly be expected to achieve with the resources available. Without in any way being discourteous, we say that this amendment simply states the obvious. Do we really need extra provisions in legislation to underline this obvious practicality? We suggest not.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. The prospectus published in December made clear our commitment to ensuring that local LSCs have proper discretion over LSC money spent local. In particular, we have made it clear that the local LSCs will make the important decisions about how the LSC's main budgets should be allocated. They will be able to exercise discretion to vary the rate of payment that the LSC's national tariff sets out for different types of provision. A local LSC might want to exercise such discretion where, for example, it thinks that this would help to tackle local shortages of good quality training for skills that are in particular demand.
It may help the Committee to know that the Government envisage that 10 to 15 per cent of LSC budgets will be for provision that is not included in the national tariff and will be made at the discretion of the local LSC, covering, for example, improvements in the quality of local provision and workforce development. We are currently consulting through the Funding and Allocations Consultation Document on how the LSC's funding system should work and what sort of local flexibility will be required. We intend that each local LSC will have a substantial local initiatives fund. However, we do not think that it is appropriate to include on the face of the Bill this level of detail as to what the national LSC's guidance should contain. I hope that the comments that I have made on this series of amendments will persuade the Committee not to pursue their amendments.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, concludes the debate, perhaps I may say a few words. I am grateful that the Minister referred yet again to

857
10 to 15 per cent which will be considered for local discretion. There is going to be more than a passing interest in the mechanism for this. I know that there is consultation going on at the moment.
I wonder if I can ask two questions. First, is it likely that that consultation process will be sufficiently advanced for this Chamber to take some account of it during the final stages of the Bill? Will it be available in time and will we have some understanding of the Government's thinking in time for my colleagues in another place to be able to take it into account when considering any amendments to the Bill?
Secondly, in the way in which the noble Lord has spelt it out, what I am not sure about is whether the consultations going on at the moment envisage actually bidding for or negotiating for varying amounts or percentages of discretion, or whether once the amount of money for discretion has been determined at national level that will be applied evenly across all local skills councils. If it is to be a bartering system, then it is going to be very complicated and extremely time consuming. If it is going to be evenly applied, it is going to cause rough justice. I am not sure what is contained within the document so far as the consultations are concerned. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to throw some light on the matter.
Lord Bach: I am afraid that I shall not be able to throw much light on the second question that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asks. As I understand it, this is general consulting through the funding and allocations consultation document. I cannot be more precise than that this evening.
I can be more precise about when the consultation period ends: it will be in April. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will have to work out where that fits into the passage of this Bill, as I will also. We hope, of course, that the Bill will have passed through this House by April. Whether it will have passed through the other place is a much more vexed question.
Lord Tope: I look at the clock now and think it is a moot point whether it will have passed through this House by April. I am grateful to the Minister for some helpful replies. I am bound to say that I was not at all surprised to hear him say—I speak as someone who has served in local government for a long time—that this Government do not favour maximum local flexibility. I think that is probably an unnecessary statement from any government. It was a helpful reply in places. We will study it with interest. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos 117 to 119 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("the regional development agencies and").
The noble Baroness said: I shall not be the most popular person in the Chamber on this set of amendments. The Government have an agenda. They have had an agenda since they came to office. It is to
858
see the demise of our county councils and go to regional development councils or regional district councils, whatever they are called.
Lord Bach: I think that the noble Baroness means regional development agencies because that is what they are.
Baroness Blatch: No. I am not talking about regional development agencies. I am talking about regional development agencies being a forerunner for what the Government really have in mind which is to go for elliptic bodies in the regions, whether they are called councils or anything else. It has been very widely and vocally talked about by Labour councillors and Labour members up and down the land. Certainly, many Labour councillors in county councils believe that this is on the agenda. I have believed it for a very long time. One has not only to look at this piece of legislation, but at local government Acts coming through the system or already on the statute book, the setting up of the development agencies themselves, and the way in which local authorities—whether Ministers are prepared to admit it or not—are being air-brushed out. The rural development agencies are very high profile in this Bill. It is difficult to get either local education authorities or local authorities included in the Bill in this respect.
If the noble Baroness replies to this group of amendments, she will not be able to resist taking yet another jibe at my "conversion" with regard to local government. I say straight away that I have been involved with local government and have a strong commitment to local government. I believe that local government has a strong role to play. However, the scenario we are discussing is different. As I said on Tuesday, when we were in power—the noble Baroness said that we bypassed local government when we were in power—we devolved down to local communities. We sought to devolve power to schools, colleges and institutions at ground level. However, in this Bill the devolution operates upwards to councils that comprise bigger units than local councils and which are more remote from local people. These larger councils are governed by the Secretary of State and the national council. It is very much a "top down" system.
Given the superior position of rural development agencies in this Bill, I want to do my bit of "air brushing" by means of the amendments we are discussing and delete certain references to the agencies. I suspect that I am not wrong in expecting the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government to stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue of rural development agencies. However, I am committed to the tiers of government that are most local to the people on the ground. I still firmly believe that devolution must take place downwards to institutions at the local level to enable them to respond to needs with regard to skills, education and links with employment. The best way to

859
achieve that is to bypass the raft of areas in this Bill that place rural development agencies in a superior position vis-à-vis local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I hope that I have not misunderstood the noble Baroness. She certainly has not always been opposed to non-elected bodies. She will recall the experience of Teeside Development Corporation, of which I had the privilege to be deputy chairman. The Committee may not be aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as a supervisor, as it were, in that area. I do not want to make the noble Baroness blush too much—especially as I make these comments—but she was held in the highest possible regard in the north-east. She initiated vast improvements in that area. That legacy remains. There is a role for both attitudes that have been mentioned; I do not want to be too academic about that point. However, I felt that I had to make those remarks.
Lord Tope: The noble Baroness referred throughout her speech to "rural development agencies". I believe that she intended to refer to regional development agencies as that is contained in the amendment. The noble Baroness nods her head. I have every sympathy with her confusion with all the acronyms here as I also have some difficulty with them.
The noble Baroness was half right in her remarks. She is right in that I profoundly disagree with her. I congratulate her on being able to detect in the Government an enthusiasm for elected regional government that I have not been able to detect yet. She appears to believe that the Liberal Democrats stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on that matter. If we are in that position, it is only because it is the best way for us to give them a hard shove in that direction, and that is what we shall wish to do. If this Government have an agenda, secret or otherwise—I would hope that they would publish it—to move to elected regional government on any time-scale (but preferably a short one) I would certainly greatly welcome that. However, at this time of night and with this Bill I shall resist the temptation to talk about what local government structure might be beneath the regional level. Clearly that is an important debate for another time and another place. The noble Baroness was right to believe that if the occasion arises I shall certainly resist the amendments we are discussing.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: I have learned a lot from the noble Baroness tonight. I have learnt what government policy is as regards the future of local government. It may be that I am unaware of a press statement on the subject today. I have been taken by surprise and I am unable to answer the noble Baroness. My belief is that she is wrong about our policy, much to the chagrin of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who will neither push us with one shoulder or another. We shall go on doing what is right.
860
As regards the noble Baroness's support for local government, to coin a phrase, "Methinks the Lady doth protest a bit too much". I do not believe that anyone could say that removing further education from local education control into quangos was a pro-local government move. I am delighted to hear support for the Government's policy on devolution. It is not something I have heard before from the Conservative Opposition. However it is too late to join in political argument at this stage. I know clearly what the noble Baroness means by her amendments and she knows equally clearly that we must reject them.
Baroness Blatch: That was enjoyable. When the unitary authorities were first debated even in embryonic form and a long time ago, it was the policy of our Benches that there should be unitary authorities at local level—I am not talking about parish councils but district councils—and that the county should go and there should be regional, elected bodies. I can remember the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, saying that she supported that not only in this Chamber, but equally in my part of the world which is East Anglia. If it is not a written manifesto-type policy, it has certainly been a philosophy and policy which has been thought about. There was the idea that a move to unitary authority status would be messy and that it would be better to have a uniform approach at local level.
I did not expect a different answer. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, most warmly for what he said. He will know that I became extremely attached to the North-East. I still visit there and see many people in that area. The noble Lord made a good point in saying that I was supportive. I remain supportive of the way that the system worked. What I was particularly supportive of was the way in which all the bodies worked so co-operatively together. I refer, of course, to the non-elected bodies such as the development corporation and the local authorities. Indeed, local authorities served on the board of the development corporation and made an amazingly positive contribution. I was very supportive of that body and the way in which local authorities worked with it and became involved in the economic and social regeneration of the area. The local authority was very strong in that area and it still is. In the area for which I was responsible it has moved almost uniformly to the unitary authority and the county council has gone.
But I would not like to see a regional development agency in that area. As far as I understand it, at the moment there is a very good regional network of co-operation headed by many of the same people with whom I was involved when I was there. I still jealously believe that the North-East turned co-operative partnerships into an art form. They were practical, visionary and very effective. But that does not deter me from trying to persuade Members of the Committee, but very forlornly, that rural development agencies in this context should not be in the Bill with such a high

861
profile. My concern is that this Bill is a stepping stone for regional government and the demise of our county councils.
Lord Bach: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. I understand and appreciate her strong views on regional development agencies, but is she speaking for the official Opposition in moving these amendments?
Baroness Blatch: Certainly I have discussed the matter with my colleagues in the education team. It is uniformly supported that we do not like the Bill. We feel that if coherence is to be brought to 16-plus education, this is not the way to do it. In tying in all the partnerships—from the Secretary of State, down through the national council, local councils, RDAs and lifelong learning partnerships—the Government have been resistant to bringing in local education authorities. We do not think that the regional development agencies should appear in the context of this Bill. They are a fact of life; they have already been established by the Government and there is no way that one can take them out of existence, but that is not the point of my amendments.
My amendments provide that where regional development agencies are referred to in the Bill, local authorities should, be in that position. I have tried hard, as have some noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to introduce local authorities specifically into the Bill. We are told that they will be consulted anyway, or they are part of the tapestry, or they will be influential. But why should they be less influential than the regional development agencies?
Lord Dormand of Easington: I do not have to remind the noble Baroness—I am sure she knows—that the reason is that on the regional development agencies there is strong local authority representation. That was the original intention when the Labour Government set them up.
Baroness Blatch: I do not argue with that. But I still think that local authorities in their own right are closest to the people. They should in the Bill have at least equal status—I would argue superior status—to the regional development agencies.
If the Minister does not wish to come back on this issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 9, line 10, after ("agencies") insert (", lifelong learning partnerships").
The noble Baroness said: The amendments in this group all deal with wider representation procedures within both the guidance drawn up by the national LSC for the local LSCs and in the plans which the local LSCs draw up for themselves.
Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 seek that two sets of people be consulted in the drawing up of guidance—namely, the providers, on the one hand, and the local
862
learning partnerships, on the other. They are groups which currently have no statutory status but there are more than 100 of them in England; they are local in focus and inclusive in membership. They include the LEAs, representatives of the further education colleges, all the courier service providers and often representatives of schools, the voluntary sectors, local businesses and other key stakeholders. Under the guidance there is provision for consulting regional development agencies and local education authorities. We should like to see these two other groups included within the consultation processes.
With regard to the drawing up of plans, which concerns Amendments Nos. 136 to 138, gremlins seem to have got into the system somewhat in that Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 are almost exactly the same. They again seek that local learning partnerships are included within the consultees for the planning process.
In addition, we seek that a number of other local users and providers are included. Existing and potential learners, the voluntary and community organisations with an interest in education and training, the colleges themselves and workplace training providers should all be included at local level in the consultation process in drawing up the plans. Broadly speaking, this fits in with what we have been talking about; that is, the bottom-up nature of the whole process, the need for it to be inclusive and to pull in as many people as possible. We should like to see those people included on the face of the Bill.
We support from these Benches the amendments to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and also—perhaps in particular—the amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. We feel strongly that, if we are including these other providers, it is extremely important to include universities within this process. Universities are increasingly being pulled in in terms of non-degree, sub-degree and post-degree level qualifications, and certainly in terms of the adult learning provision, post experience provision and that kind of thing. It is extremely important that where they are there they can provide a key focus. Therefore, we greatly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: In the West Midlands we are looking forward eagerly to getting the very best out of the arrangements at all the different levels. In large parts of the Birmingham neighbourhood there are great expectations that the regional development agency will focus inward investment and give more direction to industrial development over the entire region. We look eagerly and hopefully at good developments at that level. In Stoke-on-Trent we rejoice in a new unitary authority at a sub-regional level, which is focusing on and diversifying the ceramic industry in that very needy community. That is encouraging.
Because we look forward eagerly to good things at all levels, we want them also—I speak very much for a wide cross-section of the Churches—on behalf of the lifelong learning partnerships at local level.

863
Recently, there was a report from regional offices to the Department for Education and Employment. It so happens that the Churches emerged as significant players in the work of lifelong learning partnerships. I am therefore right behind the amendments which refer to local learning. We believe that local learning partnerships are excellently placed to take account of the obvious and important differences between one community and another. I am glad and proud to say that the Churches have much experience of listening to people's needs in local communities.
However, we must not forget the regional dimension. The process of listening at local level cannot be rushed and must be tackled with a good deal of sensitivity. It is often seen as unimportant or unnecessarily time-consuming. There are times when speed is of the essence, but if one goes too fast in that area and account is not taken of local needs, speed can be counter-productive. We strongly support the Government in their recognition that the existing structures in many areas, including the local level, are failing to meet individuals' learning needs. We hope that the excellent experience that has developed with lifelong learning partnerships will be taken on board, developed and strengthened. I therefore support the group of amendments introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: The purpose of my amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has indicated, is to ensure that higher education providers—both HE and FE colleges and universities—are fully and properly consulted by a local council preparing its annual plan. Of course, those annual plans include a statement of needs of the population in a local council's area in respect of education and training. I declare an interest as the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but we are certainly not alone in our concern. I can add the voice of the university and college lecturers' union—NATFHE—to the desire to include the amendment on the face of the Bill.
We are concerned about the measures in the White Paper, Learning to Succeed, which the Bill implements, in that there are insufficient linkages between the roles and functions of local and national learning and skills councils and providers of higher education. Currently, the Bill and the Government's prospectus for the learning and skills council make little mention of firm links to higher education institutions and place no obligations whatever on the local LSCs to consult HE providers. The prospectus desires seamless progression into HE, but only specifies that links are to be made by LSCs with the education funding council. These links concern only funding provision and degree targets. In our view the Bill needs to ensure that consultation with higher education providers take place.
In addition, at Second Reading in this House on 17th January my noble friend the Minister stated that the Government would be requiring local LSCs to
864
consult local lifelong learning partnerships on their plans. Higher education institutions are of course involved in the partnerships.
Therefore, I believe that, with the support of the Local Government Association, which shares our view, a ministerial statement concerning the consultation arrangements under Clause 22(5) would be very welcome.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: As the right reverend Prelate indicated, learning partnerships have a key role to play in the new arrangements, particularly in ensuring that local LSC plans reflect the real needs of learners in local areas. I am grateful to him for his support.
The Learning and Skills Council Prospectus makes clear that LSCs will be required to consult learning partnerships in drawing up LSC plans. That is important, given the influence that they can bring to bear as representatives of all the key players in education, training and guidance in their localities. That is why we intend to use the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 22(5)(c) to ensure that local LSCs consult learning partnerships on their plans.
However, learning partnerships have no statutory responsibilities for education or training. They have made substantive progress over the past couple of years and are still developing. It would be wrong to try to close off such development with a rigid definition, and we do not think it appropriate to specify them as consultees of the local LSCs' plans on the face of the Bill. Nor do we believe that imposing a requirement on the national LSC to consult all learning partnerships on its draft guidance would be appropriate. That would lead to an unwieldy and rather slow bureaucratic process of the kind that many Members of the Committee have been keen to avoid.
In the light of the assurances that I have given that the Secretary of State will require local LSCs to consult local learning partnerships, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will not press her amendments.
Turning to Amendment No. 122, learning providers, from the smallest provider of adult education or work-based training to the largest FE colleges, have a great deal to gain from the new arrangements that we are putting in place: more coherent arrangements for planning, funding, quality improvement and inspection, and stronger encouragement for collaboration to meet the needs of learners and employers.
There is also a significant role in the new arrangements for local learning partnerships which bring together providers and others in a locality. They will influence the plans of the local LSC by bringing their knowledge of learners' and employers' needs to bear. I have already said how we will ensure that learning partnerships are consulted on their local LSC's plans.
Since not all providers will be represented on learning partnerships, I am sure that the local LSCs will in any case want to consult their providers

865
individually on their plans. However, I do not believe that we should specify that level of detail on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that it would be particularly helpful to the many thousands of providers up and down the country to send them draft guidance from the national LSC to the local LSCs and await their detailed comments. As I said, that would be unwieldy, slow and over-bureaucratic.
I now turn to Amendment No. 226. Our intention is that the local planning process for the LSC should be as open and inclusive as possible. Too often in the past the workings of the various funding and planning agencies in the field of post-16 learning have been not only highly complex, even to those intimately engaged in them, but, I am afraid, entirely opaque and hidden from local people and communities. We want to shine a light into what is currently darkness.
The best way to achieve this is to encourage local LSCs to be innovative in seeking ways to engage their communities and to ensure that, through the appointments that we make to senior posts in the LSC, we create a culture of direct and open consultation with providers and stakeholder groups, such as those in the voluntary sector. The Government will ensure that this happens by using, as appropriate, their guidance to the LSC. We do not believe that this is best achieved by a provision in the Bill to place an additional requirement on local LSCs to consult particular categories of people and organisations such as the amendment proposes.
I turn now to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Warwick. My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of the relationship between the LSC and the higher education sector. Clearly, HE plays a major role in the education and training of our workforce and offers an important progression route for those who move on from further education, school sixth-form education and work-based training. I assure the Committee that close working between the LSC and the higher education sector will flow from the new arrangements. The Government stated in the LSC prospectus that the national council of the LSC would invite the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England to all its meetings. This will ensure that a powerful HE voice is present at the heart of the LSC's decision-making.
The amendment proposes that we include on the face of the Bill a statutory requirement for the local LSCs to consult local institutions on their draft local plans. However, we believe it is right only to specify in the Bill that local LSCs must consult local or regional bodies with relevant statutory strategic responsibilities. Clearly, it is highly desirable for local LSCs also to consult other bodies, including HE institutions, as part of their work to develop strong relationships with the HE sector locally. Indeed, I do not see how the local LSCs could exercise their functions appropriately without such wider consultation. But there is no need for all of this
866
valuable activity to be reflected on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply to this group of amendments. My greatest disappointment is with her response to Amendment No. 122. Given that on the face of the Bill there is a requirement for consultation with regional development agencies and local education authorities, it is reasonable to suggest that consultation should also take place with local providers. We shall read carefully what the Minister has said, but we may return to the matter at Report stage.
As to lifelong learning partnerships, I accept the Minister's observation about their evolutionary state and the fact that at the moment they have no statutory basis, unlike regional development agencies and local education authorities which are defined. Given their evolutionary status, it is difficult to include them in the Bill. Equally, the intention is that they should be very much encouraged to grow and develop in areas where they are not currently present. Therefore, I hope that in drawing up local plans the LSCs will be made aware of the Minister's observations today and that the intention is made plain to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("education").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 123 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128 to 130 and 143. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will speak to Amendment No. 132. This group of amendments is concerned with two aspects: first, joined-up government. There are a number of pieces of legislation around, in particular the Local Government Bill. Certainly, when it comes to planning there needs to be some coherence. I notice that two of the amendments are almost identical in that they invoke Clause 4(1) of the Local Government Bill. The way in which the plans will have to be co-ordinated might be difficult: it is hard to know which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Certainly, Amendments Nos. 129 and 132 are important in that context.
My Amendments Nos. 123, 128 and 143, leaving out the word "education", relate back to a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and myself. Local authorities have recently been given a new function—an obligation under the law to be concerned about economic well-being in their area. We know they are involved in economic regeneration and indeed generation. For that reason, where local education authorities are named in the Bill as needing to be consulted or to be part of the process, it seems to me that the wording ought to be "local authorities". If there is an education authority within a local authority then, of course, if it is appropriate to the local education authority, whatever the involvement is, it will be made possible by speaking through the local

867
authority. Some local authorities do not contain education authorities; others do, I think that local authorities, whether or not they have a local education authority, will be interested in aspects of this Bill. Many of its activities will need links with employment and education and training and schools training will be inextricably linked to all issues to do with economic well-being, economic generation and regeneration.
I believe that this set of amendments makes sense. I hope there will be a cross-reference from this Bill to the Local Government Act 2000. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I shall speak specifically to Amendment No. 132, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp. Speaking more generally, I support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. I had the good fortune to be serving on our Front Bench for both the Local Government Bill and this Bill, which have been going concurrently through your Lordships' House, sometimes on the same day. Therefore I have followed both with excitement and interest. It has occurred to me from time to time that the Government, for all their proclamations of "joined up government", have not yet realised the significance of one Bill to the other. If I may say so, this issue is an example of that. I hope the Government will take the intentions of the amendments very seriously.
A local education authority is by definition a local authority. However, many local authorities are not also local education authorities. The Local Government Bill, when it is enacted—we are not quite there yet—will give all local authorities, whether education or non-education, responsibility to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. It seems to me entirely appropriate that this Bill, which will be enacted at the same time, should refer to local authorities rather than exclusively to education authorities. For instance, when a local authority prepares a strategy under the provisions of the Local Government Bill, it will need to prepare strategies that, arguably, fall outside the remit of an education authority. Similarly, district councils, which are not education authorities, will also have an interest in promoting economic well-being in the learning and skills needs of their local people.
I do not mind, and I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not mind, whether these amendments are technically correct. Their purpose is to urge the Government to join themselves up a little more and to recognise that what they seek to promote in one Bill should match up with the provisions of another Bill. For that reason, this Bill should refer specifically to local authorities as distinct from the narrow definition of education authorities. That is the case in my amendment. Clause 22(4)(b) would then read,
"any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4(1) of the Local Government Act 2000".
10 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Of course the Government take the noble Lord's amendment seriously. As regards Amendment No. 123, it is important that local authorities with the key statutory duties and powers in relation to education and training are consulted on the national LSC's draft guidance to its local arms. It is the 150 local education authorities, within the total number of 388 local authorities, which have such statutory functions. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to introduce a requirement on the face of the Bill for the national LSC to consult all 388 local authorities on its draft guidance. That would not make much sense.
However, we recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that all local authorities, including district councils, should be recognised as having a contribution to make to the plans drawn up by local LSCs. I shall have more to say about that in relation to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 129, and Amendment No. 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
I turn to Amendment No. 128. As drafted, Clauses 22 and 23 require the local LSCs to include in their published plans details of the learning provision which, subject to consultation, they would like local education authorities to offer adults and the financial resources they will make available to local education authorities to enable them to do so. There is also provision for the Secretary of State to issue directions to any LEA which does not secure the education and training provision set out in the plan.
Amendment No. 128 proposes that local LSCs should also include a statement of the education and training they would like a local authority, rather than, as drafted, a local education authority, to secure. This would extend statutory obligations for provision of education and training to the 238 district councils which have none at present. Coupled with Amendment No. 143, it would expose all local authorities, rather than, as at present, only local education authorities, to statutory direction on education and training matters. Amendments Nos. 128 and 143 would therefore extend the scope of the Bill far more widely than we think necessary to achieve the changes in local learning opportunities that we want to see.
As regards Amendments Nos. 129 and 132, as currently drafted the Bill already requires local LSCs to consult with LEAs when preparing their draft plans. This is in recognition of the key role LEAs can have in the provision of accessible, appropriate and attractive learning opportunities. However, we also recognise that some district councils offer learning opportunities for adults in their areas and we want local LSCs to use their influence to encourage and support the wider range of district councils to plan and develop coherently all the learning opportunities they offer, alongside those funded by the LSC. We also recognise that, in deciding the nature and range of local provision and understanding local needs, it is

869
appropriate to consider learning against the background of wider economic and social developments in which local authorities in general are the lead players.
The provisions under Clause 4 in the Local Government Bill are significant and it is important that we act in a way which promotes joined-up government. For that reason, and in response to the arguments that have been put forward, the Government will consider further this proposal and come back with an amendment. In our view, this would provide the basis for strong linkage between local LSC plans and both the interests of local authorities in education and training and their wider responsibility—as enhanced under the proposed Local Government Bill—for the economic and social well-being of their areas.
Amendment No. 130 goes further by proposing that, in preparing their local plans, local LSCs must have regard to,
"the local education authority's education plan".
Noble Lords may be aware that LEAs prepare a number of plans relevant to learning for both statutory and other purposes. They include the education development plan, the schools organisation plan, plans for asset management and, where LEAs want support under my department's standards fund, plans for the development of lifelong learning.
The effect of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would be to impose a statutory obligation on local learning and skills councils to have regard to all those and others in preparing its own plan. During the debate at Second Reading, the noble Baroness accused us of having, "plans, plans, plans"; that is, too many. I believe that now she is ignoring her earlier points and imposing additional bureaucracy here.
The Bill already includes obligations on local LSCs both to include in their plans the education and training which they agree LEAs will secure and to consult with them in preparing those plans. In our view, those obligations, together with guidance which the national LSC will give on how local LSCs should pursue them, will be sufficient to ensure that local LSCs take full account of what LEAs are doing. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Certainly on one of the amendments we have received an offer which we cannot refuse. Therefore, I believe that any further thinking will be helpful. If an amendment is brought forward, we should like early sight of it, if possible.
With regard to my Amendment No. 130, I was not creating another plan. I believe that that is the last thing that we want. However, perhaps I should have referred to the local education authority's development plan. That is the over-arching plan for its area. One of the concerns that local authorities have is that because of the top-down system they will be left having to do the bidding of the Secretary of State/national council/47 local skills councils.
870
Given that I favour the bottom-up approach, I was hoping that the initiative would be with the local authorities and that they would have freedom, flexibility and autonomy over their own plans. I hoped that they would not be left at the end of the day, as, indeed, the Bill sets out, to develop their plans in conformity with and within the framework of all the other plans that will be developed nationally. Therefore, it was an attempt not to create a new plan but to turn the emphasis round to being bottom-up rather than top-down. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 125A:
Page 9, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Council shall have power to amend the guidance given to a local council or to alter its budget during the course of a financial year.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 125A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 142. These two amendments fit together and relate respectively to Clause 21, which is concerned with guidance from the national council to the local learning and skills council, and to Clause 22, which relates to the plan which each local council must draw up each year.
As currently framed, once made, the plans and budgetary allocations of both the national and local LSCs must be implemented as they stand. In reality, the fast-changing pace of learning and skills needs strongly suggests that at both levels LSCs will need to be able to amend their plans and budgetary allocations to take account of developments during the course of the financial year. For example, an unexpected plant closure in a local area might generate hundreds of redundancies and throughout a massive need for retraining not envisaged in the original plan. It would be unreasonable for the council and/or its local arm to be unable to respond to that situation until the next financial year. The proposed amendments would give local and national LSCs an explicit power to vary plans to cope with such situations.
In addition, it is most unlikely that the national LSC will achieve a pattern of resource allocations to the local LSCs in its first few years which entirely matches the needs of each local area. I must say that our experience of manpower planning in the past would indicate that that is the case. It needs to have the power to keep some of its resources in reserve at the beginning of the financial year to allow for variations in the local LSC allocations in the light of emerging needs. It is for that reason that I move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: Amendment No. 125A proposes express provision on the face of the Bill for the national council to amend the guidance given to a local LSC or to alter its budget during the course of a financial year. The Government appreciate that the objective behind the

871
amendment is to ensure that the national council has the means by which to respond to an unforeseen change in circumstances for a local LSC during the course of that financial year.
We made it clear in the prospectus that the national LSC would retain the capacity to make in-year adjustments and to reallocate a proportion of local budgets in the event of significant underspends or potential overspends or changing needs. The LSC will retain some capacity to invest in sector-based initiatives through NTOs where that provides specific benefits that cannot be delivered locally. The national LSC will also hold a limited contingency fund to allow it to respond to unexpected in-year changes.
It is only right and proper that a national body, with a strong central leadership and clear national priorities, should oversee expenditure of £6 billion overall, while recognising the authority and decision-making ability of the local LSCs which comes from their local knowledge and regular contact with local authorities, education and training boards, employers, trade unions and individual learners.
Those levers and the approach outlined will help ensure that the national LSC is responsive to local needs and is customer-led not provider-driven. But we do not believe that we need to spell that out on the face of the Bill, particularly as we shall be consulting further in May of this year on the details of the new funding and allocations framework for the LSC covering more fully the issues raised here.
I turn to Amendment No. 142 spoken to by the noble Baroness. Again, the Government appreciate that the objective behind the amendment is to ensure that local LSCs have the ability to respond to changes in local circumstances during the course of a year. I stress that we believe that it is important that local LSCs have that flexibility and I assure the Committee that they will have it. But it is not our intention that the published plans of local LSCs will be continually updated throughout the year. That would lead to a bureaucratic nightmare, as well as possibly a need for three or four plans in one year. We envisage a single local plan for the year as set out in Clause 22(5).
However, that does not mean that local LSCs will not be responsible to changes in local circumstances during the course of the year. We said in the prospectus that the LSC will build into its financial and planning arrangements scope for moving resources into local areas to meet needs which could not have been anticipated on a yearly planning system.
Nothing in the Bill requires a local LSC to stick rigidly to its published plan regardless of changing circumstances. Indeed, it would be the height of folly for a local LSC to stick rigidly to a published plan which had been overtaken by circumstances. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness some real assurances which will lead her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister used three words in his reply which should be in very bold type when
872
Hansard is printed; namely, "strong central leadership". That is what we have always suspected. That is what we have said. It is very much strong central leadership and it is very top-heavy.
Lord Bach: It is astonishing to hear that said in this context by the noble Baroness, who played such a prominent part in a government who clearly had strong central leadership at their heart. I was talking about the national LSC with its budget of £6 billion. Perhaps she would rather that it did not lead in the way we intend that it should.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am delighted to hear that we have both strong central leadership and bottom-up initiatives! I am very glad to have the assurance from the Minister that the Government envisage a degree of flexibility both at national and local level. It has been useful to get that on the record. Should there ever be any problems from the point of view of the local LSCs, it will be necessary for them to remember that it is on the record and can be brought to the attention of Ministers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Plans of local councils]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("and of the skill needs of the local labour market").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 126 is another amendment that tries to turn the Bill on its head. It makes an interesting distinction between education and training and the importance of reading the skills needs of the local labour market in the local area. For that reason I believe that there is a strong argument for inserting this at line 20 to ensure that reading the needs of the local skills labour market is considered important. That is not implicit in the words already on the page. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Recognising and meeting the skills needs of local labour markets will be a key function of the local LSCs. In the LSC prospectus we made it clear that each local LSC will produce an annual statement of the learning and skills needs of the local area. Subsection (2)(a) of Clause 22, with its reference to,
"the needs regarding education and training of the population of the local council's area",
gives effect to that commitment. We are satisfied that that wording covers the learning and skills needs of the local population, including in connection with the needs of the local labour market. I hope with that assurance that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am not happy with the answer, because it is one-sided. Here we are talking about the individual people in the area rather than the needs of

873
local industry and commerce in the area. It seems to me that if this Bill is about anything, it is about making sure that those matters are matched. The subsection provides for one side of the coin but not both. I believe that the argument is a strong one, to which I shall return at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("with specific reference to the needs of persons with learning difficulties (as defined in section 13)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 127 will ensure that the local LSC's statutory plans make adequate provision for the needs of people with learning difficulties. I shall not repeat the arguments that I made when I moved and spoke to the amendments placing a duty on the councils to promote equality of opportunity for disabled learners. Suffice it to say that we all agree that there are still some who are missing out.
I digress briefly. On Tuesday, I was extremely grateful to the Minister for saying that she will bring forward an amendment on Report in response to my Amendment No. 53 that would place a duty on the LSC to promote equality of opportunity. I was so excited by the Minister saying that she would do something of which I had no foreknowledge that I forgot to check whether her amendment—it may be quite different—will cover the local LSCs and the Welsh councils. If she could indicate that in her reply I would be grateful.
I return to Amendment No. 127. Even if there is a duty to promote equality of opportunity on the local LSCs, when the local councils make their plans it is important that the statement of education and training needs of the population in the area should contain specific reference to people with learning difficulties. In other words, it would be excellent if we had the duty to promote equality of opportunity. Amendment No. 127 could be the mechanism to ensure delivery of that. I hope for an encouraging reply from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support this amendment, to which I attached my name. If we are going to bring forward a plan which does not take into account those with learning difficulties, we are effectively excluding them from the holistic approach, which is something for which we are campaigning. I suggest that this reference should happen automatically if we are to integrate people into the same education system at every level. I fully support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I too rise to support the amendment. It is not that persons with learning difficulties are given "specific" focus; but that they are given "a" focus. The amendment is more than just a reassurance. The disability lobby has seen Clauses 13 and 14, which are important, and the amendment dovetails nicely in with them. Focus is given when plans
874
are made and it makes it certain that that aspect cannot be ignored. The needs will be different from the needs of those who do not have learning disabilities.
Baroness Blackstone: The requirement on local LSCs to produce a statement on the learning needs of its local population must certainly extend to the needs of specific groups and interests, including those of persons with learning difficulties. I point out to the noble Baroness that under Clause 13 the LSC must have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties in discharging its main duties to secure post-16 learning provision for the population of England. In practice, it cannot do that at either national or local levels without reflecting this in its plans and strategies. However, we should avoid adding extra words to the Bill to achieve what will happen in any case. I hope the noble Baroness is able to accept that and, in the light of this and earlier statements of our commitment to the needs of people with learning difficulties, she will withdraw the amendment.
Turning to her earlier question, our amendment will cover local LSCs and the Welsh council as well as the national council.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their strong support. I thank the Minister for her reply. I am delighted about the local LSCs and Wales being covered in her prospective amendment. That is wonderful.

I do not feel that there would be any harm in having a specific reference in the Bill. I presume that guidance will be given on the drawing up of plans by local LSCs. If in the guidance a little jogging of the memory was given to say that this will be done with specific reference to the needs of people with learning difficulties, I would be happy. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether that would be possible.
Baroness Blackstone: I can give the noble Baroness that reassurance.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I am grateful to the Minister. I have no hesitation in saying I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 142 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Duty of local education authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Directions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert ("or

(b) the reorganisation of education for persons from the age of 16 to 19, where such education is currently the responsibility of the education authority.").

The noble Baroness said: When we were discussing the School Standards and Framework Bill I took some time to elicit from the Government a promise that the organisational committees that were set up and the adjudicator would not have the power to remove school sixth forms. We eventually received a letter of confirmation. We now have the possibility, by an oblique method, of a direction that would have real impact on the survival of education for 16 to 19-year-olds under local authority control.
Under Clause 25, the Secretary of State may give directions covering objectives, time limits for achieving them and provisions relating to the LSC's management. It states also:
"Directions may not concern the provision of financial resources in respect of activities carried on by a particular person or persons".
I am not certain what that means but I wish to add the words of the amendment for clarification.
Either the Government mean local authorities to have power over people for whom they are responsible for providing education or they do not. On the face of it, Clause 25 is inoffensive but it is part of something inherent in the Bill—a threat to the survival of sixth forms. The amendment would put that out of bounds of strong central leadership. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Clause 25 provides for the directions that the Secretary of State will give the LSC. There is nothing novel in such a provision. It has an obvious precedent in the current direction-making powers of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly in respect of FEFCs under Section 56 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. When debating that legislation, it was made clear by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that powers of direction were a long-stop protection of the taxpayer's interests as regards considerable sums of public funding. That principle followed through into the Bill.
As a last resort, the Secretary of State should intervene to direct the council. One exception is Clause 25(3), which rightly prohibits directions about the provision of council funds in respect of activities undertaken by any particular person or group. We, like the previous Administration, think it important to make it clear that the LSC is entirely independent of government in funding decisions concerning individual providers.
The noble Baroness is seeking to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing directions as to how the LSC should exercise its functions in LEA 16 to 19 provision.
The LSC's three main functions are participation, as a voting member, on school organisation committees where 16 to 19 matters are involved; making proposals for the incorporation of LEA-maintained 16 to 19 institutions; and making proposals for the closure of 16 to 19 LEA provision that Ofsted has found to be failing or significantly weak and has failed to make necessary improvements. The amendment betrays a mis-understanding of the LSC's powers and those of the Secretary of State. The council will be a statutory independent body. The Secretary of State would only
876
expect to intervene as a last resort, when things have gone seriously wrong. The proposed restriction is unnecessary.
I accept that the powers of direction in Clause 25 could be clearer. Earlier, I mentioned our intention to table amendments to clarify those powers—in particular, those of the Secretary of State to intervene if the LSC acts unreasonably or in breach of duty in respect of its functions.
Similar provisions apply to the FEFCs under Sections 56 and 57 of the 1992 Act. Indeed, in the unlikely event that the council were to act improperly in exercising its functions in respect of LEA-maintained 16 to 19 provision, this amendment would prevent a Secretary of State from intervening to protect those affected. I doubt that that is really the intention of the noble Baroness. Therefore, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am puzzled on one point. If this is about the protection of public funds, why does subsection (3) say:
"Directions may not concern the provision of financial resources in respect of activities carried on by a particular person or persons"?
They are just as much an activity that incurs expenditure, yet they are outside the directions. It seems to me to be slightly puzzling as why that should be the case, bearing in mind the explanation given by the noble Baroness.
The council is not independent in the sense that it is entirely beholden to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will issue its central directions and it will be for the national council to take those directions and plan in conformity with them. So the idea that it is somehow a free spirit out there, determining everything for itself, is simply not true; it will do it within the framework of the directions set out by the Secretary of State.
The functions outlined by the noble Baroness are certainly right as far as concerns the Bill, but I still think that this poses a very real threat to schools. The difference here is that we are talking about LEAs' territory. These are their schools for which they have been providing all this time. School sixth forms, with 11 to 16 children within them, are single institutions. So there is very real concern here. However, the Minister has hinted that some thought will be given to qualifying the use of these powers. I welcome that move and I wait to see the detail. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Committees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: Schedule 3 deals with the establishment of two more committees. I have absolutely no quarrel with the idea that the

877
Government should be very specifically concerned about young people up to and beyond the age of 19. However, I have been reading Schedule 3 very carefully and there are two aspects of it that I find disturbing. First, if this national council wishes to seek advice, have research undertaken to look in depth at a particular aspect of education and training and links with employment for either pre-19 year-olds and post-19 year-olds, the best way of securing that aim would be to leave the council totally free to bring together an ad hoc committee for the purpose of taking advice from a group of people—it will be different groups of people for different things—rather than have a single standing committee.
Secondly, there is nothing in Clause 26, which I wish to remove from the Bill, in this respect: it simply refers to the schedule. However, on reading the schedule, one sees that it would be a full standing committee, which would have the power to establish other committees as it sees fit. So already we have the national council spawning a standing committee, which, in turn, takes upon itself further powers. Indeed, we are now far removed from the democratic process. It would seem that the "young people's learning committee" would have to investigate the provision of education and training for young people and advice the council. Moreover, according to sub-paragraph (3) of the schedule:
"The committee is to have such other functions relating to the education and training of young persons, and such functions relating to their employment, as the Council specifies"—
that is, not Parliament but the council. The council is not accountable to Parliament and yet it will be given powers to set up another statutory committee with power to establish other committees; and they, in turn, will also have the power to incur expenditure without any accountability whatever either to the democratic, elected Parliament or to local authorities.
I really am worried about this provision. But lest the speech note that has already been written for the noble Baroness should in any way denigrate my support for the notion that this council, if it is set up—and the noble Baroness knows that I would not go down this road and do it in this way—will not need expert specialist advice about the client groups for whom it will be responsible, I am not against that. I support it. I am very, very worried about very expensive, bureaucratic, static standing committees that would replace the flexibility of commissioning research and ad hoc groups that could provide advice. The power and the accountability would lie with the council, not with another council or another committee, and would be somewhat removed from what I call the accountability process.
Lord Lucas: I have a pair of additional questions for the Minister. First, what is the status of the minutes of these committees and the papers submitted to them, as far as publication and availability to the public is concerned? Are these papers which the Government would intend, under the forthcoming freedom of information Act, should be available to the public? Will they be published regularly? Are they papers that the Government will seek to conceal from the public?
878
Secondly, it appears to me from the description that has been given of what these committees will do that they have such a limited remit and such subsidiary powers that they are unlikely to attract the kind of people one would want to be involved in these decisions. If one wants good people they should be on the main committee, surely, and not tucked away in sub-committees under special appointments by the Secretary of State. If there is not sufficient status and breadth to an appointment, one will only ever have second-class appointees. I urge the Government to think again and, if they really want good people to take part in these decisions, to find a way of ensuring that the key people with the kind of expertise for which they are looking sit on the main committee and are not tucked away on a sub-committee.
Lord Bach: The noble Baroness worries too much about Schedule 3. The council must establish two committees—a young person's learning committee and an adult learning committee. The council may establish such other committees as it thinks fit. I do not believe that it is the intention that these two sub-committees should be setting up other committees as well.
A fundamental role is to be played in the work of the LSC by the young person's learning committee and the adult learning committee which are set out in Schedule 3. The young person's learning committee, first, will be responsible for advising the national council on the best means of achieving the national learning targets for young people, including strategies for increasing participation and attainment so that as many young people as possible continue learning until the age of 19. Specifically, it will advise the council on the funding and delivery of education and work-based training provision targeted at pre-19 year olds, including modern apprenticeships and national traineeships. It will also advise on the promotion and support of work related learning, including work experience and how best to promote a successful transition for young people from school into the next stage of education, training or work.
We want to ensure that its membership includes people who have special knowledge of the area. I hope that its membership includes people with direct experience of schools with sixth forms and sixth form colleges. The committee will also want to ensure—and here the noble Baroness may be with us—that it has direct access to the professional advice of Ofsted.
I believe that reply goes some way to answering the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he suggests that the people who might want to serve on such a committee would not be in the first rank. I do not think that is the case.
I turn to the adult committee, which is no less important. It will have direct responsibility for advising the LSC on achieving the national learning targets for adults and for organisations—specifically the targets for Investors in People. It will concern itself with the funding and delivery of adult education and training in FE colleges, adult learning in the community, workforce development issues, including

879
the promotion of NVQs, and more flexible access to learning. In particular—the Government believe this to be important—there will be close links with the University for Industry as it considers the potential for on-line learning as a central part of the lifelong learning vision. Its membership should have a significant business perspective and be able to have direct access to the world of adult and higher education. It will have the direct benefit of the professional advice of the chief inspector of the new adult learning inspectorate, which we shall discuss next week.
On Tuesday concern was expressed as to whether post-19 education would be the poor relation of the Bill. The Government believe that the setting up of the important adult committee shows our good intentions with regard to post-19 education.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked where the committees' minutes would be displayed. The noble Lord was, of course, a member of the previous government and I am therefore greatly impressed by his conversion to open government. I noted that when we served on the Select Committee a few months ago. The answer to his question is that that will be a matter for the council. However, he will be glad to hear that the principles of open government will apply. I submit that Clause 26 and Schedule 3 should be accepted.
Baroness Blatch: Have we any idea of what the financial impact of this measure will be? There is the cost of the national council, the 47 local councils, these two standing committees and the cost of any other committees that the council sees fit to establish. It appears to have a pretty open-ended remit to form any number of standing committees if it wishes to do so. As regards the question that my noble friend asked, I am not sure that it is sufficient merely to say that open government procedures will apply. These will be national committees, not local committees, unless the noble Lord disturbs us even more by saying that the local councils will also have the power to establish adult learning committees and young people's learning committees. If that is the case, that is even more worrying than the provisions in the Bill.
If we are talking about national committees, does that mean that meetings will be open and that the public will be able to attend? Does that mean that minutes will be made public? Does it mean that the minutes will be published and placed in every library in the country, as they will impact on every person in the country? If the open government rules apply, these questions need to be asked. How big will the relevant committee be? Is there any limit on the number of people on it? Could it comprise 30, 40 or 50 people, or will it comprise 12 to 16 like the main council?
The point of dual membership has already been addressed in that members of the council can also be members of the local councils and members of the adult learning committee and of the young people's learning committee. These are important questions as these bodies not only add to bureaucracy and to the network of committees—which are being spawned all
880
over the place—but this process also involves a reduction in the flexibility that I sought to introduce. If the national body—as I suspect it will from time to time—wishes to research in some depth particular aspects of young people's learning and of adults' learning, it should be able to establish the kind of committee that it requires not as a standing committee but as a time-limited committee to carry out a specifically commissioned piece of work, on the completion of which it would be dissolved. However, none of these points is answered in the schedule.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may add to that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for congratulating me on my conversion. As I was the agriculture spokesman during the BSE crisis, I would need to have a very thick head not to have been converted to the cause of freedom of information.
As regards the duality of committees, one can look at aspects of adult education which are purely adult and aspects of pre-19 education which are purely juvenile. But there is a very great overlap already. Surely, there is going to be a much greater one in future as we try to tackle social deprivation. A great deal of that will involve bringing young people to what we would now call adult education at a much earlier stage. Tackling social deprivation among those who are already past education will involve bringing them much more back into what we would now call pre-19 education.
If one separates the experts in those two areas into separate committees so they cannot spark off each other, we shall lose a great deal. They will always feel subsidiary to some greater committee which is trying to combine their expertise without the benefit of their presence. That is not the best way to create a coherent, unified, well-functioning post-16 provision.
Lord Bach: I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord. There was concern that the over-19s would lose out as a consequence of some of the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, on that ground alone it seems to the Government sensible to have an adult committee. Equally, a young persons' committee is obviously important with a Bill stealing so much from 16 to 19 year-olds.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord will remember that there was genuine concern, as he has just said, about the emphasis and focus given to post-19s. Equally, there were some fairly prolonged debates on the first day of Committee about flexibility to straddle both pre-19s and post-19s. That flexibility is not present in those committees.
Lord Bach: The noble Baroness took the words almost out of my mouth. I was going on to say that the noble Lord is right that there will be straddling between the age of 16 right up to lifelong learning. In some cases 19 years of age may be a time when one period of learning ends and another begins, but in

881
another way it may not. That is why we believe it sensible to have a national council which will see the minutes from both the other committees. The council itself will be able to take a broad view covering all the matters within its remit.
As regards committee members, I understand they are to be unpaid. The expectation is that their meetings will not be in public, but they will be filled with people from outside the council. They are not likely to be secret committees. If the public ask for information provided by the committees, the presumption is that it will be provided to them under the open government principles. That is what I meant by those principles.
There are matters of detail which have to be sorted out. Not every matter of detail is written into a schedule of the Bill. The noble Baroness is right to that extent. No doubt in due course the details of the make-up of the committees will become known.
Baroness Blatch: That is a wholly unsatisfactory answer. One puts schedules into a Bill to include that detail. Details about membership of the national council are in the schedule, including the number of people on the committee, how they are to be appointed, their tenure and other factors, yet for some reason that detail is missing from the two committees which are not part of the mainstream committees. This is a very serious issue to which we shall certainly return. In the meantime I shall not oppose these measures standing part of the Bill.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Committees (England)]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 59, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) must establish a quality recognition and improvement committee").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has asked me to apologise to the Committee for not being here. She had to leave to catch a train to return to Cambridge. She has asked me to stand in for her and to move these three amendments.
All three amendments relate to Schedule 3. I shall first speak to Amendment No. 147 and then I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 146 and 148 which are linked together.
Amendment No. 147 proposes that the wording of the schedule be changed slightly in terms of the functions of the committee. It seeks that the committee must investigate the provision not only of "education and training" but of,
"appropriate education and training to meet reasonable needs".
The wording of the amendment reflects the wording in Clause 2(2) in terms of "reasonable needs". It is essential that the underpinning rationale for the LSC's work, particularly in relation to the young people's learning committee, is founded upon the knowledge of the reasonable needs of young people in localities.
In particular, it is very important that they receive good advice and guidance. Often young people in the 16 to 19 age group have very little knowledge of what they want to do and, therefore, in some senses of what are their education and training needs. In this respect it is vital that they have access to proper guidance. This means proper careers guidance from careers advisers who are trained up to NVQ level 4 competence in such guidance.
In proposing appropriate education and training to meet reasonable needs we are saying that we need both to identify the needs and to give the appropriate education, training and guidance to meet those needs.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 146 and 148, these amendments seek to establish—I am loath to think what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will think—yet another committee. I see that the noble Baroness has walked out in disgust. In addition to the young people's learning committee and the adult learning committee there should be a quality improvement and recognition committee.
The idea here is that there should be a statutory quality recognition and improvement committee, to be set up as a formal committee, in order to make public the local learning and skills council's quality improvement strategy. It would have three main functions: first, to co-ordinate the council's duties in response to the two inspectorates we shall be discussing on Tuesday; and, secondly, to operate a quality threshold, to include good advice and guidance, progression opportunities, a contribution to widening participation and value for money. This will prevent cherry picking by private training providers who might otherwise provide high-volume, short-term, easy-to-fill courses, leaving other providers funded at the same rate with a harder-to-fill, costlier-to-make provision aimed at securing wider participation. There has to be a legitimate concern to balance competitiveness of offer and quality.
Thirdly, we should like the committee also to secure arrangements for the funding of programmes without qualifications. We shall be looking at Clauses 85 to 89 of the Bill next week, but these clauses concern only external qualifications. The prospectus which lies behind the Bill very helpfully makes it clear that quality assurance in other provision—provision that does not necessarily lead to external qualifications—will be publicly supported by the LSC. We should like to have that incorporated in the schedule if possible. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My noble friend Lady Blatch has asked me to express her disagreement with these amendments—a disagreement which I share. I have just spent some time arguing for a greater flexibility for the council to be able to choose how its own committees are structured and to deal with these problems in its own way. This is an excellent example of why the Government were wrong in wording Schedule 3 as they did. They should not go further down that road. It would tie up the council in a way

883
that is entirely inappropriate. I am sure that the council will take care of those matters in its own way and will be the better for it.
Lord Bach: I believe that I am grateful for the opposition to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I am not absolutely sure.
I turn to the amendments in the order in which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke to them. The amendments all propose changes to the committee structure for the national learning and skills council set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill. Amendment No. 147 seeks to alter the remit of the young people's learning committee. We are not clear as to how that change would improve matters. The noble Baroness will recall that the LSC's main duties as set out in Clauses 2 and 3—it seems a long time ago since we debated those clauses—already describe the learning provision which the LSC must provide in terms of that which is "suitable to the requirements" of individuals. We therefore believe that the main thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment is already contained in the Bill.
It would not be right to have an apparently more qualified remit for the young people's learning committee than for the adult learning committee, if that was either the intention behind or the result of the noble Baroness's amendment. It is important that the two committees which we have discussed already at some length—have an influential role and equal status within the LSC framework. I repeat that we want to attract to both committees outstanding individuals with expert knowledge to contribute to the LSC's key strategic discussions and decision-making. We believe that the Bill will help us to attract such individuals as committee members by specifying a role which is wide-ranging and focused. Essentially, the task will be three-fold: to identify needs; to assess how well those needs are being met in terms of both quality and quantity; and to make recommendations as to how they may be better met and how the LSC's available resources may best be used. I hope that that answer gives the noble Baroness some reassurance.
I turn to the other two amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 146 and 148, the purpose of which is to require the learning and skills council to establish a third committee—a quality recognition and improvement committee. Those amendments reflect the current statutory requirements on the Further Education Funding Council. I want to take this opportunity to say how much the Government appreciate the contribution which members of the Quality Assessment Committee have made to the work of the Further Education and Funding Council.
However—and we shall of course be debating the matter next week—our proposal is to separate the work of inspection from the funding body and to give it to OFSTED and the new Adult Learning Inspectorate. Our intention is that action on quality should be fully incorporated within the mainstream of LSC business. The specific functions listed under Amendment No. 148 will be the responsibility of the entire council, not a separate part of it. The council
884
will, of course, be supported by the advice of the two committees in its work. The business of quality improvement will be an important part of that work.
In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 146 and not to move Amendment No. 148.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is useful that he has set out at some length his understanding of the wording in the schedule. I believe that it is appropriate not to press Amendment No. 147 in the light of what he has said. With regard to the other two amendments, it is unfortunate that the Government are dropping the Quality Assessment Committee from the Further Education Funding Council. However, I accept what the Minister said that its remit is now going to be taken over by the inspection procedures. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [The Council]:
11 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 12, line 16, leave out ("10") and insert ("12").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the Welsh part of the Bill—regrettably late in the day, but better late than never. I hope that we can do justice to this part of the Bill despite the lateness of the hour. I need hardly remind the Government after the events of the past few days in the National Assembly in Cardiff Bay that Wales still matters a great deal.
The changes proposed in Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 would bring the national council for education and training in Wales into line with the learning and skills council for England with regard to size; and there is a strong case for that.
The first point is that the main duties of both councils are much the same. As the Bill stands, the Welsh council is, if anything, more centralist in character than its English counterpart, for reasons that I shall explain. The Welsh council "may" form regional bodies on the lines of the 47 local councils proposed for England—"may" being the operative word. I hope to change that "may" into a "must". We shall return to the matter in due course. The point is that the regional committees are an option in Wales.
For the moment, I am content to point out that the English local councils, which vary considerably in terms of the size of population covered, will also, like their parent body, have between 12 and 16 members. That makes sense to me, especially when one takes into account a great diversity of bodies with a close interest in the education and training of young people post-16.
Here, I come to my second point, which is that the Welsh council, with between 10 and 12 members, is far too small to reflect that diversity adequately, even if some members represent more than one interest.
Perhaps I may run through the most obvious interests. There are 26,000 sixth formers in Wales in 167 schools. Their head teachers will have a claim to a place on the council, along with the local education authorities. There are 171,000 students in our 23 further education colleges and five designated colleges. The claims of that sector are more complex than would first appear. Two of the designated colleges are Workers Educational Association (WEA) bodies; another two are St David's Roman Catholic College, Cardiff, and Coleg Harlech, the "college of second chance", much supported by the late Lady White. The last of the designated colleges is a Welsh WMCA establishment.
Then there are 31,000 young people in employer supported training, and of course employers are keenly interested because of their skill requirements and their past experience of the training and enterprise councils, which had a good record in Wales but which are now to disappear.
There is a lengthy list of other bodies which would regard themselves as key contributors to the council: the Welsh Development Agency; the CBI and the TUC in Wales; the Wales Tourist Board; the Welsh Language Board; the Sports Council; as well as the local education authorities, the training providers and the careers advisers, and their eight companies, to be brought together under an umbrella organisation to be known as "Careers Wales". Finally, the Higher Education Funding Council is to have a joint secretariat with the new council, as it had with the Further Education Funding Council (now to be dissolved). I can claim some paternity for the joint operation between the two councils because it fell to me to put the relevant Act into operation.
I do not believe that a council membership of 10 or 12 can possibly meet all of the requirements and high expectations envisaged in the Bill. If the four regional committees come into being, each chairman will be entitled under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 5 to the Bill to a place on the main council. Therefore, we are talking about six to eight remaining places to cover all the diverse interests, not forgetting the Skills Wales Task Force set up by the present Government whose role is, to me, somewhat unclear.
Having read the report of the National Assembly's plenary debate on its Education and Training Action Plan for Wales, which took place on 1st February—some days after the Second Reading debate on this Bill—it does not appear to me that the Assembly and its Post-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee has given much thought to the crucial issue of the size of the council. Its debate was mainly about policy, and the Bill before the Committee today was referred to only once by Jonathan Morgan, a Conservative Assembly Member, I am glad to say.
As I am on my feet, this is perhaps an appropriate moment to say that when primary legislation is in the offing the Assembly will be well advised to complete its
886
deliberations before either House in the Westminster Parliament embarks on the legislative process so that we may at least take account of the views of the Assembly. If it does not complete its deliberations, as in this case, it cannot blame us if we fail to legislate to meet its needs and aspirations. The Assembly's Economic Development Committee has yet to consider such matters as the enterprise function of the TECs and where other functions are best located in future.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 151. My noble friend Lady Blatch and others spoke with more eloquence than I can ever muster in favour of the amendment which proposes that 40 per cent of the membership of the English council should have business or commercial experience. That has been promised verbally by the Government, although it does not appear as yet anywhere on the face of the Bill. The same arguments apply to Wales, if anything with even greater force. We need the thrust and drive of business people to raise our GDP, which is now so low in the valleys and West Wales that we meet the Objective 1 criteria. We hope that in the next few years we can look forward to substantial investment of funds from the European Union with matching funds from the Treasury.
The Council for the Welsh Training and Enterprise Councils describes the situation with what I believe to be cruel clarity:
"Wales has the lowest rates of economic activity in Great Britain. This is because Wales has the lowest rates of A-level and higher education graduates of any region of the United Kingdom. For those in work, the position is not much better: low pay, a lack of skills provision, and a culture which does not recognise the need for lifelong learning. The net effect of this is obvious; we see it everywhere. The Welsh economy is under-performing. Only a new, coherent approach to economic development will put it right. This must entail a radical approach to education and training provision, both in the immediate post-16 area, and the world of lifelong learning".
So everyone agrees with this analysis of our needs, although I have not checked these figures personally. What is not agreed is that the people whose self-interest and self-preservation will motivate them to improve the position are the business people. Of course the participants in education and training—students, teachers and providers generally—all have a powerful vested interest in success, but the hard drive comes from those who need trained, skilled people to survive themselves. Those are the business people and employers.
It is recognised that the voice of business must be strong in the training theatre, and much effort has been expended in recent years in ensuring that that voice is heard and responded to. But with the demise of the TECs in Wales there is a real fear that the voice of business will be silenced, and there is despair, I can tell the Minister, among many employers.
There are some commitments to business in this Bill, but they are general. What is required is a specific commitment, a guaranteed place among the partners, and that could be secured by my amendment to the effect that no fewer than four members of the Welsh council shall have had business or commercial

887
experience. The Government would be rewarded with a return of business confidence in the scheme proposed in the Bill. I can assure them that such confidence is not present in Wales now, and it must be restored. If Members of the Committee opposite will not accept my word for it, perhaps they will accept the view expressed by Professor Kenneth Morgan in the Western Mail on 26th January. Professor Morgan, of Cardiff University, was a prominent figure in the "yes" campaign for the National Assembly. He made it absolutely clear in that article that the business community in Wales has become increasingly concerned that a body that would play a pivotal role in developing a highly skilled workforce in Wales will be dominated by public sector interests in the form of local authorities and further education colleges.
The Government would be very wise to heed my call for assured representation for business and employer interests in Wales on the new Wales council. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I recall, when a Scottish crime Bill was passing through this House under the previous administration, there were, at about one o'clock in the morning, some seven of your Lordships present: two on each of the party Benches and one Cross-Bencher. They included three Scottish lawyers. There we were, laying down the criminal law and making massive alterations at that hour and with so few people present. Now here we are, beginning the Welsh section of this vital Bill at 11 o'clock at night. I find it disgraceful that there are no Welsh Peers on the Government Benches. Surely there must be some Labour Peers hiding nearby in case the Committee is counted out again who could give a view on this aspect of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is here and will be speaking for the Government, but in her support I feel it would be right to have a Welsh Labour Peer present.
I hear some Welsh being spoken by a noble Lord, whose connection with Wales I did not know at all. I shall investigate further. I seem to recall he comes from north London, but I may be wrong.
A great deal has been said this week about devolution, but let me just say something about the way this Bill has come to pass and to point out the enormous advantages there are. It so happened that the Education and Training Action Group for Wales published a paper in March 1999 making recommendations on the implementation of the proposals for the provision and administration of education and training in Wales. The committee of the National Assembly, the Post-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee, then took the decision that it needed to hear the views of the action group at first hand and took oral representations on the subject from ETAG and from 20 other organisations. It also considered submissions from many other individuals and organisations. Under the chairmanship of Mr Cynog Dafis, the former Member of Parliament
888
for Ceredigion and now the Assembly Member for the Mid and West Wales region, it produced a report. I should like to quote from the conclusion:
"The committee perceived the overall aim of relating education and training to wealth creation, social inclusion, community development and personal fulfilment as one of the greatest challenges facing Wales over the next decade. The committee strongly endorsed the proposition that the economic and social prosperity of Wales is crucially dependent upon the skills of its population and that lifetime learning is vital if those skills are to be attuned to the demands of a fast moving, highly competitive world economy. The committee therefore saw an urgent need to remove any structural impediments to lifetime learning and viewed the integration of all post-16 education and training in Wales into a seamless continuum as being fundamental to this aim".
That committee, which is of course cross-party and contains members from all parties represented in the assembly, discussed the proposals in depth. Following that and the production of its report, the contents of this Bill were then presented to those responsible for it. The committee considered its provisions before it was published and came to certain conclusions. What has been produced for consideration by noble Lords is quite unlike the generality of material addressing legislation that comes before this House. It has been produced after the deepest consultation with all the interested bodies in Wales by a cross-party committee and after a presentation to the Welsh Assembly which gave its approval to the wording of the Bill. It is in that context that I believe the amendments put forward so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, should be considered.
Finally, I shall speak to the amendments put forward by the noble Lord. If the Welsh Assembly committee has had the opportunity of considering these matters not simply in committee but also in full plenary session and has come to the conclusion that it is happy with a membership of between 10 and 12 people, this Committee ought not to interfere with that decision. In Amendment No. 151 the noble Lord referred to the proposal to insert,
"not less than four of whom shall have business or commercial experience".
He should bear in mind that an amendment to the resolution proposed on 1st February in the plenary session of the National Assembly for Wales was moved by a Tory Member, Mr Alun Cairns of South Wales West. It read:
"The Assembly should endorse the Secretary of State for Education and Employment's commitment to include a minimum 40 per cent business membership of the Learning and Skills Council in England".
It makes the same commitment for the national council for education and training in Wales in its regional tier. That amendment was lost by 40 votes to five, a substantial and significant majority. That is the view of the Welsh Assembly. For that reason, it should not be for this Committee or for another place to make any addition or amendment to such a decided view of the National Assembly.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Is he fully aware of the commitment

889
that has been given by the Government in England to 40 per cent membership of the English council? I can assure him that I have heard that said by officials.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am fully aware of that but, of course, the method of appointment of the council differs. In England it is an appointment by the Secretary of State and it is right that there should be statutory guidelines for that. Here, the National Assembly itself will appoint the council and will do so in accordance with the policy. It will have the freedom of action to choose whom it considers to be appropriate to sit on that council. It will have the personal knowledge of the people who are appointed, and it should be given the maximum amount of prescription and freedom to choose those who will do the best job for Wales in this vital area. With this and with other amendments which are to be moved to the Welsh section, I respectfully urge the Committee to accept that the Welsh Assembly really does know best and that it is best informed to take those decisions. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I begin by saying that, as a resident of the country, I find it difficult to be constantly challenged as to what percentage of me is Welsh and what percentage is English. One day perhaps someone will ask me what part of the country my great-great-great-grandparents came from! I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Roberts of Conwy, that I speak for the Government on Wales and that I am totally committed to doing the best that I can on Welsh issues and on issues relating to the people of Wales that come before us.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I apologise to the noble Baroness if she should take anything that I have said as a criticism of her. I have heard her speak for the Government on Welsh issues. I know that her heart is fully in it and I apologise if I suggested anything to the contrary.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying this, but I believe that those of us who have spoken for the interests of Wales have had to repeat some things many times. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, quite rightly referred to levels of pay and comparative levels of pay in Wales. I am very proud of the fact that, in introducing a national minimum wage and, ultimately, even convincing the noble Lord's party that that was the right thing to do, this Government have given greater help to regions and parts of Wales than perhaps they have done to many other parts of the country. Therefore, I am pleased to recognise that.
I believe that it is useful to begin by placing on record that, while I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is seeking Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 to bring the permitted number of council members for Wales in line with that for England and the arguments that he has put forward, the LSC in
890
England will need to have more members than, indeed, there are at present on the FEFC, not least to achieve geographical balance in terms of having many more regions than the regions of Wales. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that, in saying that, I do not minimise the importance of the diversity that exists within Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, outlined clearly the position with regard to this legislation and the provisions for Wales and the difference in England. Perhaps I may correct the figures that the noble Lord gave in his reference to the decision taken by the full Assembly. The figures were 45 to five. The amendment obviously did not carry the support of the Assembly members.
Our proposals will enable the National Assembly to provide the CETW with wide representation from outstanding individuals with relevant expertise to ensure that the high quality education and training needs of Wales are met. We are confident that with a membership of between 10 and 12 we are striking the right balance. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 151. There must be a reasonable balance between educational, business and other interests on the new council for Wales. Its members will be appointed by the national assembly on the basis of Nolan principles and guidance and following the Assembly's own procedures. The National Assembly is firmly committed to the principle of selection based on merit and to the well-informed choice of individuals who have a broad range of experience and expertise with no single interest dominating.
That is a very important principle which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, perhaps did not recognise. It surprises me that he did not do so. It is not that one chooses someone who has this experience or that experience. I know from the skills that are available that there will be many who can offer a range of different backgrounds and experience, bringing together the needs which must be met.
The Assembly Cabinet considered this matter in concert with the Secretary of State and the Assembly approved it after very careful scrutiny and consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred also to the importance of raising the provision for and expectations, and standards of people in Wales. That is exactly why the provisions of the Bill will enable greater coherence in secondary and FE provision by removing barriers to collaboration between schools and further and higher education colleges and by enabling the creation of new centres.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am somewhat disappointed by the noble Baroness's reply. I had hoped for a more sympathetic hearing, particularly to the argument about the size of the council proposed for Wales.

891
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that those figures for membership of between 10 and 12 are written into this Bill, which is a piece of primary legislation. I am all for giving the Assembly as much scope as possible. But, here in Westminster, we are the people who are concerned with primary legislation. The powers of the Assembly relate only to secondary legislation, as we know. The membership figures appear on the face of this Bill.
With regard to the diversity of interests that will clearly be represented on the Welsh council, what we have heard about the composition of the Welsh council does not, as regards the business world and employers, compare favourably with what we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She talked about the importance of the business/employer interest and, if I remember correctly, she said that the chairman of the English council would certainly have business experience. It is important for the National Assembly, and for us, to engage the support of the employers and the business people in Wales who, after all, will lose the training and enterprise councils to which they have looked in the past. However, it may well be that I shall return at a later stage to either or both of these issues.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is extremely important that one recognises exactly what the Assembly considered and the conclusion it reached. It considered that to set a percentage for any particular group or interest would be too narrow and would constrain the ability to make judgments. This is not primary legislation decided in London against the wishes of the Assembly; it is primary legislation that goes with the grain of the wishes of the people in Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course, I respect the consideration that the National Assembly gave to the issue, but I was careful not to include the 40 per cent in my amendment. However, I left scope in the amendment that I tabled, namely that there should be no fewer than four representatives drawn from the business and commercial world. Of course, that can be translated into a percentage of 10 or 12, or the larger figure that I also recommended. I intended to stress the importance of the employer/business element if we are to ensure the success of the council. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 12, line 22, at end insert ("including experience and knowledge of the needs of disabled people".
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 152 in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Many noble Lords who were present during earlier
892
stages of our discussions will be aware that certain noble Lords referred to a Welsh amendment that had somehow crept into the English groupings. I certainly promised—I know their Lordships expect me to do so—to refer to those amendments. During an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, argued in favour of an amendment—Amendment No. 152—to the effect that the Welsh council as well as the English council should include members with experience and knowledge of disabled people. I support that, especially as the Further Education Funding Council for Wales made considerable progress in encouraging institutions to adopt inclusive strategies for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. By 1998–99 the council provided some £2.2 million to support 2,400 such students on mainstream FE courses. I am sure that we would all agree that that valuable work should be built upon.
Amendment No. 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others, falls within this group of amendments, and deals with persons with learning difficulties or disabilities above school age but below the age of 25. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that the Government,
"shall consult on the arrangements that the LSC will develop in this area".—[Official Report, 8/2/00; col. 579.]
Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, cannot commit the National Assembly and the Welsh Council to such consultation, but I would encourage them to consult on the issue. Perhaps the noble Baroness may be able to endorse my encouragement.
Amendment No. 159 dealt with vocational and non-vocational learning for people with learning difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made it clear that there should be no doubt that the education to be procured by the councils should include both vocational and non-vocational courses, not just for those with learning difficulties but for everyone. In that reply the noble Baroness covered the Welsh situation as well.
My noble friend Lord Pilkington spoke concisely to amendments which are of particular interest to us in Wales and other predominantly rural areas where sixth forms are often small and in competition for pupils with FE colleges. The Government's assurance on sixth form funding is conditional upon the maintenance of numbers, as we heard in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he said, "as long as numbers do not fall". That begs a number of questions which may arise when we discuss Clause 36. What does a fall in numbers mean, and at what point in time?
I have sought to do justice to noble Lords who said I would refer to these amendments when we came to the Welsh part of the Bill. The final amendment to which I shall speak is Amendment No. 161, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who asked me to move it formally. That I shall do at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord quite rightly identified a group of amendments spoken

893
to earlier which have a specific interest in Wales. Identifying and meeting the learning needs of disabled people will be part of the core business of not only LSCs but of the CETW. It is not a peripheral concern. That is why the Bill requires councils to have both specific regard to the needs of people with disabilities and to report annually on their progress and plans in meeting those needs.
That is also why the Government made a firm commitment in the learning and skills council prospectus and said that they will expect the national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of people with learning difficulties and disabilities.
In terms of the particular structure within Wales, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will be aware that many of the matters of detail as to the implementation of this policy will be a matter for the Assembly to consider. Since the functions clearly and explicitly include provision for disabled people, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales must, under Clauses 1 and 30 respectively, have regard to the desirability of appointing members of their respective councils who have experience relevant to disability matters. With that reassurance I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We have covered the ground as promised to noble Lords who spoke either earlier today or on the first day in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [National Council for Education and Training for Wales]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("salaries and").
The noble Lord said: This probing amendment is designed to elicit which council members are to be salaried. It appears that they are all to be paid. If my reading of Schedule 4 is correct, the Assembly can only determine amount. I would be grateful for clarification and some information about the current situation in respect of the payment of quango members. Are all the members of the Welsh Development Agency, for example, currently paid salaries or fees?
I would like to know the total bill for salaries and fees but suspect that the easy answer is that that matter is for the National Assembly and figures have not yet been calculated. That begs the question of why it is necessary for the council to be under such close supervision by the Assembly—a recurring theme in my questioning. Would it not be wiser to give the council a measure of independence and responsibility, rather than have the Assembly involved in its detailed operations and second guessing at every turn?
Amendment No. 154 relates to paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 4—which requires the Assembly's approval of any council determination of a staff appointment.
894
Presumably that provision extends to all council staff, from a doorman to a senior executive at the central or regional office. Is it seriously suggested that every appointment must be approved by the Assembly? A similar provision applies to council appointments in England but I wonder whether the Assembly can fulfil that function properly. Surely the council should bear responsibility for its own appointments.
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 details the requirements in respect of members' interests and their disclosure in particular circumstances. All the good seems to be undone in sub-paragraph (6), which allows the Assembly to remove a disability arising from any such disclosure—that disability being a prohibition on taking part in any deliberation or decision of the council or any committee of the council with respect to the matter. Laymen would not see much sense in that. The Secretary of State has a similar power in regard to the English council, but that does not justify giving the same power to the Assembly. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am relieved to see my noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath return to his place, in case I need his linguistic skill from his many years living in the Principality.
Amendment No. 153 is unduly restrictive and at odds with the existing arrangements for members of the FEFC for Wales and Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. It is right and fair that members of the CETW receive salaries for their important task. They have an important job and we expect them to devote considerable energy and time to their responsibilities. An inability to pay salaries may limit the range of talented people from all parts of the community that we want to attract to those posts. Determination by the National Assembly provides a proper safeguard against inappropriate terms being set.
Amendment No. 154 would affect CETW staff, who will be public servants working for an Assembly-sponsored public body. I hope that my words will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. While detailed terms and conditions of its staff will be for the CETW to determine, it is surely right that the National Assembly should be able to ensure that these terms and conditions are in line with public sector policies. This is a well-established principle for other Assembly-sponsored public bodies and replicates provisions made in respect of the FEFC for Wales by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which I am sure the noble Lord will remember.
As regards Amendment No. 155, it is right that a CETW member with an interest should disclose it when such matters are discussed, and should normally be barred from taking part in relevant deliberations and decisions in which he or she may have an interest. But an unqualified application of the provisions could lead to perverse consequences; for example, an FE college principal on the CETW being unable to take part in general debates on priorities for resource allocation because the outcome would inevitably have some impact on his or her college.

895
Therefore, there should be a provision for the National Assembly to lift such a bar on an individual member where it judges this to be sensible. This is standard provision in legislation relating to non-departmental and Assembly-sponsored bodies. The noble Lord may wish to look, for example, at Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is right that this power should be with the National Assembly, rather than with the CETW in order to ensure that such decisions are made in a detached and considered way. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and not move the others grouped with it.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I said at the outset of my remarks that Amendment No. 153 was a probing amendment. I am at least wiser to the extent that I now know that members of the council will be salaried or in receipt of fees. I am equally glad to have her assurance that it is the terms and conditions of appointments and employment which will be supervised by the Assembly. I also fully appreciate the Minister's explanation of the qualification in the subparagraph referred to in Amendment No. 155 and the example that she gave of the FE college principal being inhibited in discussion, for example, of overall budgeting for FE colleges in Wales. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 159 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Education and training for persons over 19]:
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Encouragement of education and training]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 14, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) promote equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people in education and training and all support services covering transition").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment formally on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. I believe that it was included in an earlier group of amendments which we discussed. It was debated as part of the group of amendments headed by Amendment No. 152. That grouping included Amendments Nos. 156 to 164.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Amendments Nos. 156 to 164 were debated much earlier on in the proceedings. Does the noble Lord wish to move this amendment formally?
Lord Roberts of Conway: I have done so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has spoken to this amendment but has accepted that the first amendment grouped with it was not moved. My understanding was that this amendment was not to be moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the amendment not moved?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Not moved.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Provision of financial resources]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 14, line 32, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 14, line 33, at end insert ("(including employment)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 38 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 164:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

FURTHER EDUCATION: GOVERNORS
(" .—(1) The Council may appoint a person to be a member of the governing body of an institution which—

(a) falls within the further education sector (within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992), and

(b) mainly serves the population of Wales.

(2) But no more than two members of the governing body of a given institution may at any given time have been appointed under this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 165:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

LINKS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT: WALES
(" .—(1) The Council may secure the provision of facilities for the gaining of work experience by young persons receiving education.
(2) The Council may secure the provision of facilities designed to form links between (on the one hand) employers and (on the other) persons falling within subsection (3).
(3) The persons falling within this subsection are—

(a) persons who provide education or training, and

(b) persons who receive it and who have not attained the age of 19.

(4) A person is a young person m the period which—

(a) starts with the beginning of the year in which he attains the age of 15, and

(b) ends with the end of the year in which he attains the age of 19.

(5) A year is a year beginning with 1 September.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will not have failed to notice that certain clauses relating to the English council have been left out of Part II which establishes the council for Wales. This particular Amendment No. 165 refers to a new clause which is entitled,
"Links between education and training and employment: Wales".
It is clearly an adaptation of Clause 8 in the English part of the Bill. I have adapted it to Welsh circumstances. I understand that the Government are considering whether to insert this clause or a similar measure at a later stage in our proceedings. If they believe that the clause needs adaptation, so be it. For my part, I would be content with it as it stands. I believe that the contents of the clause should apply to Wales as well as to England. I am bound to say that this clause led to an earlier debate and there was some concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Blatch about the open-ended nature of the power contained within the clause relating to further education governors. I think we will leave that to one side for the moment. I shall concentrate on the Government's response to this replica of Clause 8 which is entitled, as I have said,
"Links between education and training and employment: Wales".
I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I ought to declare an interest before speaking to this amendment. I have members of my family who currently benefit from work experience placement schemes in Wales.
Work experience placements in Wales will be the responsibility of the careers service companies under contract to the National Assembly. We have already made provision in Clause 34 for the CETW to provide funding support to foster links between employers and those who provide or receive post-16 education and training. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the Government in their opposition to this amendment. Again it is a matter that has already been covered by the National Assembly in Wales. It has considered the
898
matter and it is satisfied with the provisions made in Clause 34 with regard to financial provision and its view should prevail.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Baroness has given. I understand the provision that is made in Clause 34 but I wanted to ascertain the reasoning behind the application of this clause to England but not to Wales. However, having been given the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 166:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

FURTHER EDUCATION: GOVERNORS: WALES
(" .—(1) This section applies if there is at any time a vacancy in the membership of the governing body of an institution within the further education sector (within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992).
(2) The Council may appoint a person to fill the vacancy.
(3) But no more than two members of the governing body of a given institution may at any given time have been appointed under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This is another example of a proposed new clause which relates to further education governors. It is a replica of Clause 11 of the Bill. However, I believe that that has been overtaken by a new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Amendment No. 164. The power that the measure gives to the Assembly to appoint governors has caused concern in England. I dare say that many in Wales will be concerned about its open-ended nature when they realise fully what it means. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, gave us an assurance earlier that certain safeguards will be provided as regards the use of the power. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can add nothing to what my noble friend Lady Blackstone said when speaking to this subject earlier. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has expressed his awareness that this amendment has been overtaken by the Government's Amendment No. 164. I thank him for the time and trouble he has taken in raising this issue. I hope that, in view of the Government's amendment, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

>PLANS: WALES
(" .—(1) The Council—

(a) must make and publish a plan for each of its financial years;

899

(b) may make and publish such other plans as it thinks fit.

(2) A plan for the Council's first financial year must be published as soon as is reasonably practicable after the year starts.
(3) A plan for any subsequent financial year of the Council must be published before the year starts.
(4) A plan for a financial year must include—

(a) proposals as to how the Council intends to achieve in the financial year any objectives which should be achieved in the year in conformity with directions of the National Assembly or with conditions imposed under section 46;

(b) the Council's financial proposals for the year, and in particular proposals as to how it plans to keep to its budget for the year.").

The noble Lord said: The proposed new clause replicates Clause 15 in the English part of the Bill. Clause 15 states that the LSC,
"must make and publish a plan for each of its financial years".
It goes on to specify the detailed requirement. I believe that this is a sound clause and that it should apply also to the Welsh council. It may be argued that the substance of the clause can be included in the remit given by the National Assembly to the council, but we have no certainty that it will be so included. We have an opportunity here and now to put the requirement for an annual plan on the face of the Bill. I believe that that is where it belongs. It is so fundamental a requirement that it seems to me to belong to the sphere of primary legislation rather than a remit which, of course, can enlarge on the contents of the clause. Needless to say, careful planning is all important in the sphere of education and training and I am sure that we should highlight the need for it. I beg to move.
Midnight
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As regards the planning and strategic regime of the CETW, the National Assembly has made it clear that it will set out its requirements on these matters in the remit letter to the new council for Wales. We are aware of the significant interest of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in the devolution settlement and of the impact that the Government of Wales Act has made on Wales.
We should all welcome the opportunity that devolution has given to Wales to choose its own direction to a considerable extent in post-16 education and training. The intention of the National Assembly to deal with the planning and strategic functions of the CETW through its remit letter is a very good example of that. I hope that the noble Lord will agree and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is a moot point whether this is a matter which should be put on the face of the Bill as a requirement or included, as I have suggested, in the remit to be given to the council. I do not feel disposed to argue strongly one way or the other.
I should have spoken also to Amendment No. 168. What I said about planning applied equally to strategy. Again, I have adapted Clause 16—some might say that I cribbed unashamedly so that it is applicable to Welsh circumstances. It seems to me that the formulation by the council of a strategy for the
900
exercise of its functions and to achieve its objectives is fundamental and belongs, as I have said, to primary legislation. I am not against giving latitude, as I have stressed, to the National Assembly, but there is ample scope for flexibility after the basic principles have been laid down.
I noticed in reading the debate of the plenary session of the National Assembly on 1st February that some Assembly Members for Wales wanted something different. Vive la différence seemed to be the call of the day. I say yes to different treatment when that is clearly beneficial to Wales, but not difference for its own sake.
I cannot see the Welsh council being effective in attaining its objectives without a strategy. Indeed, it will be lost without one and the education and training of young people will suffer. I reiterate that the requirement should be written into the Bill. I believe that as legislators we would be failing in our duty if we did not include it as a requirement.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I apologise to the noble Lord. I understood that he was speaking to both amendments together. My earlier reply still holds.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I draw attention to one matter contained in the report of the post-16 education and training committee of the National Assembly for Wales. It states that,
"The primary legislation establishing the National Council should be drafted in such a way as to allow the National Assembly to retain discretion and flexibility".
Surely it is in the fields of finance and strategy that that flexibility will be exercised.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have no doubt that a great deal of flexibility will be exercised, but what we are talking about and seeking to insert into the Bill are fundamental requirements that a strategy be produced and annual plans. I can only reiterate that I believe that that belongs to the area of primary legislation. The Government clearly do not share my view.
I may return to this point at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168 and 168A not moved.]
Clause 39 [Research and information]:
[Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 171 and 172:
Page 16, line 37, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").
Page 16, line 37, at end insert ("(including employment)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 45 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Committees (Wales)]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 64, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment, small as it may seem. It seeks to make the establishment of regional committees obligatory. Those of your Lordships who know Wales well know of its diversity within, and how different west Wales is from the south-east, which in turn is a world apart from north Wales. Powys and mid-Wales, too, as an area, is unique in character.
Fixing the boundaries of these regions is always a vexatious problem, but some progress has been made. Since the passing of the Government of Wales Act 1998, and as a result of the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency, the regions are reasonably well defined.
I understand that it may well be the intention of the National Assembly to establish four committees, coterminous with the regions of the Welsh Development Agency. That decision will be heavily debated—the sub-division of Wales is always controversial—and I should like to spare the Assembly some of that discussion by making regional committees, at least, obligatory. There are other important matters to consider and we and the Assembly must move on.
The committees that may be set up—which I believe must be established if the whole of Wales is to participate in this scheme—will be purely advisory and very different from the English local councils, which will have executive functions. There are those in Wales—especially those who have had experience of the TECs—who argue that the Welsh regional committees should be similarly constituted. As advisory bodies, they say, the Welsh committees will simply be talking shops. Employers and business people, whose support is vital, will be reluctant to participate in such committees.
This, of course, begs the question of how the national council will operate at regional and local level. I understand that there will be some 15 of what are described as community consortia for education and training—almost one for every local authority; we have 22 local authorities—but they will not have any real power either. That will be retained by the national council, which will operate through its regional offices and which will fund training providers direct.
Is this the real scheme of things? If that is the case, it is not reflected in the Bill except by its absence. In other words, there is no description in the Bill of how the scheme will work in practice or the mechanism by which the council's functions will be exercised on the ground. That contrasts with the position as regards England, which is at least much clearer.
I must confess to a fear that Wales and its council will fall between two stools: the advisory regional committees on the one hand and the equally powerless community consortia on the other. As a first step towards clarification and establishing a firm structure, I propose that the duty to establish the regional
902
committees be written into the Bill. In that event, the rest of the schedule will apply. It will save the Assembly a great deal of time and enable it to get on with its business.
I am glad to say that the CBI at least is supportive. Its latest parliamentary brief states that:
"Meeting skill needs in the regions of Wales will require a similar or greater level of local flexibility as in England. Wales will lose out if there is not a level playing field in this regard. To this end Welsh business and CBI Wales are keen to see strong regional committees in Wales which can take the lead in identifying and meeting labour market needs. Schedule 5 para 1 states only that these 'may' be created, not that they should be. The CBI would welcome a change to this point from 'may' to 'shall'"—
I cannot go with it all the way; I have put in "must"—
"together with clarification about the powers and flexibility which these committees will have".
Amendment No. 175 seeks that a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee should be established. The requirement to form such committees is written into Schedule 3 in the section of the Bill relating to England, where it is stated that the council must establish a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee. Why is it thought that such committees are a must in England but do not merit even a mention in Wales? I am sure that the Welsh council could form such committees under its general powers, but that is not a complete answer.
Furthermore, the functions of the two committees are investigative and advisory in the main. The areas of youth and adult learning both require—as we heard in earlier debates—persistent investigation with a view to smooth and effective delivery and development. We do not have all the answers. I speak from my personal experience as a Minister in the Welsh Office deeply interested in those fields and the difficult problems that they posed in my time. I am sure many of those problems are still extant. I should like those committees, which are the keys to future development, to be written into the Bill.
Amendment No. 176 relates again to the issue of the size of regional committees. Local councils in England will have between 12 and 16 members, compared with the Welsh regional committee's eight, including the chairman. I am not sure what the justification is for that disparity. Of course, they are not strictly comparable; the Welsh committees are advisory rather than executive. Nevertheless, it may be argued that, being advisory, they should be drawn from a wide range of interested bodies to ensure that their advice is soundly based.
The four TECs that they replace have an average of 15 members each, which I gather from Annex A to the "Public Bodies 1999" document. Although again they are not strictly comparable, all the TECs being locally based companies with employer led boards, there are similarities.
The bodies that will have a claim to membership are those I listed when we were discussing the composition of the main council—employers, sixth form heads, teachers, local authorities, FE colleges and higher education institutions, the CBI, the TUC, the Welsh

903
Development Agency, and so on. Those bodies do not easily lend themselves to duplicate membership to the extent that they can be limited to a totality of eight. It is unwise to attempt that limitation. It will only result in criticism of the exclusion of some obvious claimants to membership. So I think the Government would be well advised to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 177 again requires that:
"not fewer than four … shall have business or commercial experience".
It has to be said that there is a great deal of disaffection in Wales in the business community. I think it has been underestimated by the Government. It arises in part from the abolition of the TECs, but also business does not agree with the educational-institutional public sector bias implicit in the Bill.
One businessman told me that the National Assembly was distinctly "business unfriendly". I do not think that the Assembly should enjoy that reputation. I suspect that it can be attributed to some extent to the fact that few Assembly members have business experience and a high percentage come from the public sector.
To be fair, many of the Assembly's documents, including the report by the Assembly's Post-16 Education and Training Committee, stress the importance of,
"The participation of business at all levels in the new arrangements to give a national, regional and local perspective on the skills needed to generate substantial improvements in wealth creation in Wales".
That is an excellent statement. I could not have expressed it better myself. It is the first of the committee's key principles. But for some reason it is not reflected in the Welsh parts of the Bill. We should put that right. Amendment No. 177 gives us the opportunity to do so.
The CBI would like the requirement for 40 per cent business and commercial representation to apply to the regional committees as well as the Welsh national council. However, I think that a share of four out of a total complement of 12 would go some way towards meeting the wishes of employers in Wales. I strongly recommend that the Government listen to these pleas and give them some consideration. Otherwise, I fear that they will not secure business and employer support for the Bill's contents. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I recognise and defer to the enormous experience that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has had in the Welsh Office. He was indeed the anchor-man of the Welsh Office for so many years. I am sure that no Minister of State has ever had greater experience of the workings of the Welsh Office during his time. However, there is a danger that some of his proposals run along the lines that, "if England's got it, Wales should have it as well in primary legislation". I really do not think that that is necessary.
904
The particular issue of regional tiers of the national council was described by the Post-16 Education and Training Committee as one of the key issues upon which it had to decide, and it deliberated long and hard before reaching its final conclusions on the subject. The Assembly Secretary had himself proposed four regional boards with boundaries coterminous with the Assembly's regional committees, the regional economic fora and the existing TECs. The views that the committee received from the CBI, the Council for the Welsh TECs and so on favoured business-led regional arms of CETW with boundaries coterminous with those of the economic development fora.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is right to point out that there is a business view. On the other hand, the view of public servants in the education sector was that, although they supported a regional tier with an advisory role, it would dilute the model and considerably increase the administrative burden. Consequently, after considerable discussion—of the kind that has not taken place over the proposals for England—the committee came down in favour of a model which approached that proposed by the Government in this Bill. No greater cross-party consideration and reception of submissions could be envisaged than has happened with the principles that lie behind the drafting of this Bill. I support the Bill as it is and oppose these amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that the fundamental principle which needs to be tackled here is that devolution leads to a process, well described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in which there is a joint approach and co-operation in a democratic family partnership. It cannot be paternalistic. There is a danger that the detail of the amendments to which the noble Lord draws attention tonight will move away from partnership and towards imposition. That would be resented by the Assembly, in our view quite rightly.
There has been considerable debate in Wales about the arrangements for the CETW's regional committees. Following the account by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the plenary debate on 1st February the National Assembly made clear its expectation of the new council to establish a committee for each of the four regions within Wales. The National Assembly, with the support of the cross-party Post-16 Education and Training Committee, made it equally clear that its strong preference was that the new council should have a permissive power rather than a duty with regard to the setting up of committees. That is what we have provided should happen.
Amendment No. 175 seeks to place a further duty on the CETW to establish two further committees, one for young people and the other for adults. As the noble Lord recognises, that would impose the same sub-structure in Wales as in England, but the issues, policies and needs of Wales are distinct from England's. It would be preferable to give discretion to CETW on this matter, as we have provided in the Bill.

905
As to the minimum number of members required for a regional committee of the CETW and its composition, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, seeks to raise the number from eight to 12, at least four of whom should come from the business or commercial sector. The National Assembly considered that and believed that a minimum of eight members would be sufficient to ensure efficient operation. Members will be appointed on the basis of having the right experience, knowledge and skills for the job, rather than whether they come from the education, business or commercial sector. In saying this, the National Assembly recognises the key input of the business sector and has pledged that each regional committee will have a chairman with a solid business background.
Forgive me, at this late hour, a small anecdote. During the late Lord Joseph's time as Secretary of State, he visited a tertiary college in Lancashire. He greeted the person who chaired that body with the words, "Who do you represent?" The Conservative county councillor replied, "I'm an employer; I am a trainer; I am a local authority member; I am a member of a voluntary organisation; I come from your Party; I am the parent o Ftwo daughters at the college; my wife is a student and I am a student at night. Which hat would you like me to say I am wearing?"
Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 would remove the National Assembly's control over the locus of the CETW's regional committees. Since the regional committees will ultimately be accountable to the National Assembly, it is essential that the National Assembly has a clear and real say in what they do. I hope, in the light of this reply, and the experience I have recounted, that the noble Lord will feel confident to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Perhaps I may begin by simply saying to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that my approach to these issues is not to say that if England some of these clauses Wales must have them too. It is rather that I wish to know quite clearly why they do not apply to Wales.
I have to be quite clear in my understanding of how this Bill is going to work in practice in Wales. We are familiar with the English situation—the national council and the power of the local councils—but quite clearly in Wales all the real power is going to be concentrated in the national council. The regional committees, if they come into existence, will be purely advisory. So this justifies my earlier remark that there is even more centralisation of power in Wales under the system proposed in this Bill than there is in England. We do not have the regional equivalents of the English local councils.
Therefore, I would be grateful, before I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, if the Minister could confirm my belief that that is the way the national council will work—through local offices and taking advice only from regional committees.
Baroness Farringdon of Ribbleton: I think the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is again describing a different process. The framework of accountability and
906
responsibility for making this system work will be determined by the Assembly. That is the result of devolution, and we believe it to be right.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 175 to 179 not moved.]
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 65, line 12, at end insert ("including community consortia for education and training").
The noble Lord said: This amendment contains the first reference to community consortia for education and training. These are the local bodies which have featured prominently in the Education and Training Action Group's report in Wales. It pre-dates the Assembly, and of course the proposal is also featured in the Assembly's Post-16 Education and Training Committee deliberations.
The report of that committee, itself welcomed and approved by the full Assembly on 1st February—as we have heard—endorses the concept of local consortia and urges the Assembly Secretary to produce a framework for their establishment. It is common knowledge that around 15 will be established in Wales. They will comprise local providers, including further education colleges, local authority school sixth forms, private training providers, Welsh medium secondary schools, voluntary organisations engaged in post-16 learning and other partners in adult and higher education.
The report goes on to say that,
"The community consortia should be non statutory".
Yet they can be "charged by the CETW"—the Council for Education and Training in Wales—to prepare proposals for the delivery of quality post-16 education and training provision relevant to the needs of its area in return for public moneys.
I am somewhat mystified as to why such bodies should be non-statutory when they will be in receipt of public funds and will be charged with specific duties by the council. Clearly they will be important bodies and I believe that at least they deserve a mention somewhere in the Bill. If the amendment is carried, it will not in any way inhibit the National Assembly or the council. The council will specify functions and appoint members and, if the community consortia are to receive public moneys, they will of course be subject to the usual constraints.
As I said earlier, perhaps the whole structure of community consortia, regional committees and the national council is something of a facade and the real work will be done under the auspices of the Skills Wales Task Force, another body which does not appear in the Bill. I should be grateful for a little

907
clarification on these points and a statement of how the framework will deliver its objectives. I realise that the amendment itself is imperfect and that the new words might be better placed after "Council" in the preceding line. However, I think that the thrust of the amendment is clear enough. I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has said, Amendment No. 180 would bring local community consortia for education and training within the scope of the CETW's powers in relation to its committees other than regional committees. However, local consortia will not be part of the CETW. They will be voluntary partnerships of education and training providers, employers and others, which will help plan the delivery of post-16 learning in their areas. The distinct components of the consortia will have equal status and will be funded directly by the CETW.
The CETW will be tasked by the National Assembly with deciding the actual size, boundaries and composition of community consortia, but it is the National Assembly's intention that no single interest will dominate. Community consortia partners, including employers and voluntary sector representatives, will together plan the provision for their local areas.
908
The task force will advise on the practical measures which can be taken to ease skills shortages, to improve the extent and quality of learning in the workplace and to ensure that providers of education and training are responsive to the skills needs of employers and individuals. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I am beginning to see rather more clearly how this Bill will work in Wales. We know that the community consortia are already in existence in certain areas, and it is clearly intended that they should multiply. However, as the Minister has explained on more than one occasion, the real responsibility for the implementation of the Bill will rest with the Assembly. I certainly wish it well in that task. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before one o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 10th February 2000 i
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, an unlikely event this afternoon. The Committee will adjourn as soon as tile Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Further duties of local authorities towards children whom they are looking after]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("seventeen") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: First, the Minister will notice from the number of amendments tabled to the Bill that they are very sharply focused. This is not the kind of Bill on which we have adopted any kind of scattergun approach. The amendments all deal with matters about which a number of organisations in the voluntary sector feel most strongly, so there are few probing amendments before the Committee today. I look forward to hearing the Minister's replies to a great number of these issues.
Amendment No. 1 pertains to eligibility and the duties of local authorities towards children whom they are looking after. All eligible children are in fact looked after children for the purposes of the Children Act. Consequently, all the provisions of the Children Act apply to those children in any event—provisions such as the duty to promote the child's welfare, consult
CWH2
with him or her, make plans and review those plans in accordance with the Arrangements for Placement Regulations 1991 and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 and to maintain and provide accommodation. Any child who is excluded from the definition of "eligible" child will be covered by the provisions of both the Act and the relevant regulations.
There is a requirement under paragraph 8, schedule
2 of the Children's Cases Regulations and in Section
24(1), which is now reproduced in paragraph 19A, to
plan for a time when the child is no longer looked after
by the authority. The purpose of 19B is to strengthen
the duty of the local authority to plan for children
when they leave public care and to do so by means of
an assessment and the provision of a personal adviser.
Those in this sector who have spoken to us believe it
to be wrong in principle to exclude any "looked after"
child from a duty to plan properly and effectively for
his or her aftercare needs.
In this amendment, we propose that all 16 and 17 year-old looked after children should have a pathway plan, which is a development of the usual review process under the Children's Cases Regulations. The regulations should be amended to reflect this. We would also suggest that these regulations should specify that the pathway planning process starts at an earlier age—say 14 or 15—so that it does not interfere with study for GCSEs and the plan is in place by the age of 16. The Minister will, however, appreciate that there is no amendment to that effect.
Paragraph 19B(7) and (8) state that regulations may be made in relation to assessments. We propose that these should be mandatory and that the existing Children's Cases Regulations should be amended to incorporate these new regulations. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I should like to lend my strong support to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It seems to me that the Government have a duty to justify the 13 week criterion that they intend to prescribe under this subsection. I question whether eligibility should be defined in the way that the Bill defines it. Nobody would argue that care leavers, who have had a relatively brief contact with social services departments and whose future obviously lies with their own families, should be included in the support arrangements.
I am entirely behind the Bill's general direction, which is to pick up the principles of the Children Act and current family support policies, which reflect the aim that, wherever possible, children should be brought up in their own families. On the other hand, how is it possible to say that a 16 or 17-year old child who happens to have been in care for 13 weeks should be eligible automatically for support? Why 13 weeks? Some would argue that this is too short a period, because many family crises take at least three months to resolve and it is surely not desirable in those circumstances to encourage parents to believe that they are no longer responsible for the child's future.

CWH3
By contrast, there may well be cases where 13 weeks is too long a period. For example, a young person may have been badly abused at home and is, as a result, particularly vulnerable. The chances of that youngster returning to his or her family may be nil in those circumstances. Is it right that we should deny that child the support that the Bill envisages?
I suspect the Minister will say that no cut-off point can be perfect and he may say that the Bill must strike some kind of balance. I am not sure that that approach looks at the issue in the way that it should be considered; namely, from the point of view of the needs of the child. Rather than have an automatic cut-off point which determines eligibility, yes or no, is not the right procedure to give every child in care an entitlement to a needs assessment and a pathway plan, and only on the outcome of that assessment determine his or her eligibility for a personal adviser? In whatever form, some flexibility needs to be built into the system if deserving cases are not to slip through the net.
I ask the Minister to explain the basis of the 13 week requirement when, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, already under the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 there is a duty to carry out a review in any case. Can he say what additional burden is to be imposed upon a local authority to widen the scope of the review to consider a pathway plan? I cannot see the point of having two sets of arrangements, parts of which are in conflict with one another by virtue of the 13 week requirement.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is a strong case for giving younger children an entitlement to a pathway plan, not just children who become eligible when they reach 16. One has only to think of a child who leaves care unexpectedly at 16 and who does not have a pathway plan prepared. It would be much better to say that the duty to prepare a pathway plan should be imposed upon a local authority as soon as the child reaches the age of, say, 15.
I should like to raise a related point. New Section 24(1) refers to,
"'a person qualifying for advice and assistance—
as being a person who "at any time"—and I stress the words "at any time"—was looked after. In other words, there is no requirement in new Section 24(1) for a prescribed period. The Bill therefore opens up the possibility that someone could qualify for advice and assistance who was not eligible or relevant in accordance with the definitions. The same comments apply if we look at new Section 24(3). Can the Minister explain why these parts of the Bill are apparently in conflict with the principle of eligibility as set out in Clause 1?
Lord Laming: I shall not attempt to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have said, because in my view they have put the case so overwhelmingly convincingly about why we have to have this restriction. The Children Act provides for all children to be looked after. I have seen
CWH4
the regulations that have been referred to and support the amendment. However, my only concern is that it denies the reality of the circumstances in which children become looked after—at whatever age. To place restrictions of this kind will potentially deny some vulnerable young people the right to have a pathway plan, or at least, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, to have an assessment of needs made and to determine why there should not be a pathway plan at this time. I hope very much that the Minister will accept the force of the argument for having this restriction which does not exist in the Children Act.
Earl Russell: In supporting my noble friend's amendment, I should perhaps declare a non-pecuniary interest. In my capacity as a university teacher, I am at present haunted by the problems of finding sufficient financial support for students estranged from their families. That is, of course, a much larger category than the category of care leavers.
Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I would say that we can safely assume that the vast majority of care leavers, ex officio, belong to that category. Whether I wear my political or my academic hat, I am committed to the ideal that educational opportunities should be open to all on the grounds of merit only—not of parental income. In the case of care leavers, I do not see how we can possibly say that.
It is pretty well impossible for any students now to get through university on the amount of money officially provided for them. The availability of work during the vacations varies according to economic circumstances and geographical location. I remember, for example, one person explaining to me with some eloquence the difficulty of obtaining sufficiently well paid winter employment in Bournemouth, which is not an economy geared to that sort of thing—so it is no good simply saying that they can work. Quite apart from any academic effect, some of them can, and some of them simply lack the economic opportunity. Unless something along the lines of this amendment is done, we are accepting a situation in which care leavers simply are unable to get a proper further or higher education.
I am apprised here of one particular case of someone in further education and doing rather well, from whom the local authority cut off all financial support, instantly, on the day she reached 18. That was the breaking off of what might have been a quite promising career and I am sure stories like that can be repeated over and over again.
Of course, even for those who are not seeking further and higher education—and I think they should have an equal right to it—those who simply go out looking for rented accommodation on the market are faced with restrictions on housing benefit involved in single room rent. According to the DETR study on that, a very large number of those simply cannot meet the shortfall by which their rent exceeds their housing benefit. A great many rely on family and friends to get them through, but of course, again, care leavers

CWH5
cannot. Unless something along the lines of this amendment is accepted we are again condemning care leavers to be second class citizens, by definition socially excluded, in front of whom all doors close as they approach them, rather like one of the automatic doors in shops which begin to malfunction. I hope that the Government will be willing to take this into account and, if so, I should be extremely grateful.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that these are sharp amendments and I have no doubt we will have a sharp debate. This is a very important discussion. Noble Lords have raised a number of questions in relation to the eligibility criteria and have expressed concerns as to whether that which eventually is prescribed will be sufficiently flexible to meet all circumstances. I understand what noble Lords are getting at. I hope to assure the Committee, first, that in prescribing the eligibility arrangements we will continue to engage in widespread consultation and, secondly, because we have the regulatory provision in new paragraph 19B(2)(b) to make changes if in practice we find that people are slipping through the net.
The new arrangements for young people both in and leaving care are designed to provide proper support for those to whom the Government have a special responsibility as corporate parent. Young people who are brought up in care very often are liable to be less mature than their peers. If they have no family to fall back on it is important that the local authority acts towards them as a responsible parent. This is why the new arrangements are being brought in through this Bill and why we propose that local authorities should be responsible for the support, maintenance and accommodation of these young people.
The other side of the coin is that where young people have responsible families of their own the state should not interfere without good cause. Many young people are in care for only a very short period of time. They may be placed in care for a few weeks during a crisis at home—for example, if a parent has to go into hospital—and will return to the family when the crisis is past. These young people look to their families for support and it is right that they should do so. We do not feel that it would be in their best interests to bring them within these new arrangements if not practical to do so.
The power in sub-paragraph (2)(b) of new paragraph 19B, which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to remove, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that the new arrangements apply to those children who need this help and do not inappropriately sweep up others who have families to take care of them. One important advantage of dealing with this issue through regulations rather than on the face of the Bill is that this provides greater flexibility. If we find that local authorities are taking action to avoid
CWH6
their new responsibilities under this Bill we will not hesitate to redraft the regulations to ensure that those children who need support receive it.
I ought to remind noble Lords that one aspect of these new arrangements is that it takes children out of the benefit system after they leave care. This has been done for a particular purpose, in tandem with the new duties on local authorities to support them. However, we do not believe it appropriate to place the duty on local authorities to support children who may only have come into contact with them in passing. The Children Act makes other provision for young people aged 16 and over who have spent some time in care. Local authorities can provide assistance to all care leavers up to the age of 21, or in some cases 24, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested. There will still be a safety net for children who need extra help whether or not they have spent the qualifying period in care.
The Department of Health sets target dates for the maximum time that the full assessment process should take for all young people who have been referred to social services and that process alone would bring a young person within a matter of two or three weeks of the three months for which we propose to regulate.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the proposal that young people should have spent a minimum of three months in care to be eligible for assistance. That was set out in the consultation paper Me, Survive Out There? In response to this paper, most voluntary organisations and local government bodies supported the proposal and recognised the need for clearly defined criteria. There were calls for the prescribed period of eligibility to be less than three months or, as some noble Lords have suggested, for it to disappear altogether. There are also calls for it to be set at six months. The noble Earl suggested that I use the word "balance". We believe that, on balance, this is about right.
We also believe that it would not be sensible to include in the new arrangements those young people who may have been looked after as infants and happen to return briefly to care after they are 16. That is why our regulations will set the age at which periods in care will count towards eligibility. Our thinking to date is that that age might be 14, but we shall take advice when we consult on the regulations.
I recognise that further discussions and debates are needed on the most appropriate period in care and the starting age to be prescribed, and I am grateful to noble Lords for raising that issue. I can certainly assure noble Lords that our intention is to consult widely to make sure that this is right. I reiterate that the power that we have to prescribe in new paragraph 19B(2)(b) will allow us to respond to unanticipated problems in the future.
Earl Howe: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, decides what to do about the amendment, can the Minister, after that very helpful reply, throw any light on the point that I raised at the end of my remarks in relation to new Section 24(1) and new Section 24A

CWH7
which appear to conflict with the eligibility criteria as set out in Clause 1 because they do not mention a prescribed period? I do not understand why that is.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: New Section 24 gives general powers regarding aftercare for a whole range of children including children in accommodation; for example by health authorities. We have intentionally retained that in the Bill. In a sense that covers children other than those leaving care, and it is important to retain that ability to provide support for such children.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that considered reply. I am clear that he understands the concerns of those who want to see a greater degree of flexibility. After all, we have received briefings from those organisations which wish to see a higher threshold of six months, which would govern Clause 1, or new paragraph 19B of the Children Act. I accept his argument that the state should not interfere without good reason and that there will still be some kind of safety net under new Section 24. However, I believe that there is still a valid search for a greater degree of flexibility in this respect. There is a strong feeling among those organisations that have spoken to us that 13 weeks or three months is a somewhat arbitrary time, and our search will continue until Report stage to try to find a formula that will find favour.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Lord for his constructive comments. Clearly we all want this to work. We do not want people slipping through the net who ought to receive the support that the Bill intends to provide. I should be happy to discuss those concerns with him and any other noble Lords who wish to do so between the Committee and Report stage to see whether we can deal with them. I believe that we have to go in for some prescribed definition and inevitably that may create a boundary so that there may be some grey areas. But the longstop is our ability to change the regulations if we come across that in the future. I should be happy to discuss that further.
Lord Clement-Jones: I appreciate the Minister's points about safety nets, the Minister's power to insert additional categories, and so on.
My noble friend Lord Russell has suggested the possibility of a different form of eligibility which could apply to the period for when no financial assistance has been received from parents. One might be able to mix in that sort of definition. However, rather than think aloud, it would be best for me to withdraw the amendment, although there is a strong possibility that we shall wish to bring back at Report stage an amendment to reflect the concerns that have been raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: I should apologise to the Minister. I am sure this will put his own briefings completely out of kilter, which is certainly not my
CWH8
intention, but it is always good to see how quick the Minister is on his feet in these circumstances! This amendment should have been to page 2, line 33. It was not intended as part of the eligibility discussion on Clause 1. It was intended to form part of the discussion about the additional functions of local authorities, and therefore should have formed paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of new Section 23A inserted by Clause 2.
At short notice, I realise it is extremely unfair of me to expect any kind of sensible reply in the circumstances since Clauses 1 and 2 have different purposes. However, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that disabled young people living away from home or estranged from their families are entitled to access to a personal adviser. There are approximately 360,000 disabled children living in the UK of whom approaching 47,000 live away from home. Local authority statistics for 1998 also indicate that up to a quarter of the looked-after population are disabled children and young people. A significant number of young people would not be eligible to receive services under the Bill as it stands at present.
These disabled and young people are placed in residential schools either on full-time placements or receive Social Services Department respite or health authority care for periods during school holidays, but are not officially looked after. They will spend most of their childhood living away from their families and are unlikely to return to live with their families when they finish their education.
The current transition planning requirements address the transfer from education and children's services to adult services, but there is no requirement for these young people to have an adviser or advocate, and decisions about their future are often made without reference to their wishes and feelings. Frequently, assumptions are made about their abilities and they are not given the opportunity to consider independent living or access to mainstream education and employment services. This is a group of marginalised and excluded young people who are denied rights available to others.
We would argue that this group also require intensive support and guidance as young adults through the transition period and that they are to all intents and purposes estranged from their families in the same way as young people leaving the looked-after system. Young disabled people may easily fall through the net of current transition services. Lack of choices in planning for adulthood can result in failure to achieve any satisfactory transition at all.
Approximately 25 per cent of the disabled people who are formally looked after also need to be considered in the provisions of the Bill. For this reason, Barnardo's among others would wish strongly also to support amendments which would extend the duty to age 21. However, that is for another occasion. In the meantime, I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I add my support to these amendments even though they have been misplaced in the

CWH9
Marshalled List, for which I am sorry. I believe I know what the Minister will say; that the people who are the subject of this amendment are not the people whom the Bill addresses. If that is what he is about to say, I invite him to reconsider the scope of the Bill. Disabled children and young people who live away from home, in some cases from birth right up to the age of 18, are as much estranged from their families as are children who are looked after by foster parents or in a local authority children's home. They are as much in need of a pathway plan and the services of a personal adviser as those other children, and the duty owed to those children by the state is in no way different from the duty owed to children who, in the ordinary sense, are in the care system.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, these are children who are marginalised by society. All too often, decisions are taken about their future which are not based on any kind of formal assessment of their aptitude or their wishes. They are simply transferred, when they reach official adulthood, from one residential environment to another on the basis, quite often, of sweeping assumptions. What a difference it would make to those young people to have someone assigned to them who could defend their corner and argue for a meaningful choice in where they live and what they do. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the thrust of these amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a specific question about what I consider to be the most vulnerable group of young people of all. I refer to those who go from care, get into trouble and go into the young offender system. They then come out again and go back into care. What is their position when they are in a young offender institution? This group aged from 15 to 21 are the most vulnerable, many of them having been discarded by their families or being classed as homeless.
Lord Laming: I support this amendment and, in doing so, I ask the Minister to consider why a young person needs to be in a residential setting for 52 weeks of the year. Many young people with special needs of one kind or another go to educational establishments but go home during the holiday periods. They do so because they have a home to go to and they have family connections. Many of these young people who are covered by this amendment do not have a home and, when it comes to holiday periods, they are found another residential establishment in order that they may be accommodated during that period. These young people are very much at risk and, were it not for the fact that they are in a residential school, they would need to be looked after by the local authority. In other words, it is only because they are accommodated elsewhere that they are not being looked after by the local authority.
This amendment does not say that all young people who are accommodated in residential schools should be covered by the Bill, but that the Bill should provide for those young people who are placed in a residential school or some similar place for 52 weeks of the year. Just imagine! These young people have no continuing
CWH10
links with members of their family which enables them to be cared for outside a residential setting. As the noble Earl said, when these young people leave school, they will often be transferred to another residential establishment of some kind or another. If there are young people who need to have a proper assessment of need, a proper pathway plan, and the arrangements which this admirable Bill provides for, it is these young people. I very much hope that the Minister will take the force of the argument. This is a group of young people for whom we ought all to have a great deal of concern.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This, again, has been a very important debate and I certainly share the concerns expressed by noble Lords for the groups of children who are placed in these circumstances. When one goes to the heart of this question—because those children will not be defined as children leaving care—the issue is what is the right route to ensure that they receive support in the future. It is my contention that because the Bill is based and solely focused on the definition of children leaving care, it is in fact difficult to develop the concept of the Bill in the way suggested.
I recognise that the challenge is then to ensure that children in that position get the support they require. The noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, particularly spoke about the plight of disabled children and the difficulties that they can face moving from children's to adult services. I accept that more needs to be done for them. Many of them certainly have very special needs and it is important that these should be properly identified and properly addressed. The question is whether the amendment is the best or the right route to improve the experience of this group of young people.
The Bill is about improving the life chances of young people who have been looked after by local authorities. The new powers and duties for local authorities are designed to bring that about. Where, for instance, disabled young people have been looked after, those powers and duties will, of course, apply to them. We must make a distinction between those defined as being looked after and those who are not. Where a child is provided with accommodation by either the NHS or the local education authority for more than three months consecutively, the local authority must be notified. At that point, the social services department must take all reasonable, practical steps to enable it to decide whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while the child stays in the accommodation. It also has to decide whether it is necessary to exercise any of its functions under the Children Act. The placing authority must also notify the social services department when it is proposed to end the child's placement. The current Section 24 duties and powers to provide aftercare support apply to these children if they reach the age of 16 and have been accommodated for at least three months. These provisions ought to ensure that those children who need the full protection of being looked after do in fact receive that support.
The issue then arises where young people have not been brought within the care system in the first place and we do not think it will be helpful to take

CWH11
responsibility for them away from their families when they reach a certain age and give it to local authorities. It is important to recognise that the fact that parents decide to send their child to a residential school does not mean that they have abrogated responsibility for that child. I come back to the point I made at the start. It is absolutely right to suggest that such children—and those in the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, particularly referred—need more and better support than is available at present. It is here that the Government have set up a number of different mechanisms, which means that we will be able to deliver that support in the future.
First, there is Quality Protects, which is a powerful driver for raising the standards of care for disabled young people. Quality Protects has now been running for a year and has made appreciable improvements to the standard of care offered by local authorities. The next phase of the programme will put the spotlight on disability. All health authorities have also been required to sign up to this year's Quality Protects management action plans. Specifically for young people, just last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced the new ConneXion service, which will provide personal advisers for all young people aged 13 to 19. These personal advisers will play very much the same role as the young persons' advisers which this Bill prescribes for care leavers. We will consider that particular question further, but that would mean the children who have been discussed in this debate would be in line for better support and more well co-ordinated services than they receive at present.
In relation particularly to disabled children's services, our objectives are that those services apply equally to disabled and non-disabled children. For disabled children in particular the objective is to ensure that children with specific social needs arising out of disability or health conditions are living in families or other appropriate settings in the community where their assessed needs are adequately met and reviewed.
Specifically, I might say to the Committee that my officials, in consultation with other departments, are developing the learning disability strategy. That strategy will not be launched until later this year, but in preparation we have been consulting user groups and voluntary organisations. One of the priorities identified by this process is the transition from school for learning disabled young people.
In conclusion, I hope that I have indicated that I accept and understand the points that noble Lords have raised. I do not believe that the Bill is the right mechanism for dealing with those children who are not defined as having been in care or leaving care, but I believe that there is a real challenge for us to ensure that those children receive the right kind of support. We will talk later about the much more stringent monitoring of performance of local authority social services departments which is being put into place, and I believe that that, ultimately, is the right approach.
CWH12
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, as we discussed at Second Reading, that it is intended that these provisions will apply to young offenders.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Has the Minister referred to the Bill on special needs children that the DfEE said it will be bringing in? Will the children who are disabled, referred to in this amendment, be covered by that Bill? We do not yet know what will be in that Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I may need to reflect on that further. In relation to the learning disabled children I was talking about a strategy which is being developed, rather than legislation. The reference to the new ConneXion service was an announcement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which is relevant to the Learning and Skills Bill that we will be debating very shortly in the main Chamber.
Lord Laming: I thank the Minister for that thoughtful and helpful response. From my point of view I absolutely agree that parents who place their children in residential schools should in no way be seen to abdicate their responsibilities for those children. It would be very helpful if the Minister were willing to reflect specifically on the needs of those children who have no continued contact with their families and who spend 52 weeks a year in residential establishments. This is the group of young people for whom we should have particular concern. Other kinds of services to which the Minister has referred no doubt will support parents who have a continuing contact with their children, who have the best intentions for their children, and who are very concerned to care for and protect their children, but there is a group of children who have no continuing contact with their parents and whose only life experience is in a residential establishment of one kind or another. I hope the Minister will be willing to give some thought, within the context of a very thoughtful reply, to that particular group of young people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am obviously happy to give that assurance, because it is very important that the needs of this particular group of children are considered. I still think there is a debate to be had as to the best way forward. There are real difficulties in relation to those children as against the basic core of the Bill, which relates to looked-after children. I recognise, however, that whichever route one takes, one needs to ensure that those children receive the right advice and support. I would be very happy to reflect further and discuss it with the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down again, perhaps I may ask him about the position of children, say, from a Barnardo's home. Are they classed as children in care, or are they in a private home? How are they classed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That would depend on whether they are defined as looked after. Everything in this Bill, in relation to the main provisions, goes back to that definition.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I want to get this clear, if it is a very grey area. I would have thought that all children in a Barnardo's home would have been looked after—it does not matter how they are looked after, because they are away from their home.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I, too, thank the Minister for his very careful reply to this amendment. As he says, the challenge is there to ensure that these children are properly looked after. I appreciate his undertaking to look at this issue as regards those in residential schools for that kind of period. After all, the amendment does not seek to include children who have a reasonable amount of contact with their parents—children who are 52 weeks in a residential school have very little contact with their parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, we have no intention of trying to take responsibility away from parents. However, children who are in these residential schools for 52 weeks will have very limited contact with their parents.
The Minister took us very carefully through the Quality Protects programme and talked about the next phase being in the disability area and the fact that personal advisers will be part of that provision. However, the difference will be that the children who are in residential schools for 52 weeks will not have statutory rights. They will have rights under the Quality Protects programme but that is not the same as having the statutory rights enshrined in the Bill. Therefore, I appreciate the Minister's undertaking to look at that issue. This class of children is not huge but it is very important. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call the next amendment, perhaps I may suggest that when Members of the Committee refer to "Clause 24" of an eight-clause Bill, they should make it clear that they are referring to the 1989 Act? I am thinking more about the readers of Hansard than about Members of the Committee, all of whom realise what they are saying.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert ("in accordance with regulations made under section 26").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 3A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4A and 11A. Amendments Nos. 3A and 4A have the aim of ensuring that there is a provision for review of pathway planning to take place in accordance with existing Children Act regulations regarding the review of plans for looked-after children.
These amendments are from the Children's Consortium. The Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 provide details about how the matter is to be considered on review; the frequency of review; and the people to be involved in the process. Guidance amplifies the process, and the looking after children materials, which are excellent and very widely used, are also very well established and proven.
There is no need, surely, to reinvent the wheel in this case but merely to amend what already exists. If the amendment to paragraph 19B(5) is accepted, this sub-paragraph is unnecessary and wrong. But why should there be a separate review process? Is it not part of the planning process that all matters are considered together?
Amendment No. 11A is closely connected with this. There is no requirement for a regulation to be drafted in relation to reviewing the pathway plan. Pathway planning should be seen as a process particularly for this group of vulnerable young people. Therefore, regulations about review are as important as those about initial planning. I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to whether the review of the pathway planning process is as important as the process for setting it up in the first place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to talk a little about the question of pathway plans which are crucial to the success of what we are aiming to achieve. It is right to be concerned that the reviews of pathway plans are governed by proper procedures set out in regulations. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured when I say that the Bill already contains a specific power to make regulations about the review of pathway plans in Clause 3 at new Section 23E(2):
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about pathway plans and their review".
We shall be making tailor-made regulation in readiness for the implementation of the Bill. Because of that, there is no need to apply other sets of regulations about the review of children's cases or the assessment to pathway plans.
There is another reason against using the mechanism for the review of cases of children who are still looked after, as Amendment No. 3A provides. The idea has always been to give children and young people as seamless a transition from care to leaving care as possible. That is why they will all have pathway plans which will continue, whether they are in care or not. They will all have personal advisers.
If the plan were to be reviewed, as this group of amendments suggests, children who were still looked after might be subject to one kind of review and children and young people who had left care would be subject to another kind. We want to avoid creating such unnecessary distinctions.
As to the content of the regulations, in the consultation paper Me, Survive Out There? the Government propose reviews at six-monthly intervals, or more frequently if necessary, because pathway plans need to be flexible to accommodate the changes

CWH15
in young people's lives. The review would involve the personal adviser and other interested parties. The details have yet to be settled, but drafts will be published for consultation.
It is intended that the consultations over the regulations should be open because it is clearly important that we get them right. We want to discuss them with the people representing children's interests who will have to operate them in order to ensure that we have got them right.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: This is an important issue in an important Bill. When will it come into operation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The intention is that it will come into operation in April 2001, which is not long away. Noble Lords may ask whether local authorities will be prepared for it. Because it has been trailed in advance, we shall make it clear to local authorities that we expect them to have their preparations ready so that it can be up and running on 1st April 2001. Our intention with regard to regulations is to consult over the summer period.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful and full reply, which I shall take away and reflect upon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—("( ) The local authority shall ensure that any person charged with carrying out the duties mentioned in this section has received appropriate training in child development.").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. I tabled these amendments, because, amidst all the worthy aspirations embodied in the Bill, we must on no account forget that the Bill depends on trained people to make it all work. Untrained social workers or personal advisers, who lack a proper understanding of how children and young people behave and react, are the last individuals we should allow to undertake the responsibilities outlined in Clause 1. Child development is not a subject taught on social work courses but without that primary knowledge it must be well nigh impossible for a social worker to fulfil statutory responsibilities under the Children Act. For example, Section 31(10) of the Children Act states:
"Where the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the child's health or development, his health or development shall be compared with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child".
How would any of us fare if we were let loose as a social worker for a child in care and asked to assess the child's health or development in the context of that clause? If a social worker lacks the detailed knowledge of the stages of development and the types of behaviour that a child can display in a variety of situations, especially unhappy situations, it is not surprising if early signals of abuse are missed, as they may well have been missed in a number of tragic cases.
CWH16
Specialist courses include a module covering the study of child development. However, it is essential that every social worker who claims to be qualified to assess a child in care, prepare a pathway plan for him or act as his personal adviser, should have a working knowledge of child development. It is a basic tool for promoting the wellbeing of all children in care or at risk. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Had we had the opportunity to discuss it, I might have tried to persuade the noble Earl to add a working knowledge of the legislation also, because, I regret to say, specialist workers in this field are not even conversant with the legislation and all that goes with it in terms of good practice, guidance and standards. The main thrust of the amendment is to ensure that the objectives of the Bill, which are laudable, are achieved. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: In supporting the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there are plans to update the training of the social workers to make them well-equipped for this new legislation. What training will the mentors—the supporters or the advisers of the young people—receive?
5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My noble friend refers to advisers. There are two points here. The first is the general point about training and preparation for the people involved in the introduction of this legislation. That applies both to social workers, who will probably take a primary role in relation to assessments, and to the young persons' advisers who have a crucial role to ensure that the measure works and that young people receive the support they need. The second issue relates specifically to child development but it is important to reflect on the arrangements for training, and so on.
Perhaps I may refer particularly to young person's advisers. I believe that they have a crucial role to play in ensuring the success of the new arrangements. The consultation paper, Me, Survive Out There?, made it clear that this would be a demanding role. The young people's advisers will need to provide continuity of relationships with young people, and those relationships may often be characterised by disruption. They will need to be accessible at all times of the day and at other times in the event of crisis. They will need to have the ability to liaise with a wide range of other agencies and they will need the trust of the young people who they seek to help. They will need a very high level of knowledge and skill, which is why the issue of training is so important.
Many young people's advisers—especially in the early years of the new arrangements—will be recruited from those already working with young people in and leaving care. They might include members of current leaving care teams, and it is worth making the point that, although the record of local government generally in this area has been disappointing, there are

CWH17
some local authorities which have done first-rate work, and that much of what is contained in the Bill is based on good practice in those local authorities.
Young people's advisers could be social workers, residential care staff, voluntary sector workers and, in some cases, foster carers. Many of these people will have a professional qualification or some other form of training, or be qualified in part by their experience in dealing with young people.
However, all young people's advisers will need to be trained in the provisions of the new legislation, and most—especially those with little previous experience in dealing with young people—will need a broader and more ambitious training programme to ensure they have the necessary skills to carry out this crucial new role effectively. We are committed to ensuring that all individuals who become young people's advisers are fully and properly trained and to securing the necessary resources to make this happen.
The issue of training for people concerned must also be considered in the context of the development of the general social care council which we are currently debating in the Care Standards Bill. This new body will set standards of conduct and practice for the whole million-strong social care workforce and is due to be established in April 2001. In time, we expect that those charged with responsibility for successfully implementing the provisions of the Bill will fall under the new body's powers.
I now turn to the question of child development. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised an interesting point. I take this to be a requirement for all those involved in assessing and reviewing young people's progress. Last year the Department of Health issued a consultation paper on a framework for assessing children in need and their families. The paper made it clear that the framework is based on a requirement to gain a thorough understanding of the developmental needs of children. We hope to issue the assessment framework as statutory guidance very shortly and it will make clear that the assessment and pathway planning for care leavers should accord with the framework. At the same time, we shall be issuing practice guidance and a training pack to assist the introduction and implementation of the new framework.
I accept that there has been some criticism that child development has not been adequately covered in social work training courses. Of course, the development of the general social care council and other initiatives will allow us to review that issue.
I conclude by saying that I have sympathy with the noble Earl. I am not at all convinced that placing that requirement on the face of the Bill is the right approach, but I hope I have convinced the Committee that we are committed to ensuring that the people who have to carry out these responsible jobs are properly trained. Of course, that will be the responsibility of individual local authorities. I want also to assure the Committee that the much stronger performance management and framework that we are now placing in local authority social services departments will
CWH18
enable us to monitor local authorities' responsibilities in this area, and to draw to their attention problems if we encounter them.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: Perhaps I may ask a question. Social workers seem to go on leave and on courses a lot. If there is a young person who is very much at risk and needs his young person's adviser. will there be a substitute?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness raises an important question, and clearly we shall need to ensure that there are arrangements so that it the young person's adviser is on holiday or on a training course, the young person will have access to advice. It is very important that at a time of crisis, for instance, there is always someone available. Obviously these are matters that local authorities will need themselves to resolve, but it is an important point.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has said enough about the importance of this amendment and need not add any more; but of course training has costs. When the noble Lord was on his feet I started looking at the Explanatory Notes. The section entitled "Effects of the Bill on Public Sector Finances" says:
"It is intended to implement the Bill by drawing together into a single budget head current expenditure by local authorities
under several different heads. It is a laudable and a sensible ambition. However, I take it that the Minister will agree that this can be, as current terminology, has it, only an "aspiration". There is a large conjectural element in setting out to fulfil what is a perfectly reasonable ambition. I imagine that somebody in the course of preparation of this Bill has given some attention to the question of what happens if these calculations turn out not to be precise? Is there any prospect of any additional help? Is the commitment to doing what the Bill sets out to do a primary commitment, or is the primary commitment to remain within an existing budget?
The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may say how welcome the Minister's words are: that there is an acknowledged need to provide for good understanding of child development. I hope soon to be approaching the Minister with a proposal to develop training at Tavistock for residential care workers specifically in child development, so his words are most welcome as he so clearly understands the issue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl. He is right to point to the financial arrangements. Clearly the last thing we want is a Bill and implementation process which is aspirational but does not deliver for the young people. There would be absolutely no point in going down that path.
I have an extensive speaking note on the issue of budgeting which I would be very pleased to read out. But the point is that work is currently under way to calculate the exact sums of money that will have to be transferred into a ring-fenced budget. That partly comes from the current expenditure by local authorities on relevant young people: it is partly

CWH19
current expenditure on housing benefit, income support and job seeker's allowance for relevant young people; and it is partly the provision that currently exists for the Quality Protects special grant. Our intention is to pull all that together, and we think that that will amount roughly to £250 million in England in the first year. That will be enough money to ensure that the arrangements are able to be put in place and the appropriate support given.
It is always open to local authorities to spend more than the amount of money in the budget, and one would have to say that many local authorities do have a very good record of spending more than the assessment. We shall keep a close eye on this; we want to make it work.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that. Perhaps he will consider amending just one word of his answer. He said that it is "always" open to local authorities to spend more. In the light of capping limits, would it perhaps be wiser to say it is "sometimes" open to local authorities to spend more?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will always stand corrected by the noble Earl. The point I am trying to make is simply that they have flexibility at local level, in addition to the amount that is going to be ringfenced.
Lord Howe: I thank the Minister for that very reassuring reply. I had not, of course, intended that these amendments should feature on the face of the Bill. However, this has been a useful debate and the point I raised has won sympathy from all sides. I take the noble Lord's point entirely. There is good practice out there; some extremely good beacons of excellence, if I may use that term. There are also what might be described as the exact opposite of that—examples that will be addressed by the provisions of the Bill. The Minister was right to point out in particular the measures currently in train under the Care Standards Bill to establish the general social care council.
I welcome the noble Lord's extremely helpful comments about broader and more ambitious training programmes. No doubt this is an issue to which we can return regularly. The need for proper training is never going to go away and we must be vigilant about training standards. However, it is time to move on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4A not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall').
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 10. I recognise that in framing legislation all governments prefer the word "may" to the word "shall". If the Minister had an extensive speaking note to an earlier amendment, he will probably have a well-honed speaking note to this amendment, because this is a matter about which
CWH20
governments generally feel strongly. In case the Minister chooses to remind me, I now confess that, in times past, I have advised Ministers on this approach.
This is a special case, however, for reasons to which the Minister referred in a response to an earlier amendment. He said then that the purpose of the Bill is to improve the "life chances" of young people looked after. It is special because, unless the Bill actually secures that splendid objective, we will all have wasted our time. That objective will not be secured unless it is clear that, where there are important elements in the Bill that have to be achieved, they will be achieved by the use of the word "shall" rather than the use of the word "may", which allows far too much discretion. If the Bill is to secure its purpose, it must be supported by an effective and reliable framework of secondary legislation. It is for that reason that I would urge the Minister to look carefully on this special occasion to the benefits of using the word "shall".
Perhaps I may illustrate my point by encouraging Members of the Committee to look at Amendment No. 10, which seeks to amend subsection(6) of new Section 23B. The regulations here cover matters which are absolutely essential to achieving the objectives of the Bill. For example, who is to be consulted in relation to an assessment is very important because it could include foster parents, or personal advisers, or advocates and the like. The recording of results of the assessment—consideration to which the local authority ought to have regard in carrying out the assessment—is a matter of fundamental importance and not one which should be left to the discretion of the local authority. This is not a matter which a local authority might choose, if it so wishes, to consider in accordance with this Bill. It is a matter where the regulation "shall" be made to achieve these objectives.
I recognise that the Minister is likely to say that, of course, these will be achieved, and that they will be achieved under "may" rather than "shall", but I hope that he will agree that in order to achieve the objectives of this Bill, which is very important, for once it may be right to use the word "shall". I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I know that we often have the customary fencing on the words "may" and "shall" in Committee, and on both Bills in which I have been concerned, the Minister and I have had the same argument. However, I have never heard a case put as persuasively for a change in the wording. I suspect that that illustrates the very long experience that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has had in fencing with Ministers. Therefore, in a sense, he has reversed a number of the arguments that Ministers might well use on these occasions. He has quite an unassailable case. The regulations, in both cases, form the absolute centrepiece of this Bill and without them the Bill would be of no effect. It is therefore important that we include the word "shall", since it is such an essential part of the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The Minister said he wanted to get the bad local authorities to perform well, but the bad ones may wriggle out of their responsibilities if "may" remains in the Bill. There is a big difference between "may" and "shall".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We return to a debate that we have had many times. At heart, it is not really a question of "may" and "shall": at heart, it goes down to the actual performance of local authorities. While noble Lords will not be surprised that I intend to resist the use of the word "shall", I want to reassure them that we are intent on ensuring that local authorities do indeed achieve a high standard in implementing the arrangements set out in the Bill.
First, let me talk briefly about the regulation-making powers which the Bill gives the Secretary of State. Those regulations are very necessary to flesh out and give details to the skeleton which is contained in the primary legislation, to make it real and to ensure that it actually happens when it is implemented by local authorities.
I recognise that there are concerns that local authorities may not be up to the task, but let me say in the first place that we intend that the Bill should come into operation next April. Local authorities are already implementing arrangements in order to be ready and prepared for its operation. There is no question that we will not produce regulations which will enable those things to happen.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that the new wording he suggests would also sit uncomfortably with the wording in the Children Act which it amends, and where the formula "may" appears throughout. It is important to recognise the much stronger performance management arrangements that are now in place in relation to local authority social services departments and the development of performance indicators. These will include indicators on the proportion of care leavers in employment, education and training.
From April this year, the beefed up the Social Services Inspectorate will carry out 30 inspections of childcare services every year, so an authority would expect to receive an inspection once every five years. Part of that inspection process will be looking at the service that those local authorities provide for care leavers. The Quality Protects action plans will include information on improvements in services for care leavers, and social services inspectors will monitor progress against national priorities. If local authorities are found not to be performing, powers of direction are available to the Secretary of State. The Local Government Act 1999 also allows for intervention powers.
Looking at the whole package of measures, including the fact that we are able to performance manage local authorities in a much more effective way now than in the past, the regulations and guidance in themselves will give a very clear steer to local government about how we expect the Act to operate.
CWH22
I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord that we are determined that this should be implemented effectively.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister. I have absolutely no doubt about his determination or the determination of the Government as a whole to achieve the objectives of the Bill. To that extent I go a long way to being reassured. The Minister is right in saying that the Children Act uses the word "may". That is why I moved the amendments. The good authorities who have demonstrated that they go with the spirit of the Act have fulfilled the aspirations of that Act and have set good standards of care for children and young people who are looked after.
However, there are a number of other local authorities which have not demonstrated that they have been good corporate parents to those young people. In my view, they have been able to exploit a weakness in the Children Act from the use of the word "may". It is for that reason that I felt that there was a strong case to make this a special exception to the usual arguments about "may" and "shall" and to leave local authorities, which will have important responsibilities under the Act when it is implemented, in no doubt that they will be required to fulfil the clear guidance that will be sent from the Government in regulation.
I do not want to press the point this afternoon I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful and customary helpful response and there may be an opportunity before we meet again to have a further word about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Arrangements under this paragraph shall be co-ordinated with provisions in the Learning and Skills Act 2000 for personal advisers for young people. "").
The noble Lord said: I first apologise for the lateness of the amendment. I justify that simply on the basis that I was unable to answer a question that was asked of me by someone else and I hope that the Minister will be able to do better than I did.
This is a probing amendment. As noble Lords will know, in the main Chamber there is, or will soon be, a discussion on the Learning and Skills Bill, which allows for personal advisers for young people in special circumstances. That is to be welcomed. The question that was put to me was whether there would be any co-ordination between the two pieces of legislation to ensure that young people who are looked after will either not be overwhelmed by personal advisers—would that were possible—or fall between two stools, which is more likely. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord raises a most important point. I hope that I can reassure him on this. I have referred already to the announcement on 3rd February by the Secretary of State for Education when he launched the new ConneXions

CWH23
service for all young people aged 13 to 19. The aims of this universal service are to improve the life chances of young people, to reduce the number who drop out of school, who leave with no qualifications, or who too often end up as socially excluded, on the streets or in prison, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, reminded us earlier.
The new arrangements for young people in and leaving care aim for the same outcomes. We want young people who are equipped to take their place in society and play a productive and responsible role.
The ConneXions service will provide advisers for all young people who will give more intensive and specialised support as it is required. In many ways, they will play the same role that we envisage for our young person's advisers.
I fully accept the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. We do not want the situation where young people end up with any number of advisers duplicating roles or indeed, as the noble Lord says, falling through the net. We shall make sure that that is not the case. My department and the DfEE officials are working closely together to ensure that we co-ordinate the two services.
We need some flexibility because for many young people, for instance, who fall under the new arrangements, the young person's adviser will also be their ConneXions' adviser. The two services, therefore, work closely together, operating under the same umbrella. There may be some cases, particularly among older children, where the young person's adviser might wish to work in the background because the ConneXions' adviser might have some special skills to offer.
ConneXions is to be piloted from this April, and we have made sure that one of the pilot areas includes a leaving care team which already offers the kind of support which we expect from the young person's adviser. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord. I believe that the ConneXions adviser is a great advance for many young people, but we will ensure that it works well with the young person's advisers.
Lord Laming: I had no doubt that the Minister would be more persuasive than I could ever attempt to be on this matter. I found his reply extremely helpful and reassuring. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Additional Junctions of local authorities in respect of certain children]:
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 6B:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In section 20 (provision of accommodation for children: general) at the end insert—
"(12) A local authority shall continue to provide accommodation for any child until he is 18 unless he can demonstrate that he is ready and willing to cease being looked after by them. "").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 6C. The amendments stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The purpose of the amendments is to create a presumption that children remain looked after until they are 18 unless they are ready and willing to leave public care.
The arrangements in the Bill make considerable improvements to young people who are leaving or have already left public care. However, the Bill does not explicitly state the Government's intention that children should not be prematurely discharged from public care before they are 18. The amendments reflect the wording adopted in Me, Survive Out there?, the Government's consultation document.
Public care is still the best situation for a young person to be in because it has the broadest duties towards these young people. This is particularly significant in relation to financial support. For children on care orders, the local authority is the corporate parent with parental responsibility. This should continue in all cases until the child is 18 as in a natural family. Members of the Committee will be aware that the average age for children leaving home is 22.
The greatest difficulties in this area arise in relation to those children who are "accommodated". Some children have been accommodated for many years and have no family networks on which to rely. The present law is unclear in this area. The law says that parents cannot discharge their children from accommodation after their 16th birthday. It does not say that these children should be discharged from accommodation when they are 16 but that is the way in which the Children Act is increasingly interpreted by local authorities, usually resource-led because at 16 children can presently claim benefits. The Bill, of course, intends to change that aspect.
Perhaps I may give the example of John, who is just 16 years old. He has been accommodated for several months. His foster placement broke down. The social worker said to John that he had discharged himself because he was no longer living with his carers. He was told that he would have to go to supported lodgings and claim benefits. John felt that he was not mature enough to cope with this arrangement and that he needed more support. With help from his advocate the local authority agreed that he remained accommodated and he was placed with new foster carers.
The new arrangements in the Bill should serve as a disincentive for this sort of practice but there is no guarantee that accommodated children will no longer feel pressurised to move out of public care. It may be that the financial and housing arrangements for those who have left care are less favourable than the broader duties of local authorities for looked-after children. This is something about which we do not yet know the details but about which there are grave concerns on the part of young people. These amendments make

CWH25
explicit the Government's intentions to improve the situation for 16 and 17-year olds. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has made the case effectively. There is, and has been, a great problem with children leaving care prematurely and, even though they are fully entitled to do so at 16, the number leaving care at that age has been rising. This amendment is designed to rectify that and to try to produce some mechanism which will make sure that there is some incentive for them not to leave care at too early an age. We hope that one of the products of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be to ensure that young people do not leave care as early as they have before. I, therefore, support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It would be good if there were a half-way house system so that children in residential care, when they reached the age of, say, 16, could go into a half-way house where they were more independent and they could be gently weaned into society while still giving them some support.
Earl Howe: I support the amendments. As the noble Earl said, the provisions of the Bill may well serve as a disincentive, worthy as they are, prematurely to discharge young people from accommodation. As I understand it, the new status for such children is not the same as the looked-after status in law. Local authorities do not have parental responsibility for accommodated children and, in theory, planning should take place in partnership with their parents. However, in practice for a number of accommodated children the care authority represents the legal parent.
There are a number of reasons why it is preferable for young people to remain looked after as opposed to transferring to the new system. One is that not all looked-after children will qualify as relevant children. Those who do not will be eligible only for the equivalent of the present limited aftercare support. That means that they will not automatically be provided with financial or housing support. Another reason is the duty to provide maintenance and accommodation to these children is weaker than if they continued to be looked after. A third reason is that there are certain additional duties of local authorities to looked-after children which have not been reproduced under new Section 23B(8) of the Children Act; such as the requirements on local authorities to place children near to their homes, with siblings, with extended family members, and friends. For all these reasons I warmly support the amendments of the noble Earl.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand and appreciate the intent of these proposed amendments because we all share a concern about the way in which too many young people have been obliged to leave care ill-prepared for living independently. As we discussed at Second Reading, the consequences are well known in terms of these young people's vulnerability to homelessness, unemployment and other difficulties.
CWH26
Young people themselves have spoken, often eloquently, about the way in which they did not feel ready to leave care, as the noble Earl suggested. However, the whole thrust of this Bill is to end the practice of turning young people out of care at too early an age and without adequate preparation for a step which many of their contemporaries living at home do not take until they are in their early twenties—indeed, these days sometimes later than that.
We anticipate that as an outcome of the provisions of this Bill many more young people will remain in care longer, and certainly beyond the age of 16 which is when so many are currently obliged to leave.
Besides, the neediest young people will in any case be under a care order which will not expire until they reach 18, unless it is discharged by a court. We are talking here about those who are accommodated voluntarily.
Assessing the optimum time when a young person should leave care is a crucial matter, but it must allow for some choice on the part of the young person, recognising that they cannot be forced to remain in care if they are accommodated on a voluntary basis. That is an important decision which has to be taken as part of the assessment and pathway planning process in which the young person will be closely engaged with the young person's adviser and other significant people such as their foster or other carers and their family if appropriate. Both the young person's readiness and willingness to leave will be at the heart of the decision making process, which we want to be conducted with the greatest sensitivity possible to the young person's needs. As I have indicated earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, these aspects will be covered in detail in the guidance to be issued to local authorities.
There will, of course, be a few—a very few, we hope—who will be determined to leave before they are ready to do so despite the best efforts of all concerned to point out to them that it is not in their best interests. As I suspect many of us know, not all adolescents are prepared to listen to advice, no matter how well meaning. Indeed, some young people may feel that they have compelling reasons to leave; regrettably, possibly based on their experience of care. There is a real problem here in insisting that a child who is voluntarily accommodated remains in care against his wishes and where to do so might make a bad situation worse.
Under the new arrangements, however, even those young people do not step into the streets and disappear. Until they are 18 their responsible authority will be under a duty to support and accommodate them wherever they choose to live in the country. Their young person's adviser will be in touch with them and they will still have a pathway plan, which will be regularly reviewed and updated.
This is an interesting debate, but at the heart of this Bill is the determination to provide the right support for all young people who have been in care. That includes the recognition that while each will have

CWH27
different abilities and requirements which must be met in different ways, all of them need the security of having someone responsible for their welfare. It is my contention that the duties on the responsible authority are designed to provide that security.
I hope that I have said enough to assure the Committee that the provisions in the Bill will enable all concerned, and not least the young people in care, to give very careful consideration to their readiness and willingness to leave care.
The effect of these amendments would be that any child who is looked after by a local authority at any time would be required to remain in care until there was demonstrable evidence of being both ready and willing to leave. This could have far reaching consequences. For example, authorities might be very unwilling to provide short-term care for young children whose parent was in hospital, for instance, and who then came into the definition of the Bill.
I understand the noble Earl's concerns but, at the end of the day, the Bill has the right balance, with the right incentives for local authorities now, instead of the perverse incentives that were there before. Together with the impact of the advice which the young person's adviser can give, and the pathway plan, I believe it is sufficient to provide the kind of safeguards that the noble Earl obviously considers necessary.
The Earl of Listowel: I should like to thank the Minister for his very helpful and full reply, which is extremely reassuring. I shall take his reply away and reflect upon it.
As regards the three or four-year term, we will need more reassurance that once the ring-fencing has been removed the situation will not change.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand that. Ring-fencing is extremely important when introducing these provisions. However, as local authorities gain experience and understand their duties, we would expect them to be able to carry on and ensure that the system works as effectively as possible. I would reiterate that even without ring-fencing the much stronger performance management arrangements that are now in place will enable the department to ensure that local authorities carry out their duties appropriately.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful replies. I shall reflect on his statements and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6C not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out line 33 and insert—
("(c) is between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 7 and speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 12, 16 and 17 which are consequential. At this stage I do not want to speak to Amendment No. 23 in the name of noble Earl,
CWH28
Lord Howe. In fact, we should like to de-group that and deal with it at a suitable point later in the proceedings. It may conveniently be taken after Amendment No. 22, since this is rather a rogue amendment which has come into this grouping.
Amendment No. 7 would, in particular, ensure that local authorities were under a duty to meet the continuing assessed needs of young people, previously looked after, up to the age of 21. It would ensure a safety net for those young people who leave care only to get into difficulties later on. I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me if I spend some time elaborating on why we believe that this is of vital importance. It is a central part of some of the criticisms which have been made of the Bill which otherwise, in many respects, is a very good Bill indeed.
Paragraph 19B introduces a new duty upon local authorities to assess and meet the needs of eligible young people aged 16 and 17. Eligible young people will include both those who have been looked after for a period of 13 weeks or more and those who meet these criteria but have already left care.
The Children Act 1989 contains a number of statutory duties and associated powers for local authorities to prepare young people for leaving care and to support them afterwards. Despite this, the proportion of young people leaving care as young as 16 increased from 34 per cent to 46 per cent between 1994 and 1998. Provision of leaving care support varies widely and the rights which young people currently hold are often denied.
This is a cross-party matter. The conclusions of the Health Select Committee, Sir William Utting and others, that the discretionary powers contained in Section 24 of the 1989 Children Act should be converted into duties, have been very strongly supported. The Health Select Committee, in its report on looked-after children, recommended that this duty,
"should extend to young people up to and including the age of 21",
and that,
"the Government should ensure that the resources necessary to achieve this end are provided".
At Second Reading, the Minister reiterated the Government's commitment, originally made in November 1998, to extend the new duty until the young person reaches the age of 21. Significantly, he added that the Government,
"will first study the costs, limitations and affordability of doing so".—[Official Report, 7/12/99; col.1159.]
What is the case for extending the duty to 21 years? Young people leaving care have to cope with the challenges and responsibilities of major changes in their lives at a far earlier age than other young people. They may be the victims of abuse or neglect or have parents who are overwhelmed by problems and unable to cope. Although the present Bill should ensure that children between the ages of 16 and 18 have better access to support and protection, limiting the proposed new duty to 18 will mean that many young people, for whom the local authority has had parental

CWH29
responsibility, will continue to be refused help and told to leave home, just as other young people of their age are about to sit their A levels.
Perhaps Members of the Committee will allow me to refer to a case history. First Key recently spoke to Avril McGowan, a foster-carer with 25 years' experience, in relation to Melanie, whom she had fostered from the age of 12. Melanie had been in care, on a care order, from the age of 10. When she was 17, Avril fought hard but unsuccessfully for the local authority to allow Melanie to stay with her for an extra year while she finished a Foundation Course in Health and Social Care. Melanie had previously been picked on and bullied at school. Despite her previous bad experiences, she was keen to take up a place at the local FE college last year. According to Avril, this was "the best thing to have happened to her". Melanie loves the course, which gives her lots of confidence. She has never missed a day and receives numerous credits for the quality of her work.
However, local social services not only refused to let Melanie stay on with Avril but rang to ask "for a date when she would be leaving" and cut all financial support once Melanie was 18 last September. No support was provided by social services to help Melanie find alternative accommodation. Avril believed that Melanie would be "eaten alive by bullies and drugs" in the hostel the social services department were recommending. Avril found Melanie a flat near to herself, her daughter and the FE college and paid the deposit out of her own money.
Melanie has still not received her leaving care grant and is now being told by the local DSS office that she must leave the course and get a job. Her housing benefit has been reduced, leading to a build up of rent arrears. Avril is concerned that Melanie may not only have to give up a course which she loves but that she is now at risk of homelessness. She is angry, as she believes Melanie's present problems were avoidable, had the social services department agreed to Melanie staying with Avril while she completed her course. Avril continues to support Melanie but has resigned as a foster-carer out of frustration and anger at the way that Melanie has been let down.
As presently drafted, the Bill would afford no additional protection for Melanie. Young people leaving care, because of the problems they have experienced, may take longer than other young people to get their lives back on track.
Perhaps I may refer to another, shorter, case history. John Russell, who is 20 and was in care since the age of three, recently wrote to First Key to say:
"I am one of the lucky people. Northamptonshire leaving-care department have supported me to come back into education and help financially with my rent and weekly income".
John explained that when he was younger, he was very disruptive and at times uncontrollable because of the many problems he experienced. He missed out on a lot of education and left school without any qualifications. But he added:
"I am now several months into my GCSE course and I strongly believe this is a big step to achieving a good future career".
It is important that the new framework provides mechanisms to enable young people like John to catch up on the opportunities they have previously missed.
Comprehensive data on the cost of extending the new duty to 21 are currently unavailable. One can, however, illustrate the cost-effectiveness of providing good quality leaving care support from independent research and evaluations. In a recent report by the Audit Commission, Getting the Best from Children's Services, the commission identified both Manchester's leaving care service and Westminster's independent support team as providing good value for money. Research into the outcomes of leaving care schemes concludes that they work,
"particularly well in respect of accommodation and life skills and to some extent in furthering social networks, development relationships and building self esteem".
Positive achievement in relation to educational outcomes is closely linked to placement stability and particularly to foster care placement. There is additional, convincing evidence that focused leaving care support may also contribute to reducing potential future offending and that this could be a cost-effective response.
Nobody can put a price on pride, confidence and self- esteem. Those are qualities that young people gain successfully by holding down a first job, maintaining a home, friends and family or gaining an educational qualification for which they have worked hard. It cannot be right that children and young people leaving care have to fight for financial and practical assistance to stay on in a course, in a job or a home where they feel secure and happy. The cost of eradicating social exclusion manifested in problems like homelessness and unemployment is enormous. By comparison, early preventive support is both affordable and effective, as well as socially just. That is what the amendment is designed to do.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Laming: I support the amendment and I hope that the Minister will have found the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as compelling as I did. The case illustrations powerfully brought home to us all the force of why the amendments are essential to achieving the agreed objectives of the Bill.
On Second Reading we spoke about our shared concern about the poor educational attainments of many young people who have been looked after and who need care, the poor skills that many of them have to survive independently in society, our concern that many of them fall into criminal behaviour, drug abuse or prostitution. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has reminded us on many occasions of the young people that she has come across who have fallen into crime and ended up in young offender institutions, simply because they have not had the certainty of support on leaving care.
We need to acknowledge that as a society we expect the most from the young people who have the least. They have the least by way of family support and by way of education or other resources, and yet we expect

CWH31
those young people not only to become good managers in being able to survive on small amounts of money, but to make their way in society with nothing to fall back on.
I hope that the Minister will agree with me that it is greatly to the credit of the former Secretary of State for Health, Mr Dobson, who on a number of occasions spoke with great feeling about his concerns about what happens to young people who do not have a family to support them. He illustrated what we would expect normal parents to provide for their children. Some children in their twenties or even their thirties understandably turn to their parents when they have had a bad experience, a set-back in life, difficulties that have undermined their self confidence or have caused them to be upset. They can talk things through with their parents and seek guidance and support.
Perhaps I may illustrate that point further and add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I came across a young person who had been looked after for most of his young life. He left care at the age of 16 and when he later fell into difficulty he went back to the local authority which was supposed to be a good parent, only to be treated as "a new case", to be sent to the back of the queue and regarded as somebody for whom it had no continuing responsibility.
I hope that the Minister will agree to two amendments. Amendment No. 7 is, I believe, essential to the success of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we have had assurances of a commitment of this kind since 1998. If we miss this opportunity to extend the duties to the age of 21, we will not only fail this generation of young people in care but also will fail succeeding generations. Do we really want to miss this opportunity to ensure that young people looked after will have help and support available to them up to the age of at least 21? There are good examples that this is already happening and I can see no reason why this extension should not be agreed to. I hope that, if for no other reason than as a tribute to Mr Dobson, the Minister will agree to this amendment.
Earl Howe: I add my strong support to these amendments. When Sir William Utting published his report and recommended that the duty to help care leavers should be extended until the age of 21 the Government said that they were minded to accept that recommendation. They need to explain why they seem now to have slid back from it. My understanding from what the Minister said at Second Reading is that it is purely a question of funding. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any argument about the principle.
The question appears to be "when" and not "whether". However, if we believe that the state has a moral duty towards care leavers that stands foursquare with the moral duty of a parent towards his or her child, to postpone the raising of the age to 21 under the Bill is merely to consign another generation to disadvantage.
CWH32
Incidentally, of those who are most disadvantaged, there are few more deserving individuals than disabled looked-after young people. Evidence shows that disabled young people remain in care longer than their non-disabled peers and, while the Bill encourages young people to remain in care until they are ready and willing to leave, there are implications for young people whose impairment may make it difficult to ascertain how willing they are to leave. These people need to know that the support will be there regardless of when they leave care. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, I believe that now is the moment to say that the duty should be extended to the age of 21. Far be it for me to enhance the present Government's standing in the opinion polls but the tide of public opinion and public interest is undoubtedly in favour of such a move. If it is not done now when, if ever, will it be done?
I now raise a technical point on which I would be grateful to receive the Minister's comments. The requirements to satisfy for being a relevant child are that the child was eligible at the time of ceasing to be looked after, is now not being looked after and is 16 or 17. An "eligible child" is defined under paragraph 19B(2) of the Children Act as a child who is aged 16 or 17 and looked after during the prescribed period. I wonder, therefore, why the additional requirement that the child must be 16 or 17 has been included. It would appear to be a duplication of the age requirement. By imposing what seems to be a duplicate requirement there is an even greater limit upon who would be included within this definition. The child must have been 16 or 17 when looked after during the prescribed period and then must be 16 or 17 on ceasing to be looked after. The obvious way to overcome this is to remove the requirement in subsection (2)(c), or, as the amendment proposes, to substitute a different age; namely, 21.
Earl Russell: My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones very kindly has drawn to my attention that some of my remarks on Amendment No. 1 might have been more properly applied to this amendment. I can only say that if the Minister would be kind enough so to apply them, it would relieve me of any temptation to repeat them.
I refer only to one other thing. The Children's Society Report, which was debated in this House on the 20th of last month, is still running. I will not go into what happens to care leavers; clearly the Government are well aware of it, and if they were not they would not have brought this Bill forward. However, the other point in the study that struck me very forcefully is that children who go into care, very often by the nature of the circumstances which brought them into care, arrive there with a considerable distrust of authority. Easing that distrust is an important part of making them into useful citizens. This amendment addresses that need, and the emotional need here is perhaps quite as urgent as the material.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendment, but the case of Melanie was so good, so typical of bad local authorities; for instance, inflexible

CWH33
and jealous. However, I wish to ask a question. If that young person had a young person's adviser, the young person's adviser might have told her to stay with her foster parents and to finish her course. What happens if the local authority turns round and says, "No", and there is a conflict?
6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I recognise that this is a very important matter and I should wish to be as encouraging to Members of the Committee as I can. However, I suspect that I shall not be as encouraging as noble Lords would like. I understand that there is a very strong feeling that young people whom this Bill is designed to support are likely to need help beyond their 18th birthday. There is no doubt whatever about that, which is why the Government share this conviction and why we are committed to taking the existing power which local authorities have to support young people over 18 and converting it into a duty in respect of care leavers who have been "relevant children". The Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to do just that.
There is no disagreement between us about the desirability of extending this support. The only question, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, is one of timing. It is when, not whether. A new duty would impose new financial burdens on local authorities and we believe that it would be entirely unreasonable of us to take such a step without providing the resources with which to meet it. I go back to the point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made in our earlier debate.
Members of the Committee will not be unaware that the Government are in the process of conducting a new spending review, which is not due to be completed until the summer. The relative timings for this Bill and that review cause us some problems in relation to the new duty, which is why the Bill is drafted as it is.
I hope noble Lords will accept my assurance that the drafting does not reflect any softening of the Government's resolve to extend the support available to this group of young people. We fully intend to use that regulation-making power as soon as possible. At this stage, I cannot go any further in relation to the exact timing.
It is worth making the point that even as the Bill stands, it will offer support to young people who have been "relevant children". A young person who will have qualified to have a young person's adviser and a pathway plan will keep that entitlement until he is at least 21, or until he is 24 if he is being helped with education, training or employment. If in higher education, his responsible authority must provide him with vacation accommodation if he needs it.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke eloquently. As regards the case of Melanie, there is no reason why the local authority would refuse an extra year of foster care. Again, under the new arrangements, the pathway plan would have addressed a number of those issues.
CWH34
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, there is a process of negotiation between the young person, the young person's adviser, and the local authority. If, however, there were a situation where agreement could not be reached we have made provision for there to be a complaints system so that the young person would be able to make a complaint. Of course, I hope that it does not come to that because the whole purpose of having a young person's adviser is to enable a proper agreement to be reached between the young person and the local authority concerned.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords will realise that I accept everything they say about the need to extend this Bill. I should very much like to say that we would do it, but it is the subject of discussions concerning finance and I am afraid that I cannot go as far as noble Lords would wish at this stage.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I can picture young people queuing up with their complaints, with their advisers on their side. If an adviser is good, he will know what will be good for that young person and they will work their pathway plan out together. However, if the local authority says, "No, you cannot do that, because we do not have the money.", then it will be difficult.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: These arrangements will be better than the present situation. Part of the role of the young person's adviser is to help as an advocate. Equally, a young person's adviser is there to give advice to the young person on what it is reasonable to ask for.
The combination of that, and the skill of the people we wish to see appointed as young persons' advisers, should ensure a sensible conversation between the young person and the local authority. If that does not happen, then there is a complaints system as a longstop.
Lord Laming: I believe the Minister has deployed the same argument as the poor local authority deploys: that we agree with you, and we would like to help you, but we do not have the money. That is precisely why we need to have this amendment in the Bill If this amendment is not included in the Bill, as earlier speakers have said very persuasively, we will let the poor authority which is not a good parent off the hook and not require it to carry out what ought to be its duty.
It is no good saying that we agree with all of this in principle but, until we have the money, we cannot do it. That is the counsel of despair and it encourages the local authorities about which we are concerned to do precisely that. They will follow the Government. I regret to say that they will hold the Minister as an example to be followed who they can call in aid of their position.
The reality is that none of us knows how much this will cost. In my view, it is a poor argument to say that we cannot put a figure on it at this stage. None of us can know how many young people will take up the offer to have support until the age of 21. My own view

CWH35
is that we could wish that more of them would do that but, unfortunately, many of them will feel that getting away from a local authority is a considerable advantage, and then get themselves into difficulty.
I do not believe it is possible to predict the cost. Even if we could, however, this would not be the first piece of government legislation that has been phased in over a period of time. It is absolutely essential that we get this right this time round, even if it takes the Government a year or two to implement it fully. If we do not take this opportunity, when will there be another to get this on the face of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may say in reply that there is no argument about the principle. The Bill allows us to extend provisions to the age of 21 when it is decided that it is appropriate to do so. The issue is not "whether"; it is "when".
Lord Clement-Jones: I have little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, so passionately expressed; I entirely agree with him. The Minister used very consensual, conciliatory language, but in a sense he managed to incite us all to further efforts at Report stage. He used a mixture of Treasury and Augustinian arguments which were very attractive but nevertheless unconvincing for people who wish to see the good parent concept extended across the Bill. The element that must be there is that it must run the gamut from 16 to 21. It cannot be a matter of short term financing; it must be there on the face of the Bill. It would leave a huge hole in the Bill, despite the Minister's assurances that at some future date a comprehensive spending review might mean that this would be brought within the Bill.
The reason has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The Melanie case history showed that the Social Services Department—and the Minister said it himself—could have given assistance, but it did not, and it is because local authorities in cash-strapped times make a huge distinction between powers and duties, and they look first of all to finance their statutory duties.
In conclusion, while withdrawing the amendment, the Minister can be certain that we will bring this back at Report stage and keep arguing for the Bill to be good in every respect, not just in some respects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
("(1) It is the duty of the responsible local authority to use their best endeavours to establish or maintain contact with a relevant child or young person at such times as are reasonable with a view to discharging their functions under this section, whether or not that child or young person is within their area.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 19 and 20, and I look to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to see whether he would like to speak to Amendment
CWH36
No. 18A. I can reassure the Minister that accepting the amendment would not cost any additional money, and I hope that he will skip that part of his note.
This is a matter of English and meaning of words. I take exception to the use of the words "keep in touch" with a young person. It is right that each local authority should have a duty to take reasonable steps, but not to keep in touch. I hope that I am not the only person who keeps in touch with a large number of people, but sometimes I do it by means of a Christmas card and feel guilty that I have not kept in touch with them rather more effectively during the year. Sometimes I keep in touch with people when I feel that I have the time to do so and, sadly, because of evenings like this, the time goes by all too quickly.
I hope that the amendment flows with the aims of the Bill which is to require local authorities not to keep in touch on the basis of an aspiration but requires them to use their best endeavours to be able to demonstrate that they have done something positive to establish and maintain contact with a relevant child. I hope that there is nothing between Members of the Committee on these objectives, but the means needs to be rather stronger than "keep in touch". I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has made an effective case. I call this a "disc jockey" amendment—keeping in touch in that informal way, "Hi, guys, we're on air!". It really has to be something rather more maturely considered than just "keep in touch". The words of the amendment, "maintaining contact", is a far more effective way of expressing what we all know we are talking about. This is not a matter of not understanding the underlying essence of what we are talking about, but it is basically the language that is being used in these circumstances. At the end of the day, if we do not use the right language, it can affect how people carry out their duties. This is an important amendment in that respect.
Earl Howe: I support what has been said by both noble Lords. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 18A, which has been grouped with these other amendments. This relates to a separate issue and it also has no financial aspect attached to it, at least so far as I know. It is intended solely as a probing amendment.
I should like to hear from the Minister what the force of the word "first" is in the subsection that the amendment addresses at page four, new Section 23C(3). The word "first" is applied to one of the duties set out in the Adoption Act 1976. My understanding is that its meaning there has been interpreted as first on the list—it does not mean that it is more important than any other duty. What is the meaning in this Bill? If it is intended that the duty in new Section 23C(3) is to be the most important duty, then there needs to be some qualification added to the word "first". In any event, I am not sure whether the word "first" adds anything to the clause at all.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are two issues here. One is whether we have the wording right and the other

CWH37
is how local authorities are to keep in touch. I will try to cover both those areas because this is clearly an important part of ensuring that this works effectively.
I have already emphasised the importance of the flexibility of these new arrangements to take account of the needs and wishes of each young person as an individual. I set out the importance of the responsible authority in simplifying support arrangements for young people who wish to move around the country, for whatever reason—including disaffection with their home authority. The new duty to keep in touch is intended to ensure that local authorities cannot duck out of their responsibilities when someone moves away.
It has been phrased slightly differently for relevant children of the older age group, again to underline the fact that young people's needs change as they grow older and each one must be seen as an individual. Clearly, in the performance monitoring that we will undertake we will wish to ensure that local authorities take this responsibility very seriously.
I turn to the phrasing. I know that noble Lords feel that "keep in touch" appears rather too slight and too casual, just meaning "let us keep in touch and meet up every so often.". Just as "maintaining contact" can mean different things to different people, so "keeping in touch" can also have different meanings. It is very difficult to come up with a phrase that fits the circumstances we are discussing completely. The dictionary expression suggests that the phrase "keep in touch" is a simpler way of saying to maintain contact. It is just a question of plain English in that respect. No doubt the noble Earl will correct me.
Earl Howe: No, I want to ask whether there is a precedent in law for this phrase occurring in an Act of Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am informed that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a requirement on offenders who are subject to a drug treatment and testing order to keep in touch with their supervising officer. I gather that there are other examples, but I do not have those with me. Returning to the more substantive point, as to the different circumstances and the different hierarchies of keeping in touch, there will be cases where only a very light touch will be required from the young person's adviser. One can think of a young person perhaps aged 20, who has just got married and is holding down a job, who may neither need nor want his responsible authority to keep "interfering"—as he might see it—in his affairs. His needs and wishes should certainly dictate the level and the type of contact he has with that adviser. That minimum level of contact will keep the door open for more intensive support should it be needed. On the other hand, as we have discussed already a number of times, there will be young people who need a much higher level of support. For them, the adviser will need to be in contact more frequently. We consider that the new duty allows for both extremes and for everything in between.
CWH38
The absolute bottom line is that the responsible authority must keep in touch as needed. If it loses touch, it must try to re-establish contact. At one extreme, if a relevant child were to go missing at 16, the responsible authority would have to keep trying to find him until his 18th birthday had passed. The language used does not in any way detract from what is a serious and onerous new duty.
As regards the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it simply means "first"—that is, it is the first thing that should be done—and nothing more than that. I am happy to look at the wording again to see whether it needs further explanation.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister. I have to say that the word "first" seems to have a distinctive quality. There is only one position that can be described as "first" and "paramount"—as the noble Earl has said—emphasises that point. We are saying there that we are emphasising the importance of this matter. I have to admit to disappointment at the response of the noble Lord to the question of keeping in touch. This is not because I want people who are capable of living independently to feel that they are being oppressed because of this piece of legislation and having help forced upon them that they neither want nor need. It is because the greater danger is for young people who are vulnerable to be lost, one way or another, to the system and for local authorities for a variety of motives, not all of which are worthy to go through the motions of keeping in touch. Frankly, however, if really tested on that, they would not be able to demonstrate that they had used them best endeavours and behaved reasonably.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord's intention. However, I hope that the Minister would be willing to look again if not at this form of wording at some other expression which would strike a slightly more robust, pro-active tone than "keeping in touch", with the element of casualness which that evokes. I would be happy to be guided by the Minister on a different kind of phraseology which would have that extra energy about it, rather than "keeping in touch". On the basis that I would be happy to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the Minister would be willing to meet me at least halfway across the divide between us and perhaps have some discussion in the meanwhile. If he smiles and nods, as he has just done, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("(e) the provision of independent advocacy assistance for children and young people").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendments No 25, 26, 29 and 31.
The amendment aims to ensure that there is regulation and the availability of independent advocacy for young people who are looked after and who are leaving care. As the Minister said earlier—and

CWH39
I agree with him—young people looked after are generally less mature than their peers. We have already expressed concern about their general poor educational standards and limited resources for living independently.
Many young people who are looked after feel that they have had a lifetime, or at least too many years, of having other people make decisions about what is supposed to be good for them. Sometimes they feel that they are up against a vast bureaucratic organisation and they even feel intense anger towards those who are there to help them, whether justified or not. There needs to be another way of ensuring that young people have their voice heard. Often the situations are complicated. In an earlier discussion the Minister referred to the complaints procedure that is available for young people, and that is to be welcomed. However, they need to have available to them adequate advocacy arrangements, which need to be required so that the local authority is capable of being evaluated against the standard and availability of provision.
I hope that the Minister will see that the amendments are intended to ensure that young people leaving care will have available to them adequate advocacy arrangements so that if they feel unable to present their concerns to the authorities satisfactorily there will be somebody to stand alongside them, to assist them, and represent them as and when needed. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 25. Children often tell us that they are not listened to, proper explanations are not given and decisions are taken over their heads. They say that they feel powerless in those circumstances. I associate myself with the analysis of the problem given by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
Child law is complex and the practice of social services departments is variable, to say the least, and frequently now resource led. Advocacy is the means whereby the law can be properly implemented on behalf of children. Not only that, public care itself fails many children and there has been a plethora of reports detailing abuse and neglect in the care system, as we all know. Without a legal right to advocacy, the rights and welfare of children are not being properly safeguarded.
The experience of young people using an advocate is that it makes a significant difference to what happens to them. Obviously they do not get exactly what they want on every occasion, but 85 per cent of users of advocacy services say that the outcome achieved most of what they wanted and they felt that the advocate made a difference.
I have here some comments from young people about the impact of advocacy. One said:
"She was able to communicate for me in a way that made those in authority listen in a way that I couldn't".
Another said:
"My advocate did in three weeks what I had been trying to do for three years".
CWH40
The third said:
"She was the best, I would recommend her to everyone".
The need for independent and confidential advocacy services for children and young people looked after by local authorities has been clearly illustrated and endorsed by the findings of Sir William Utting in his review.
This has been picked up by the Government in their Quality Protects programme and in November 1999 it was stated that,
"particular attention should be given to … enhancing [young people's] voices, for example through the development of individual advocacy services".
The provision of these services to date has been on a fairly ad hoc basis, with great variations in regional and local availability and the quality of service. At present there is no statutory requirement for local authorities to fund, or even to permit, advocates to visit children who are looked after by them. It is not right, in principle, that the provision of advocacy should be dependent on the whim and/or financial support of the authority with whom the young person may be in dispute. Those practices are discriminatory and, as I understand, in breach of Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 25, this is a much more straightforward amendment. As the Bill stands at present, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to make any regulations at all. Although the 1991 regulations are under review, it seems sensible that they should form the basis for the complaint system under this section. At Second Reading the Minister said [at col. 1158 of the Official Report] that it was anticipated that the existing Children Act complaints procedure would be used. If so, I believe this should be reflected on the face of the Bill. The significance of this complaints procedure as distinct from the procedure under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is the requirement of an independent element in both the investigation and panel review hearing. Young people are not confident in using complaints procedures and this is why the independent element is so important, together with the provision of independent advocacy support.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to support both the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in putting his amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Independent advocacy is an instrument whose time has come. There is no doubt about that. We had a number of debates about this in the Care Standards Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the Government have accepted that independent advocacy is desirable but nowhere do we see that reflected in either the Care Standards Bill or, indeed, in this Bill. It is something which service users of all descriptions are now seeking.
I was at a mental health service users conference and one of the key things they wanted was independent advocacy, because if you are up against the public

CWH41
services, if you are up against the big battalions, that will provide the kind of reassurance and assistance that is really needed. Nowhere is it more important than for these vulnerable young people who are faced with some very important decisions being made and people who appear extremely powerful in relation to their own lives.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it is far from clear whether the Government are complying with that convention. One way of making clear that we are observing that convention is to provide independent advocacy for these young people. Therefore, while I recognise that there may be financial constraints about which we will no doubt have further discussions, in principle this must be the right way to go. This will provide the right kind of protection for these young people and I urge the Minister to consider the matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The element of independence is very important and, if I might mention it again, in young offenders' institutions there is an independent body—the Board of Visitors. So many issues can be sorted out while they are little molehills and before they become mountains. This would help when there are problems in giving support to the young person's adviser, and the sorting out of the complicated forms for benefit. We have talked about disabled young people within the Bill. Their benefits are so complicated that they have a citizens' advice service to help them sort out those complicated forms. Many of these people will not have had good education and some of them cannot read or write. The issue is important.
The Earl of Listowel: I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, drawing attention to the lack of educational qualifications of children in care, currently leaving with one minimal paper qualification. We are talking about people who are not trained to express themselves well. They are not trained to think carefully and analytically—skills we take for granted but which they lack.
I should also like to point out another difficulty these young people face if they feel they have been rejected by their previous carers, whoever they may be. Faced with new carers those young people feel a tremendous debt of gratitude to those people. That makes them vulnerable to anything those carers suggest. That is another reason that the support of independent advocates is so important to these young people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to noble Lords for returning us to a matter that we have already discussed in the Care Standards Bill. Many of the same arguments are being deployed today as have been deployed already in that Bill. I should be the first to acknowledge that advocacy can be a very important part of the armoury of ensuring that young people are provided with the right kind of support that they require, particularly in the difficult circumstances to which many noble Lords have referred.
CWH42
It is my understanding that advocacy is grounded in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which assures to children capable of forming their own views the right to express those views freely. It is also worth pointing out that the Children Act includes provisions respecting the entitlement of children to be consulted and to have their views and feelings taken into account.
I fully accept the point made, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that current provision in relation to advocacy is patchy. However, a number of local authorities and voluntary organisations have done very good work in this area. We have a number of excellent national advocacy services which are available to help local authorities in that area. My own department has funded many of these organisations to prepare national standards for children's advocacy services, and these were subject to extensive consultation last year. My understanding is that they are due to be published in the spring.
In addition, listening to children is a major theme of the safeguards review and the Quality Protects programme. Indeed children's participation is a priority area for the special grant under Quality Protects. As part of that, the Quality Protects programme is mapping at the moment current provision in relation to advocacy. This will inform us in terms of our future intentions and will enable greater coherence to be provided in the future. This package of initiatives as a whole to secure advocacy and to ensure that it is of a high standard is a visible indication of the Government's wish and commitment to advocacy, both in principle and practice. It is because of the measures that we are taking that we do not see the need to specify it on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I may turn to the amendments because they raise a series of specific points about provisions in the Children Act and new provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 29 introduces advocacy into Section 22 of the Children Act. The amendment would require a local authority to permit a child the assistance of an independent advocate whenever the local authority was engaged in ascertaining the wishes or feelings of the child, or making decisions taking account of those wishes and feelings. I ought to stress the word "whenever" here as the decisions that could relate to it could be both great and small. There are obviously a great many minor decisions to be made about a child in care. While the Government are committed to the principle of advocacy, it is important that we do not intrude where there could be an enormous bureaucratic burden to all concerned.
Amendment No. 11 concerns advocacy as part of the needs assessment process for "relevant children". This would specify that the regulations setting out the assessment process must deal with the provision of independent advocacy for those young people. Members of the Committee are right to recognise the important of the assessment process winch we discussed earlier. It is the vital first step in drawing up the pathway plans and obviously it is important that the young person feels ownership of that. A pathway

CWH43
plan, no matter how well thought out, will not work if the young person feels it is being imposed upon him or her.
We anticipate that the key relationship in ensuring that the plan is properly owned and that it works will be the relationship between the young person and the young person's adviser. That is what the Bill is all about. The adviser will not be an advocate in that sense, because it will not be the adviser's role to put the young person's case uncritically, right or wrong. However, it will be very much the role of the young person's adviser to negotiate as necessary with the young person about the content of the plan, as we have already debated. Sometimes the young person's adviser will need to inject a note of realism into the aspirations of the young person. For other young people, they will have the opposite task, which will be to ensure that they have sufficient ambition in order to realise their potential. Clearly, the reason we are here today is that so many young people in the past have not had the ambition, they have not had the support and have not realise their potential.
Once that relationship has been established and the essentials have been agreed, the young person's adviser may well act as an advocate to ensure the right support from the local authority and other key players. The discussion that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised earlier is a case in point, where having gone through the process of establishing a relationship with a young person in developing the pathway plan, that young person's adviser could then well be an advocate for that young person in negotiating with the local authority in the circumstances which the noble Baroness put forward.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: If there were a conflict between the local authority and the young person and his adviser, there might need to be an advocate between the two.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are two points there. If there were a serious problem between the young person and the young person's adviser, I agree that there could be a role for an advocate in enabling that matter to be sorted out. Equally, it would be appropriate for the young person to be provided with another young person's adviser. Clearly, a part of all this is the relationship between the young person and the young person's adviser. Of course, if that, too, breaks down and there are real problems and we come to the complaints procedure which is the subject of Amendments Nos. 26, 30 and 31.
I hope that complaints will be kept to a minimum and that the relationship between the young person and the adviser, and the support given to the young person will prove to be as effective as we all hope it will be. Inevitably, there will be some complaints. We will set out the complaints procedure in the regulations and we will plan to build in sensitivities such as access for the child to advocacy to pursue his case. Indeed, authorities are already entertaining complaints brought by advocates on behalf of children. If there is
CWH44
any evidence of reluctance on the part of local authorities we shall be happy to revisit the relevant guidance.
Amendment No. 25 would remove the power to make regulations for a complaints procedure for the provisions of this Bill. Instead, the existing 1991 regulations on complaints would apply.
In answer to the noble Lord who raised that point, I am all in favour of avoiding duplication in regulations for the sake of it. We do not intend to set up a parallel system. Noble Lords may well be aware that the existing complaints procedure had been found to be imperfect and is presently under review. This review has involved consultation with an external advisory group, drawn nationally from interested parties, and informal discussion with other groups of relevant stakeholders, including the Children's Society, and the Voice for the Child in Care.
We plan to publish a consultation paper, summarising the issues which have been raised, and proposals for addressing them later on in the year. At this stage, I would not wish to commit myself to any particular set of regulations, especially a set which are under review. I also have to say that, if at any time the 1991 regulations were revoked, we would be left with no regulations at all under this clause in relation to that amendment.
I hope I have indicated that I take the points that noble Lords have raised about advocacy. We seek to address this in a number of ways, as I have described. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel that we have covered this sufficiently.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister—and I hope I speak for my colleagues—for his very thoughtful and persuasive response. For my part, I would certainly like to reflect on what the Minister said. If matters of this kind are to be addressed in regulation, rather than on the face of the Bill, then for my part I understand that.
I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply and I will reflect upon the issues. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11A and 12 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Support under subsection (8) may be in cash.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is for clarity and clarification. By inserting this form of words into Clause 2 we are making it quite clear that, in the case of relevant children, local authorities will be able to provide support in the form of cash as well as in kind. Indeed, this clarifies the point raised on Second Reading.
Relevant children are those aged 16 and 17, who have spent long enough in the care of a local authority to qualify for this new package of support but who have now left care. New Section 23B(8) to which this new form of words would apply concerns the new duty

CWH45
on a local authority to "safeguard and promote" the welfare of a relevant child by providing the support he needs, such as accommodation and maintenance.
Each young person's pathway will, of course, map out his or her route into independence and each will wish to develop at his or her own pace. Some, as we have already discussed, will be ready to leave care as early as 16 or 17, while others will simply refuse to stay in care a second longer than they absolutely must. Some will be competent to manage a budget and others will still need help to use money sensibly.
That is why it is so important to set out clearly what support they can expect to receive from the relevant authority. Equally, however, we want to build in as much flexibility as possible and to allow the authority to meet the needs of each individual in the way best suited to his or her capacity and wishes. The pathway planning process will provide the mechanism for all of this to be agreed and reviewed, and revised as necessary.
The amendment avoids any further suggestion that 16 and 17 year-olds who move out of local authority care, but who are eligible for the new aftercare provisions, will be able to receive that support only in kind. I hope that noble Lords agree.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 46, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: Of all the miserable and depressing experiences recounted by young people who have been in care, the one that recurs time and again is the misery caused by bad and seedy accommodation, or worse still by homelessness. Care leavers are over-represented in the population of young homeless people. Research has shown that one third of all young homeless people have been in care at some point, and very often these young people have moved between a whole succession of unsuitable hostels, bedsits and so on before resorting to the streets. At the moment, there is no rule or regulation about the quality of accommodation that young people may move to on leaving care at 16 or 17. They move from foster care or residential care, which is highly regulated, into a world of no regulation at all. Unsurprisingly that leads to inconsistencies in both the availability and quality of safe and supported follow-on accommodation.
In some local authorities a range of temporary and permanent accommodation has been developed which allows young people to have some kind of a choice and to have their needs met in terms of the support that they require. In others, the only available provision is insecure and unsafe bedsits, or else hostel accommodation where youngsters find themselves side by side with older homeless people and offenders on probation.
The other not uncommon feature of the move out of care is that the lack of suitable accommodation forces young people to move away from the area in which
CWH46
they have been living. That can often be very damaging. Someone may well have support networks in that area and perhaps a training scheme to go to, but he has to abandon all that because of the absence of anywhere suitable to live. The authority looking after him not unnaturally insists that he go somewhere where safe accommodation is available.
The revised Quality Protects objectives for children's services contain a very welcome section on what constitutes suitable accommodation for care leavers, but this is only guidance. I firmly believe that we owe it to young people to define suitable accommodation in regulation, and indeed to ensure that the protection afforded to them by virtue of that regulation covers them until they are 21. I do hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that this is what the Government intend to do. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Earl. It is absolutely right that young people in these circumstances are enabled to be in suitable accommodation in the circumstances he described. We want to avoid them ending up in very unsuitable accommodation indeed.
Our experience of the current situation is that while some of the accommodation is suitable, too much is not. It is not acceptable that care leavers might end up in poor quality accommodation in red light districts or areas where drug use is prevalent.
We are determined that local authorities will make available a wide range of suitable accommodation for young people in and leaving care and that decisions on placement and accommodation are not driven by financial considerations. There should be a wide variety of places where these young people can live, including accommodation with associated support and training opportunities, supported lodgings, house shares with other care leavers and no-care leavers, as well as independent or semi-independent flats.
I should like to reassure the Committee that we are determined that this will happen and we will, through the performance management assessment and review process, rigorously check the provision of suitable accommodation along with other aspects of the new arrangements. There is no question of the Secretary of State not making regulations relating to accommodation and making them in time for implementation. Therefore, the new wording proposed in the amendment would not make any difference. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassuring reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 8, after first ("child") insert ("or young person").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 16 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. The amendments are intended to illustrate a concern about the Bill as a whole which I hope the Minister will find a way of addressing. We are talking about young people leaving care and we refer to them throughout the Bill as "children". Bearing in mind that we are hoping that these young people will maintain contact with the local authority through adolescence and beyond, I hope that the Minister might think it wise to find ways, wherever possible, of referring to "a child or young person" in order to encourage young people to recognise that we are not patronising them as children but are recognising that they are in a transitional stage between childhood and adulthood. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The amendments can be treated as consequential amendments on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, but they also give rise to a useful debate about how we should describe those young people who are the object of the Bill. I wince every time I have to describe the Bill as a Children (Leaving Care) Bill. We are talking about young people, in some cases up to the age of 24. It would be useful if the Government could change the title of the Bill and describe young people in the Bill differently. I recognise that the Children Act is called the Children Act, and in legislation there may be an extended meaning to the word "child". Nevertheless it is increasingly offensive to have to describe people above the age of 16 as children. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: "Children and Young People (Leaving Care) Bill" runs quite well.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may abuse Committee procedure and say that those people, by and large, may start having pathway plans prepared for them at 14 and 15. However, those leaving care at 16 are not children but young people. I recognise that there may be a move to compromise but I should like to get rid of "child" and "children" altogether in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Bill refers to children as being 16 or 17; and young people are 18 and over. It could therefore be argued that it is consistent with what noble Lords have suggested. I am happy to look at the matter again and write to the noble Lord to clarify it for him. I accept the points raised by noble Lords. Equally, I believe that the terminology used in the Bill relates back to the Children Act and we need to have a measure of consistency. However, I shall be happy to discuss that with the noble Lord.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister. With that thoughtful reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert ("save for the following exceptions—

(a) where the relevant child or young person is estranged from his parents, support shall be given by the responsible local authority without reference to the means of either of his parents; and

(b) any award made to the relevant child or young person by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority shall be discounted").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. New Section 23B(11) of the Children Act establishes that financial assistance is to be means tested. These amendments would ensure that the means of children and parents are disregarded in certain circumstances in the best interests of the child. The thought that lies behind the first part of these amendments is quite straightforward. It is that any means testing of support where a young person is estranged from his or her family may militate against restoring relationships. It cannot be right that the system that we put in place to support care leavers should contain a provision that stands in the way of something that could be of immeasurable benefit to the child. In the circumstances I have outlined, therefore, it seems right that contributions from parents should be disregarded.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment deals with a different issue. It takes its cue from a number of cases where local authorities have taken into account awards under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority when assessing financial support entitlement for care leavers. One example illustrates the point. Susan was subject to a care order and at the age of 14 was sexually abused by a worker in the residential unit where she lived. The abuser was successfully prosecuted and Susan received a substantial payment from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The payment was placed in trust until Susan was 18. She obtained a university place and asked the local authority for financial assistance but was told that no finances would be forthcoming as she could use the compensation money for this.
It really does seem grossly unfair to treat compensation income in this way. It is also entirely contrary to the purpose of the compensation. As a matter of principle, any awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to a young person should be automatically discounted. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to both the points that I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: I support absolutely the noble Earl, Lord Howe. As regards criminal injuries, we need to go to enormous lengths to avoid a situation where children have been awarded compensation for events that have actually taken place while they were in care and that compensation then considered in relation to

CWH49
their financial support. I very much hope that the Minister will see the force of the argument behind these two amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to support both these amendments. Clearly, I support the issue regarding awards by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That is quite inequitable. However, what we should feel most strongly about, because it potentially affects the young person's life, is the first limb of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. This is in relation to making sure that where a young person is estranged from his family, parents are not asked for contributions. One seems to be on a hiding to nothing there. For the sake of extracting a few pounds from the parents, there is a risk of gravely damaging that relationship and there is little hope of restoring it. I urge the Minister to look at that again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly agree with the sentiments that have been expressed, though I am not convinced that the amendments or changing the law in this way is the right way forward. It is going to be perfectly possible for us in guidance to deal with the issues that both noble Lords have raised. I accept that if a young person has suffered criminal injury and has been awarded compensation as a result, it seems mean spirited if he is then denied support as a result and expected to use compensation for day-to-day living expenses. Similarly, if a young person is estranged from his family, relations can be further strained if the family is then required to contribute to his maintenance. Young people in care are often in a very delicate position regarding their families, and their past and future prospects make it vital that the local authority is sensitive to the complex aspects of their lives.
The Bill does not introduce any changes to the local authority means-tested aspect of support for young people in and leaving care, and we are not convinced that it ought to do so. It seems right that the local authority should be sensitive to the relationships between young people in care and their families and not do anything which would make the difficult relationships worse. Equally, it is right that they should expect some contribution towards the costs of looking after a child in care if the family's means permit. This could even be a way of rebuilding a family relationship by emphasising the responsibilities family members have towards each other.
For this issue and for the question of how to treat awards from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Government believe that sensitivity is needed rather than changes to the legislation. Current legislation does not oblige local authorities to require parental contributions for children they are looking after. They may only do so if it is reasonable. Similarly, local authorities are not obliged to seek contributions from families for any assistance they provide under Section 17 for children in need, or Section 24 for aftercare support.
We are applying the same provisions for aftercare assistance to the new arrangements as presently apply to Section 24. These provisions state that, before
CWH50
giving any assistance, a local authority is to have regard to the means of the child concerned and to each of his parents, and that no one has to repay an assistance if he is receiving certain social security benefits. We believe that this should be enough but we are happy to look again at the guidance to see whether it needs to be strengthened and, in particular, to ensure that it covers the kind of continuing support which the Bill introduces.
If a child receives an award as compensation for a criminal injury, in our view that money is capital which should not be taken into account when considering day-to-day expenses. We would expect local authorities to be reasonable about what capital might be expected to be used for and to treat each case on its own merits. Again, I am happy to revisit the guidance to make sure that it is adequate to cover the effects of the Bill.
I take the point that these issues have not been handled sensibly by some local authorities. I am not convinced that it is the law that is at fault. I believe it is the management processes and decisions within local authorities and I am happy to advise noble Lords that I will revisit this issue in guidance.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. As he said, these are matters which are extremely sensitive, almost by definition.
If it is the management processes at local authority level that have led to the unfortunate incidents such as the one I recounted, it is necessary for the Government to look not just at the way in which the guidance is phrased but the binding nature of that guidance. There is guidance and guidance. Some guidance is clearly binding on the recipient and other guidance is not. I take it from what the Minister said that this would not be binding guidance, because there always needs to be an element of discretion. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how the failures in the management process to which he referred will not be prevented in the future unless something is considerably strengthened somewhere along the line. I hope that the Minister can come back at a later stage, or perhaps write to me, to amplify the comments that he has made in light of the further thinking in his department. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18A to 20 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Advice and assistance for certain children and young persons aged 16 or over]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 44, after ("Authority") insert (", Primary Care Trust").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor consequential amendment relating to the Health Act 1999 which established primary care trusts.
Under Section 24 of the Children Act 1989, which this Bill restates with amendments, persons qualifying for advice and assistance include children accommodated for at least three months by a health authority, special health authority or local education authority. Further provision relates to the existing requirement for an authority, on ceasing to accommodate a child aged 16 or over, to notify the local authority for the area where the child will live.
As many noble Lords will be aware, under the Health Act 1999 some primary care trusts—level 4 primary care trusts—will be able to run hospitals and community health services. Their functions will include the provision of children's services and the accommodation of children.
As a result, the aforementioned provisions of Section 24 of the Children Act need to be extended to include those children accommodated by those primary care trusts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.22 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: The format of this amendment substituting "shall" for "may" is all too familiar, but I make no apology for it. It serves to focus our minds on an aspect of the Bill that is for me one of the most important of all; that is, the need to ensure that young people leaving care are given the best possible opportunity to make something of their lives by pursuing their education or gaining a vocational qualification, or finding a job.
New Section 24B provides local authorities with a power to give assistance to care leavers up to the age of 24 by contributing to any expenses that they incur in living near their work, or place of education, or training, or by making a grant to help with the expenses associated with education or training. This provision is perfectly fine except for one thing: it is discretionary and not mandatory. Already in the Children Act local authorities have an absolutely identical power to provide assistance to care leavers for the purpose of education or training or employment, the only difference being that the age limit in most cases is set at 21.
However, these powers are hardly ever exercised, and referring to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we all know that if a local authority has to make a choice, as most of them now do, between spending money where they must and spending it where they may, then there is no real choice at all; they spend it where they have to.
The lack of additional money for education or training expenses would not be such a disaster were we not dealing with a group of people who, more perhaps than any other group in society, desperately need all the educational opportunities they can get. We need only go back to the consultation paper Me, Survive
CWH52
Out There? to remind ourselves why. Seventy-five per cent of care leavers leave school with no educational qualifications whatever compared with 6 per cent. of all school leavers. Shocking as that figure is, perhaps it should not surprise us too much when we bear in mind the sorts of experience that brought them into care in the first place and the frequent changes of home and school that many of them have to put up with while in care. Care leavers are highly disadvantaged in educational terms and it is no wonder that about 50 per cent. of them find themselves unemployed when they leave school.
Of all the requests we can make to the Government to re-examine the provisions of the Bill, this is one of the most pressing and deserving. Of course it is a question of resources—I understand that—but in the end, what is this Bill to be? Is it simply to be window dressing, or will it really make a difference to young people leaving the care system? If we mean business with this Bill then we should ensure that, where young people are trying to improve their employability and skills, they should not have to fight for the funds to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-JonesThe noble Earl, Lord Howe, has put the case for this amendment most effectively. It is one of the key amendments which we on these Benches would certainly wish to see added to the Bill. I am so sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not here, because some of his earlier remarks were directed towards this amendment. With his enormous experience of his students and the problems they face, he made out an extremely good case for it, although he was speaking to another amendment. When one has such authority as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has, that does not matter.
As we have heard today—and this is one of the crucial issues in the Bill—unless local authorities are under a duty they will not necessarily produce the right results. That is why this is so important.
I shall beg the indulgence of the Committee and read a short case history, which illustrates some of the issues.
"Heather is 20. It took her a little while after leaving care to get herself sorted out and settled. Once she had done so she began to think about qualifications and studied for a GCSE. The local authority was approached by the NCH Action For Children Workways project to provide the £27 for the exam fee. They refused. They said that by 20 Heather should already have got her GCSEs. They seemed to have forgotten that one of the main reasons why she didn't take her GCSEs at age 16 was because the local authority had moved her from one care placement to another one week before she was due to take her exams".
Heather would like to obtain more qualifications but she cannot. The local authority would never consider supporting her while she did so and, because the qualifications she would be studying for are not advanced, she would not qualify for state benefits. That provides the classic illustration of these situations, and there are so many cases like that. That is why we so strongly support this amendment.
Lord Laming: I also support this amendment, which I regard as the most important we are considering this

CWH53
evening. As we said on several earlier amendments, many young people missed out on education at an earlier stage and they have a long way to catch up. Some of them will come to education rather later, older than their peers, as the Minister implied earlier.
It is essential that we encourage all young people to have as much education as possible, to help them achieve their full potential. That is particularly important for this group of young people, many of whom in earlier life experienced quite severe gaps in their education for a variety of reasons. Now is the time when we should encourage and support them to make up for those gaps which occurred earlier.
That will involve some resources, but, sadly, it will not involve a great deal. Although the Minister may feel hesitant about committing himself to this amendment because of the fear over resources, I regret to say that experience seems to show that in reality relatively few young people from this group will stay in education until the age of 24. That is a matter of concern, but it is a concern which ought to enable the Minister to agree to this amendment.
I hesitate to pray in aid the sayings of a fellow called Tony Blair. However, the Minister may be helped if I read a foreword to the Bridging the Gap document. I remind him that the Prime Minister said:
"The best defence against total exclusion is having a job, and the best way to get a job is to have a good education, with the right training and the right experience".
The Prime Minister, if I may say so in a purely non-party political way, is entirely right. It is our responsibility to try to ensure that young people, who for whatever reason have missed out on education at an earlier stage in their lives, now have the opportunity to carry on with their education. Where young people have the potential to go to university, we should do everything possible to ensure they complete their courses. I hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment which seems to many of us to be one of the most important amendments that we are considering this evening.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: There are so many people who do not want to carry on with education, particularly those from care for the reasons that have been said. It is bad for their self-esteem to be turned down. For that girl not to have been able to take her examination is bad for her self-esteem. The Secretary of State for Education—I watched his recent programme on television—spoke strongly about giving these people education. The matter is very important. The local authorities need a big push.
The Earl of Listowel: When young people—they have dropped out, failed, and have been told by their teachers that they are hopeless—take their A-level later in life, it is like climbing Everest. For them it is the stamp that they have turned the corner and started to make something of their lives. It is important, and I am sure the Minister will give an interesting and satisfactory answer to it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Noble Lords are always inviting me to commit extra resources. How I wish I
CWH54
could wave the magic wand! I accept that education and training are the best way of helping these young people secure the life chance that they need and that we wish to give them. I have no doubt about that, and I could not disagree with the Prime Minister's words.
We understand the frustration and concerns that many noble Lords have about the current record of local authorities in this area. We certainly would wish local authorities to use these new powers and duties to assist care leavers in education and training wherever appropriate. I can reassure noble Lords that the inspection and review processes that we shall be instituting will look very closely at the education and employment outcomes of care leavers up to the age of 21 and beyond.
I shall be happy to consider the matter further. However, I must say that just as with the parallel discussion on the general duty to assist care leavers beyond the age of 18 there would be some financial burdens. It clearly would be unreasonable to take steps to make this a duty on local authorities without providing the resources with which to meet it. As I have said, I am willing to consider the matter further.
Earl Howe: That is a helpful reply. I thank the Minister for it, because I know all too well that an amendment of this kind presents difficulties for the Government in terms of funding. I welcome his undertaking to look at the issue again. He will know the strong feeling of the Committee on this matter— and not just in the Committee, but more widely I hope that something can be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 4, at end insert (", Primary Care Trust").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Representations]:
[Amendments No. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exclusion from benefits]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not apply to a person who falls within subsection (2)(a) or (b) where that person is estranged from his responsible local authority.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment picks up an issue raised by several noble Lords, including myself, at Second Reading. Its purpose is to ensure that young care leavers who do not have or who do not want contact with their local authority—who are estranged from their local authority—will continue to have the safety net of the right to claim income support of some kind.
I support the proposal that local authorities should have primary responsibility for the financial support of young people leaving care. The proposal that temporary emergency support will be available when

CWH55
things go wrong is also one that I welcome. However, I feel that a blanket exclusion from benefits could leave the most vulnerable young people without any source of financial support. In the small minority of cases where young people are irrevocably estranged from their corporate parents, I believe that young people should continue to have the discretionary right to support from the benefits system via the severe hardship allowance.
Failure to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable young people will mean only one thing; that the Bill will weaken the level of protection offered to young people leaving care. That cannot be right. Research has shown that many young people who have experienced the care system are highly suspicious of local authority social work services, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out earlier, and they do not make use of through and after-care services, even when they exist.
I have already said today that young people previously looked after by local authorities are particularly vulnerable to homelessness. Research shows that between one-fifth and one-half of young homeless people have been in care, while 26 per cent. of rough sleeper initiative service users have a care background.
There is a distinct risk that scrapping entitlement to benefit in its entirety will increase the threat of homelessness for some young people leaving care. I believe that we should do all we can to avoid that eventuality. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. By and large, we accept the general principles laid down by the Bill. In this case, however, unless there is a safety valve, there could be injustices. This matter was raised at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords and it is a matter of considerable concern. The wording does not let a coach and horses through. It is a specific set of circumstances, and I urge the Minister to consider it carefully.
The Earl of Listowel: I remember having a case described to me of a young girl who went into prostitution, or clipping, which is to offer a man sex and take the money, then to run away without providing a service. That might be one destination for a young person who had no money and was completely estranged from her local authority. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: These are the most at-risk people because if they have fallen out with their local authority it might well be because they have been abused. Why else would they fall out with the local authority unless with a breakdown in relationships with social workers? It might be something serious like that and the only option then would be to do something like go on the streets.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We return to a discussion that we had at Second Reading and I understand the concerns of noble Lords. The problem with the solution being put forward is that there are some real practical difficulties and, ironically, it might provide perverse incentives for local authorities to give up on disaffected young people. In that sense, it could undermine the principle of the Bill as it now stands.
We are, of course, concerned with some very vulnerable young people and we try in the Bill to put arrangements together that are robust and straightforward and which will inspire confidence in the young people whom it is designed to help. The important element here is removing the perverse incentives that have driven local authorities to discharge people from care before they are ready and able to do so. That is why we are replacing the current arrangements with a duty to assess and meet the needs of all eligible and relevant people.
We are deliberately taking this group of young people out of reliance on the benefit system in order to simplify the arrangements for supporting them. The duties on local authorities include supporting and maintaining them until they are 18 in order to guarantee that they receive what they need and we have introduced the concept of a responsible authority so that it is quite clear about which authority is there to support the individual young person. In doing so, we want local authorities to behave more like responsible parents towards these children.
The problem is that if disaffected young people are still able to claim benefits what is to encourage local authorities to continue to work with the difficult and most vulnerable when they might have a back-door through which to push them?
There are also other issues. This particular group of young people are likely to be especially vulnerable, alone on the streets. I wonder whether their interests are best served through the financial help offered by benefits. Surely the experience we have seen in the past few years suggests not.
I recognise that, in certain circumstances, emergency support will be required. Under Section 17 local authorities can provide that support and these young people will be able to claim support. Local authorities also offer out-of-hours services, as so many people needing emergency support do so at night or at weekends. That is why we have been at such pains to introduce flexibility into the system. We have tried to take account of the fact that some young people will want nothing at all to do with their responsible authority or, indeed, any other authority. Young people are mobile but, again, they need support and stability just as they would expect from a good parent. That is why the responsible authority will provide support wherever the young person moves and it is why we are setting up a system whereby the only contact a young person need have to receive his support is with the young person's adviser. I have already referred in earlier debates about the various backgrounds from which young persons' advisers can

CWH57
come. I have also made it clear that, in circumstances where the young person is unhappy with a young person's adviser, it will be possible for another adviser to be appointed.
When one thinks about the estrangement of a young person from a statutory authority, all the young person has to do is keep in touch with the young person's adviser and that young person will have, if he or she wishes, very little contact at all with the statutory local authority.
I recognise the strength with which noble Lords have expressed their concerns on this matter, but I do not believe it will be helpful to make separate benefit rules for disaffected young people. The best way forward is the way that we have chosen, with the availability of emergency support in certain circumstances.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask how emergency hardship payments figure in this, if at all. Furthermore, does the Minister recognise that children who have been abused or had bad experiences have difficulty keeping relationships? To have a good relationship, therefore, with a special adviser may be very problematic for large numbers of young people in this group.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: On the first point, perhaps I might write to the noble Lord on hardship arrangements and how these would come into play and the kind of emergency support that would be available. Of course, I recognise the issues that the noble Lord has raised. I have tried to explain that the very existence of a young person's adviser, together with the statutory responsibility of the responsible authority, ought to ensure that the young person can receive proper support, not just from benefits. They need proper support with the minimum of contact with the local authority and with the sensitive support of a young person's adviser.
In considering this, we have to compare and contrast the previous situation. For so many children and young people these new arrangements will be wholly better and much improve the situation. I accept that there may be, one hopes, in a very limited number of cases, people who might become totally estranged from the system as a whole. We hope, however, that by the very nature and existence of young persons' advisers and the ability of a young person to change the adviser through the operation of a complaints system, it ought to be possible to alleviate most of those concerns.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to agree with him and say how important it is that the young people keep in touch with somebody. So often they just disappear and they can then become sucked into this terrible underworld, which we ought somehow to be tackling but which nobody seems able to tackle. Keeping in touch is paramount.
Earl Howe: I entirely understand the argument that the Minister has advanced. We are probably all agreed that in so far as is possible, perverse incentives for local authorities to default on their obligations should be done away with. However, this Bill brings about a whole new raft of duties on local authorities—legally enforceable duties—and those are not duties from which local authorities can simply walk away. That is unlike the present situation where the powers are simply permissive in many cases. It is a new situation. It worries me, despite all that the Minister says, that inevitably there will be a small handful of people who will slip through the net. I am troubled about what we are to say about those people and to them. There may well be no answer. I sense from what the Minister says that the Government are set on the course upon which they have embarked, for perfectly good and understandable reasons. Nevertheless, I am left with a nagging worry. There may be nothing more that can be said or done between now and Report stage but I shall certainly reflect further and consider in some depth what the Minister said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In response, I do not disagree here in principle. I am happy to meet noble Lords before Report stage to discuss the matter further.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Regulations shall provide that national minimum standards are established to provide for the essential weds of those persons falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b).").
The noble Earl said: New Section 23B(8) establishes local authorities' responsibility to provide support for those young people who are eligible. Support in this context includes financial assistance, suitable accommodation and other personal support. Clause 6(7) provides for powers to make different financial provision for different areas. Many Members of the Committee will know—and indeed it was a point made by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading—that the level of support currently received by young people in or leaving care varies very considerably both within and between local authorities. Young people living in the same local authority area report receiving significantly different levels of financial and in-kind support. Amounts paid under leaving-care grants vary from a few pounds to £2,000. Often, young people and professionals are unaware of the criteria for different levels of support and therefore support systems appear to be discretionary.
This Bill provides an excellent opportunity to establish a level playing field for young people in the care system, and leaving it. National minimum standards for financial support should be set for the

CWH59
level of overall support for care leavers. Those minimum standards need, at the very least, to improve on current levels of support in local authorities where care leavers have been found to be living in poverty.
A national minimum standard for financial support would not require the Government to be over-prescriptive about the nature of financial support offered. Indeed, there should be some flexibility to allow local authorities to respond to individual circumstances.
At Second Reading, the Minister stated that as they progress along their pathway plan,
"some young people will be given a budget and will be independent. Others might start with pocket money".—[Official Report, 7/12/99; col. 1189.]
I welcome those comments, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that cash payments will be available for young people. I take it that that was the tenor of his earlier amendment—not only in exceptional circumstances, as new Section 24A(5) states. It is clearly important that young people develop the ability to manage their personal finances. Research points to money management skills as the most often cited source of support requested by care leavers.
My own view is that some element of the financial support should be made in cash, but I fully accept that it would be inappropriate to standardise the balance of cash payments for all young people. The main objective must be to establish an overall minimum standard of support in all its forms, to prevent the equalities that currently exist.
There is another reason why the Government should look favourably on the idea of minimum standards, and that is Clause 6. Clause 6 removes benefit entitlement for most 16 to 17 year olds in or leaving care, as we have just been debating. That in itself removes a minimum entitlement for young people, many of whom are of course vulnerable. The establishment of a minimum standard of financial support for all young people who are in contact with their young person's adviser is vital to ensure that the protection of these young people is not weakened by this Bill. It would also strengthen the role of the young person's adviser by linking the clear entitlement to a level of financial support to contact with that adviser. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: I support this amendment. It is helpful that we have just had a discussion about the virtues of removing young people from the benefits system. This amendment looks at the other side of that coin. If that is to be the unequivocal position of the Government, it seems to me that national minimum standards should be included in regulations.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we have all been surprised and deeply concerned by the evidence that was put before us about the range of financial support
CWH60
available from different local authorities to young people. This is one of the grounds that young people present as being a source of great concern and annoyance about the current arrangements. If the new arrangements are to be satisfactory it seems clear to me that there will be considerable advantage in having national minimum standards prescribed, with the right of local authorities on the basis of assessed need to go beyond national minimum standards but not to fall below.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support Amendment No. 28. By this stage of the Committee most of us can begin to speak in code and still be understood. In a sense this follows on from the kinds of discussions we have been having about the difference between powers and duties. The argument that has been made on many amendments is that if local authorities do not have the duty to do something, even though they may not be falling down or acting in bad faith, they simply may not have the resources. They have a certain number of priorities which they have to take into account and they will, by and large, treat as higher priorities those matters that they have in law to undertake. We are back to that argument in this case. Unless there is a minimum level of financial support that local authorities are required to give in those circumstances, the temptation will be in many cases to under-provide. One recognises the danger: if one puts a floor down it may well become a ceiling. But one hopes that that will not necessarily be the case.
We need a clear sense of the level of financial support appropriate in the circumstances. We believe that that is best enshrined in our amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may assure noble Lords that we intend through guidance to issue minimum standards. The consultation Me, Survive Out There? and subsequent comments from young people raised a great deal of concern about the levels of support that they could expect from local authorities under the new arrangements. I suspect that some of that concern goes back to the inadequacies of many local authorities under the present circumstances.
It is important that children in care have confidence in the new arrangements and realistic expectations of what they can expect from the local authority by way of support. We are working on a number of minimum standards in a number of areas, such as foster care, and we shall build on that experience to define the standards that young people can expect under the Bill's provision. Those standards will set a benchmark for a decent level of service. I agree with the comment about floors and ceilings. We want to do more than simply guard against inadequate support. We want to ensure that those young people have a decent chance in life. That means ensuring that they receive a good level of support.
We believe that it is best handled through guidance. We shall certainly cover in that guidance services and financial support. It needs careful handling. We may need to identify a suitable benchmark for the package

CWH61
such as the standard of living a young person might have expected from state benefits. I very much take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that one of the great strengths of the arrangements is that each young person has to be treated as an individual.
Another point raised at Second Reading was that one of the skills that all young people need is how to manage a budget. Everyone will come to that at a different pace. One young person might be perfectly competent to manage his own money, while at the same age another might be barely able to cope with pocket money. I am sure that parents would recognise that point. We are asking local authorities to behave more as a responsible parent would towards a child. Minimum standards would need to take account of the range of needs and abilities of the young people we are aiming to help. We should certainly be able to ensure that young people cannot be short-changed under the new arrangements. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords on that point.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before the noble Earl responds, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I do not know whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Laming, or the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who said earlier that there is guidance and there is guidance. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what the legal effect of such guidance would be. What is its status? Does it have the status of a circular? Is it something that is binding on a local authority? It may be that the Minister already knows the type of guidance and the legal status it has. It may be something that he may wish to consider and come back to us on at Report stage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord is right: there is guidance and there is statutory guidance. Statutory guidance means that the local authority has to act in accordance with that guidance or, if it does not do so, it must have a good reason. Guidance is rather less prescriptive than that. In relation to minimum standards in the area to which noble Lords have referred, in other words in relation to finances, we have not made a decision as to which kind of guidance that should be. The debate today helps me to reflect on that particular issue.
Earl Howe: Once again, I thank the Minister for a helpful reply. I am glad that he and his colleagues in the department are ready to embrace the concept of minimum standards and I take on board what he said about finding some sort of suitable benchmark to arrive at an appropriate sum of money, or at least an appropriate level of support in either monetary terms or in kind.
On that practical question, I am perfectly happy to trust the Government to reach an equitable result. What I find more difficult is to rely on local authorities to implement the guidance once they get it. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about
CWH62
that. It really will make a difference how that guidance is framed. This has been a very useful short debate and no doubt this will be considered further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert ("and the Scottish Parliament").
The noble Earl said: The bulk of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill relates solely to England and Wales. However, Clause 6, which removes entitlement to income-based jobseekers allowance, income support and housing benefit from 16 and 17-year old care leavers, applies to Scotland as well. The intention is to transfer DSS resources to local authorities along with unspecified duties to support care leavers. No account is taken, it appears, of the different legal status of young people in Scotland. None of the positive measures included in the Bill relates to Scotland. Instead, the Scottish Executive has announced the establishment of a through-care and after-care working group to advise Ministers how unified resources might operate for the good of young care leavers.
In a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 12th January, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education, Peter Peacock, stated:
"When we implement the changes will be entirely at our discretion".
In the light of that, I believe the Government should undertake that Clause 6 of the Bill should not come into force in Scotland until the through-care and after-care working group has reported and the Scottish Parliament has considered the new arrangements.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify the respective responsibilities of the UK and Scottish Parliaments where benefit entitlement, which is a reserved power, is being replaced by new local authority arrangements, which are a devolved power. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl returns to Scotland. Perhaps I may first say that social security is a reserved matter under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. For that reason it is not appropriate to lay regulations on social security before the Scottish Parliament as it would not be competent either to amend or confirm them.
That raises a wider question about the inter-relationship between Scotland and England. We are absolutely determined that there should be no gaps in provision. The Bill before the Committee provides that English and Welsh children who move to live in Scotland will be able to claim social security benefits in Scotland, and that Scottish children who move to England or Wales will not become eligible or relevant children, but will continue to be able to claim benefits.
Should the Scottish Parliament decide to legislate for these children, which we hope that it will, subsection (7)—which another amendment before the Committee earlier sought to amend—gives the

CWH63
Secretary of State power to make regulations in respect of these children, to ensure consistency of outcome across Great Britain.
Apart from the question of social security benefits the issues which the Bill addresses are devolved matters for Scotland. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested colleagues in Scotland are considering what new arrangement they might themselves adopt—and the working group meets today—and it could be that it will decide to enact similar legislation.
Whatever they decide, we have been careful to take account of the implications of there being, potentially, different arrangements in place on opposite sides of the Border. In particular we have been careful to ensure that no child moving across the Border, either before or after these new arrangements come into effect, will find himself without the means of support.
Existing legislation means that it is not possible for local authorities on either side of the Scottish Border to take on responsibility for each other's looked after children.
Transitional arrangements, before any Scottish legislation is enacted, will be that English children will remain eligible for benefits if they move to Scotland and Scottish children will remain eligible for benefits if they move to England.
Different arrangements will be needed when Scottish legislation is enacted, and the benefits rules in Clause 6 of this Bill come into effect there. That is why this Bill includes a provision at new Section 23A(5) for the Secretary of State to prescribe that children who have been looked after in Scotland but who move to England would have a responsible authority based on where they live in England. This power would be used once Scottish legislation was in place. We anticipate that any Scottish legislation would include a similar provision in respect of English children who move north.
I hope that reassures noble Lords that we have ensured that there will not be a gap. Obviously we hope that Scotland will move to similar legislation as quickly as possible.
8 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and it is good news that what one might term reciprocal arrangements are at least at the planning stage. Do I understand correctly, therefore, that Clause 6 could be brought into force south of the Border at a different time from it being brought into force north of the Border? Is that the consequence of what he has just said?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Certainly, that is so in relation to Scotland, if it decides not to legislate and therefore continues the current scheme whereby benefits are available to young people. Clearly in
CWH64
relation to English children and young people who will be affected by the change in the law by April 2001 when the new regime comes into being, you will have a different situation. You will also have a different situation where English children and young people who move across the Border into Scotland will continue to be able to receive benefits, because the law does not allow the responsible authority concept to extend over the Border; so the noble Lord is quite correct.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I was clearly concerned that there might be a situation in Scotland where for a period at least there would be no provision whatsoever for support of care leavers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. It is quite clear that there will be provision; it will just be different provision. English children going over the border will have to receive the provision as it now is, rather than under the provisions of this Bill.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28B not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation, commencement, extent, Wales and short title]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (7) does not affect the power to make further Orders varying or omitting that reference.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical matter arising from Welsh devolution. As noble Lords may be aware, all of the Secretary of State's functions under the Children Act were transferred to the National Assembly for Wales by a transfer of functions order which was made last year under the Government of Wales Act. The question which then arose was how to deal with subsequent amendments to the Children Act, which confer new functions which are intended to be exercised in Wales by the national assembly and in England by the Secretary of State. To cut a long and rather technical story short, in the end it was decided to make it absolutely clear that the reference to the Children Act in the transfer of functions order was to be treated as referring to the Children Act as amended by this Act. That is now reflected in Clause 8(7) of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): The Question is that the Title be agreed to?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I think that the Title of the Bill should be changed. We have been talking all evening about young people. I hope that the Minister
CWH66
will take it away with him and look at it because "Children and Young People (Leaving Care) Bill" sounds far more appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Earlier, I said that there were reasons why we have used language that appropriates back to the Children Act, but I did say that I was persuaded to have a look at this point.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.

  Dr Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Dr Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  "Your Britain, Your Europe" Roadshow
  "Your Britain, Your Europe" Roadshow
  Karen Refugees in Thailand
  Karen Refugees in Thailand
  Burma
  Burma
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Austria and the EU
  Austria and the EU
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Visitors from the Indian Sub-continent: Bond Scheme
  Visitors from the Indian Sub-continent: Bond Scheme
  Deaths in Custody: Data on Ethnic Minorities
  Deaths in Custody: Data on Ethnic Minorities
  Burglars: Mandatory Minimum Sentences
  Burglars: Mandatory Minimum Sentences
  Community Sentences: Non-compliance and Withdrawal of Benefits
  Community Sentences: Non-compliance and Withdrawal of Benefits
  Asylum-seekers in Detention: Bail Hearings
  Asylum-seekers in Detention: Bail Hearings
  Immigration Detainees: Bail
  Immigration Detainees: Bail
  Probation Service Name Change: Cost
  Probation Service Name Change: Cost
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee
  Crime Fighting Fund: Police Force Bids for Recruitment
  Crime Fighting Fund: Police Force Bids for Recruitment
  Hungary: Co-operation to Fight Crime
  Hungary: Co-operation to Fight Crime
  Police Strengths
  Police Strengths
  Balkans: Army Communications
  Balkans: Army Communications
  GPs: Single-handed Practices
  GPs: Single-handed Practices
  Dr Harold Shipman
  Dr Harold Shipman
  Debt among Benefit Recipients
  Debt among Benefit Recipients
  Young People Living Independently and Claiming Benefit
  Young People Living Independently and Claiming Benefit
  Half-price Travel Concessions
  Half-price Travel Concessions
  House of Lords Appointments Commission: PricewaterhouseCoopers
  House of Lords Appointments Commission: PricewaterhouseCoopers
  House of Lords Appointments Commission: Advertising Campaign
  House of Lords Appointments Commission: Advertising Campaign
  House of Lords: Transitional Period
  House of Lords: Transitional Period