Sitting of 9 March 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS]
Order for consideration read.
To be considered on thursday 16 March.
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 16 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Unemployment (Conwy)
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on the change in the level of unemployment in the Conwy constituency since May 1997. [112212]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Claimant unemployment in the Conwy parliamentary constituency has fallen by 341–14.3 per cent.—since the general election. Youth unemployment has fallen by 76 per cent. To secure our objective of high and stable employment, the Government will proceed on the basis of matching rights and responsibilities, creating new opportunities for work in return for obligations. The report by Lord Grabiner QC on the informal economy proposes to toughen sanctions against working in the hidden economy. At the same time, for the vast majority who are looking for work, we are considering more intensive coaching and help, where appropriate, with training, travel, transitional costs and child care.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend. Hundreds of my constituents are grateful for the Labour Government's new deal and would condemn the Opposition for describing it as a colossal and expensive
    1172
    failure. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to show that he intends to build on the success of the new deal to achieve Labour's historic aim of full employment?
    Mr. Brown: Even though youth unemployment has fallen by 68 per cent. in the constituency of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) says that the new deal is an expensive failure and that he would abolish it. In October, the Conservatives announced that they would privatise the Employment Service. Their policy would be bad for Conwy: in addition to abolishing the new deal, they would return the economy to boom and bust. The shadow Chancellor made Tory policy clear when he said that the Tories were
    linked to harshness, thought to be uncaring about unemployment, poverty, poor housing. We were thought to favour greed.
    That is, in fact, exactly the policy of the Tory party.

    Manufacturing and Service Industries
    Mr. Peter Brooke: What increases in manufacturing and service industry productivity were secured in the calendar years (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [112213]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The service sector grew in those years respectively by 2.1 per cent., 1.7 per cent. and 0.7 per cent. The manufacturing sector grew by 0.7 per cent., minus 0.6 per cent. and 3.6 per cent. Whole-economy productivity growth including manufacturing and services per employee was 1.5 per cent., 1 per cent. and 1 per cent. Because whole-economy productivity during the 1980s and 1990s remained below that in the United States of America, France and Germany, we have instituted long-term measures for improvements in productivity—monetary and fiscal stability, a new competition policy matching innovative capital markets with a more favourable tax environment, and making Britain a skills centre for Europe with measures including labour market reforms.
    Mr. Brooke: Since the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told me at Treasury questions last month that no one could be complacent about the figures, what would it take for the Chief Secretary to become actively dissatisfied?
    Mr. Brown: I am the Chancellor, not the Chief Secretary, but, like my right hon. Friend, I was appalled by the Conservative Government's failure to improve productivity during the 1980s and 1990s. The Conservatives failed to institute a new competition policy that would mean lower prices and greater efficiency. We have created an independent Competition Commission, which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman would support. We have instituted labour market reforms, emphasising skills that are desperately needed in the economy but which the Conservatives failed to provide. At the same time, we have instituted measures that mean that investment in the

    1173
    economy is now 14.5 per cent.—a proportion of gross domestic product far above anything that the Conservatives achieved over 20 years.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: With productivity in mind, does my right hon. Friend regard sterling as competitive?
    Mr. Brown: I have made it clear that we understand manufacturers and exporters worries about sterling. In relation to the dollar, sterling has remained virtually unchanged over several years, but developments in the euro area have created difficulties for exporters. However, exporters and manufacturers to whom I have talked most fear a return to the policies adopted by the Conservatives—the policies that brought stop-go and boom and bust.
    Let us not forget that the shadow Chancellor was at the Treasury when, in the recession of the early 1990s, 2 million jobs were lost in the British economy. While he was at the Department of Employment, unemployment—on the claimant count—never fell below 2.3 million; it is now 1.1 million. Youth unemployment during the right hon. Gentleman's spell there was 300,000; and it is now 50,000. We favour creating jobs; the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for unemployment.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor accept that any increases in productivity that British industry is likely to achieve will be insufficient to overcome the problem of an overvalued exchange rate, which is itself largely caused by our high interest rate policy?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures: manufacturing productivity is rising by 3.6 per cent. He should congratulate the manufacturing sector of the economy on its response to what is happening. Equally, he should look at the amount of business investment in the economy, which is more than £100 billion, and has risen from the maximum of slightly more than 12 per cent. of gross domestic product under the Conservatives to more than 14 per cent. under Labour. We are making the long-term changes that will give higher productivity in the economy. The Conservatives had 20 years to do so, and they failed.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the steel industry is the most productive manufacturing industry in our country at present? However, it is encountering tough problems because of the high value of the pound. The steel workers at Shotton, who in 1980 suffered Europe's biggest redundancy, are anxious—as are those in other steel plants throughout Wales—about a statement by Corus, the new steel company, that no job and no plant is safe. The steel workers know that the strength of the pound and the merger are putting pressure on jobs. My right hon. Friend helped over the climate levy for the steel industry—in the same positive way, what he might do to enable the export of steel?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a constant supporter of the steel industry in his constituency and throughout the country. I, too, have talked to representatives of the steel workers union and
    1174
    shall continue to hold discussions with them. I appreciate the problems that the exchange rate has given them. They have told me that they do not want to return to boom and bust—as happened under the Conservatives. Not only are there more jobs in Wales as a result of action taken by this Government, but there are now 800,000 more jobs throughout the whole economy. More people are in work than ever before as a result of stability and the measures in the new deal. The stop-go policies of the Opposition and their opposition to the new deal put that at risk.

    Tax Burden
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What his projection is of the tax burden for 2001–02 measured as a percentage of GDP. [112214]
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the number of quarters since May 1997 in which the percentage of GDP taken by the Government in tax over the previous 12 months has risen. [112217]
    Mr. Graham Brady: What estimate he has made of the net increase in the amount of tax that will be paid in the five financial years from 1997–98 to 2001–02 as a result of his Budget measures to date. [112218]
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What projection he has made of the tax burden as a percentage of GDP in 2001–02; and if he will make a statement on the change in the tax burden since 1996–97. [112219]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As a result of last year's Budget, the tax:GDP ratio is lower this year than last year. The tax ratio in the two following years will also be lower than last year. Under the previous Government's plans, those rates would have been higher than the latest projections—not only in this year but in both of the next two years.
    Mrs. Lait: Is not the Chief Secretary aware that, since his Government came into office, the overall tax burden has risen? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that—as have the Office for National Statistics, the House of Commons Library, his own Red Book, the pre-Budget statement and the Fabian Society. In today's papers, Chantrey Vellacott has said it. Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman gritted his teeth and, on behalf of the Chancellor, admitted that the tax burden has risen?
    Mr. Smith: I keep giving the Conservatives the figures, but they do not seem to listen. Last year, the tax burden was 37.4 per cent. This year, it is 37 per cent. Next year, it is due to fall to 36.8 per cent. on the measures to date. That is a tax burden that is falling, not rising.
    Mr. O'Brien: Returning to the precise figures, the ONS pointed out that the tax burden has risen in all but two quarters since Labour came to power. In the two quarters when it did not actually rise, it remained the same. Last year, the Prime Minister said that
    it is clear, as the figures show, that the tax burden is falling.—[Official Report, 24 November 1999; Vol. 339. c. 609.]

    1175
    Will the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary explain what the Prime Minister was talking about when he made that statement?
    Mr. Smith: I am tempted, in the interests of accuracy, to repeat to the hon. Gentleman the figures that I have just given. However, for his interest, I shall give him another set of figures that reflect the burden as it actually impacts on a typical family. The figures show that, when we came to office, the take was 21.5 per cent.; it then fell to 20.9 per cent.; this year it is due to fall to 20.4 per cent.; and next year it will be 18.9 per cent. Again, from the vantage point of the families who pay tax, that means less tax with Labour.
    Mr. Brady: I suspect that the Chief Secretary's figures do not include all the stealth tax increases and the indirect taxes that have been piled on time after time. Is it not pathetic that the Government have to rely on semantics? When they are asked the straight question whether the tax burden has risen while they have been in office, they say that it is falling. Can they give the straight answer that the tax burden has risen, and will they stop relying on their own flimsy projections for what might happen in the future?
    Mr. Smith: I do not have to rely on any flimsy projections; none of our projections are flimsy. Let me give the hon. Gentleman the flimsy projections that his Government were making before they left office. They said that, under their plans, tax under the Tories would have been 37.1 per cent. this year; it is lower with Labour. Next year, it would have been 37.6 per cent.; it will be lower with Labour. The year after that, it would have been 38 per cent.; with Labour the present projection is 37.2 per cent. In each and every case, our performance compared with the Conservative's projections shows a lower take in tax. We will not be lectured by Conservative Members, who broke every promise that they made on tax and imposed the 22 Tory tax increases and the boom and bust economics that did such damage to our economy. If they ever got the chance again, they would wreck the record rising living standards that we are now seeing in this country.
    Mr. Leigh: Does the Chief Secretary recall that his former hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), said:
    We haven't increased the top rate of tax or the standard rate of tax, but we have increased a lot of other taxes … we have done it with all these stealth taxes. I just think it would have been better to have honestly told people beforehand?
    Is not the truth of the matter that the Prime Minister told the British people at the general election that he would not increase taxes? He has increased taxes and every person in this Chamber is paying at least £1,500 more in tax than they were at the last general election. His candidate is 55 points behind the independent candidate for mayor because people are fed up with these lies; they want some truth.
    Mr. Smith: The truth of the matter is that, unlike the Conservative party, we have kept each and every promise that we made on tax. We promised not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax throughout the next parliament. We have not and we will not. We said that we would
    1176
    bring in a lower starting rate of income tax of 10p in the pound, and we have. We said that we would cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.—the lowest level allowed—when the Conservatives put it up. We said that we would not extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares, and we have not and will not. We said that we would bring in, with the windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities, welfare-to-work programmes and the new deals that have helped this country get 800,000 more people into jobs. They are all gains for hard-working families in this country that the Tories would take away.
    Kali Mountford: Is it not right that where the tax burden falls is just as important as the overall tax take? Is it not right that the tax burden should not fall on those who can afford it least? A low starting rate of tax encourages people back to work and helps the economy, so it is good for Britain and good for taxpayers.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right. As a consequence of the changes that we have brought in, families with children are, on average, £740 a year better off. Moreover, thanks to steady growth, low inflation, stability, the introduction of the minimum wage and the working families tax credit—measures in which the Government take pride—the real take-home pay of average families in this country rose faster last year than at almost any time for the past quarter of a century. That is the measure of the extent to which this Government are on the side of hard-working families, whereas Conservative Members put the whole future of those families at risk.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us in the House and in the country would not give a monkey's if the tax burden went up to 40 per cent., provided that the money went on the national health service, pensioners and the welfare state generally? I have a Budget proposal: we should put another tax—we can call it a stealth tax, if we like—on the Tories' outside earnings, and then we would hear them squeal.
    Mr. Smith: All Budget representations to the Chancellor are very carefully considered.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the only people in this country paying less tax in May 1997 than in 1979 were those earning over £64,000 a year? We will therefore take no lectures on fair taxation from the Conservative party. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative party has put forward a tax guarantee that it contradicts in the Chamber, week after week, by making additional spending pledges? Will he therefore make available the Treasury's computer model for the Conservatives' alternative Budget this year, so that the public can properly, rigorously and honestly work out the benefits and costs of their policies?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend indeed raises the £64,000 question. He is absolutely right to say that Conservative Members talk of the so-called Tory tax guarantee, which their former Prime Minister called mad and their former Chancellor of the Exchequer said was inoperable. The truth, as my hon. Friend said, is that it is not a Tory

    1177
    tax cuts guarantee, but a Tory NHS cuts guarantee, because it would put at risk the very welfare services that my hon. Friend rightly commends.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the rise in gross domestic product that is forecast for next year, combined with the cut in the percentage of taxation, means not only that people will be better off as a result of the lower tax take, but that overall, as a result of the growth in the economy which the Government have achieved, they will be substantially better off in real terms under Labour?
    Mr. Smith: Indeed, I have already said that last year people experienced the biggest real increase in take-home pay for a quarter of a century. I am confident that the Government's policies for stability, growth and economic responsibility and for getting people into jobs mean that during this Parliament we will see, as my hon. Friend says, a significantly bigger real increase in take-home pay than was achieved, on average, in the Tory years.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Prime Minister's comment in Question Time, that on coming to office Labour put up taxes to tackle the deficit left by Conservative mismanagement of the economy? That deficit was built on when the Conservative Treasury team, of which the shadow Chancellor was a member, mismanaged the economy in the early 1990s and forgot Baroness Thatcher's advice when she was Prime Minister that one cannot spend money that one does not have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the previous Conservative Chancellor, who admitted that borrowing a deficit of that size was simply taxation deferred.
    Having put that right, does the Chief Secretary now accept that the issue in the forthcoming Budget is whether he uses the benefit to cut tax or to invest in hospitals, schools and a decent increase in the pension, rather than the miserly 75p provided?
    Mr. Smith: No.
    Ms Sally Keeble: With Mothers' day coming up in a couple of weeks, does my right hon. Friend agree that the shift in the tax burden under the Government represents a clear shift from wallet to purse? With the children's tax credit, the child care tax credit and the record increases in child benefit, people will be able to choose between a Government with a commitment to families, and in particular to working women and mothers, and the Opposition, who would strip most of those benefits away.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The measures that we have taken have been of enormous benefit to working families. They have helped working women and working mothers, and we will continue to follow those policies during and after the Budget.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: When we last had Question Time, I got the impression that the Chancellor had not got the hang of Question Time at all. While I was willing to make straightforward statements about Conservative policy, he was not willing to answer any questions. Is it not astonishing that today, when we
    1178
    have four questions on the basis of Government policy—the tax burden—and so much interest in the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not answer the questions himself?
    The Chief Secretary must begin by admitting that the Government are not publishing the figures that tell us the total burden of taxation—all taxes on families. Why is he withholding that information from the House and the British public?
    I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the taxes that he is imposing on ordinary people. Why does he intend to abolish the married couples allowance and increase the tax on married people by £200? Their only sin is that they are married. Why does he intend to abolish mortgage interest relief and increase the tax on home owners by £225 a year, when their only sin is that they have saved for their houses? Why is he to make people who drive cars pay £178 more in petrol? Does he not know that those people have to drive their children to school and drive to work? Why has he taxed pensions, making people—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that this is not a debate. There are other hon. Members who wish to ask questions.
    Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor likes to claim to be the Iron Chancellor, but he is merely a Labour Chancellor. He increases taxes like every other Labour Chancellor, but instead of being straightforward, he does it by stealth, and instead of taxing the rich, he taxes ordinary people who serve and try to do the right thing.
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will get the hang of it, given time. I am surprised that with all his experience, he did not have the dexterity to come in on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on questions 1 and 2, when he had every opportunity to question him. I am surprised, too, that the right hon. Gentleman has not learned to make his questions rather more pointed.
    If there was ever a case of the Portillo trying to call the kettle black, that was it. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for 22 Tory tax increases. It was he who was responsible for the biggest cut in the married couples allowance. He said at the time that the allowance appeared to be the most anomalous given to people, whether or not they were in work. He continued:
    I doubt that the reduction to be made in the first year … could be held to be crucial for those deciding whether they should be married.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 347.]
    The right hon. Gentleman was the architect of the 22 Tory tax rises. He was the one who put VAT on fuel. He was the one who started cutting the married couples allowance. He was the one who put up national insurance. We have no lessons to learn from him on tax.
    Mr. Portillo: Well, yes, the Conservatives did put up some taxes, and we paid a heavy price for it. The Labour Opposition criticised us at the time, so why are they putting up taxes now they are in government? Why are they taxing ordinary people on marriage, pensions, savings and petrol? Why are our public services getting no better? Why were 57,000 operations cancelled last

    1179
    year? Why are people waiting a day and a half on trolleys in hospitals? Why has the number of policemen been cut by 1,700? Why is crime rising? Why are a Government who promised us that we would pay less and get more making us pay more, yet we are getting less?
    Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is not getting the hang of it very quickly. With a record of driving through 22 Tory tax increases, and having been one of those responsible for the policy of boom and bust, the people of this country will never trust him and the Conservative party on tax or public spending.
    Next year, the burden on the typical family will be at its lowest level since 1972. Our management of the economy and public finances puts £40 billion extra into health and education to repair the damage that the Conservative party inflicted when it was in government. People are better off with Labour. Conservative party promises to end the new deal and reverse the working families tax credit would return us to boom and bust, stop-go economics and damage the prosperity of the people of this country, whereas this Government have achieved the fastest rise in living standards for a quarter of a century.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which shows the distributional impact of post-tax income since 1997? It underlines not only his point that there are major increases in the take-home pay of the average family, but shows major increases in the pay of the majority of families, including the bottom 90 per cent. Does not that show that Britain is richer and fairer under Labour, through more take-home pay, more jobs and lower inflation?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Unlike the Conservative party, the Labour Government care about the low paid—that is why we introduced the minimum wage. We care about working families—that is why we introduced the working families tax credit. As my hon. Friend said, thanks to our management of the economy and our policies for fairness as well as for enterprise, those on half of average earnings will receive as big an increase in real take-home pay in this Parliament as they received in all the Parliaments of the previous Administration.

    IR35 (IT Contractors)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on his recent discussions with IT contractors' representatives on IR35. [112215]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I met representatives of the professional contractors group in December. I explained to them why the Government believe that it is necessary to prevent avoidance of tax and national insurance contributions by workers using personal service companies.
    Dr. Cable: What advice has the Minister received from the Prime Minister's adviser on e-commerce, who has publicly expressed his disquiet about the impact of the tax on our knowledge-based industry? How does the Inland Revenue propose to treat the tens of thousands of
    1180
    IT contractors, who are honest and do not avoid taxation, but have great difficulty in distinguishing between employed and self-employed status, as they are now required to do, because of the complexities of IT contracts?
    Dawn Primarolo: First, it is not true that the e-commerce envoy has been making representations to the Treasury about relaxing the rules. He made it clear that he supports the Government's policy of stopping unfair tax and national insurance avoidance.
    Secondly, IR35 deals with avoidance in cases in which one employee in a company avoids tax and national insurance. That means that such employees do not pay tax and national insurance, which are paid by other people who are self-employed or on pay-as-you-earn pay. The hon. Gentleman should explain why he is prepared to support a group of workers whose companies their own advisers describe as tax havens. Why should they be allowed to continue to cheat honest taxpayers?
    Ms Julia Drown: A small IT business in my constituency has told me that it fears that it will not be able to survive and continue to prosper under the new IR35 rules. Will my hon. Friend liaise with colleagues in the Government to ensure that the Inland Revenue and the Small Business Service work with such companies to ensure that they can continue to be successful?
    Dawn Primarolo: Frightening and undermining the legitimacy of the many hundreds of thousands of legitimate companies that operate as service companies is part of the scare tactics of those who seek to avoid tax by using service companies. The Inland Revenue continues to advise those companies that will be caught by the rules through a helpline and a comprehensive website. We are ensuring that honest taxpayers will be strengthened by the rules, not undermined, and that people compete on skills, not by using the rules only for tax advantage, as the few are doing.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is it not clear from yesterday's written answers that the Minister has absolutely no idea of the damage that IR35 is causing to the knowledge-driven economy? The Government's manifesto at the last election said that they would
    Give Britain's entrepreneurs and small businesses the backing they deserve.
    Instead, we have IR35—a stealth tax introduced by the back door. The result is uncertainty over self-employed status, a lot of competitiveness and a brain drain to more stable tax systems. Did not the biggest gaffe come from the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, who said that she would use a recent visit to the United States to try to woo back British expats? Looking at the chaos caused by IR35, who in his right mind would come back to this mess? It is pain without gain.
    Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs to be reminded of everything that the Government have done for small businesses: the small business company rate cut; the new 10p corporation tax starting rate; first-year capital allowances; enterprise management incentives; and help through the Small Business Service. He still has not told the House why his party supports a few workers who use their companies to avoid paying

    1181
    tax when millions of others pay their tax. I direct him to Computer Contractor magazine of October 1999. Under the headline "Make hay while the sun shines", it said:
    Beg, borrow or steal to avoid paying higher tax rates this year. Next year you will not be able to avoid it. You should recognise that your company … is a tax haven.
    He has to realise that, as we have rules in the system for self-employed and PAYE employees, it is not unreasonable to expect those few who are avoiding the rules to comply with them.

    EU Markets
    Ms Dari Taylor: If he will make a statement on the importance of markets in the European Union to firms in the north-east. [112220]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): It is estimated that 14,500—one in three—small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-east have links with Europe. Government policy towards the euro is to prepare and decide. Today I am placing in the House of Commons Library and publishing the second draft national changeover plan. The euro standing committee, which includes the Governor of the Bank of England and the president of the Confederation of British Industry, met on Tuesday and discussed the draft changeover plan. In the draft plan that we are publishing today, which is in the Vote Office, we itemise and update the preparations being made.
    Ms Taylor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the priority that the Government give to the changeover preparations. Will he acknowledge that more than 500 jobs in my constituency rely on a good and positive relationship with the euro? In the northern region, the figure goes up to 150,000 jobs, so it is very significant to us. Will he also acknowledge that business in the north-east sees the Tories' anti-European stance as undermining jobs and investment?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I much enjoyed my visit to her constituency this week, when I met many business men and women who know the importance of our constructive links with the European Union, and know how many firms depend on the continuation of that trade.
    Three million jobs depend on our links with the EU. As my hon. Friend said, our policy on the euro is consistent with our making preparations and decisions, and subjecting that policy to the economic tests that we have laid down. Unfortunately, even if it were in the national interest for us to join the euro, the Conservative party would refuse to do so for reasons of dogma.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: By how much does the Chancellor want sterling to fall from its present level against the euro?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we do not comment on the individual movements of sterling. He also knows that I appreciate the concerns of exporters and manufacturers about what has been happening in the euro area in relation to sterling—but the manufacturers to whom I talk in the north-east know that
    1182
    the greatest danger would be posed to them by action to return our economy to the stop-go, boom-and-bust policies of the bad old days.

    Working Families Tax Credit (Scotland)
    Mr. Desmond Browne: How many claims for working families tax credit have been received from Scotland since its introduction. [112221]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The number of claims for working families tax credit received from Scotland is not readily available, but it is estimated that 67,000 families in Scotland had been awarded it by the end of January 2000.
    Mr. Browne: That means that 67,000 families in Scotland are better off by an average of £1,250 a year than they were last year.
    As my hon. Friend will know from Government statistics, my constituents are among the lowest paid in the country, with an average wage of £71 a week. That statistic and others suggest that many families in my constituency who qualify for working families tax credit do not claim it. Will my hon. Friend undertake a second phase of publicity before the new credits are introduced in April, so that those families can obtain the information that they need—information that would make a difference to their lives, and help them to lift themselves and their children out of poverty?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure the House is shocked to learn that £71 a week is the average wage in my hon. Friend's constituency. That demonstrates the importance of the Government's policies on the national minimum wage and working families tax credit, and our reforms of national insurance, to low-paid workers who want to raise their incomes.
    We naturally want to ensure maximum take-up of working families tax credit. As my hon. Friend probably knows, about 60,000 children have already benefited from the Budget measures, but I will look carefully at the rate of take-up, and will consider what my hon. Friend has said about the need for further publicity to ensure that all who are entitled to working families tax credit receive it.
    Mr. John Bercow: Why does the Paymaster General not accept the verdict of Filip de Kam, a tax expert from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, who argues that the Government are breaching international accounting conventions by describing working families tax credit as a tax cut when in fact it constitutes a hike in public expenditure? Is the hon. Lady proud of the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the cost of compliance with the WFTC—which is a recurring cost—is to be borne by small businesses, including small businesses in Scotland that have already been savaged by this Government, which employ fewer than 100 people?
    Dawn Primarolo: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assert that the Government are breaching OECD rules. Secondly, he is entirely wrong in what he says about the benefits involved. This is the man who opposed the introduction of the minimum wage and said that it would

    1183
    be a disaster; what would he know about helping low-income families? Thirdly, as the Government have made clear, the burdens on small business have been reduced by the many changes that we have made to assist it, and by what we have done to support the few small businesses that may have an employee in receipt of working families tax credit.
    We should keep this in proportion. For the smallest businesses, the maximum burden amounts to six minutes a week, and is far outweighed by the benefits in terms of recruitment and a stable and satisfied work force.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. David Chaytor: What responses he has received to the changes that he announced in his pre-Budget report to the proposed climate change levy. [112222]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The refinements to the design of the climate change levy announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November will further both our aims for the levy: to increase its environmental effectiveness, while protecting the competitiveness of UK firms. Those changes were welcomed by both business leaders and environmental groups.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. First, does he think that we now have the right balance between the need to protect the environment and the need to support industry? Secondly and quite specifically, will he look again at the operation of the combined heat and power exemption, particularly the definition of what constitutes high-quality CHP, as I understand that there is a debate about that?
    Mr. Timms: The climate change levy forms an important part of our climate change programme, which, as my hon. Friend may know, is published today. One feature of the package in the pre-Budget report that has been particularly welcomed has been the trebling of support for business energy-efficiency measures, including combined heat and power. That underlines our determination to tackle the huge challenge of climate change, but to do so in partnership with business and other interested parties.
    We are getting the balance right. We are consulting on the right definition for good-quality combined heat and power systems. It is important that we get it right and provide incentives for the right type of power generation. I will look carefully at the responses to the consultation when it is completed.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Why are the Government persisting with that damaging energy tax, which will be levied on all firms, whatever their size, in all sections of industry? Will the Minister confirm that the same firms that will have money taken off them through the tax are being blocked from installing gas-fired electricity generating plant, which would itself reduce carbon dioxide emissions and counter the threat of global warming? Why do not the Government start to practise joined-up government, instead of just talking about it? As usual, it is all talk and no delivery.
    1184
    To put that contradiction beyond dispute, will the Minister confirm the fact—the calculation has been made by the House of Commons Library—that the entire carbon dioxide saving that is hoped for under that tax could be achieved simply by permitting those firms to generate electricity through gas-fired plant, which would render the entire tax, with all its expense and complexity, completely unnecessary?
    Mr. Timms: I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are delivering the climate change levy. The problem of climate change is huge and a major programme is required to tackle it. That is why we are publishing the programme today. It makes it clear that the climate change levy will make an important contribution to achieving our Kyoto targets. It will save 2 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010, and there will be at least as much again in negotiated agreements. That is a big contribution towards meeting our objectives. The right hon. Gentleman asks about the stricter consents policy. That policy addresses entirely different issues about the security and diversity of UK energy supply. Both policies are right.
    Mr. David Taylor: How would my hon. Friend compare the energy tax rates in the UK with those of our main competitors in the European Union, and what impact might such rates have?
    Mr. Timms: Many other EU countries have introduced carbon or energy taxes—eight of them so far. France and Belgium are working up their proposals at the moment. My hon. Friend asks about the rate of the climate change levy. The headline rate is around the middle of the rates in the eight EU states that have already introduced such taxes, so we are about in the middle.

    Taxation
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What estimate he has made of the incremental amount of tax that will be paid in the next financial year as a result of measures announced since 1 May 1997. [112224]
    Mr. Tim Boswell: How much extra tax will be paid per annum as a result of his Budget measures to date. [112225]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): All changes to the tax system are included in the relevant Budget reports, which are publicly available. As a result of those Budgets, the direct tax rate on an average family with children will fall below 20 per cent. for the first time since 1979, and will be at its lowest level since 1972.
    Mr. Hammond: The Chief Secretary focuses on direct taxes, of course. Is it not a fact that, if the total tax burden as a percentage of GDP had remained at the 1996–97 level—which applied before the general election and before the Chancellor started introducing his stealth taxes—in the coming financial year, the British people

    1185
    would pay £15 billion less in tax? Is that not the truth that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will go to any lengths to try to conceal from the British people?
    Mr. Smith: No. Conservative Members are the last people who should focus on indirect taxes—they are the ones who put VAT on fuel, in breach of their election promises. The hon. Gentleman would do well to heed the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who, on 20 September, said:
    Conservatives have become increasingly connected with uncaring social attitudes, selfish behaviour and sleaze. It is not easy for the party to strike the right tone. Of course it should be apologetic for mismanaging the economy.
    However much they apologise, their record will not escape them.
    Mr. Boswell: Is it not remarkable that, whereas other Ministers are so keen on adjectives such as "new", "modern", and even "joined-up", Treasury Ministers become sensitive—they dislike it—when a particular noun is used in relation to tax changes, which are otherwise commonly known as "tax increases"? For the sake of argument, let us call them tax changes. Will the Chief Secretary tell us what assessment he has made of the impact on ordinary people of those tax changes? What is the effect, for example, of an annual petrol tax hike of £178 on people in rural areas and on heads of families on the national minimum wage? What is the impact on pensioners with incomes below the income support level, but who have small savings incomes, whose payable tax credits have been withdrawn?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should remember who it was who introduced the automatic petrol tax escalator, which we have now abandoned. Who was it who imposed VAT on fuel, which did the damage to pensioners? The answer to his question is that families with children are £740 a year better off as a consequence of our tax changes.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Many of my constituents are paying more tax than they were prior to May 1997, and they are doing so because they are earning a great deal more than they were prior to May 1997. Would my right hon. Friend like to take the opportunity to congratulate some of the high-tech entrepreneurs in my constituency—such as Mike Lynch, of Autonomy—who have done so well with the economic stability that the Government have created?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I do join my hon. Friend in congratulating those high-tech and other firms in her constituency, and across the country, that are making an investment in, and success of, the crucial sphere of the knowledge economy and high-tech industries. We have been helping those companies by cutting corporation tax to the lowest level. We are also helping them by introducing research and development incentives and the management enterprise initiative, and by operating the economy so that there is stability, enabling businesses to plan and invest with confidence for the future.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in 1949, the great socialist Government of Clement Attlee cut income tax by 10p in the pound,
    1186
    and that, in 1951, the average industrial-wage worker with a family of two had to earn 107 per cent. of industrial wages before he paid any tax? In today's terms, that would be about £22,000. Although I do not invite my right hon. Friend to put that in the Budget, will he move in the general, socialist direction of cutting taxes, letting workers have more money to spend from their wages?
    Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. As I said earlier, all Budget representations are carefully considered. The good socialist record of the Labour party in ensuring fair and low taxes is commendable, and stands in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives, who were responsible for the highest tax burden in the past century when they took the tax take above 39 per cent. We shall not follow that example.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister stop trying to conceal the truth about tax increases? As he well knows, the Government's Red Book figures show a 2 per cent. increase over this Parliament. If we count the fiddle on the working families tax credit, that becomes 2.5 per cent. The latest wheeze is to quote figures on average families that exclude the increases in indirect taxes. Ordinary people well know that their taxes have gone up, while the health and education services that they receive have declined. They are paying more and getting less. The Prime Minister has—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is about time that I heard a question.
    Mr. Flight: Will the Government at last come clean on taxes, before we have to apply the same edict when referring to them as the Prime Minister has applied to all references to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone): stop using the "L" word and call him untrustworthy?
    Mr. Smith: I shall give the figures again. Last year, the tax take was 37.4 per cent. of gross domestic product. This year it is 37 per cent. Next year, on present measures, it is projected to be 36.8 per cent. That is a falling tax burden, not a rising one. Coupled with the record increases in real take-home pay, it is a conclusive demonstration that people are better off with Labour.

    Job Creation (London)
    Mr. Andrew Love: What is his estimate of the number of jobs created in London since May 1997. [112227]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The UK economy is continuing to expand and create new employment. Since the general election, 140,000 new jobs have been created in London.
    Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate the Government on their success in creating a vibrant economy in the capital. In the past year, unemployment in my constituency has gone down by 7 per cent. and the latest estimate is that around 150,000 new jobs will be created in the coming year. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the very unlikely event of the Conservatives being returned at the next general election,

    1187
    they would squander that golden legacy of the past three years with a return to the boom and bust of the 1980s and early 1990s?
    Miss Johnson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about what would happen were the Conservatives to be returned at the next general election. He talked about their record of boom and bust and the two recessions for which they were responsible. Almost 2 million jobs were lost in the UK during the recession in the 1980s and a similar number were lost in the 1990s recession. The Conservatives would abolish the new deal, which has so benefited my hon. Friend's constituency, as well as those of many Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has seen a fall of nearly 64 per cent. in youth unemployment in his constituency as a result of Government policies that he does not support and would end.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the hon. Lady agree that the ability of the economy in London to create and sustain prosperity and jobs depends on a low-tax regime from local and national government? Will she assure the House that the withholding tax on the savings income of European Union citizens in the City of London will be vetoed, so that it goes away for good? Why has the Paymaster General not published the report
    1188
    on so-called unfair tax competition, which she drafted at the behest of the European Union? The competitiveness of the City of London depends on a highly favourable tax regime, which many in the European Union would like to destroy.
    Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has indeed published the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred and it is now in the public domain. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on just one of the points that he made. We continue to defend Britain's interests in the matter of the withholding tax, as we said we would do. I share the hon. Gentleman's views on that, but with regard to the economy in London, I remind him that there have been 800,000 new jobs across the country, 140,000 of which are in London, and that a record 3.3 million people are employed in London. I can attribute that only to the Government's excellent policies—the new deal, the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit—which provide the right framework for job creation through stability and meeting our inflation target. The hon. Gentleman should look at the record of his own party and ask himself how it was that the Tories presided over so much unemployment and so many periods of boom and bust. Who would trust the Tories again with the economy? The British people know that the Labour party and the Labour Government can be trusted to run UK plc.

Business of the House
12.31 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 13 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
TUESDAY 14 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the spring supplementary estimates, supplementary vote on account, excess votes and defence votes A.
WEDNESDAY 15 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Terrorism Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary, Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
THURSDAY 16 MARCH—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Handling of the Mozambique Crisis" followed by a debate entitled "The Protection of Green Fields and the Imposition of House Building Targets". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 17 MARCH—Debate on safeguards for children on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
TUESDAY 21 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 22 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 23 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 24 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 27 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. Following my comments last week, I am grateful for the additional time that the Government have found for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The other place has debated the Wakeham report, but there is still no sign of progress at this end of the building. When will we get the promised Joint Committee on which the Government appear to be dragging their feet? When will we have the opportunity to debate the Wakeham report—a debate during which we hope the Government will clarify whether peerages are offered to so-called opposition parties on condition that they do not oppose?
1190
Has the right hon. Lady had time to read the excellent report of the Liaison Committee on shifting the balance between Select Committees and the Executive? Does she agree that we should debate it on the Floor of the House? Does she recall that we still have not debated the Procedure Committee report on scrutinising public expenditure?
The right hon. Lady has confirmed the date of the Budget and the four-day debate. Can she tell us when the Finance Bill will be published? Are not our debates on the economy and public expenditure a bit like buses? We do not see one for months and then four come along at the same time. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that the incidence of economic and public expenditure debates throughout the year is satisfactory?
Finally, so that members of staff can plan their lives, has the right hon. Lady anything interesting to say about the dates of the Whitsun recess?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The Government have indeed found the extra time he asked for last week for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that. He asked me last week about the possibility of a debate on the Wakeham report and the setting up of a Joint Committee, and I made the point to him then—and I am afraid that I can only reiterate it—that of course the Government have to give priority to their legislative programme and will do so. That means that at present I cannot give him a date for that debate.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that there is some evidence of a deal being done in terms of behaviour in the House in return for peerages. First, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made plain yesterday, he has given more peerages already to the Liberal Democrats than did the previous Prime Minister. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members making those noises. We all know that the creation of peerages is within the patronage of the Prime Minister, and this one is the first to give any of it up. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has only to look at the voting record in the House of Lords to see that it shows no evidence of any kind of deal.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about a debate on the Floor of the House about the Liaison Committee report. Like the Lords debate, that will have to wait, but it is a matter to which the Government will give serious consideration, because it is a weighty and serious report. Similarly, I am aware of the need at some point to debate the Procedure Committee's report.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the date of the publication of the Finance Bill, but I hope to do so shortly. I take heed of his remarks about the balance of economic and public expenditure debates. I fear that I cannot give him the dates for the Whitsun recess either, although I can confirm that we will not sit on the bank holiday.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the important research that has been published in the past few weeks in Nature from scientists in south Carolina, London and Aberdeen, which proves that cannabis products can relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis in minutes? Another group of scientists have found proof that cannabinoids can destroy brain tumours that remain unaffected by conventional treatment such as chemotherapy. Those discoveries should cause us to end

1191
the practice of persecuting those desperately ill people who use cannabis—we should certainly stop jailing them, as happened last year in two cases. Cannot we at least say that we will do that now for people who tell us that it has been their experience for years that cannabis alleviates the worst symptoms of MS, and who want a night's sleep tonight—not in five years' time when the Government finally agree?
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a time for questions.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has long taken a great and close interest in that subject, but he will know that the Government have licensed projects to assess the scientific value of the medicinal use of cannabis, and when their results are available the Government will take due account of them.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Some of us are concerned that there has been no statement today from the Secretary of State for Defence on the apparent major leak in the security systems of NATO. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that as soon as all the information is available—which I understand will be over the weekend—we will have a statement on Monday from the Secretary of State? It is clearly not enough to have Mr. Jamie Shea of NATO make a statement on the "Today" programme, but to have no response whatever to the legitimate concerns, both inside and outside the House, that our pilots may have been put at risk and the war unnecessarily lengthened by the leak.
I endorse the Conservative view that an early debate on the Wakeham report is now necessary in order to establish precisely what the Government's intentions are. In particular, will the Leader of the House tell us whether it is the Government's policy, as apparently enunciated by the Leader of the House of Lords, that
any proposal totally to elect a second Chamber under the mistaken view that it would increase the democratic base of Parliament would in fact undermine that democracy.?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 914.]
That is an extraordinary statement.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks on a statement from the MOD about the stories in today's papers, which stem clearly from the trailing of a BBC programme. That is a perfectly legitimate thing for the BBC to do, but it is quite another matter to assume that it requires a statement to the House. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Argentina, and hardly could be here simultaneously.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an early debate on the Wakeham report. He will recall that Lord Wakeham himself suggested that people should take time to give mature consideration to the report's proposals, rather than rushing to judgment.
As for the remark of my noble Friend about an elected Upper House undermining the nature of our democracy in this country, I take that to be a reference to the inevitable conflict which would occur between a wholly elected upper House and this House. That is a view that many will share.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can my right hon. Friend confirm something that has been puzzling me—that she has, so far, received no request from the Opposition for a debate on the national minimum wage to explain their latest thinking on the subject? If there were an opportunity for such a debate, could we have it in Government time on a simple motion, inviting the House to support the way in which Her Majesty's Government introduced the minimum wage in the teeth of Tory opposition? We could then test the sincerity of the Tories' view by seeing whether they would join us in the Lobby.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and raises an attractive proposition. He will recall that, in 1997, the present shadow Chancellor said that the minimum wage was an "immoral" policy. Last month, he said that the next Tory Government would not repeal it. My hon. Friend is entirely right to think that those are two mutually exclusive propositions which are worthy of debate. However, I fear that one of the little luxuries that we must deny ourselves at the moment is that of exploring the contradictions in the Opposition's position, which are many.
Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Lady arrange an early debate on the new rules for all-party groups that were announced by the Chairman of the Administration Committee on 22 February at col. 844? Is she aware that the likely impact of the new rules will be the disappearance of a significant number of all-party country groups? That would be a matter of concern for the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and for the embassies and high commissions of the countries concerned in London.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in parliamentary terms, it is wholly unacceptable for a Select Committee of this House to make far-reaching proposals bearing on the parliamentary activities of large numbers of hon. Members without making any formal report to this House; to do so without giving the House an opportunity to approve or reject the proposals; and to bring them in with immediate effect, backed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards' minute of 29 February, by the expedient of a written parliamentary answer?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the concern of the right hon. Gentleman, and his anxiety at the nature of the proposal and the means that we used to bring it into effect. I am sure that the Administration Committee had no intention of causing difficulties for right hon. and hon. Members, but I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Committee's attention.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I add my voice to those calling for an early debate on the hugely significant report of the Liaison Committee issued last Friday? Does my right hon. Friend share my disbelief that the Committee found that colleagues are kept off Select Committees because of their views? I had no idea that that happened. However, this matter has particular salience at the moment. The Government are perceived by some to be in the grip of control freaks, manipulative and out to fix everything. Would not the best way of responding to that be to schedule an early debate and a vote on the Committee's recommendations?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on what is, as my hon. Friend

1193
correctly identifies, a weighty and serious report which will require careful consideration. Of course it is shocking to suggest that someone might be kept off a Select Committee because of their views—just as shocking as when the previous Government removed a long-serving and highly respected Member of this House from a Select Committee. It was widely thought—including by the Member in question—that that was done because of his views. The notion that there is something unprecedented about these disputes is clearly wholly wrong, but I understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that the management of the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast has put its work force on notice. Will she use her influence in joined-up Government with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Northern Ireland Office to try get a deal done quickly to preserve a shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom? Such a deal would also help our steel industry, as the purchasers of the cruise liner involved are keen that their ship be built in a British yard.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has involved himself in the matter, with a view to helping. Tabling for the next Department of Trade and Industry Question Time will be next week, and the hon. Gentleman may want to explore the matter further then. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
Jean Corston: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on European Union objective 1 funding for areas of poverty, unemployment and social exclusion? Has she noticed that Conservative Members increasingly call for that funding for different parts of the United Kingdom? Would not such a debate give them an opportunity to explain why the inheritance of 18 years of Tory Government is that there are so many areas that qualify for objective 1 funding?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right, and such a debate would give an opportunity for Opposition Members to explain why so much poverty and deprivation was left in this country at the end of the Conservative Government's long term of office. It would also give this Government a chance to point to our excellent record in wresting objective 1 funding from negotiations in the European Union.
However, I fear that I must repeat what I have had to say to one or two hon. Members already: attractive though the prospect may be, unfortunately the Government have more pressing matters to debate.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Is the Leader of the House aware that Tuesday's spring supplementary estimates, which were published on 23 February, were sent for publication by the Treasury on 31 January? If the Government harnessed
1194
modern technology to reduce that production period, would there not be less need for revised supplementary estimates?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I freely confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I was not aware of that. I take his point entirely, and will draw it to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
Ms Joan Walley: In mining communities and former mining communities, there is much concern about the time taken for miners to receive compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans for an early debate on the progress that is being made in making the delayed payments? I understand that the process is very bureaucratic, and I urge my right hon. Friend to investigate how joined-up Government thinking might speed up the compensation payments.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know how great is the concern that she identifies. Many hon. Members—especially Labour Members, but also hon. Members of all parties—have campaigned for the compensation. No one regrets more than the Government the time that has been taken to bring these matters to a conclusion. However, I believe that a working party has recently reported that the Government have made sure that about 50 additional chest consultants have been appointed to carry out the examinations. It is hoped that, from this month, cases will start to be settled much more speedily.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the Leader of the House aware of the rising incidence of suicide among farmers? It now far exceeds the number of deaths caused by or attributed to CJD. This morning, dairy farmers marched through my constituency on their way to lobby Parliament next Wednesday. Those people are at their wits' end with worry about their livelihoods and their lives in general. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was sent a letter signed by 138 organisations and associations pleading for action to save rural and small abattoirs.
May I remind the right hon. Lady and the rest of the House that for the past several weeks, pig farmers have been camped out in Parliament square because of the desperate situation in their industry? I request that the Leader of the House organise an early debate, in Government time, when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can come to the House and account for his stewardship. It should not take very long, because he has done nothing.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand, and the whole House shares, the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the farming industry, which my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Prime Minister have repeatedly acknowledged. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the leader of his own party has acknowledged that the problems of agriculture did not start on 1 May 1997, but are of long standing. I believe that the Prime Minister is due to see representatives of the farming industry again at the end of the month.

1195
As for the notion that we should have a further special debate, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last debate we had on agriculture was in Government time, at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture. Secondly, I remind him that his party has Opposition time, and if his right hon. and hon. Friends share so widely his concern, it is open to them to use that time to debate such matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if she managed to arrange a debate on industries in trouble, it might enable someone to point out just what happened when the Tories were closing the pits? They did not care about subsidies then; they did not care about subsidies when they were shutting down the steel industry; they did not care about subsidies when they were shutting down the shipbuilding industry. They are very selective about which industry to support.
I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that when the Tories privatised the pits, they decided to take 50 per cent. of the surplus of the miners' pension fund. Will she have a word with those responsible, to see that that money goes back into the miners' pockets and into the mining communities where it belongs?
Mrs. Beckett: It is well within the memory of everyone in the House how many industries suffered devastating job losses and how many companies disappeared under the regime supported by Conservative Members. Although I fully recognise the concerns of the farming industry, it has not escaped my attention that the amount of money going in public support to that industry is more than the entire budget for the Department of Trade and Industry.
My hon. Friend's final point about the pension fund is, as I am sure he will know, under review, and the Government will be making an announcement in due course.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House will recall the Prime Minister boasting yesterday that he had visited his constituency of Sedgefield. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us when last he went there prior to that visit. May I ask for an urgent debate on Sedgefield so that we can establish not only the frequency of the Prime Minister's visits to his constituency, but whether he listens to his constituents on the rare occasions he is there? The Leader of the House may be aware that a poll has just been taken showing that 71 per cent. of the people of Sedgefield are against the repeal of section 28.
I am trying to be helpful here, and perhaps the right hon. Lady can help me and the Prime Minister. If we debated this, it would give the Prime Minister the opportunity to come to the House, report on the number of times he goes to his constituency, and tell us whether he has listened to anyone there, particularly about section 28.
Mrs. Beckett: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? The Prime Minister was challenged yesterday by Conservative Members to say when he had last visited his constituency, and that is why he gave the answer that he did. [HON. MEMBERS: "Once!"] He was asked when he was last in Sedgefield, and he said last Friday. I know that Conservative Members do not like it, but I am afraid that they will have to put up with it.
1196
As for the frequency of my right hon. Friend's visits, that is not a matter in which there would be wide interest across the House. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that it cuts both ways. I have heard remarks from constituents of his about the frequency of his visits to his own constituency.
Angela Smith: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read early-day motion 459?
[That this House condemns the decision by Barclays Bank plc to close two branches in the Basildon and East Thurrock constituency in the Stanford-le-Hope and the Laindon centre; regrets that Barclays have chosen to close two out of five branches in the constituency, thus greatly reducing the service it offers to individual customers and local businesses; and calls upon Barclays to reconsider its decisions and consult its customers on the closures.]
Has she, in addition, read early-day motions 447, 479, 485, 488 and 494 on the same matter? Does she accept that there is concern about banks closing local branches and removing services from our constituents without consultation while simultaneously seeking to charge customers for hole-in-the-wall services? May we have an early debate?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that there is great concern, which she has frequently voiced, about access to financial services and the problems caused when banks make changes. There is a feeling in the House that the matter should be tackled, but I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future. I know that, through early-day motions and other means, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will continue to raise the matter.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the right hon. Lady arrange a debate on a subject causing increasing concern in parliamentary circles—ministerial accountability to Parliament? The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not come to financial debates, and we recently observed that the Secretary of State for Defence failed to attend during Front-Bench speeches on the main defence debate of the year.
My immediate concern, however, is the answering of parliamentary questions. Is the right hon. Lady aware that I put down an important question on reserve forces on 10 December, to which I received a holding reply? My subsequent questions in January and February about when I would receive a substantive reply have not even been acknowledged. Is that not an abuse of the parliamentary system, and are not parliamentary questions and their timely answer an important part of parliamentary democracy?
Mrs. Beckett: In general terms, I have observed that the Opposition's great concern about ministerial accountability to Parliament seems to apply only to Ministers in the present Government. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point about his question on reserve forces. I was not aware that his question had gone unanswered, and I shall certainly draw that fact to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I suspect that there has been an oversight, but I agree that it is not satisfactory.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate in Government time on the

1197
future of parish and town councils? Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), I am a member of such a council, and we should like to put it on the record that the Opposition's dishonourable and disreputable campaign claiming that the Government intend to get rid of those councils is anything but the truth.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so firmly. I fear that I cannot find time for an extra debate on the Floor of the House, but he can seek other opportunities to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall. I agree that the matter is important, and that it is wrong for people to be misled.
Mr. Roger Gale: Barclays bank in Westgate on Sea in my constituency has announced its closure. The bank was the last in that populous village, although there is still a post office. Many of my constituents are concerned by the Government's apparent determination to remove pension payments from post offices. They fear that, as they will have to rely on automatic banking machines, they will be charged out of their pensions when they obtain relatively modest sums. Will the Leader of the House comply with the request made by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) for time to debate this matter properly?
Mrs. Beckett: It was the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the proposals that are causing a good deal of concern. We recently debated the Postal Services Bill, during which debate all those concerns were fully aired. My right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department of Trade and Industry made it plain that reports that people would have no choice in how their pensions would be paid were entirely wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to take this opportunity to reassure his constituents.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the draft climate change programme published today, which I warmly welcome? Such a debate would allow the House to consider how to accelerate the launch of a domestic emissions trading scheme and to identify action necessary to stimulate the renewable energy industry. Achieving our targets for renewables and climate change could create between 10,000 and 45,000 new jobs, predominantly in manufacturing, but also in rural areas.
Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in that subject and of his pursuit of it. Indeed, he recently initiated an Adjournment debate on the matter.
There is great interest on both sides of the House in that detailed subject and a concern that the agenda be pursued. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a special, urgent debate on it in the near future.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Leader of the House arrange time to have the Utilities Bill recommitted for debate on the Floor of the House? Since Second Reading, telecommunications and water have been removed from the Bill. The Clerks have been searching
1198
for a precedent for so many changes to a Bill while it was still in Committee. The measure is turning into the Futility Bill.
Today, we heard on Radio 4—where every Member obtains his or her information—that the Government have met the environmental target of 12.5 per cent. towards which, of course, the Utilities Bill was supposed to be working. The Government have just announced that they are holding urgent discussions with the Electricity Association about where the Bill should be going. May we have it back on the Floor of the House so that every Member of Parliament will be able to express their view as to what has happened?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I fear that there is no question of the Government finding time for that. The way in which the Bill is being handled has been made plain.
As for the hon. Gentleman's inquiries to the Clerks, I can save their time and his; the lifetime of the previous Government offers many precedents of Bills being changed substantially. I direct his attention to the debates in 1985 and 1986 on the Social Security Bill, when, after the Bill had been guillotined, the Tory Government introduced substantial new proposals and measures—all of which took money away from the most vulnerable people in the community.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), is not a parliamentary shrinking violet. Will the Leader of the House induce her right hon. Friend to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the soaring estimates of the cost of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh? Is it not an affront that English taxpayers should have to pay for that, especially as they receive no quid pro quo? They even have to pay university fees for their children, unlike their Scottish and European Union counterparts.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right: my right hon. Friend is not a shrinking violet—he is a robust contender in the House. Indeed, he will be in the Chamber for Question Time on 21 March to defend the Government's record robustly. However, I doubt that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else will be successful in drawing my right hon. Friend on the Scottish Parliament building; not only is that not a matter for him, it is not even one for Scottish Office Ministers—it is under the control of the Scottish parliamentary corporate body.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: In order to facilitate the family-friendly working practices to which, I am sure, we all aspire, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether there is any intention to timetable any of the Government Bills that she has announced today?
Mrs. Beckett: I only wish that I could agree that we all aspire to family-friendly working practices. It is all too plain that some hon. Members aspire to no such thing and, indeed, that they do their best to destroy those practices. The Government accept the decisions made in the earliest days of this Parliament by the Modernisation Committee to encourage the development of programme motions so that we can manage our business more effectively and in a more orderly way. That will ensure that important issues

1199
can be properly aired. I continue to hold that view, although it is not clear whether it remains that of the Opposition.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is growing public concern about the sneaky and disreputable way in which the Government increase taxes for millions of ordinary people. Tesco has written to 170,000 of its employees to tell them that, because of the Government's pensions tax, they will have to increase their contributions from 3.75 per cent. of salary to 4.25 per cent. In view of that, is it not time we held a debate on stealth taxes—on the way the Government are hitting ordinary working people extremely hard and trying to sneak their proposals through so that people will not notice them?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that Conservative Members are not much of an opposition, but four days debate on the Budget are to come and we have just had Treasury questions. Surely even they can manage to raise the financial issues that they want to.

Points of Order
1.5 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of my point of order, because it affects the rights of all hon. Members. Under the Bank of England Act 1998, the Treasury is required to give certain directions to the Bank of England about its inflation target and other Government policies. Under section 12, the Treasury is required to lay a copy of that before Parliament. I am advised that the Government failed to do that, both last year and the year before. They have broken their own law.
My point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is that the Government are also in contempt of the rules and procedures of the House. The laying of a paper is described in "Erskine May" as the way by which important papers are made available to the House generally. I attempted two days ago to obtain this document and was told that it was not available because the Government had failed to lay it before Parliament, as required by the 1998 Act. When I raised this matter with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, she appeared to be unconcerned and uninterested, and failed to reply to my point.
Even if you, Madam Speaker, cannot force the Government to obey their own laws, what can you do to protect the rights of hon. Members to receive the documents that the law requires should be made available to the House through the procedures laid out in "Erskine May"?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He probably realises that I received notice of it only a short time before I took the Chair today, so I have not had time to examine it. I shall do so at my earliest opportunity.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there anything in the rules of the House that would allow you directly, or through your influence, to protect the interests of Back Benchers? You will have heard the question that I asked the Cabinet Office yesterday about the time it takes for Ministers to respond to letters. I have a constituent who has now waited 425 days for a letter from the Ministry of Defence about a simple matter. I know that I am not unique among colleagues in waiting months and months for replies.
I raised this issue with the previous Government and tried to improve matters for all colleagues. Is there anything that we can do as Back Benchers to give you, Madam Speaker, the power to require Ministers to answer letters? In extremis, perhaps you would like to invite the Prime Minister to afternoon tea where you could quietly have a word for him about what has happened.
Madam Speaker: I am not certain what I can do. I am terribly sympathetic to Members who are waiting for replies. I have been a Member of the House for more than a quarter of a century, so I know how important it is—
Mr. John Bercow rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for only a few years.

1201
I understand how important it is to receive punctual replies. I do not know what I can do and I understand the situation only too well. I shall do my utmost to be helpful. Now—Mr. Bercow.
Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I readily acknowledge that it probably seems that I have been here for a lot longer than three years.
Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), may I seek your guidance specifically about correspondence with, and replies from, the Prime Minister? In January, I had a brief correspondence with him and, four weeks ago, I wrote him a four-line letter requiring a yes or no reply. To that letter, I have received a holding reply saying that the Prime Minister will endeavour to furnish me with an answer as soon as he reasonably can, but such an answer has not yet been forthcoming. Can you, Madam Speaker, offer any guidance about the inner recesses of the Prime Minister's mind?
Madam Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that one.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We understand that, despite your great influence, the problem of correspondence with Departments may be outside your direct powers. However, will you consider the related problem of the long delays in the answers to some written questions? The number of written questions that are not answered on the named day is increasing in a number of Departments. That is a matter of great concern to all Members and directly relates to the business of the House. Could you consider that problem at the same time?
Madam Speaker: Yes, I am happy to take on that additional burden. I shall do what I can to be helpful in all those matters. It is important for the functioning of the House that we get our business done speedily and efficiently.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you share my concern that the more dilatory Ministers are in replying to questions, the more there will be a temptation for Members to table further questions to pursue the original one? The danger is that if we are not careful the whole system will get completely clogged because of ministerial arrogance and indifference to the parliamentary process.
I know that that will concern you on a number of levels, Madam Speaker, such as the relationship between the Government and the House, over which you preside, and the administration of the House through the Table Office,
1202
over which you also happily preside, along with the Clerks. Surely there is a danger that owing to the Government's dilatoriness and arrogance, we will become mired in the parliamentary questions process, and that will adversely affect the effectiveness of the House.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is expressing his opinion, which he has every right to do in the House, and I am prepared to listen and to understand. A few moments ago, I gave a sincere undertaking that I would do my best to help the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I seldom raise points of order, but I think that this one is appropriate. Did you notice that the Prime Minister, in a reply yesterday, and the Leader of the House, in a reply today, did not deny the substance of the remarks of the Liberal Democrat leader in the other place, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when he said that the Prime Minister had offered to create more Liberal Democrat peers in return for favourable voting? Is not that an abuse of the procedures of Parliament?
Madam Speaker: Points of order should relate to something on which I can undertake to try to help the House, in terms of our proceedings. I am not responsible for the comments made by Back Benchers or Ministers.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), Madam Speaker. Will you advise me on written answers in which the Minister, in this case, the Home Secretary, hides behind national security? I asked a simple question last week about
how much has been spent from public funds on protecting Senator Pinochet since October 1998.
I was told:
The information requested cannot be provided for security reasons.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 568W.]
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must use the Order Paper and opportunities in the House. The cost of keeping Senator Pinochet here is not a matter for me.

BILL PRESENTED
  MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Gordon Prentice and Mr. Austin Mitchell, presented a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June, and to be printed [Bill 85].
Orders of the Day

  ROYAL PARKS (TRADING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.13 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 a fundamental part of our programme to achieve racial equality in this country. One of the Government's central aims is to achieve a society where there is respect for all, regardless of their race, colour or creed, and a society that celebrates its cultural richness and ethnic diversity. That is not only inherently right but essential for Britain's economic and social success.
  In the world of business, it is increasingly clear that the world-class organisations capable of surviving and adapting in a global marketplace are those that value and embrace diversity. A successful multicultural society is not simply a question of equality for a minority; it is an essential competitive strategy for the UK, benefiting each and every one of us regardless of our religion or the colour of our skin.
  All countries have to have an effective system of immigration control. The UK is no exception, but it is worth remembering that in many ways we are a nation of migrants: ours is a history of successive waves of migration, both in and out of this country. Many of the newcomers who have arrived on our shores lawfully have had a very great deal to give. It is on these successive waves of migration that much of our society has been built. For example, Caribbean nurses came in the 1960s, in response to calls made by the then Minister of Health, Enoch Powell, to meet labour shortages in the United Kingdom. Gujeratis came to Lancashire to work in the textile mills, following advertisements placed in India and Pakistan by Lancashire mill owners.
  Everyone understands the concern that exists about those who arrive in this country in abuse of our system of control. None the less, there have been moments in our history when anxieties about those who are lawfully present in the United Kingdom have threatened to spill over into divisions that could permanently have scarred us all. In the 1930s, our democracy was threatened by the rise of fascists in this country and their attacks on many groups, but especially the Jewish community.
  Race relations reached another low ebb in the late-1950s and early-1960s. Signs outside lodgings reading "No dogs, no Irish, no blacks" were not
  1204
  uncommon. People were refused service in shops and cafes solely on the grounds of their race. It was lawful to be openly racist in electoral campaigns.
  Things have changed significantly since then, and we ought to be proud of that, but the sea change in attitudes is no accident. It is in large part due to the three race relations Bills of the past 35 years. Each, I am proud to say, was brought before the House by a Labour Government.
  However, there are no grounds for complacency. We know very well that real race equality has not yet been achieved. We know that many people—often the children and grandchildren of immigrants, born and bred in this country, but with a different coloured skin or a different sounding name from the majority—still suffer from discrimination and prejudice for that reason and no other.
  The Bill will ensure equality for everyone, regardless of skin colour, surname, or other irrelevant factors. It significantly updates the Race Relations Act 1976, and it is the first piece of legislation to do so for almost 25 years.
  The Bill has three main purposes: to extend the Race Relations Act in relation to discrimination and victimisation by public authorities; to make chief officers of police vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers; and to amend an exemption under the 1976 Act for acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, thus remedying a provision that we believe is incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
  Hon. Members are aware that on 27 January I announced to the House that the Government would table amendments in Committee to amend the Bill in relation to indirect discrimination, and to place a positive duty on public authorities to promote race equality.
  Today, I shall describe what the Bill does, and explain the effect of the amendments that the Government will seek to make in those important areas.
  Let me explain briefly what the 1976 Act does, as the Bill amends that principal Act. The 1976 Act makes it unlawful for anybody to discriminate on racial grounds in relation to employment, training and education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and in respect of certain other specified activities. It provides for individuals who have been discriminated against to bring proceedings and to claim damages in employment tribunals or designated county courts. The 1976 Act established the Commission for Racial Equality, and gave it independent strategic investigative and enforcement powers.
  The 1976 Act applies to discrimination by public authorities in employment, training and education, and the provision of goods, facilities and services. However, it has been found by the courts to apply only when the act in question is at least similar to an act that could be committed by a private person. The legislation does not generally apply to functions that fall outside the specified matters. The precise distinction between functions that are covered and those that are not is unclear, and is clarified in only piecemeal fashion by decisions of the courts.
  One of the paradoxes of the legislation is that, in practice, it has had a greater impact on the private sector than on the public sector. There is no extensive regulatory impact assessment for the Bill because the private sector has undertaken to fulfil its responsibilities under the Bill, as it has fulfilled them under the 1976 Act.

  1205
  The Bill will ensure that legislation properly and comprehensively covers similar functions that can only be carried out by a public authority.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Home Secretary tell the House now, or inform me subsequently in writing, how many prosecutions have been made under the Race Relations Act 1976 and how that figure compares with the number of prosecutions under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975?
  Mr. Straw: I regret that I cannot give that figure immediately. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can provide it when he winds up, or a magical piece of paper will appear from those people who have to remain nameless and sit in the box alongside. If that happens, I shall try to provide the answer while I am speaking.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), because I happen to have the figures in my head, that under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for new offences of racially aggravated harassment, violence and criminal damage, there have been more than 100 prosecutions, according to the latest figures that I have seen. I appreciate that that is not the answer that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but it provides an illustration.
  The Bill will implement Government commitments that were made in response to one of the key recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. The report recommended that the 1976 Act should be extended to cover the police and that chief officers of police should be made vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers.
  The Government said when the report was published that we would go further. We are doing that now. We are extending the 1976 Act not only to cover the police, but functions of other public authorities, listed in schedule 1, which are not currently covered. The Bill tackles gaps in coverage of the public sector which were left when the 1976 Act was introduced, or which have subsequently been found through the development of case law.
  Clause 1 will extend the 1976 Act with regard to public authorities.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to make a point about the definition of public authorities. Schedule 1 lists many public authorities. However, a lot of other legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998, also lists them. Will the Home Secretary consider whether it would be helpful to consolidate the definitions of public authority? I have examined every dot and comma, and the Bill presents an opportunity for achieving a common definition that would serve for much legislation.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall develop the point. It is fair for hon. Members to point out that the Human Rights Act, which does not schedule public authorities, refers to bodies that exercise a public function. They could be private sector bodies. For example, the provisions could apply to Railtrack's safety functions, but not its private functions as a property developer. They could also apply to water authorities. We
  1206
  believed that it was essential to schedule the public authorities to which the Freedom of Information Bill applies because they have a duty and they must know whether they are public authorities so that they can produce the necessary codes.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. Members who have raised the matter outside as well as inside the House, that deciding whether our attempts to define public authorities in the Bill are correct has been a matter of fine debate in government—I hope that it can also be a matter of debate in the House.
  Some duties in the Bill are prospective; the Human Rights Act is slightly different. I would be interested to hear whether the House believes that it would be sensible to include a schedule that made public authorities aware that they are public authorities. We could also consider whether there should not be a definition equivalent to that in the Human Rights Act, which could take account of private sector bodies that exercise public sector functions. I am happy for that to be considered.
  Mr. Hughes: I understand exactly the point that we need certainty so that people understand that they might have a duty or an obligation. Therefore we probably need a schedule containing a list that could be updated by secondary legislation or in other ways. As the Freedom of Information Bill is going through Parliament, is the Home Secretary willing to consider whether, after discussions, we could decide on a common formula that would allow a definition that gave best advice where possible and could be updated annually?
  Mr. Straw: Of course. This is a matter of how we achieve a commonly agreed aim.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: Is the Home Secretary saying that there is uncertainty in the very general definition in the Human Rights Act and that groups may not know that it applies to them? If that is not so, why can that definition not be used in this Bill?
  Mr. Straw: There is uncertainty because whether the human rights convention applies to a body that exercises public functions has to be a matter for the courts to determine in the jurisprudence of the convention, which we are about to incorporate in United Kingdom law. There is obviously no argument about all the public bodies that exercise public functions, but because the boundary between a public body and a body exercising a public function has shifted markedly over the past 25 years, not least because of privatisation and outsourcing, some bodies and some individuals in the private sector who would be regarded as private in other circumstances—public limited companies, for example—none the less exercise public functions in respect of some of their duties.
  I have given Railtrack and the water authorities as examples and one could think of many others. These days, private plcs exercise certain public functions in respect of the custody of prisoners—we had a great and perfectly open debate about that when we considered the Human Rights Act—but the question whether a person or body exercises a public function for the purposes of the convention has to be a matter for the courts.

  1207
  On those matters and freedom of information, I say to the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) that there is a need for certainty in any event because, in respect of freedom of information in particular, the public bodies have to produce codes. I am working my way through whether, at the same time as providing the maximum degree of certainty in a schedule, we should not also not exclude bodies which, down the track, might be said to exercise a public function after all and therefore should have been encompassed by the Bill. I want to share my consideration with the House, but retrospectively inserting such a provision in a schedule may not be the appropriate way to achieve that.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I am trying to follow the Home Secretary's argument. Is he saying that the 1976 Act, which applies to the private sector, leaves a gap between the public and private sectors that needs to be filled by a list? I thought that he was extending that Act to the public sector so there ought not to be a gap, except where the Bill excludes a particular organisation.
  Mr. Straw: I accept the logical neatness of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that neatness does not apply completely, perhaps because we are discussing this issue before considering the contents of the Bill.
  The Bill also introduces a positive duty to promote racial equality, which applies to public bodies but not to the private sector. A different responsibility is placed on the private sector, and in that respect I think the right hon. Gentleman may have a case. I am trying to be helpful to him, not least because of representations that he has made to me. In that respect, we may have to change the precise wording of the Bill, because I want this to be a matter for open discussion.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress I will happily give way to him later, as I always do.
  As I was saying, clause 1 will extend the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of public authorities by inserting new sections 19B, 19C and 19D in part III. Amendments tabled in Committee will also include section 1(1)(b) of the Act, which deals with indirect discrimination. New section 19B will make it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate directly against a person, or to victimise a person, on racial grounds in carrying out any of its functions. The provision applies to all functions that are not already covered by the existing provisions of the Act.
  The provision will have a wide application. For the purposes of the new section, "public authorities" will include bodies, or classes of body, listed in a new schedule. The schedule lists the main central Government and local government bodies, including the police, Ministers of the Crown, Government officials and law enforcers. It includes Scottish public bodies and authorities, as equal opportunities are a matter reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. Although the Scottish Parliament's consent to the Bill is therefore not required, under the arrangements set out by Lord Sewel in another
  1208
  place on 21 July 1998 there has been contact at both official and ministerial level on the Bill's application to devolved Scottish public bodies.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) first, because I said that I would.
  Mr. Howarth: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. He is always courteous in this regard.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the authorities mentioned in schedule 1 to which the Bill will extend coverage. There is a specific exclusion in respect of security, and GCHQ is specifically mentioned. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the case, and explain why GCHQ has been excluded?
  Mr. Straw: National security is not entirely excluded, and the agencies referred to are not excluded in terms of employment practice. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will deal with that part of the Bill when I reach it in my speech.
  Dr. Lewis: Would it be regarded as de facto evidence of discrimination if members of one ethnic or religious group were over-represented in prison in proportion to their strength in the population, or would each case of discrimination be viewed on an individual basis? It might be argued that some groups are over-represented at Oxford and Cambridge because a disproportionate number of their members pass the entrance examinations.
  Mr. Straw: That arises acutely in the context of indirect discrimination. I shall return to that when I reach the appropriate point in my speech; if I have not answered the hon. Gentleman's point, I shall happily give way to him again.
  There are some exceptions and omissions from the list of public authorities in the schedule, and I want to reassure the House about them. In most instances, omissions have been made for one of three reasons. First, the functions of some bodies are already clearly covered in the existing Race Relations Act: education bodies are an obvious example. Secondly, the schedule does not currently include non-departmental public bodies—quangos. We intend, where it is established in consultation with such bodies that they have functions not already covered by the Act, to add them to the list of public authorities by order. Thirdly, as I have explained, the schedule does not include private bodies carrying out public functions. One way or another, we intend such bodies to be covered by the Act in respect of their public functions.
  That provision represents an important extension of the existing legal protection against racial discrimination. The Government will seek to strengthen the provision further in Committee by making it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate indirectly as well as directly, in line with my announcement to the House on 27 January.
  The distinction between those two types of discrimination is this. Direct discrimination is where one person treats another less favourably than he treats, or would treat, other people. Indirect discrimination occurs

  1209
  when a requirement or condition which, though applied equally to people of different racial groups, has the effect that the proportion of one racial group that can comply is considerably smaller than the proportion of another racial group, but—to respond to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—such a requirement or condition is unlawful only if it cannot be justified irrespective of racial group and if it is detrimental to the claimant who cannot comply.
  To answer the hon. Gentleman's point directly, if it turned out that one racial group were markedly over-represented in the prison population, inquiries could be made about why that was. If it turned out that the reason was that courts, magistrates, juries, sentencers all had a down on that particular racial group, it would be very difficult to justify that proportion of people being in the prison population. On the other hand, if it turned out that the reason why they were over-represented was that they were committing more crimes, it would be entirely justified.
  There is considerable case law on the subject, not in respect of that particular area, because it has not been the subject of the law, but in respect, for example, of employment practices—people from one racial group have complained about employment practices—and other areas. In one quite well-known case, someone from abroad complained that he was being indirectly discriminated against because one of the conditions for going on a Manpower Services Commission course was that he should have had work experience in this country. He said that he could not have had such experience because he had not been here.
  The courts held that the commission was justified in its approach because it had nothing to do with people's racial origin: it was essential for the course that people had such experience. It might be said parenthetically that there would come a moment when that person could have had that experience. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: May I make some more progress? Then of course I will give way.
  Hon. Members will be aware that the Government have given very careful thought to the decision to extend indirect discrimination provisions to the Bill. I say openly that there was anxiety across government about how exactly that would fall. There was concern to ensure that such a provision would be effective without leaving public bodies open to routine and unnecessary legal challenge in circumstances where their policies were entirely proper and justified.
  Since the Bill's publication last December, I have listened carefully to the arguments about the issue, as did my colleagues in government. We concluded that, on balance, the risk of spurious challenge was outweighed by the principle of including indirect discrimination in respect of public sector functions in the Bill.
  1210
  I put it on record that I am grateful to the many right hon. and hon. Members who made representations to me about the measure. I am also grateful to their lordships for their contribution.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: All of us, I think, are grateful to the Government for having recognised the strength of the case and reasonably said that they would table amendments to deal with the indirect discrimination point. I wonder whether the Home Secretary can tell us at this stage whether he has reached a conclusion about whether to take the proposed easy route, which is simply to take two lines out of the Bill—which was put to him by the outgoing chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and others, including some in the other place—or whether that is still up for debate. If the right hon. Gentleman were able to give a simple answer and support the simple proposition, it might get simple reward from hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon.
  Mr. Straw: My intention was to take the simple route. Some people sometimes think that I take the complicated route, but I am not up for that. If my memory is failing me, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  It would be appropriate to place on record not only my thanks, but the thanks of a huge number of people, for the work of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who over the years has made probably a greater, more singular, contribution to the development of race relations legislation than anyone else in this country. It was he who—behind Roy Jenkins—was the architect of the Race Relations Act 1965, the Race Relations Act 1968 and the Race Relations Act 1976. I have no hesitation in saying that I have listened very carefully to the advice that he has offered.
  The Government also intend—I have made it clear—to table in Committee an amendment to place a statutory duty on public authorities to promote race equality. The Government regard the promotion of equality as a positive way of eliminating unjustifiable indirect discrimination and, distinct from that, what the Stephen Lawrence inquiry called "institutional racism". Our setting of targets for ethnic minority recruitment, retention and promotion and our guidelines for mainstreaming race equality into policy development and implementation offer concrete examples of how race equality can be promoted.
  The Government's commitment to placing the promotion of equality by public bodies generally on a statutory footing was announced in our equality statement, on 30 November 1999. We have since said that we shall reinforce that commitment by tabling a Government amendment to enshrine the principle in the Bill, leaving room for consultation on how the duty will operate in practice.
  Both those amendments will considerably strengthen the Bill and help to create the right legislative framework to bring about the step change in race equality that the Government are seeking to achieve.
  I should like now to describe the special provisions relating to immigration, asylum and nationality, in new section 19C.
  The extension in the Bill of the Race Relations Act 1976 will cover the work of immigration staff. That includes all staff working in the Home Office immigration and nationality directorate and the immigration service in the United Kingdom, and—I make this clear—entry clearance officers based overseas.

  1211
  The Bill provides various consequential measures to secure a proper alignment between the various statutory provisions covering race relations and those governing immigration, asylum and nationality. Those are necessary to allow our immigration laws to continue to be administered as Parliament intended, and to support the Government's policy of reforming and accelerating the immigration and asylum appeals system.
  The House will be familiar with the measures in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to produce a new one-stop procedure for appeals. Those measures, once implemented, are aimed to support the achievement of our target that, by April 2001, the majority of asylum applications will be resolved within an average of two months, and appeals against a refusal within a further four months.
  The operation of an effective and rational immigration system, however, necessarily and legitimately requires a distinction to be made between individuals on the basis of their nationality and, occasionally, their ethnic or national origin. For example—this may be stating the obvious, but it is quite important that it should be stated—the operation of our immigration control at ports must distinguish between our own citizens, who are free from immigration control, and other nationalities, who are not. There are different rules for those who enjoy free movement rights under European law and those who do not. The immigration rules therefore make distinct provisions for nationals who require a visa to travel to the United Kingdom and for those who do not. Some rules and policies apply only to Commonwealth countries or to specified nationalities.
  The safeguards in the Race Relations Act 1976 covering acts of discrimination done in pursuance of other statutory provisions, as interpreted by case law, are—within the context of the Bill—insufficient to allow the immigration system to operate as it should. If consequential provisions were not made, Ministers would, for example, be unable to authorise special compassionate exercises when necessary for particular ethnic or national groups—as we did last year, when we had the special exercise to evacuate and provide protection to Kosovan Albanians—and immigration staff would be unable to perform their duties in accordance with ministerial instructions.
  The powers in the Bill will be subject to very close safeguards. It will be unlawful for immigration staff to discriminate on grounds of race or colour or, in the case of nationality and ethnic and national origins, go beyond what is specified in immigration and nationality law or expressly authorised by Ministers. We are also considering making further changes to the Bill to provide independent oversight of the operation of those provisions. I hope to make further proposals on those changes in Committee.
  New section 19D seeks to preserve the role of the criminal courts as the sole forum for determining guilt by exempting from the Bill's provisions decisions not to prosecute. The importance of that principle was recognised both by the White Paper on freedom of information and also by the Phillips royal commission, in 1981, which said:
  publicly calling into question a decision not to prosecute could amount to a trial of the suspect without the safeguards which criminal proceedings are designed to provide.
  1212
  Clause 2 relates to appointments made on the recommendation or approval of Ministers and Departments, but not by them. It brings such appointments more in line with existing arrangements for other public appointments.
  Clause 4 makes further provision on the public prosecution function to ensure balance between the rights of individuals who have been discriminated against and the Government's commitments on the criminal justice system as a whole. Striking that balance means that civil proceedings for discrimination may have to wait until related criminal proceedings have been finalised. Stays to civil proceedings will defer, but not prevent, the resolution of a claim for discrimination.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Has the Home Secretary made any calculation of the number of cases likely to be brought? As he said, the Bill will clog up the legal system, even if the charge against someone who complains of discrimination is heard before the complaint.
  Mr. Straw: Unusually, the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I did not say that the system would be clogged up. I said that it could get clogged up if we did not take action in the Bill, but we are taking that action, with the approval of the House, so the legal system will not be any more clogged up than it is with the delays about which we heard on Tuesday. If I may make a partisan point in an otherwise non-partisan debate, on Tuesday the hon. Gentleman voted against a measure that will ease pressures on the courts.
  There are some details about the costs towards the end of the explanatory notes to the Bill, on page 13. We do not anticipate significant costs arising. We have given our best estimates. However, a very large cost will hit public authorities and society as a whole if we do not legislate. The first cost that we should be concerned about is the moral cost, but there would also be a financial cost. If people feel resentful that they have been treated unfairly and unequally, they will not give of their best. Happily, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights is not a matter of dissension between the parties, but people would seek other, less effective routes round the race relations legislation to get their rights.
  Clause 5 contains a further consequential measure, providing that claims of unlawful racial discrimination from individuals subject to immigration control that relate specifically to a decision in an individual immigration or asylum case will be heard by the independent appellate authority as part of the one-stop procedure on appeals. That is consistent with our policy that all outstanding matters in immigration and asylum appeals should be considered by the appellate authority at one time. We have sought to ensure that there is one appeal for anything related to immigration and asylum. As well as immigration claims, that covers those who decide to develop a subsequent asylum application and appeal and then to put in an appeal against deportation. That is what happens now.
  We want all three appeals to be heard in one go. In addition, we have arranged that if people suddenly have a genuine—or perhaps more often not so genuine—case under the European convention on human rights, they must bring that forward at the time. Once someone has been through that process and made all their claims in

  1213
  one go, they cannot then make a previously forgotten claim for racial discrimination as a result of the decision, which would then have to go before a separate tribunal, which could take months or years, suspending their removal. A claimant who substantiates their claim of discrimination within the immigration appellate system will then be able to apply to a county court, or to a sheriff court in Scotland, for damages. Those claimants not subject to immigration control who allege discrimination in other respects and have no direct recourse to the immigration appeal system—such as British citizens who feel that they have been the subject of discrimination by our immigration and nationality directorate—will be able to take their case direct to the county or sheriff court.
  The second main purpose of the Bill is to increase the accountability of chief officers of police in race discrimination cases by making them vicariously liable for the racially discriminatory acts of individual police officers. This is achieved by clause 3.
  In the existing Act, employers are held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees, but police officers are office holders, not employees. Although the Police Act 1996 and the equivalent Act in Scotland make general provision for the vicarious liability of a chief officer of police, the courts' construction of the Race Relations Act has meant that that general provision does not apply to the Act.
  That anomaly needs to be addressed, to bring the police into line both with other organisations and with its own general practice.
  Mr. David Winnick: When chief constables appeared before the Home Affairs Committee regarding race relations legislation—arising of course from the terrible murder of Stephen Lawrence—I asked them the following question: when police officers made racist remarks, was disciplinary action taken? I do not have real confidence that effective disciplinary action was taken when such remarks were made. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we really should say that there is no room for racists anywhere in the police force and that if people have racist views they should leave the police force—and the sooner the better.
  Mr. Straw: Of course I accept my hon. Friend's comment at the end of his intervention. That view is shared by all chief police officers and the overwhelming majority in the police service. Let me place on record my thanks to the police associations for what they have done in respect of the Lawrence inquiry report. I single out in particular Mr. Fred Broughton for his considerable leadership of the police service and his support for the Macpherson recommendations. It is now a disciplinary offence to be racially discriminatory within the police service.
  As my hon. Friend will know as a longstanding member of the Select Committee, we have changed the arrangements for police discipline to include a civil standard of proof and a criminal standard of proof. No one can ever be sure that what happened in the terrible Lawrence case could not happen again, but I am certain that the risk has been greatly reduced.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Yet again I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy. Does he agree that there is a
  1214
  severe downside to branding the police as a racist institution? That was brought home to me when one of our own police constables in the Palace of Westminster said that one of the reasons why he had finally decided to retire was that he considered that he had been smeared as a racist by the report.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I do not agree. The Macpherson report made it clear that there is institutional racism not only in the police service but in a large number of other public authorities and some private bodies. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I was about to conclude, but I shall detain the House for a moment while I deal with it.
  The Bill would not be necessary if there were not institutional racism in a wide variety of public bodies. Let me say to the House what I have said outside on a number of occasions. There has been institutional racism in the Home Office—and that is not to say that I have ever met a senior manager or a Minister in this Government or the previous Government who could be described as openly racist or harbouring racist beliefs. Everybody in the Home Office and in the police was perfectly well-meaning towards black and Asian staff: they looked at the promotion arrangements and, on the odd occasion when black and Asian staff complained that they seemed to be less well-represented higher up, they were patted on the head and told that the arrangements were perfectly straightforward and open and that anyone could apply for promotion. The implication was that the fact that black and Asian applicants were not getting through must be something to do with the quality of those applicants, rather than any fault of the system.
  Shortly after we took office and I became Home Secretary, we started work in the Home Office looking at the attitudes of black and Asian staff. We tried to find out what they really felt and what problems lay behind their gross under-representation at any level above administrative assistant, which is the bottom administrative grade. The work was done by external consultants, so staff did not have to own up to their managers, and we did a similar exercise in the Prison Service.
  What emerged was, first, that black and Asian staff were cross that they were not getting a fair crack of the whip. Secondly, they could point to many aspects of the promotion system that were benign in intent, but discriminatory in effect. For example, people had to fill in a form to apply for promotion, and it was usual for them to receive some encouragement to do so. That encouragement was, on the whole, dished out in the pub after work. Fewer women than men go to the pub after work, but no Asian women go to the pub at all. So Asian women were outside the net and were not coming forward for promotion.
  We followed up the conclusions and we have changed the system. The hon. Gentleman surely knows of some classic research in which job applications were submitted containing exactly the same qualifications and background, but with one difference—one was in the name of Mr. or Mrs. Smith and the other bore a long, foreign-sounding name. The latter was always the subject of discrimination. We have tried to make changes in the Home Office to combat that. If people apply for a job, they will get an interview. There will be no shortlisting, so it does not matter what their name is. We have also increased mentoring.

  1215
  Our efforts are now working and securing changes. The situation is by no means perfect, but staff in the Home Office have set up a network of black and Asian staff. In fact, I attended one of the most uplifting meetings that I have been to in the past three years, which saw 800 of our staff coming together voluntarily to work better with us to improve employment opportunities. We are seeing dramatic changes.
  On the subject of the police, which the hon. Gentleman raised, the vast majority of the police—as Macpherson said—do not have a racist thought in their heads. Some have, and they should be drummed out of the police service—and the sooner the better. Like the police, the overwhelming majority of staff at every level in the Home Office do not have a racist intention in their bones. However, an institution can, because of its practices, work in a discriminatory way. That was what Macpherson said, and that is why he was right to say of the police, and all those other public authorities, that they were institutionally racist and that we needed to take action to deal with that. That is one of the reasons why I am so delighted that we are including indirect discrimination provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I confirm that what the Home Secretary has discovered in the Home Office was known in the Department of Employment in 1986, when the race relations employment advisory service produced a report. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the encouragement that he is giving to the Association of Black Police Officers to remove what some have seen as a concrete ceiling. Others have also been encouraged to do what they know is right. I suggest that those who doubt these things read an article in the British Medical Journal last week in which an Asian consultant wrote about having been told inadvertently that some jobs were for Indians and others were for whites.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman, who brings great commitment and experience to the subject, is right: it is still going on, and it will go on for as long as we are blind to the fact that it is going on or take the view of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—I say this with respect to him—that there is an exact similarity between the way institutions behave and the way in which individuals in that institution think they behave. We ought to know enough about institutional culture to know that that is not the case.
  I shall deal briefly with national security. The Bill amends the national security provisions in the Race Relations Act, and that is achieved by clauses 6 and 7. For anyone who is worried about that, it is to bring the provisions into line with the European convention on human rights—not to detach it. The intelligence and security agencies are covered in terms of employment, and we thought that those agencies were quite keen on the provision. We considered whether they could be included in the Bill as a whole, but we did not find a way in which it would be possible for people to put in section 65 requests for information and to have those compatible with the basic purposes of the intelligence and security agencies and their need for secrecy.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I have answered the hon. Gentleman.
  1216
  In conclusion, the House will be aware that, as Home Secretary, I am responsible for a significant number of the Bills that are being considered during this parliamentary Session. None, however, gives me more personal satisfaction than this one. The Bill comes out of a personal tragedy—the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence, which brought to the attention of the white majority what it is like to be a member of a black or Asian community in Britain today.
  The report into the death of Stephen Lawrence led the Opposition to welcome my announcement on 24 February 1999 of the Government's intention to carry out the first major update of the Race Relations Act since 1976.
  The Bill is a very important one, and I am very proud to be responsible for it. It meets the commitments that the Government made in response to the Lawrence inquiry. It is an important part of this Government's wider agenda for achieving race equality and promoting the potential of a modern, multicultural society.
  The Bill has already benefited from the scrutiny that it received during its passage in another place. I look forward to that scrutiny continuing in this House. I very much hope, given the nature and importance of the Bill, that it will be received warmly on all sides of the House as a major contribution to eliminating racial discrimination, and to achieving race equality.
  2.2 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: We on this side of the House remain unreservedly and absolutely opposed to racial discrimination. For that reason, we will support the Second Reading of the Bill today. However, we have some concerns about the implications of various aspects of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those aspects which I shall raise. I hope that there will be a proper opportunity to explore them in detail throughout the Bill's later stages, because we believe that some have serious implications. It is important that the effects should be those intended, rather than those not intended.
  Everybody in our society has the right to expect equal treatment from every institution, and that includes the public services. I welcome any sensible and practical measures to assist in the fight to eradicate discrimination from our society. I say "sensible and practical" because while no one would dispute that the intentions behind the Bill are honourable, we are concerned that the practical implementation of certain of the measures contained within it—and, perhaps more importantly, some of the measures that we know will be contained within the Bill when it comes back to the Floor of the House—could serve as a hindrance, rather than a help in the elimination of racial discrimination.
  I wish to refer to the police service, which has become subject to intense scrutiny since the publication of the Macpherson report into the aftermath of the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence. The police service is an effective force in the fight against crime in this country. I pay tribute, as would the Home Secretary, to the courage and dedication of the men and women of our police service. They, as individuals, feel that they have been subject to much unwarranted criticism in recent months. They feel that because the service has been branded "institutionally racist" that that rubs off on them. That is a serious consideration.

  1217
  The Macpherson report says:
  "We accept that there are dangers in allowing the phrase to be used in order to try to express some overall criticism of the police, or any other organisation, without addressing its meaning."
  The report goes on to define institutional racism. It says that it is the collective failure
  of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
  Sir Paul Condon, the former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, told the inquiry that labelling the police as "institutionally racist" would mean that the public
  will assume a finding of conscious, wilful or deliberate action or inaction to the detriment of ethnic minority Londoners. They will assume the majority of good men and women who come into policing … go about their daily lives with racism in their minds and in their endeavour.
  He said that the use of the term "institutional racism"
  would undermine many of the endeavours to identify and respond to instances of racism which challenge all institutions and particularly the police.
  No matter how it was conceived, I believe that the way in which the term "institutional racism" has been bandied about has done a great deal of unnecessary and unhelpful damage to the image of the police service in this country. However, I would go further. I ask the Home Secretary to consider whether the very use of that phrase—which effectively absolves individuals from responsibility for racist acts and lays the ultimate blame on the institution—can hamper the fight against racism at a personal level. Might it not also have an adverse effect on the morale and public image of the men and women in the police service, the vast majority of whom do not act with racism in their minds?
  We have already witnessed a rise in London crime rates at a time when the number of stop and searches has fallen dramatically. I believe that there is a clear link between those two facts. The August 1999 summary to the interim Fitzgerald report into stop and search noted:
  This fall in searches is also directly related to a rise in crime over the same period.
  We have even heard the Prime Minister, in response to the first rise in crime since 1993, personally urge police to step up the use of stop-and-search powers. I am sure that the police would like to carry out as many stop and searches as they deem necessary, but they say that they are reluctant to do so because of the what they consider to be the climate of hostility directed at them. A recent survey found that 71 per cent. of Metropolitan police officers had become more reluctant to use stop-and-search powers since the publication of the Macpherson report.
  There can be no dispute that it is right to act swiftly against any police officer intent on conducting his or her duty in a discriminatory manner. However, it is plainly wrong for members of our police service to feel that they cannot carry out their duty solely because their actions could be portrayed as discriminatory, even if that was not in their minds—or even if discrimination had never crossed their minds at all.
  1218
  I hope that the Home Secretary will reassure the House that the operational effect of the police service, and of other public services, will not in any way be threatened by the interpretations that could be placed on the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. I can give her the assurance that she seeks, but I should like to take this opportunity to make two points. First, the changes in the Bill to make chief officers vicariously liable for the actions of individual officers will greatly help those individual officers, who as a result will not feel isolated, as used to be possible. It was an eccentricity of the courts that treated police officers—for these purposes, if not for any others—as office holders rather than employees. The change proposed in the Bill will help that.
  My second point goes wider. In my judgment, the Bill contains nothing that should lead to any diminution in the effectiveness of policing. However, it contains a huge amount that will make the police service more effective. As long as people feel that they are the subject of discrimination—I am not talking about the police service—and that we do not live in a properly equal society, there are problems of disaffection and, ultimately, criminal behaviour. The Bill means that there will be even less excuse for criminal behaviour than there has been in the past.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am partly reassured by that, but only partly. I will give the Home Secretary some examples when we look at the way in which the indirect discrimination provisions, when they are included in the Bill, will work. If the operational effectiveness of the police service is to be threatened in any way, we must look minutely at these provisions and think about them carefully.
  On investigations into the police by the Commission for Racial Equality, I am not convinced that the CRE is the right body to examine allegations of racism in the police service. Surely it would be more appropriate for a single body to look at all complaints against the police, such as a truly independent Police Complaints Authority. We would then avoid having the PCA look into the operational aspects of a complaint of racism while the CRE was looking at the racial aspects. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at that issue before the Bill is considered in Committee.
  I now turn to the inclusion of the indirect discrimination provisions, which the Government intend to include by way of an amendment at a later stage, despite previously expressing their deep reservations about including provisions on such discrimination in the Bill. In another place, Lord Bassam commented that outlawing indirect discrimination would have uncertain and potentially far-reaching effects on the Government's ability to make policy. He went on to argue that there would be too many frequent and counter-productive court challenges, and that indirect discrimination did not fit well with law enforcement. Can the Minister who winds up the debate explain why the Government have made this U-turn in their attitude to indirect discrimination?
  The Home Secretary said in a written answer, when he announced the new policy:
  the risk of spurious challenge is outweighed by the principle of including indirect discrimination in respect of public sector functions in the Bill.—[Official Report, 27 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 247W.]

  1219
  Will he confirm that indirect discrimination will be included in the Bill to improve the practical effectiveness and fairness of our public services, and not simply as a rhetorical gesture to a perceived principle—a gesture that might do more harm than good and would not serve anybody's interests in the long term? I hope that the Home Secretary's change of mind on indirect discrimination will not be quite as disastrous as I believe his change of mind on abolishing the right to jury trial will probably be.
  Can the Secretary of State tell us about the exact nature of the public services that might be affected by the inclusion of indirect discrimination provisions? For example, will police beat routes be open to challenge in the courts? The Home Secretary should think about it if he does not understand. How will the national health service be affected? What about the siting of fire stations, police stations and hospitals? Public bodies dealing with transport, including Transport for London, will presumably be covered. Will decisions on bus and rail routes and on timetables be open to challenge? Those are areas which were originally thought could be open to challenge. If we are being told that the Government have found some way of fining the measure so that such challenges will not be made, I would like to hear it. If not, and those things will be open to challenge, I would like to hear what practical effects that might have.
  Mr. Straw: The detailed points that the right hon. Lady raises can be answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and in Committee. However, the House may be a little confused: the right hon. Lady says that she supports the principle of the Bill, but it is unclear which part of its contents she supports. I hope that she will not get herself into the position, which I forbore from mentioning, that her predecessor got into in 1965 and 1968 on a similar tack.
  As to the right hon. Lady's examples—and I am very happy to provide her with all the information that I considered—the way in which the courts have interpreted section 1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976, which outlaws racial discrimination that is indirect only if it is unjustified, show that the courts have been very accommodating to the public authorities. I gave the example of the Manpower Services Commission and there is a stream of others. In one of the examples that she gave, it would have to be palpable that a senior police officer was organising the beats in order to be racially discriminatory, which I doubt. If he was doing it to ensure that the area was properly policed and that he was covering the areas of highest crime and highest complaint, there would not be the least argument.
  My final point—and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene—is that I have been perfectly open about the Government's anxieties about whether it was safe to incorporate section 1(1)(b). As a result of continuing discussion inside and outside Government, my colleagues and I were persuaded that it was safe to do so.
  Miss Widdecombe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response. He asked me about my support for the Bill. We have said that we support the principle, and that
  1220
  the provisions that currently govern the private sector should be extended to all parts of the public sector. There is no argument about our adherence to that principle.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: Let me finish, because the right hon. Gentleman asked me the question—which he should not have done in an intervention, anyway. We are concerned about the addition, at a late stage, of indirect discrimination provisions. The principle may be fine, but we know well that if we make bad law around noble principles, the consequences are nasty. We are trying to do our duty—to scrutinise the likely consequences and possible effects of this measure.
  It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to brush aside what I have just said as if it were of no consequence. Why, then, did his Minister, in another place, make exactly these points and say that that was why the Government were not going to include indirect discrimination in the Bill?
  Mr. Straw: I was not brushing aside the right hon. Lady's comments as if they were of no consequence—I was giving her an answer.
  The right hon. Lady will come to regret her assertion that one is not allowed to ask questions in interventions. I will bear that in mind the next time I have the Floor. Indeed, I will never let her forget it.
  The right hon. Lady talks about it being fine to apply to the public sector that which already applies to the private sector. That was the killer argument in respect of indirect discrimination. Section 1(1)(b) already applies to the private sector. Therefore, it becomes very difficult—not impossible, because I tried it—to argue that it should not apply to the public sector as well.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is all right for the Opposition to ask questions of the Government in interventions. That is what we are supposed to do, because the Government have Executive responsibility. I again ask the Home Secretary the question that he has persistently refused to answer. I will even sit down and let him reply. Why, if this is so obvious and I am being so unreasonable, did his Government take exactly this line until very recently, with Lord Bassam enunciating the sort of arguments that I am making now?
  Mr. Straw: I have not, on this occasion, accused the right hon. Lady of being wholly unreasonable. There is no great secret about this. There was a process of discussion and debate about this in Government. The right hon. Lady knows the processes of Government, to some extent better than I do. At least I did not have to argue with my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office.
  An initial view was formed about where the balance of argument lay, and that is obvious from the record. I do not think that we should be criticised for having listened to the arguments, not least to the debate in the other place. People cannot have it both ways. It was always a relatively finely balanced argument. Lord Bassam spelt out our anxieties, but I am pleased to say that the more I went into it, the more I could assuage colleagues about

  1221
  where the balance of the argument lay. The point about the provisions already applying to the private sector was very important when it came to weighing that balance.
  Miss Widdecombe: I hope that we shall be able to test at length in Committee the concerns that the Government previously held but which they claim to have resolved in a very short time—indeed, a record time, even for a Government of many U-turns.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On the basis that I, too, may ask questions, will the right hon. Lady reflect that while it may have taken the Government a little time to be persuaded by arguments about indirect discrimination—she may not yet be quite persuaded—the time taken has been rather longer in the context of European Union law? EU courts and member states have accepted that a law that did not outlaw indirect discrimination in the customs union would have made that union impossible. The argument has been won in other areas of law, as her party accepted when in Government, even if it has not yet quite been won in this area.
  Miss Widdecombe: It will be won only once we have given it thorough discussion and examination. The worries so recently entertained by the Government, which we still hold, must be resolved. A parliamentary process exists for doing so, and I hope that we shall not be as rushed as we were last night. The Home Secretary looks puzzled by that remark, but we were debating one of our own Bills—the Representation of the People Bill—and had 35 minutes in which to discuss 100 Lords amendments. I hope that this Bill will be given the most thorough scrutiny.
  I have a question for the Home Secretary. He will say, "No, no, no", but I should like to hear why not. Why will not his plan to introduce a £10,000 bond for those who wish to enter the UK from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—but nowhere else—be in breach of the Government's proposed indirect discrimination legislation? He appears to have no answer to that. Does he?
  Mr. Straw: As I recall, the Opposition supported that proposal. It is a bit rich of the right hon. Lady to complain about it. She supported almost all our proposals, including abolition of the white list, opposing only the introduction of severe penalties for truck drivers who bring in clandestine immigrants.
  Miss Widdecombe: Is it not discriminatory?
  Mr. Straw: No, it will not be discriminatory. We are running a pilot scheme before final decisions come to be made about the bond scheme. Wherever we pilot it, it is not discriminatory because it is a pilot.
  Miss Widdecombe: Ah. So if the pilot is successful, the £10,000 bond will become universal? Is that right? Is the Home Secretary saying yes to that?
  Mr. Straw: I return to the explanation I offered the House on the amendments on immigration. Immigration and asylum law, by definition, distinguishes between
  1222
  people of different nationalities, and sometimes ethnic origins, so the Bill contains perfectly sensible savings. That is the answer to the right hon. Lady's question.
  Miss Widdecombe: So indirect discrimination will apply to individual immigration officers, but not to Government policy. Okay.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Government or the Opposition today?
  Mr. Hughes: I wish I were in the Government and speaking for them, but that must wait another month or two.
  In the interests of trying to resolve an important point, may I say that I have asked myself the question that the right hon. Lady is putting to the Home Secretary, and have concluded that the exemption that allows nationality to be a reason for exemption from indirect and direct discrimination law is the reason why that would be permitted? There may be another issue about whether applying the nationality test might have other indirect consequences, but the white Indian—the Anglo-Saxon Indian—will be discriminated against under the Government's proposals in the same way as an Indian of Asian origin.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman goes a long way to bail out the Home Secretary, and does so with rather greater clarity than the right hon. Gentleman. However, despite what he has said, I am worried. If the Bill will apply to the immigration and asylum system in general, might it not lead to many appeals on grounds of racial discrimination, causing yet more delays in the system and probably increasing even further the famous backlog of asylum cases? Given the enormous pressures that the immigration and nationality directorate is already under, will such a Bill simply make the system even more ineffective?
  It is not impossible to imagine a scenario in which almost every legitimate, reasoned decision taken by the IND would be subjected to the appeals process to delay possible removal from the UK rather than because of rational claims of racial discrimination. If that happened, it would undermine legitimate claims of discrimination, and be grossly unfair to those whose claims for asylum are genuine or who have a valid reason for wanting to enter the UK.
  Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department tell us the estimated increased cost to public authorities and the legal aid budget that will result from the Bill? If he cannot, will he write to me? The Government described the costs as "significant" in the explanatory notes to the Bill, yet they have described calculating any such costs as an "impossible" task. On what basis, therefore, did the Government decide that the costs would be significant, and if that is indeed the case, will departmental budgets be able to cover successfully the significantly increased burden placed on them? Has the Home Secretary undertaken a detailed study of the financial implications of the inclusion of indirect discrimination in the Bill? If he has, may we have the benefit of those calculations?

  1223
  Working for better race relations does not have to be restricted to acting sternly against our organisations and institutions, and imposing sanctions and prohibitions. It must be a reasoned and responsible partnership that acts in everybody's interests to ensure that all members of society feel they are treated equally and fairly. We will, therefore, support the Bill at this stage, in the hope that it will improve race relations, but we have a responsibility to ensure that our public services remain effective and efficient, that they are not hampered by spurious legal challenges and that any legislation is implemented with those aims in mind.
  I look forward—perhaps a trifle optimistically—to a sensible and careful consideration of all elements contained in the Bill, and I hope that effective and meaningful race relations will result.
  2.27 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his comprehensive proposals to address racism. I should like to outline how bad race relations were during the 1960s and early 1970s before the passage of the Race Relations Act 1976. Racial discrimination was entrenched in the minds of people who never hesitated to show their feelings in public. In addition, racial violence against individuals was common. I shall give some examples of the sort of treatment that ethnic minorities received in public places at the hands of racists.
  In my constituency, in the mid-1960s, public houses used to refuse drinks to non-white customers. That deliberate and naked racism confronted members of the non-white minority. I once went to a public house with a couple of friends, and I asked at the bar for drinks. We were refused by the management, and we faced a barrage of racist insults and physical threats. The same thing happened in other public houses.
  I complained to the Race Relations Board, but it had no power to prosecute publicans. It could only investigate, which was not helpful in any way. I emphasise that I regularly receive racist hate mail, both from within this country and from abroad.
  After campaigning and lobbying for a long time, I was happy when the Labour Government passed the Race Relations Act 1976; that was a step in the right direction, although it did not have the teeth to bite. The Commission for Racial Equality and local community relations councils were set up under it. However, despite that legislation and extensive campaigning by the CRE, race equality councils, community organisations, trade unions and the Labour party, the practice of racism by individuals, employers and public authorities never stopped. It is time to give further powers to public authorities under race relations legislation to deal with any form of racism.
  I welcome the Bill. It is a considerable improvement on the 1976 Act in several respects. I speak as someone who, as a community leader in Southall, was calling for improved race relations in 1976. I gave evidence as to what was needed to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in May 1973. Although we still need to improve outdated legislation, we live in a much more tolerant society than 25 years ago when the 1976 Act was introduced. It is important that new legislation reflect those changes.
  1224
  The purpose of the Bill is to extend the 1976 Act to a wide range of the functions of public authorities that are not covered by it. I welcome the extension of the Act to all activities of the police and other bodies that involve direct discrimination or victimisation.
  I was pleased that, while the Bill was in the House of Lords, the Government announced their decision
  to extend the indirect discrimination provisions to public service functions.
  An individual will thus be able to mount a challenge in the courts on those grounds. Ministers, officials, law enforcers and other office holders in public authorities listed in the measure will be subject to that provision.
  I welcome especially clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 introduces new section 19B, which declares unlawful discrimination by public authorities. Subsection (1) makes it unlawful for any public body or office holder
  to discriminate, in carrying out any of its functions, against another person.
  Clause 2 amends section 76 of the 1976 Act, which deals with public appointments. It will bring within the Act Crown appointments and those made by Departments and Ministers. At present, those posts are not protected under the employment provisions of the 1976 Act. Where Crown appointments are dependent on ministerial or departmental recommendations or approvals, the Bill provides that there must be no discrimination at any stage of the process.
  In the wake of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, I am pleased that the Metropolitan police are showing a determined effort to cut out racism in their ranks. That will be greatly helped by the recruitment of ethnic minority policemen and women. I am keen to promote police work as a career for the ethnic minority in my constituency.
  However, I am a realist. I know that attitudes do not change overnight and that legislative safeguards are necessary. In the long run, I hope that they will not have to be used in cases of racial discrimination—because there will be no such cases.
  I welcome the Government's announcement that the Bill will also lay a positive duty on public authorities to promote racial equality. Its operation in practice and its enforcement will be decided after consultation. I am sure that, during the remaining stages of the Bill, the Government will listen carefully to the CRE's proposals for the operation, monitoring and enforcement of that duty, and that they will also take into account proposals made by other interest groups.
  I agree with the view expressed by the CRE that the Bill could serve as a tool to expose how racial discrimination by one public authority could lead to discrimination by another. For example, the commission pointed out that, over several years, discriminatory allocation of council housing led to the concentration of ethnic minority tenants on certain sink estates. It would not be surprising to find that, as tenants on such estates, ethnic minority households were also discriminated against by public bodies providing other services, such as education, health or policing.
  The Bill would enable such discrimination to be challenged, regardless of whether it occurs directly—on racial grounds—indirectly because of a bad address, or both.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the CRE several times. He obviously knows much about that organisation. Will he enlighten the House as to why it went through a stormy patch when the West Indians and Asians were at loggerheads? The matter was well reported by one of the commissioners, Mrs. Cluff. Does he think that that was a case of discrimination by one group against another, or not?
  Mr. Khabra: The CRE was set up in 1976 to address the issue of racism in this country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's party was not happy that an institution was established to fight racism.
  It would not be surprising to find that public bodies providing services such as education, health or policing discriminated against ethnic minority tenants on estates such as I described. In my constituency, where the Tories were in control for 13 years, that happened on many council estates.
  The Bill would enable such discrimination to be challenged. I agree with the CRE that
  a positive duty to promote racial equality would require all the relevant authorities to examine the outcome of their policies and practices and to identify and change those that are discriminatory.
  Labour Governments have always been at the forefront in combating racial discrimination. The Labour party, the trade unions and many other groups campaigned in that fight for many years despite the fact that the Conservative Government had no intention of introducing legislation to root out racism in this country.
  The Labour Government introduced the Race Relations Acts of 1968 and 1976. I am proud to be an ethnic minority Labour MP when a Labour Government are introducing another vital piece of race legislation that will benefit not only many of my constituents, but all ethnic minorities throughout the UK. That is in contrast to the Tories, who in their rule did nothing to ensure that public bodies were subject to the full force of the 1976 Act despite the fact that they were in power for 18 years. They allowed unemployment among the ethnic minorities to grow steadily, which in turn left them feeling totally disillusioned with politics.
  I have campaigned for inclusive politics all my political life and from long before I became a Member of Parliament. I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction towards that ultimate goal.
  2.40 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra). He has long personal experience of the issues covered by the Bill, and I am sorry that his involvement in them has led him to be in continuing receipt of hate mail. That is extraordinarily unpleasant.
  I shall touch on some things that the hon. Gentleman said in his speech with rather less agreement, but I am glad that the Government have introduced the Bill. However, my welcome for it would have been much more muted, if the Home Secretary had not announced his intention to table amendments to extend it to cover indirect discrimination in the public sector, which is not covered by the Race Relations Act 1976. As the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, have said, it must be wrong that
  1226
  the state, which should protect all its citizens, may discriminate unfairly on the basis of race when private organisations cannot. It has become plain that that anomaly must be removed if ethnic minorities are to feel confident that public institutions give them equal respect and value. I am sorry that that was not done sooner, not least by the Government of whom I was a member.
  I return to the points made by the hon. Member for Southall and to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked of the Home Secretary. The anomaly was not removed earlier because it is assumed that Governments are always virtuous and look after everyone, so that the law is not needed. It is assumed that they have loftier purposes than private organisations and may sometimes need to discriminate to achieve these higher ends for everyone. It follows that Governments are such a complex mystery that disgruntled people may not discern their higher purpose or practical necessity and so bring a stream of vexatious actions that undermine or frustrate wise policy and good administration. There is something to be said for those views, and I shall return to the last point in due course. But they go a long way to explaining why the previous Government left matters as they were and why the present Government introduced the Bill in its present form and intended to extend the law to cover only direct discrimination in that part of the public sector not covered by the 1976 Act.
  Despite the Macpherson recommendations, the Bill was initially prepared only to make direct discrimination by subordinates unlawful while it would have preserved the immunity of Ministers, senior decision makers and the policy-making process. I am glad that pressure from both sides in the other place caused the Government to think again, and I was happy to hear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is prepared to be convinced, too.
  We all know that the genesis of the Bill was the Macpherson inquiry into the police handling of the appallingly unhappy case of the Stephen Lawrence murder. I declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I emphasise that I seek to advise the federation; I do not speak for it and I am not doing so in this debate, except perhaps to say that it has long made genuine and consistent efforts to create an environment in which black and Asian officers feel valued and at home in the police service. I am sure that its chairman, Fred Broughton, will appreciate the Home Secretary's kind and well justified reference to him.
  I am sure that it would harm the police's interests if they continued to be outside the full range of the 1976 Act, especially if the rest of the public sector were brought within its scope. Suspicion, from which they already suffer, would continue to multiply without any satisfactory opportunity to put it to the test. Reform would continue to be ignored by a large swathe of public opinion and its effectiveness would be discounted if there were no access to the courts. But it is understandable that the police, like the other parts of the public sector now to be brought under the 1976 Act, should be apprehensive about how the extended law will work and how it will impinge on their operational effectiveness.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is on to an important point. For example,

  1227
  the Kent police are involved in intelligence-led policing and one of the things that they do is keep a close record of the friends of villains. That is one way of extending their net of whom to finger. If institutional changes affect that form of policing, the police are in dire danger of being picked up on the day that they move against someone who happens to be innocent—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance to develop that point further. If he is suggesting that the extension of the provisions for indirect discrimination will make it harder for the police to gather and follow up evidence on the contacts of the individuals whom they know to be criminals, I do not think that it will have that effect.
  Let us consider the example of stop and search, which has often been referred to, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The fear has been expressed that the possibility of challenges in court will further reduce the police's ability or their confidence to use that necessary power. However, the evidence is that the power has been undermined already by criticism and complaint, and the police are now reported to be reluctant to use it even when they should. I am sure that the only practical remedy is for stop and search procedures to be clearly on all fours with the law, so that their robust and necessary execution stands up in court. The natural response is that that is easily said, but hard to achieve without making stop and search ineffectual. I understand that argument, but the law gives the police the power to stop and search when that is operationally justified. That is a similar point to the one that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend.
  When the powers are challenged, sensible decisions by the courts will give the police more confidence to use them effectively than in the present twilight world of misused statistics, media criticism and their own disciplinary proceedings carried out with an eye on what the newspapers will say. The same is true to a greater or lesser extent of the immigration service, the Prison Service and those who work in health and safety and other parts of the public sector. It is right that people who have been treated unfairly by any part of the public sector because of their race or colour should have a means of remedy. It is socially corrosive when they do not.
  Both the complainant and the individual or organisation that is complained about will have to be able to rely on the court's ability to get to the heart of the issue and apply the law with common sense and proportion. The Bill's success will depend on the wisdom and insight demonstrated by the court. By success, I mean creating among every ethnic group the conviction that they are being treated fairly, without creating among officials the belief that they can no longer do their job effectively.
  That is made more difficult by the fact, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald also referred, that Macpherson lighted on the phrase "institutional racism" to describe the underlying problem. Unfortunately, it has journalistic panache, and I cannot see any alternative phrase displacing it. Not many people would seriously argue with the report's definition of the phrase, on which the Home Secretary accurately
  1228
  and eloquently expanded in response to an intervention. However, I am afraid that most people do not listen to these debates or read the small print in reports. They absorb headlines, and the phrase, unexplained, powerfully suggests a deliberate, officially sanctioned policy of treating unfairly people from racial minorities. That is not fair to any part of the public sector—not the police, the immigration service or the Prison Service.
  If that impression is allowed to continue, other public sector groups, as well as the police, will feel resentment and a sense of injustice at what they presume the public thinks them guilty of. The same process will also lead ethnic minorities and others to believe that their worst suspicions have been justified. We are in danger of finding ourselves in a confrontational situation in which both sides feel unjustly treated and in which it will be harder to achieve the positive attitudes necessary for rooting out the unfair assumptions and practices that are wittingly, or more often unwittingly, manifested in parts of the public sector.
  As I said, the Government and their senior advisers are bound to have the added worry that making indirect discrimination in the public sector unlawful will open up official policy and procedures to interminable challenge that they discriminate in their effect on different ethnic groups. That fear is not as real as is often made out. Only 3 per cent. of cases in which the law presently applies are concerned with indirect discrimination, although I can well believe that the proportion will rise among cases in which the public sector is concerned. However, that need not become a matter of acute concern. After all, the law does not ban policies that have a disproportionate effect on different social groups if the policies are justified in their own terms and are applied in a manner that produces the least disproportionate effect possible.
  The fears of the immigration service, particularly concerning asylum, which are shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, were spelled out by the Minister in another place and mentioned by the Home Secretary. Those fears do not take into account the way in which the law is supposed to work. I have no doubt that the Bill will lead to changes in the way in which the public sector manages itself, but there is no reason why it should put well-founded, justifiable policies at risk. It will make the implementation of some of those policies fairer than it is now.
  That happy state of affairs will not necessarily be arrived at easily or quickly. Public sector policies and practices are complex and varied. It is easy to see discrimination where none exists, and where it does exist, it is easy to mistake the cause and the remedy, particularly where indirect discrimination is alleged. The wisdom of the courts would be tested if, unaided, they had to resolve every such complaint. We badly need an expert body to investigate complaints of indirect discrimination that has the confidence of the complainants and the respect of the public sector organisations being complained about.
  The Commission for Racial Equality was set up to fulfil that role, and it has performed a number of constructive investigations, including in the Ministry of Defence and the NHS. I know better its campaign to get racism out of football, in which it sought to work with football clubs and the football authorities, supporting them in a mostly successful effort to tackle a problem on which the clubs and authorities had not properly focused before.

  1229
  That approach will be badly needed if the Bill is to work effectively. I am not at all sure whether the CRE is now well enough resourced or whether it has a sufficient range of skills, expertise and experience to do this much more demanding job in the public sector as thoroughly as it should be done.
  Statistics showing disproportionality in some aspects of public policy do not prove discrimination, as so many people think. They may be a symptom that should be investigated, but they are not proof. There needs to be an independent body with knowledge of the public sector, capable of looking behind the figures and the complaints, to advise whether there is an issue to be addressed and, if there is, able to help the department concerned to address it so that there is seldom, if ever, any need to come to trial.
  I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to tell the House that the Government have thought very hard on that point, because much of the Bill's usefulness, especially the duty that it is placing on public sector organisations to promote racial equality, will, in large measure, depend on it.
  2.57 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Nobody should doubt the Bill's importance, although the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), said that she is convinced of its importance and then proceeded to make a speech in which it was not clear whether or not the Conservative party supports the Bill at all, in so far as it refers to indirect discrimination. I can only suggest to the right hon. Lady that a little time spent quietly with the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), whose enthusiasm for and commitment to this cause we all appreciate, might be very useful before the Bill goes into Committee.
  Nobody should doubt, either, the significance of the Bill being introduced by a Labour Government who are going further than the recommendations of the Macpherson report. The Bill extends the Race Relations Act 1976 not only to the police but to the functions of all public authorities. The Government are right to have signalled their intention to extend the Bill to encompass indirect discrimination.
  The Bill is not only needed by those who will be, because of the colour of their skin, protected by it, but it will be good for everyone who lives in Britain, whether black or white. For anyone who does not feel compelled by the Bill's purpose of furthering the cause of equal rights and opportunities, I quote what President Kennedy said in 1963:
  Who among us would be content to have the colour of his skin changed and stand in his place?
  Civil rights should be at the heart of any responsible Government. Discrimination, wherever it is found, is a curse. Hon. Members will know from my past in the House that I have always taken the view that wherever we find discrimination, we should root it out, because discrimination in whatever form it takes is abhorrent and repugnant. It is a weapon that enforces division, and there should be no compromise of basic principles.
  I regret the fact that the shadow Home Secretary did not take the opportunity this afternoon to state her commitment to ensuring that discrimination will be rooted
  1230
  out not only as it relates to ethnic minorities, but in other facets of our society, such as in matters of gender or sexuality. That should mean that ours is a society in which there is no second-class citizenship for any British man or woman anywhere.
  Although we can look back on the strides that we have made towards creating an equal and more just society, no hon. Member should fail to observe how much further we still have to go. There is a choice about the kind of nation we want to be and the direction in which we want to move. We can move in the direction of division, and we can tolerate that division. It is my view that we have tolerated division for far too long. We can also move in a direction which removes division—the direction of one nation.
  The division with which we live—the division between white and black, whatever the degree of tolerance that some people would proffer—makes us, in truth, an intolerant society. That intolerance will be fed by fear and hatred, and hatred will breed violence and lawlessness.
  The other choice, which is a harder route to pursue, is to live together as one nation—not a nation that subjugates the identity of a minority to that of a majority, but a nation that celebrates its diversity, in which men and women respect one another for their character, not for the colour of their skin. For that, we will need understanding, compassion, wisdom, justice and a sense of doing what is right.
  There are still too many in this country and, regrettably, in the House whom we must seek to persuade if we are to change. Our culture must change. Although I shall not focus my remarks today on the issue of immigration, we should not let this moment pass without commenting on the shadow Home Secretary's proposal to bring back the primary purpose rule, which the Government rightly abolished.
  It is a dreadful contradiction of the essential decency of this nation that a political party would consider introducing legislation which even the Conservative candidate for London mayor has described as "disgusting and immoral". That pernicious, divisive rule discriminated particularly against people trying to move to Britain from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Does the shadow Home Secretary believe that Britain is a better country for such racist discrimination?
  Perhaps the House should not be surprised by the way in which some Tories will use discrimination for short-term political gain. The shadow Cabinet Office Minister recently said that immigration was
  an issue which … played particularly well in the tabloids, and has more potential to hurt.
  Such a view should be repugnant to any decent person. It should be condemned, not championed, by the Leader of the Opposition. It beggars belief that anyone could contemplate using the topic of immigration to hurt, or discrimination as a weapon to stir up prejudice and thereby secure votes; yet such prejudices lie deep within some in the Conservative party. That was one of the reasons why I left that party.
  The Conservative party will whip its Members to keep discrimination in place on section 28, yet on a day like today it will signal to its Members that the debate is of so little importance that they can attend other business

  1231
  elsewhere. In other words, when discrimination can be used against people, there is a three-line Whip, but when it cannot, Conservatives Members can take the day off.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is an unfair point, given that we are not opposing the Second Reading of the Bill?
  Mr. Woodward: Some Conservative Members may support the Bill, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, on section 28, for example, his party felt so strongly that it could not allow a vote of conscience. On an issue such as the Bill, it would send a strong signal to the country if the Conservative party had a three-line Whip—if its Members were present and if they were prepared to stand up and say that the Bill mattered. Belonging as they do to a party which for 18 years did nothing to implement the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality, perhaps it is not surprising that they are not so prepared.
  In March last year, during the debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) told the House:
  It is fair to say that some unpalatable truths have to be faced, one of which is the fact that no Government have ever received a mandate to turn the United Kingdom into a multiracial society.—[Official Report, 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 819.]
  What a great excuse for indifference.
  Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman is not alone in his indifference. During 18 years of Conservative government, very little legislative progress was made towards better race relations. Twice the Commission for Racial Equality submitted reviews arguing that public bodies should be included in the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976, and twice that recommendation was rejected. Indifference reigned.
  Tragically, it has taken the death of Stephen Lawrence and the inquiry into the police investigation following his death to achieve those demands, almost a quarter of a century later.
  The House knows that the Conservative Government also refused to set up an inquiry into the police investigation after Stephen's death. That was, rightly, one of the first acts of the present Home Secretary in 1997.
  The Bill will ensure that public bodies, the police and the Prison Service will fall within the scope of our laws to beat discrimination. The amendments to bring indirect indiscrimination within the compass of the Bill are crucial, as are those to promote racial equality. Fairness and equality before the law are the only decent course that we can follow, because discrimination is indecent, and the pursuit of decency is a moral quest.
  Why has it taken Stephen Lawrence's death and so many other deaths, so many cases of discrimination, to achieve the Bill? Dante wrote:
  The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.
  What neutrality and what indifference we have seen—indifference not least from some members of the Opposition.
  Only three months ago, on "Newsnight", the then shadow Chancellor, now charged by the Conservative party with responsibility for foreign affairs, said of the Bill:
  I think people listening to this will think that this will have very little to do with the concerns that they have.
  1232
  What an appalling statement. What an indictment of the role of leadership. Where is the essential decency in such an admission?
  Does the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) think that the majority of decent people in Britain are not troubled by the death of Stephen Lawrence and the failure of the police investigation of that death, or about why and how the family was so badly treated afterwards; or about the family of Michael Menson, a young musician with mental health problems, who was stopped by three men in Edmonton outside a telephone box and turned into a human torch; or about Ricky Reel, who left home one day and did not come back, and whose body was found in a river; or about Errol and Jason McGowan, an uncle and nephew who were both found dead within months in highly suspicious circumstances?
  Do those on the Conservative Front Bench think that people do not worry about such things? Do they subscribe to the view of the present shadow Foreign Secretary? What does it say if our most senior Opposition politicians will not take a leading role in raising the issue from neutrality and indifference to one of pressing need?
  Would those politicians willingly change the colour of their skin? Would they be happy to settle for the barriers to opportunity that still confront the black man or woman in this country, or the same expectations of poor health? Would they exchange their lives for that of the Bangladeshi? There is a terrible culture of contentment, too easily seen among some people, even in the House.
  As the hon. Member for Aldershot told the House last year, he regretted
  that some people who have come here freely and others who have sought refuge in this country appear no longer content to learn and accept our native customs and traditions, but wish to assert their own.
  He told the House of his fears when he described
  the threat of indoctrination in our schools to make children "value cultural diversity".—[Official Report, 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 819.]
  His views are not unique; they are shared by noble Lords, such as Lord Tebbit, who fears that multiculturalism will divide our society.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot is not alone even in this place. He justifies his views by saying that minorities represent only 6 per cent. of the population. His advice is that they need to be more understanding of us and our centuries-old culture. There we have it: them and us; black versus white; division at the heart of our society and our policy making. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
  How are we to achieve a better society if we accept that corrosive division? How will we improve confidence in our police—or, indeed, life for our police—if we ask them to be the ambassadors of that policy of division? Such divisiveness and the acceptance of the existence of two nations should not be tolerated. I am glad to say that it is not acceptable to the new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is determined to root out such attitudes, not only among the police, but among those who claim to support the police.
  Yet some people still tolerate division and a society that is hostile and unequal, separated by a racial chasm. How can it be right for white Britain to continue to ask of its black citizens extra patience and perseverance that white people have never required of themselves?
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am a third generation descendant of an immigrant family.

  1233
  My family recognised that it was incumbent on us to adapt ourselves to some extent to the history and culture of the country to which we were coming. It is not unreasonable to ask that of people who have chosen to make their lives here.
  Mr. Woodward: It is not unreasonable to ask anybody to adapt to a situation, but there is a difference between adapting and being forced to reject one's entire ethnic culture. The hon. Gentleman's comments lie behind many observations that Conservative Members make.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: During 18 years of Conservative Government, there were at least five people in the Cabinet whose parents, grandparents or great-grandparents came to this country with almost nothing. Can we be sure that, in the next two or three generations, the same can be said of those who are black and Asian? That is the test.
  Mr. Woodward: That is a perfectly fair point. However, I suspect that it will take a long time.
  I ask hon. Members who speak of electoral mandates that have not been sought to create a multi-racial society to consider what the young black man or woman can still feel all too easily in Britain. Anyone listening to this afternoon's debate could be forgiven for believing that there is not much of a problem, that our discussion is an accessory debate that we do not need to hold. What do many black people feel when they watch television commercials that tell them that life is impossible without the latest product, but they have not got a financial prayer of buying it?
  As Robert Kennedy once asked, what must these people's frustrations be? Young men and women, who desperately want to be part of our society, find themselves repeatedly excluded. What must they feel when they know that the chances are that they will receive only a second-rate education, that their children are four or five times more likely to be excluded from our schools, that they are unlikely to get a decent job and that they will be confronted by prejudice, direct and indirect?
  Some who listen to this afternoon's debate may wonder why we are discussing the definition of institutionalised racism. The shadow Home Secretary clearly does not accept it. I remind the House of the words of the Macpherson report:
  The term institutional racism should be understood to refer to the way the institution or the organisation may systematically or repeatedly treat … people differentially because of their race.
  It is not about individuals but about the net effect of the system.
  If we consider the net effect of the system in Britain today, a pretty damning picture is revealed. Seventy-five per cent. of ethnic minority people live in metropolitan areas. Too often, they are concentrated in the poorest and worst parts of those cities, and live in run-down and overcrowded housing conditions. They ow that they are more likely to suffer ill health.
  How must it feel for young black people to know that they are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be unemployed? A black woman—I accept that I am using a general term—knows that her chances of being unemployed are three times greater than
  1234
  if she was white. How must it feel to know that one's pay will be low, that others will get the top jobs, that poor conditions will prevail at work, that one's family will be twice as likely to live below the poverty line?
  We must always be conscious of the danger of banding groups together. Nearly 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of Pakistanis or Bangladeshis live well below the poverty line. What does that tell those people about the opportunities that are available to them, and about their inclusion in—or exclusion from—our society?
  What does our system of justice say?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Woodward: In a moment.
  We all worry about being victims of crime. However, most crime is random and could happen to anyone. Racist crime is different. The victims know that they were chosen because of the colour of their skin. Black people take extra steps to make their homes secure; they often stay home at night. Victimisation is worse because it is often repeated. Often, it is deadly. As the hon. Member for Aldershot has often reminded the House, ethnic minorities may make up only 6 per cent. of the population, but their members constituted one in-.six of all homicides in the past three years. I give way.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. turncoat Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), but if the United Kingdom is so bleak after his new party has been in government for three years, why do so many people come to these islands from so many different parts of the world? They come here not because it might be a little better than Bangladesh, but because they have heard that Britain is a fair and prosperous country.
  Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman obviously feels self-satisfied when he makes such remarks, which only trivialise the debate. I shall not reply to the nonsense expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It does nothing to recommend his party, and nothing to recommend this country as a decent, civilised society.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Woodward: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  While there seems little hope of having crime cleared up for many black people, the chances of black people being suspected as criminals are disproportionate. Black people may constitute only 6 per cent. of our society, but one in six of those stopped and searched are from ethnic minorities.
  Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis believes that that is a serious problem. In one of our recent conversations, I was pleased to note that he did not draw the crude conclusion of the shadow Home Secretary, that there is a simple causal link between the change of policy last year and the exponential rise in crime in the past 12 months.
  We all accept that stop and search is a useful tool in the fight against crime, but stopping people simply because their skin is black should have no place in the

  1235
  criminal justice system. Searching people because their skin is black should have no place in the criminal justice system either. Stop and search should be based on facts, not prejudice. Yet the figures demonstrate why black people feel threatened and persecuted. The law should protect everyone; many black people feel that it does not protect them. As a society, we must never accept that police misconduct is an unavoidable price to pay for cracking down on crime. We should not have to choose between them.
  Ms Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the borough police commander in Kensington, who has developed effective intelligence-based policing in respect of stop and search? That has resulted in the number of stops and searches decreasing, the disparity between the number of black and white people who are stopped and searched narrowing and arrests increasing significantly. That proves that intelligence-based policing is progressive in terms of equality and effective as a crimefighting strategy.
  Mr. Woodward: I congratulate the police in that area. That example, contrary to what the shadow Home Secretary seems to believe, is being pursued in other parts of the world. In America, for example, Boston community leaders have participated in such schemes. Crime is falling, trust in the police is rising—particularly in minority communities—and that pattern is being repeated in such places as Chicago, San Diego and Houston.
  Like any other individuals, black people, like white people, will sometimes be genuine suspects, but that should not deny them the same rights and the same protection in police custody. There is surely no satisfactory explanation for why 29 per cent. of those who die in police custody are black when 6 per cent. of the population are black. It is deeply worrying to all hon. Members—or at least it should be—that only one of the 75 cases of the death of a black person in custody recorded by the Institute of Race Relations resulted in the prosecution of the police, and in only one case has the family of the deceased received compensation.
  As Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities too often feel mistreated and, in the past, victimised by police, reports of deaths in police custody increase fear and mistrust, regardless of the cause. We need to understand ethnic minorities' lack of confidence in the investigation of those deaths. I say to the Home Secretary that surely it would be better to have a policy under which every death in police custody would be investigated by a completely independent tribunal. That would go a long way to restoring the confidence of ethnic minorities in our capital city and elsewhere in this country. They need to know how and why those deaths happened—racial bias, poor training or both?
  There has to be a problem when such a body as the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported three years ago that
  it is noted with serious concern that among the victims of deaths in custody are a disproportionate number of members of minority groups. That police brutality appears to affect members of minority groups disproportionately. That allegations of police brutality and harassment are repeatedly not vigorously investigated. And perpetrators, once guilt is established, not appropriately punished.
  1236
  Based on the many inquiries into alleged police brutality, there can be no doubt that they do not provide reasonable explanations—whatever they are—for the numerous accounts of lax or hostile policing reported in the United Kingdom.
  The Bill will rightly apply to the Prison Service. It is of course right in certain cases that people who commit crimes go to prison, but what does the knowledge that they are six times more likely to go to prison than a white person say to the young black man or woman? We need to understand more about why they end up in prison. It is simple to condemn them, but very difficult to understand and change the patterns.
  The Bill will bring discrimination against ethnic minorities, when in prison, within the compass of civil rights. My goodness, it is needed in prison as much as elsewhere. In 1998, the Prison Service reported 218 incidents of racist violence and abuse in prison, and that from a prison population of almost 20,000 ethnic minority people. A Home Office study of 501 inmates across eight prisons found that more than half the black inmates interviewed had been victimised by staff on the basis of race. What is wrong with our system when the victims of racist attacks in prison do not have the confidence to report them to those who will do something about them? The Bill will go a long way to creating that culture in which those matters are rightly reported.
  That is the picture not only for adults. What is true for the young man or woman is also true for the young black child. The House knows that I have been a trustee of Childline for many years. Last year, it produced an excellent study of racism and bullying. We found that black children are far more likely to be bullied at school and far more likely to be bullied persistently. The 1999 National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report entitled "Protecting Children From Racism and Racial Abuse" concluded:
  Racism and racial bullying will be commonplace in the life of young people and ethnic minority children especially.
  Mr. Rowe: Did the Childline inquiry establish the disturbing fact that bullying in Scottish schools is disproportionately against white English children? If so, can he comment on that, too?
  Mr. Woodward: The comment to make on that is extremely simple: wherever bullying is found, it is a very bad thing. If the Conservative party had chosen to listen to the children's charities and talk to the professionals about section 28 and the reasons for its reforms before adopting its three-line Whip, it would have learned that homophobic bullying is a major problem in schools. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take an interest in bullying, I can only suggest that he contact some of those charities before casting his vote on the Local Government Bill.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Woodward: I will not, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have time to make his own speech.
  This generation and this Parliament did not create most of the conditions and circumstances with which British society lives today, but they have the opportunity and responsibility to deal with them. Millions of people—

  1237
  British people—with different-coloured skins all want to be part of that society and to share its opportunities. Britain is not a nation defined simply by its education system, its incomes, its geography or its borders. It is defined by its shared hopes and shared dreams and the principles and aspirations of all the people who live here and make up this country.
  Multiculturalism does not have to be feared; we have to desire it. The question is not one of political mandates, but of doing what is decent and right. If we get that right, we can make one nation of two, but the enemies of that common purpose are not those who are black or even those who are white. They are prejudice, intolerance, fear and indifference. That is why we need the Bill. It may be small, but it has a huge moral question at its heart. We must ask whether it is right to continue to impose a lesser start in life on members of entire ethnic groups and to expect of one part of our country a degree of acceptance and resolution that we would never ask of someone who is white. Shall we be equals or shall we be divided?
  Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, I think that British people know and care about what we are discussing today. They want an end to the violence and lawlessness. They do not think that discrimination is a good thing. They do not think that it should be tolerated. The vast majority of people in this country, white or black, want to live together harmoniously and with shared goals and hopes. They want justice, whether they be black or white, and the Bill is one more step towards that fairness, that justice and that equality.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Representation of the People Act 2000
  Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Act 2000
  3.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I begin by observing that the Queen works quickly—at least today she has, because we only finished consideration of the Representation of the People Act 2000 in the early hours of this morning. I am glad to know that she has been on the job today early on.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) made a very good speech, as he did last year, from the Tory Benches, on sexual orientation equality issues. He is clearly committed to the equality agenda and I congratulate him on what he said. I share much of his view; indeed, my hon. Friends and I always have. I must tell him, however, that I have never thought it right for someone who was elected under one set of colours to adopt another set of colours without the authority of the electorate. I think that a Member who dissents from the view of his or her party—[Interruption.] I have never believed that Members should cross the Floor without obtaining the view of the electorate. It is entirely honourable for those who feel that their party has left
  1238
  them, or they have left their party, to continue to sit as independents. [Interruption.] I am aware of many historical examples, but I am presenting my personal opinion clearly. I have never found it acceptable for Members to cross the Floor from any party to any party, and that includes my party. Whatever views a Member may hold, I think it is always right for that Member to ensure that the electorate also accept that he or she should be more at home in another party.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Not for the moment.
  As the hon. Member for Witney and others have said, the Bill is important. It is important because it touches on important issues mentioned by many speakers today. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) gained considerable experience of dealing with these matters when he was a Home Office Minister: I thank him for that service, which he performed extremely well. By telling us, quietly but none the less horrifically, that he continues to receive hate mail regularly, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) reminded us that we are a long way from a tolerant and accepting society.
  The Home Secretary himself made clear how important the Bill was to him. I have no doubt about the Government's commitment, and indeed the Home Secretary's personal commitment, to equality issues. I am relieved that, in relation to issues on which I thought the Government were inadequate and weak at the outset, they have been persuaded, and have been honest enough to say they have been persuaded. That means that the Bill will eventually be much stronger than it was originally.
  For my constituents, and for those of many of us who represent multiracial communities, these are day-to-day issues. As the hon. Member for Witney said, they matter hugely to such communities. Twenty-five per cent. of my constituents are black or Asian. It is not just that many experience discrimination, and find—this was referred to earlier—that they have a greater chance of being excluded from school or doing less well there, or of being arrested or detained by the police, or of going to prison, or of being out of work. Nearly every week, people come to my surgery and tell me that they are being racially harassed, simply because of the colour of their skin.
  As was graphically represented in a Benetton advertisement a couple of years ago, people are not born with a sense of difference; it is taught and it is caught, and if that happens it is because we as a society are doing something wrong. If we are doing something wrong, we need to put it right quickly, because every harassed individual, every attacked individual and every wrongly imprisoned individual means that society is not doing its job entirely successfully.
  Only the other week, we saw another example of that locally. Black youngsters on their way home, for no reason other than the fact that they were black, were assaulted by older white males. That is not acceptable in any United Kingdom constituency: all possible action must be taken to deal with it, by us and others.
  Jackie Ballard: I know that my hon. Friend represents an urban constituency. Is he aware of a report published by the National Association of Citizens Advice

  1239
  Bureaux a year or two ago about racism in the south-west, subtitled "Why don't they go back to Birmingham"? For many people living in rural areas, where there are far fewer black faces, the experience of racism and racial attack can be worse than in urban areas, where there may be a larger concentration. In fact, the view in rural areas is often, "There are very few black people here, so it is not a problem"—but it is often a bigger problem.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) had personal experience, of which the House is aware, of the invidious position in which members of small minority ethnic communities can find themselves in what are in any case small communities. I visit other constituencies that are much less multicultural than mine, and, when I spot just one or two black or Asian people going about their business, I reflect on how difficult life must often be for them and their families. Indeed, many people have testified to that.
  We have had a Home Office-filled agenda this week. I do not know whether it is a record, but we have dealt with three Second Readings of major Home Office Bills in four days. On Monday we dealt with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which was necessary and, at least in significant parts, good. On Tuesday we dealt with the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, which was unnecessary and entirely bad. The encouraging thing about today's Bill is that I can tell the Government that we consider it necessary and entirely good, although it does not go far enough. The Government have accepted that, and have undertaken to go further. The Bill will get better, and we welcome the Government's commitment to improve it.
  This Bill deals with two issues that are central to the way in which we run our society and our state. One is an issue that we have debated several times this week: what are the rights of the citizen relative to those of the state? The other, which we have not debated this week, is the question of the rights of one individual relative to those of another. The Bill is both a liberty Bill and an equality Bill, which is why we should be particularly careful to support it enthusiastically and ensure that we get it right.
  We have come a long way. As has been pointed out, the Race Relations Act 1976, which was ground-breaking legislation, has in many respects stood the test of time, but it is not before time that we now seek to amend it. The life of a generation probably elapses between the act of legislation and the effect of that legislation fully filtering through to the society on whose behalf laws such as this are passed. What we do this year will probably not be entirely effective for 10 or 20 years. We must remember that legislation is only the beginning: it simply provides a backstop, or a framework. Of itself, it is not enough. To their credit, the Government have also promoted the Human Rights Act 1998, which will be implemented this year and which will be another helpful weapon in the armoury.
  As the Home Secretary graciously did, I pay tribute to Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has been active in these matters since the 1970s, and who has contributed greatly to the winning of the argument for the Bill's extension and to persuading the Government of how much further we need to go. I also pay tribute to the Lawrence inquiry judge and to his assessors, who eventually produced a controversial but necessary statement—a statement that
  1240
  came from, in a sense, an unexpected quarter. When he was appointed, there was some question about whether Sir William Macpherson would produce proposals that would be seen to take up the concerns of minority communities, but he did, and the way in which the Government have accepted and adopted those proposals is also welcome.
  Finally, I pay tribute to the Commission for Racial Equality, which, over the years, has persisted in putting its case effectively. Its outgoing chairman, Sir Herman Ouseley, continued to do that regularly and effectively. We should be grateful to the CRE as a body—it has become more effective over the years—and for all the ways in which it has helped us all. I wish its new chair every success, and hope that he follows in the footsteps of his predecessors.
  One of the controversial issues is the extent to which the Bill will make the police feel uncomfortable as they change their practice. There is much good practice in the police. The inquiry's view that the police were institutionally racist should not be taken by police officers as a criticism of each or any of them individually. The report is clear about that. It expressly says in its conclusions that one should not confuse racism of individuals with a finding of institutional racism of the police force as a whole:
  we do not accept that it was universally the cause of the failure of this investigation, any more than we accept that a finding of institutional racism within the police service means that all police officers are racist … It is incumbent upon every institution to examine their policies and the outcome of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities.
  The perception is that we needed the jolt that was provided by the inquiry to move institutions on. Two days ago, I was at the Local Government Association fire conference in Southampton. A recent report has been published about the fire service, which needs to move fundamentally if it is to be no longer a racist service, but an equal opportunities service. Many organisations need that change. We need it here. This institution needs to become less racist. We are not a representative Parliament, and our parties are not representative.
  For 25 years, local government has had a duty to tackle racial discrimination and to promote race equality. That has still not been achieved. The Local Government Association's report just last year said:
  Local government has a worse record than that of the economy as a whole for employing Black, Asian and other ethnic minority people.
  25 per cent. of authorities do not have a written policy to provide services fairly to all sections of the community.
  51 per cent. of local authorities do not monitor their workforce with respect to equal opportunities.
  Only 10 per cent. of authorities that monitor their staff have workforces that reflect the local Black, Asian or other ethnic minority population.
  Black, Asian and other ethnic minority people are under-represented in senior positions in the local government workforce.
  Only 3 per cent. of councillors are Black, Asian or other ethnic minority people …
  So even the part of government that has been working on the agenda for a quarter of a century has not yet achieved, or fully delivered. So much worse are we here, and so much more do we need to do. I welcome what the Home

  1241
  Secretary said about the way in which he has addressed those issues in the Home Office. Each Department of Government and each public authority needs to ask itself those questions.
  In that context, may I say how welcome it is that the CRE and Operation Black Vote piloted an initiative involving me and several colleagues in the House taking part in a work-shadowing scheme, in which young black or Asian people from other walks of life work with us, as part of trying to build a new generation of people and a more reflective, representative Britain? If the young person who is working with me, Imran Ahmed, a 21-year-old of Pakistani origin, is the same as all his colleagues on the scheme, they have the potential to show how hugely society will benefit from much greater participation by people such as them.
  We have at last had the concession from the Government that they will support an amendment to the Bill, so that the Bill's provisions cover not only direct discrimination but indirect discrimination. From our point of view—Lord Lester made the point clearly in the other place—that was always necessary. The legislation could never have been adequate if it did not oblige public authorities to act in a way that was neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory.
  I have a question about that. I find it difficult to understand how the Government could have been advised that the Bill complied with the European convention on human rights—it is still on the Bill—when it did not include indirect discrimination. I do not understand how the advice can have led them to that conclusion. I should be grateful if Ministers explained how they started off in that direction, even though they have now been persuaded otherwise.
  Because they are important, I want to mention the two definitional things that hon. Members have wanted to make clear in the debate. Indirect discrimination is not the same as unwitting or unintentional discrimination. It is something that people do not necessarily think about at all, but that has the indirect consequence of being discriminatory—for example, the way in which people recruit, advertise or involve people in another activity.
  Likewise, institutional racism is not necessarily intended racism. The ideas are not linked. We have to be careful to distinguish them. I hope that, just as the Government have changed their view on that, we will soon receive full-hearted support from the Conservative Benches on the matter, which the Conservative shadow Home Secretary today appeared to withhold. We need individual change and institutional change. Both are needed soon.
  On one issue, we need to think beyond the Bill. It could be done in Committee, but, if not, it should be done elsewhere—and soon. I do not argue that there should be separate organisations that specifically concentrate on gender equality issues—the Equal Opportunities Commission has done that—and race equality issues, but there is still a case for something that brings those together and allows common views to be expressed.
  My colleagues and I have argued for a long time that some form of overarching equal opportunities commission that respects the different competences would be a good thing. It would serve us well if we as a society did something about that.
  1242
  Linked to that, we need to go back to the issue of having an independent Police Complaints Authority. We need to work out how the different adjudicating authorities can come together, so that we do not have the CRE exercising certain functions and the PCA exercising others. The point was made earlier and I support it. There is quite a big issue here about how we achieve effective, speedy and patently clear adjudication on issues of racial inequality, racial injustice and racial prejudice, and other discrimination.
  As important as any legislation is the process of education. If we do not educate better against discrimination, we are not dealing with the cause of much of the prejudice and the discrimination in our society.
  My hon. Friends and I will happily support each and every one of the four major changes that the Government indicate they want to make to the Bill. We have argued for the changes in the other place. I hope that it is not least as a result of our efforts and those of Lord Lester and Lord Dholakia that they have been included: the indirect discrimination provision; the provision to allow for positive action; the provision to ensure that the immigration service is included—that does not mean that people cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality, but it does mean that they cannot discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, or practise other unreasonable discrimination—and the statutory duty to promote equality.
  There is a duty on all of us personally, as well as collectively, to promote equality. We will do it only if we think about it all the time. That is why, if police officers have to stop and think before they arrest or search someone: "Am I sure that I am doing it because of the crime and not because of the person and the person's characteristics?" we will make progress. If all of us—all public servants—work in a society where we always ensure that we and others are not acting because of our innate, unacceptable prejudice, we will make progress. The Bill is progress, but it is the beginning of the next chapter, not the end.
  3.49 pm
  Mr. Marsha Singh: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. There have been some very good speeches, and I am sure that my speech will be entirely inadequate in comparison. I commend especially the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). After hearing it, I am happy to accept him as my hon. Friend.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that racism is pernicious and evil. Racism distorts the life chances of individuals and of whole communities. It can, and does, lead to minorities living in fear. Worse, it leads to physical assaults and to death, as we have witnessed only too often in the United Kingdom.
  Racism also, however, damages its perpetrators, locking them into a cage of hatred and twisted bitterness. However, that cage also locks them out—out of our multicultural society and world, with the opportunities on offer—by distorting their personalities and limiting their humanity. Racism, essentially, is a failure of both intelligence and humanity.
  Racism is also a disaster for society. It actively promotes social disharmony. Racism, by freezing the opportunity available to some members of society, limits the possibilities of social development and progress.

  1243
  The Race Relations Act 1976 was a giant step forward in protecting the rights of Britain's minorities, and in promoting the opportunities open to them. Britain can be proud of that Act and of the protection that it afforded minorities. Such protection does not exist for minorities elsewhere in Europe or in very many other parts of the world.
  The 1976 Act itself was a consequence of something that is too easily dismissed—Britain's innate, genuine tolerance. The action that we took in 1976, before 1976 and after 1976—and the action that we shall take today—could succeed only by building on a spirit of good will and tolerance. Such tolerance exists in my city of Bradford, where people are daily, weekly, monthly and yearly making efforts to promote good race relations.
  I also have every confidence in my police force, and in its efforts to build good race relations and to tackle racism. It would be a mistake if this debate were to go down the road—which it has not done so far—of attacking police. Police work in the most difficult circumstances and in the most awful situations. Quite often, the errors that they make in race relations occur as a consequence not of racism, but of a lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity. It is essential that, within any race relations programme, cultural sensitivity programmes should be made available to all our public servants, including police.
  Playing the race card—shouting "racist" when it is not appropriate to do so—to avoid the consequences of one's own crimes or actions is as bad as institutional racism, direct racism or indirect racism. I hope that people who play the card will realise that, in doing so, they are doing a disservice to themselves and to their communities. We have all heard of the shepherd who cried wolf too often. False alarms detract from the progress on race relations that we are making generally.
  I am not saying that we have tackled the problem of racism. Although we have made great progress, we have not tackled the problem. Racism is very real, it is a very real threat, and we have constantly to be vigilant in dealing with it. That is why I have always supported calls by the Commission for Racial Equality and other bodies for strengthening the 1976 Act, and why I wholeheartedly welcome the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill.
  Race relations legislation is not about policing thoughts, but about changing behaviour. It is about putting down in statute the markers distinguishing between acceptable and entirely unacceptable behaviour. I welcome the Home Secretary's decision to heed the calls to include indirect discrimination within the Bill's ambit.
  The Bill advances race relations legislation in several important spheres. It extends the provisions of the 1976 Act to cover a wide range of public authorities, including police, that currently are not covered by those provisions. The Bill also makes chief police officers vicariously liable for the acts of discrimination committed by their officers. It also imposes an enforceable, positive duty on public bodies to promote racial equality. That is an exremely important step.
  I have a few questions to ask the Minister. Although some of the questions have already been asked by hon. Members, I should like to reinforce the points that they make. How do the Government plan to include indirect discrimination in the Bill? That issue has not been
  1244
  addressed. Although we have been told that an amendment to that effect will be tabled, we have not been told what it will provide.
  What is the definition of public authorities? Which public authorities will be covered by the Bill? Although some authorities have been included in the schedule, what mechanism will be used to add other authorities to the schedule or to another list? Have the Government excluded the immigration and nationality directorate from the Bill's ambit?
  Have Ministers given any thought to the important issue—which does not fall within the scope of this legislation—of religious discrimination, which is a growing concern among my constituents, especially my Muslim constituents, who perceive discrimination directed at them not because of their colour, but because of their religion?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman—who, like me, is a member of the Home Affairs Committee—for giving way. Could he be more specific in describing the discrimination that he says that Muslims are suffering? I should be very interested to hear what he has to say about it.
  Mr. Singh: Indeed I can. Currently, it is perfectly legal for an employer to put up a sign outside his factory gate or shop saying, "Muslims need not apply". It would be very difficult to do anything about that under the provisions of the 1976 Act. Muslims in my constituency believe that there is discrimination against them because of their religious identity. That perception comes from stories in the media demonstrating growing Islamophobia within society.
  Mr. Howarth: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents should not perceive an anti-Muslim phobia in this country? The United Kingdom has, for example, a growing number of mosques. During the Gulf war, when I was doing television interviews, I had to go past the Saddam Hussein mosque, in Birmingham. No Muslim thought to cover up the mosque's "Saddam Hussein" sign, which was pretty offensive to those of us who felt that our troops were engaged in a fight against Saddam Hussein. I believe that there has been much tolerance towards Muslims in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Singh: There has been a lot of tolerance towards all minorities in this country for a long time, along with the intolerance of people with extreme racist views. One problem with religious discrimination is that, while people of the Jewish and Sikh faiths are protected by the 1976 Act because they are regarded as ethnic groups, Muslims, who are not an ethnic group because Islam is a universal religion, are not protected. Muslims want to know why they are not protected.
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: My hon. Friend is talking about Islamophobia. The study conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation demonstrated clearly for the first time with ample evidence that Islamophobia was emerging. More work needs to be done on that. Does my hon. Friend recall that study?
  Mr. Singh: I do recall that study now that my hon. Friend has reminded me of it. I recommend it to the

  1245
  hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, because it will probably illuminate him far more than I can on the subject.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about notices in his constituency saying "No Muslims need apply". As such a notice would have a disproportionate effect on a particular ethnic group, I would have thought it quite likely that it would be possible to prosecute such employers. Has the hon. Gentleman thought of doing so? Has he advised those affected to seek such a prosecution?
  Mr. Singh: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The notice was in a neighbouring town, not in my constituency. What he suggests is feasible, but the fact remains that religion is not included in the 1976 Act, and yet two religious groups—Jews and Sikhs—are covered by virtue of their ethnic origin.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): My hon. Friend was talking about research on Islamophobia. He will be aware that the Government have commissioned Derby university to undertake some research on religious discrimination. An interim report has been published and we hope to publish a report later in the year.
  Mr. Singh: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for those remarks.
  The Bill is another giant step forward for race equality in this country. Discrimination exists and we have to tackle it. The Bill will tackle it by including public authorities. Some contributions to the debate about racism and ethnic minorities assume that all members of ethnic minorities are victims and all suffer from the same problems. That is not true. Many ethnic minority groups are succeeding. That is a tribute to our society. We need to look more specifically at the problems that particular ethnic minority groups face. We do nobody a service by lumping everybody together and asserting that ethnic minorities are all poor and disadvantaged. Many have moved forward in our society and are making huge contributions in industry, the economy, art, literature, television and, dare I say in the case of one or two of us, in politics.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been the subject of much criticism in recent weeks, not least concerning the case of General Pinocchio. However, he and his team deserve great credit for their real achievements on race equality. That needs to be put on record. That is not a sycophantic comment. Anyone who knows me well knows that I may be many things, some good and some bad, but I am not a sycophant. There have been some positive speeches from Conservative Members and I hate to bring a partisan tone to the debate, but I have to say that, while the Tories have reverted to extremist type by playing the race card over asylum and immigration once again, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has quietly and professionally made progress. He and his team abolished the discriminatory primary purpose rule that the Tories brought in and have threatened to bring in again.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has suggested that the Conservatives—were they ever to be re-elected—might consider reintroducing the primary purpose rule?
  Mr. Singh: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I heard about that today in the Chamber in a contribution by another hon. Friend. The world outside should know that and I hope that the message goes out from the Chamber. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the Conservative Front Bench is willing to intervene and say that the story is not true, I should be happy to accept his word.
  Mr. David Lidington: To satisfy the eager anticipation of several Labour Members, I should make it clear that we shall look at a number of options on what to do about the problem of bogus marriages. I think that Ministers accept that there is a problem, just as we do. However, we have not committed ourselves to any particular policy or course of action that we might include in a future manifesto.
  Mr. Singh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. My constituents will read his remarks with care. They will worry that measures against bogus marriages may mean that genuine marriages will not be accepted if the Conservatives come to power again and that there is a real possibility of the primary purpose rule being reintroduced. It was discriminatory from the outset, as was proved in practice. It divided families—man from wife and mothers or fathers from children—for years.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way to me again. I remind him that the option of a new primary purpose rule, which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) wants to keep open, was described by the Conservative candidate for mayor of London as "enormously offensive", "disgusting" and "immoral". The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) seems to want to keep open the option of returning to such a policy.
  Mr. Singh: In that case, I am not surprised that the Conservative candidate for mayor of London is rapidly distancing himself from his party. Perhaps he will shortly announce that he is standing as an independent.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought back the right of appeal on visitor's visas—a right that the Tories took away. He has introduced a criminal offence of racially aggravated violence, while the Tories turned a blind eye to racial harassment, racial assaults and racial killings on the streets of Britain. My right hon. Friend launched the Lawrence inquiry, which the Tories refused to do, because they did not care about the deaths of young black people on the streets of Britain.
  With this Bill, the Home Secretary has launched a crusade against racism in public life, while the Tories pander to prejudice on the basis of emotions. The Home Secretary's and the Government's record on racism is one to be proud of. Labour's vision of a modern and fair Britain in which racism and discrimination have no part is one that I am happy to share and be proud of.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) felt obliged to conclude with a rather partisan coda that spoiled the effect of his speech. Until a few moments before he sat down, I thought that I would be able to say that I agreed with almost every word that he had said. So I shall draw a veil over what I thought was a rather ill-judged closing passage and focus on the larger part of his speech with which I agreed, in particular the proposition that he advanced that, not just on both sides of the House, but more importantly in all our constituencies, there is a broad-based commitment to openness, decency and the desire for a successful multi-racial society. He was right to say that. He was also right to say that it is our obligation to ensure that that commitment by our constituents is converted into law to provide an administrative framework that delivers the objective that the overwhelming majority of them share.
  Anyone who knows anything about the political history of Britain over the past 30 years will recognise that, despite the decency to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, race relations is a sensitive subject. Because of that, I have always thought that it should be approached against the background of a clear statement of the principles on which we seek to construct our policy.
  This afternoon, hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought to examine the pragmatic consequences of policy. Of course, as practical people we must do that, but if a policy is to be successful it must be firmly rooted in principle. I want to focus my remarks on the two principles that are firmly embedded in the Bill and that I wholly endorse. Because I endorse them, I am pleased to welcome the Bill.
  The first principle should, in the modern world, be wholly unarguable. Indeed, both principles should be wholly unarguable, but the first should never have been controversial. It is that any law that imposes standards of behaviour on private citizens ought to apply equally to public authorities. If we stand for nothing else, surely to goodness we stand for the principle of freedom under law, and if that phrase means anything, it means that the law must apply to every section of the community and should not provide a let-out for the public sector from principles that legislators seek to apply to the private sector.
  I regard that principle as the bedrock of good law. It is of course the polar opposite to another principle that we have endorsed in this Chamber in large parts in the past century—the principle of Crown immunity, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) accurately described as the principle that public officials do not need to be constrained by law because they are motivated by such high principles. He described that principle in language so flowery that it reduced it to the absurdity that it is. It is clearly wholly wrong.
  Let me detain the House for a moment with an example that is way outside race relations, but illustrates the absurdity of Crown immunity in practice. When I was a health Minister, I discovered that the national health service, the nation's principal public health institution, was exempt from waste disposal regulations. As a result, in the disposal of clinical waste, the NHS was one of the major polluters of the environment in Britain. The law on waste disposal did not apply to the NHS as it was part of the public sector and therefore could claim Crown
  1248
  immunity. Exactly the same principle lay behind the Race Relations Act 1976, which sought to apply a framework of law to private citizens and corporations, but to exempt the public sector. The law is flawed in practice.
  The second objection to Crown immunity is that it is not just wrong in practice and in the practical consequences that flow from it, but that it is fundamentally wrong in principle. Indeed, if the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) were here, the debate might inspire him to make the speech that many of us have heard him make about the consequences of the English revolution and the importance of the King and the Government working within a framework of law. We ought to be committed to the principle that the public sector and the private sector should live by the same legal framework, and to the extent that the Bill gives effect to that important principle, it is long overdue and most welcome.
  I said that two principles lay behind the Bill. The first is the abolition of Crown immunity and the application to the public sector of the principles of law that have applied to the private sector for a generation.
  The second principle used to be somewhat more controversial, at least in the tabloid press. I am pleased to say that it is now much less controversial, but in my view it was right all along. I am a strong supporter of the principle that the law should prevent discrimination on grounds of race, colour or creed. It is important to be clear about what we say on that subject.
  It is sometimes said that the framework of race relations legislation is a manifestation of the nanny state. I cannot count the number of times that I have been told that we cannot change human nature. Of course that is true, but legislators can define acceptable standards of behaviour. I do not believe that it is acceptable behaviour in a civilised society to discriminate between one citizen and another on the ground that one citizen is Jewish and another is not, one citizen is Muslim and another is not or one citizen is Afro-Caribbean and another is not. I believe that action, not motivation, is the key. The hon. Member for Bradford, West was absolutely right about that. Queen Elizabeth I said:
  We do not seek a window on men's souls.
  It is not the motivation that matters, but the action, and race relations legislation seeks to confine the action within acceptable standards of public behaviour.
  There should no longer be any doubt about the commitment of this House to a framework of law that outlaws discrimination between one citizen and another on grounds of race, religion or ethnicity.
  Those are the two principles on which race relations should be built and they are embedded in the Bill. They are the reasons why I am strongly in favour of it, but I wish now to examine some of its detail, because one or two of its aspects and the history of its presentation leave me slightly uneasy. If we start from the point of view of principle, as I have sought to do, it is odd how cautious some of its text has turned out to be.
  The proposed section 19B started off, as several hon. Members have pointed out, by outlawing direct discrimination in the public sector but would have continued to allow indirect discrimination. I am delighted that the Government have changed their mind, but I do not think that it is churlish to say that—given the

  1249
  principles that I have just expounded—there should never have been any doubt about it. It should have been axiomatic from the beginning.
  The same caution that led the Government to exclude indirect discrimination from the Bill lies behind the trouble that the Home Secretary got into when he was called upon to define the public authorities to which the provisions of the Bill will apply. The Bill, as drafted, does not impose duties on public authorities. It merely requires them to obey the law that, as private citizens, all the rest of us have had to obey since 1976. I can understand that the Government would need a schedule containing a definition of public authorities if the Bill imposed a new duty on public authorities that will not apply to private individuals, but the Bill will simply extend the ban on discrimination that currently applies in the private sector to the public sector. However, the Government then seek to say that the principle applies only to the public authorities listed in new schedule Al. That prompts the obvious question—which public authorities are not included in that schedule and why? To put that point more emotively, which public authority believes that its capacity to deliver its objectives demands that it maintains the freedom to discriminate against the Jews? That is the effect of the Bill as it applies to any public authority that is not in the schedule.
  The principle that the House should demand be applied is that anybody who wishes to be free to discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or race should have to justify that highly questionable proposition. One of the groups that seeks an exemption from the overall provisions of the Bill is Ministers in the exercise of their immigration and nationality law responsibilities. That is definitely a questionable proposition. I accept, of course, that those who deal with immigration law have to be able to discriminate on grounds of nationality, but it is difficult to understand in what circumstances they might wish to discriminate between one individual and another on the ground of ethnic origin.
  The Home Secretary referred to the example of refugees from Kosovo. Surely the whole point about refugees from Kosovo is that it is their Government who discriminate on grounds of ethnicity: our immigration law should consider the risk that an individual would face outside this country. That is what we should use as the basis for discrimination, not ethnicity or racial background. When will a Minister need to be able to distinguish one application from another on grounds of ethnic or national origin? Why are Ministers preserving for themselves an exemption from the provisions of the Bill?
  The new section 19D that will be written into the Race Relations Act 1976 states that the prosecution authorities should be free to decide not to prosecute on the grounds of racial discrimination. The justification for that offered in the explanatory notes is:
  This exemption will prevent it being possible for a claimant to use the Act to discover the reasons for a decision not to prosecute, preserving the role of the criminal courts as the sole forum for determining guilt.
  I understand the desirability of that, but—set against the principles that I outlined—it is a large derogation of principle to say that the race relations legislation should not apply to a prosecutor making a decision not to prosecute a citizen. That will put the prosecutor outside this key framework of law.
  1250
  The questions that arise from the Bill for me are not connected with its principles, because every hon. Member should embrace them. My question to Ministers is why they have felt the need to be so cautious and to maintain for themselves potentially large derogations from those important issues of principle. I hope that when the Minister winds up or in Committee, he will be able to respond to those concerns and to demonstrate that the Government share—as I believe they do—a commitment to ensure that our race relations legislation is built on the two key principles that I started with. First, the same law must apply to the public and private sector, and secondly, for both public and private sector, discrimination on grounds of race or ethnicity is no longer—and never has been—acceptable behaviour.
  4.28 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I especially welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) about the strength, vitality and importance of the ethnic minority communities in this country. People sometimes express surprise about the relative lack of ethnic minority communities in my constituency, but I would dispute that. People fail to understand the nature of English history if they do not recognise the great strengths that the waves of immigration have brought to the United Kingdom.
  I also wish to contribute to the debate because in recent years, to my deep regret, the city of Lancaster has very publicly become associated with an appalling example of racist abuse and harassment. I know all about that problem and wish to ensure that we can move on to a positive future.
  This is an excellent Bill and it should be welcomed wholeheartedly by every hon. Member. My speech will be the shortest this afternoon, because I do not want to say much about the Bill, except to welcome the restatement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of his intention to introduce an amendment to enshrine the principle that public bodies should have a positive duty to promote equality. That is a profoundly important proposal. If it is properly enforced, it should cement the profound and irreversible change that our society needs if it is to enjoy and gain from the welcome fact that we are a multicultural and multi-racial society.
  I hope that the consultation on how the principle will be developed will give public bodies a positive power to intervene in race relations issues, and the certainty that they will be called to account if they do not use the powers properly.
  I have held elected office for the past 13 years. I have dealt with issues, as a ward councillor, concerning people who remain my neighbours and who are my constituents and who became the victims of racial abuse and intolerance. In that situation, public bodies were almost powerless to intervene. I do not intend to rake over the coals of all that, because the new positive duty can help us move for the future and can help Lancaster city council build upon the progress. The test of the new power for public bodies will be whether Lancaster city council and other public bodies in the city are able to build on the progress and resolve the problems.
  The most striking aspect of the Macpherson report was the clear definition that a racist incident is any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or by any

  1251
  other person. We must understand and appreciate how significant that is. We need to understand how racism is perceived by people on the receiving end. As a councillor, I worked with many people who were embroiled in a terrible dispute. I tried to understand why people held some of their attitudes, and tried to make them appreciate the significance of a thoughtless remark or careless gesture to the person on the receiving end.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I have been agreeing with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am worried by the element of subjectivity that he has introduced with his point about how an incident is perceived. I am Jewish and, from time to time, people involve me in incidents that I do not like. It would not do the Jewish community any good at all if I always assumed that those people were motivated by anti-semitism. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think again about perception by the victim.
  Mr. Dawson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, as he helps me to take my argument further. Recently in Lancaster, a great friend and colleague of mine—the leader of the city council—became the victim of campaign of abuse and vilification. He is Jewish, and he takes his religion seriously. All of us in politics are there to be shot at and we must take the flak that follows unpopular decisions. However, that campaign was so concerted that the impact it had on that individual was probably disproportionate to the impact that it would have had on someone from a different racial background. I do not suggest in any way that the campaign was motivated by anti-semitism or racism, but I am trying to say that we should be more aware of the possible impact of our words.
  If for thousands of years—and in the recent past especially—the history of one's race has been one of scapegoating and victimisation, someone's hurtful words might have an impact that was never intended by that person.
  Dr. Kumar: Surely we should look at the victim's feelings about how he or she has been treated. The same situation used to apply in terms of domestic violence until the definition was changed. If a victim feels that an attack was racist or anti-semitic, we should look at their definition, and at whether the incidents are systematic and there is ample evidence. That would answer the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
  Mr. Dawson: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is about appreciating the views of victims and understanding the impact of racist actions and abuse and thoughtless action.
  I hope that the new power will be dynamic and creative and will encourage and enable councils such as my own to invest in communities and deal with the issues of racial equality, and with difficult situations. I hope that public authorities will support the proposal by holding events to celebrate different races and cultures. We must give local authorities a clear role in disseminating information and bringing communities together. That will help to build coalitions. So much of my work as a councillor was in trying to build coalitions of like-minded people, and to bring people together in understanding, tolerance and harmony. That is an essential part of what we need to do.
  1252
  I hope that the new duty on public authorities can spread the message to all parts of the country—not just places such as Bermondsey, where 25 per cent. of the community comes from ethnic minorities. I hope that the message spreads to those communities that are under the illusion that they do not need to get involved in race relations issues because they have no significant ethnic minority communities. We must spread the message that one of the great advantages of this country is the fact that ours is a multi-racial and multicultural society.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will accept that my Ulster Unionist party colleagues and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland are unable to attend this debate because the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is sitting elsewhere in the building to consider the Northern Ireland appropriation order. I trust that the House will understand if I leave once I have delivered my brief comments. However, I hope to return before the debate is wound up.
  We welcome the Home Secretary's decision to include indirect discrimination in the race relations legislation. The Commission for Racial Equality has conducted three reviews of the Race Relations Act 1976 and, in light of the Macpherson report and the on-going debate in Parliament, it seems clear that change, via the legislation, is long overdue.
  Given the findings of the Macpherson report, and the serious instances of institutional racial discrimination that it uncovered, it is paramount for the protection of ethnic minorities that the public sector become as accountable for its policies and practices as the private sector. To exclude areas of the public sector from the legislation—such as the police force, the Prison Service or the immigration service—and from the requirement to combat and pull out the roots of institutionalised racism would render the Bill fruitless.
  At a time when the United Kingdom has never been more ethnically cosmopolitan, such an omission would serve only to alienate further those ethnic communities who often feel themselves pushed toward the periphery of society by institutionalised racism. Public bodies must be obliged to deal with this institutionalised problem. Ministers, their Departments and other statutory bodies must be held to account for both direct and indirect discrimination in their sectors. That will enable all communities to feel that they truly have equal opportunities, rights and respect, regardless of their race or religion, and to see structural prejudice and injustice as things of the past.
  However, the Bill needs to define clearly not only what indirect discrimination means, and to whom it applies, but which groups are an ethnic minority or a religious minority. The present legislation falls short on such details. It leaves the United Kingdom's 1 million Muslims in limbo, because they are not a collective ethnic or national group and so are unprotected from unfair indirect discrimination. Religious minorities, like ethnic communities, must be protected from structural prejudice—as they are in Northern Ireland.
  Clause 1(19)(c) of the Bill states:
  Section 19B does not make it unlawful for a relevant person to discriminate against another person on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin in carrying out immigration and nationality functions.

  1253
  For example, that enables immigration officers to rule in respect of individuals on grounds of ethno-national origin as well as nationality, as long as they are acting within the immigration or nationality laws, or the confines of ministerial orders. That leaves the door wide open for indirect and direct discrimination against ethnic communities, and against refugees who may be seeking humanitarian aid in this country.
  The Commission for Racial Equality and the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities argue that that omission in the legislation leaves open the possibility of unchecked discrimination, by immigration officials, on the grounds of nationality or ethnic origin. The Ulster Unionist party endorses the CRE's proposal that the clause should be amended and that national, ethnic or religious origin should be considered only in cases of humanitarian concern.
  The recent hijacking crisis at Stansted airport highlights the problem. It has emerged in the press that many of the Afghan passengers, who had just been held hostage for days on end, perceived that they were treated with contempt by immigration officials, who encouraged them not to seek asylum in Britain. Before being sent back to Afghanistan, many of those held hostage complained to their translators of intimidation and coercion by immigration officials keen to remove them from British soil. However, the correct balance must be found: the United Kingdom must not be seen by economic migrants as an easy opportunity for illegal entry.
  Furthermore, clause 1(19)(d) excludes from challenge as unlawful discrimination acts leading up to a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against suspected criminals. In other words, acts taking place between the police response to a suspected crime and the decision not to prosecute are excluded. The CRE has rightly pointed out that the provision inhibits the ability of individuals to appeal against direct or indirect discrimination by the police or Crown Prosecution Service after they have been arrested.
  That brings us to address the growing need for a statutory duty to promote racial equality, as we have had in Northern Ireland since the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The significance of a positive legal duty is that it will oblige public authorities to act to prevent discrimination before it happens. That is much better than using the law for redress, as it will pre-empt discrimination and nip it in the bud, while at the same time saving huge sums of taxpayers' money.
  In Northern Ireland, a number of racial discrimination cases are pending, whereas before the 1998 Act there were none. We hope to see the number fall in coming years as the statutory order takes effect and institutionalises equality of opportunity across Northern Ireland's communities.
  We in Northern Ireland have welcomed all those who have chosen to settle with us and who have enriched our society. Many nationalities are represented—for example, Chinese, Pakistani and Indian—as are people from the Irish traveller communities. Together, they constitute about 1.5 per cent. of the total population.
  Although these communities are small by comparison with ethnic minorities in other parts of the United Kingdom, the problems that they encounter are the same,
  1254
  and their struggle against direct and indirect discrimination in this country is just as difficult. The Ulster Unionist party fully supports and endorses their appeals for such structural discrimination to be firmly dealt with in this Bill.
  Northern Ireland's ethnic communities are represented by bodies such as the Chinese Welfare Association and the Indian Community Association. The leaders of those bodies, and NICEM executive director Mr. Patric Yu, have described the difficulties of indirect discrimination that ethnic minorities face in many public sector areas, especially with regard to immigration control and employment opportunities.
  However, we are aware of the Home Secretary's fears that the Bill will prevent the police from doing their job properly and that they will be hampered in tackling crime in areas where there are large ethnic minorities. We are well aware of the difficult and delicate work that the police have to undertake, and the problems that that might provoke in police stop-and-search operations, for example. We, however, believe that once institutional racism is eradicated from private and public bodies, people from ethnic minorities will feel more comfortable joining public services such as the police, and will respond positively to any such structural change.
  As for the argument that the Bill will introduce an atmosphere of racial tension that does not already exist, we believe that, on the contrary, it will simply deal with the existing problem. The ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland have no means of redress against claims of racism. The bodies that are facing claims from individuals within ethnic minority communities in Northern Ireland are having to reassess their policies and attitudes from the top down. The Home Secretary should learn from this example, and bring the legislation up to date.
  Furthermore, with regard to the Government's concern that fresh new policies face delay and disruption from challenges of indirect discrimination, we believe that the solution is for the Departments to get it right first time. Institutionalised anti-discrimination should become a thing of the future, as it is in Northern Ireland, and institutionalised racism a thing of the past.
  4.50 pm
  Jean Corston: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I welcome the fact that the Government have the opportunity, after all those wasted years since the late-1970s, to widen the scope of the race relations legislation.
  It seems extraordinary that in 1976 Parliament thought that it was not necessary to extend the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 to public bodies. In a way, that was understandable, if we consider the context in which racism existed at that time. It was very well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), who said that there were many occasions on which he would go into a pub and be refused service. He would be asked to leave and subjected to the most appalling abusive language, simply because of the colour of his skin.
  At that time, it was not unusual for boarding houses to have in their window signs saying, "No blacks, Irish or dogs". I suppose that it is hardly surprising that the scope of the legislation did not go quite as far as we would have liked. The problem was so pervasive, and incited people to hatred.

  1255
  My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) referred in his thoughtful speech to the Tory party's indifference to this issue when it was in Government from 1979 to 1997. When Norman Tebbit was a Minister, he came to the House and said that he would present the report of the Commission for Racial Equality to Parliament in the way a head waiter would serve a bottle of coca-cola. That probably says it all.
  Furthermore, I find it extraordinary that the present Conservative party has had more to say about General Pinochet than about Stephen Lawrence.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend mentioned the indifference of the Conservative party. I listened with care to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and I agreed with his point about discrimination on grounds of ethnicity as well as nationality in immigration cases. However, does my hon. Friend recall that the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, introduced a provision whereby British women were separated into two classes? Those who were born here could have their husbands join them here, while those who were not born here could not.
  Jean Corston: I do indeed recall that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention. Should my daughter, who was born in east Africa, have decided to marry someone from another country, she could well have fallen foul of that provision.
  The atmosphere of that time—the advertisements that appeared in windows and on pub doors, the way in which jobs were advertised by word of mouth—shows that direct discrimination can be quite easily categorised and dealt with, although it takes a very long time to achieve success.
  The Labour Government of the time took careful note of the United States legislation on discrimination and decided to import into their sex discrimination and race relations legislation the notion of indirect discrimination. That of course covers an organisation or person who applies a condition that is objectively non-discriminatory, but is discriminatory in effect, as in a sign saying, "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs".
  Let me give an example, although it has nothing to do with race. When I was a child, it was not possible to be a police officer unless one was 5 foot 6 inches tall. That excluded many women. I do not say that the police necessarily intended to exclude women; it had probably crossed no one's mind that women would ever want to join in large numbers. That requirement has gone, because the police have recognised that it was indirectly discriminatory.
  The impetus behind the Bill is the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and the shabby, shameful and inadequate way with which it was dealt. Opposition Members and spokespeople clearly find the idea of institutionalised racism difficult. I do not allege that any Conservative Member of Parliament is sexist, or that any one of them would say or think it was inappropriate for women representatives to sit on the Conservative Benches. However, the effect of the way in which the Conservative party works is that few women can reach the House as Conservative Members. That is institutionalised sexism.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady must understand that the selection of Conservative candidates is entirely in
  1256
  the hands of the party. We do not have the kind of apparatchik arrangements of the Labour party. Often, selection committees are made up largely of ladies. If they choose men rather than ladies as their candidates—and a lot of excellent ladies are coming forward—that is their choice. One hopes that the hon. Lady understands that we allow choice.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman are taking us a long way from race relations.
  Jean Corston: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) makes my point for me. The Labour party had to deal at local level with the way in which party members selected men as prospective Members of Parliament.
  I am pleased by one of the Bill's most important provisions—the positive duty to promote equality. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for that. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the impetus behind that provision was not provided only by a few Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. I chair the parliamentary Labour party's civil liberties group, which the Home Secretary told about the Bill last autumn, saying that it would include direct discrimination, of course, and that it might include indirect discrimination. He added, though, that there were limits to that approach, and that the Bill might also have to include a positive duty to promote equality. The idea came from the Home Secretary himself, in conversations with many people as the Bill was prepared.
  Existing race relations legislation operates on the provision of goods and services and in employment. As a lawyer who practised in discrimination cases, I can say that the effect of the law and its ambit are almost certainly confined to employment—how people are treated at work. If we had had just direct and indirect discrimination, and left it at that, what on earth would it have done for someone like Mrs. Lawrence? She was not employed by the Metropolitan police; she had no direct employment relationship with the force at all. Suppose she had tried, under the provisions of the Race Relations Act, or even of this Bill in the absence of the positive duty, to go to a public body such as the Commission for Racial Equality and say, "Well, the police were very nice to my neighbour when her cat was stuck in the tree, but they did not treat me very well when my son was murdered." She would not have got very far, because there was no relationship between her and the Metropolitan police, either in relation to the provision of goods and services or in relation to employment.
  That is why a positive duty to promote equality is so important—not only for the police but for all public bodies. The job of such bodies is to deal with members of the public; they must clearly be seen to apply equality provisions.
  Racism and the failure to promote racial equality go far beyond the ambit of the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney referred to the prison service. In 1996, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and I visited Dartmoor prison to speak to black constituents who had alleged that they were not being treated well. I also wanted to speak to staff about the death in custody of my constituent Dennis Stevens.

  1257
  On the wall of Dartmoor prison was a finely worded Home Office statement about anti-racism—such as may be found in many prisons. I asked the governor of the prison whose duty it was to enforce that statement. He said, "No one has ever asked me that, and I have never thought about it." With respect to the governor, I thought that it was his duty. The provisions of the Bill will ensure that public bodies take to heart the purpose of the duty to promote equality.
  I point out to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that we need to know how that duty will operate; organisations need to establish appropriate mechanisms. Some are doing marvellous work. As I have mentioned in other debates, at the Trinity road police station in my constituency, the central police district has produced an excellent booklet entitled "Faces of Britain". It provides guidance for police officers on how they should treat members of different ethnic communities. It gives details of religious and social customs and beliefs. It sets out how officers should behave when they enter the homes of people from those communities. It is a splendid example of the way in which police officers can carry out their duties in a multicultural society so that everyone feels respected and equal.
  Racism is still pervasive. My hon. Friend the Member for Southall said that he still receives hate mail—so do I. In Bristol, I have readily identified myself as someone who is utterly opposed to racism. It is not unusual for me to receive letters threatening me with nasty and permanent injury because of the stance I have taken.
  Such letters are frequently unsigned. I could imagine the tone of voice in one letter that I received—it was clearly from a man. He said, "I fought in the second world war for this country. You keep speaking up for these other people." The King's African Rifles fought in the war, but they were not threatened as I was at the time as a child growing up in Hull. There were no racial boundaries when it came to the support of our cause in the second world war. Even if there had been, they would be irrelevant to the way in which we run modern society.
  When I was small, one of my aunts went to see "South Pacific" while she was on honeymoon. She came back, full of that marvellous musical and especially keen on one song, which I learned. However, it was many years before I realised that "South Pacific" was about racism—at the time, it was just a musical with nice songs. The song that she liked so much is particularly instructive. I use it sometimes when talking to children about racism. It goes:

  You've got to be taught to be afraid

  Of people whose eyes are oddly made

  And people whose skin is a different shade.

  You've got to be carefully taught.

  You've got to be taught, before it's too late,

  Before you are six, or seven or eight,

  To hate all the people your relatives hate.

  You've got to be carefully taught.

  That sums up pretty well the seeds of racism. If schools say, as they do routinely day after day, that children should be brought up to value and respect each other and to treat each other as equals and if we say that that should happen in Parliament and at work, we shall succeed only if everyone, whatever they do, recognises that they have an equal place.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise to the House because I had to leave the Chamber earlier. I have two constituency engagements tonight, and I hope that the House will not regard my action as discourteous because no discourtesy is intended. I have been here since 1.15 pm, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) will know.
  I was interested in what the Home Secretary said at the beginning of his speech. He ascribed good relations in this country since 1976 to the Race Relations Act 1976, which was passed not by a Labour Government, but more specifically by Parliament.
  Jean Corston: What?
  Mr. Howarth: The 1976 Act was passed by Parliament.
  The Home Secretary was wrong to ascribe the success—I think that it has been a success—of the assimilation in this country of a large number of people from many countries around the world and different cultures to an Act of Parliament. We cannot change minds merely by changing the law. We cannot enforce a change of character or a change of view in that way.
  The real tribute should be paid to the British people. They have been remarkable in the way that they have adjusted to the changes that have taken place rapidly in some parts of the country. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) will know very well what I mean, as will the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), who I am sorry is not present at the moment. At least 50 per cent. of the people in his constituency have origins in the Indian subcontinent. We should pay tribute to the people of Southall. They do not live in grand country houses at the end of long drives surrounded by parkland. They live in terraced houses, cheek by jowl with their neighbours and they—and not the landed gentry—have borne the brunt of the changes in society.
  That brings me on to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who made a particularly nauseating speech. I warn the House that I recognise that my speech will be rather different in tenor from those that have been made before. I do not apologise for that, because this is the place where we should be able to express our views. I recognise that it is a sensitive subject and I will endeavour to talk about it without inflaming emotions and passions in the House. However, I feel strongly about it, and just as strongly as other hon. Members, albeit in a slightly different way.
  As I said, I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Witney was nauseating, in part because he was in charge of the Conservative party's whole campaigning operation. When did he advise Conservative Ministers that they should adopt a different policy on this issue? Where are the letters to suggest that he did? I suspect that they do not exist. He campaigned vigorously for the Conservative party, attacked this Government and then, overnight, switched sides and suddenly found that everything that the Conservatives had done was nauseating and anathema even though he had stood at the last election on the Conservative party's manifesto, much of which he had helped to draft. That smacks to me of gross hypocrisy.

  1259
  The hon. Gentleman also referred frequently to decency in his speech, which, I thought betrayed his obsession with other areas of discrimination that are not the subject of the debate. I should have thought that he was obsessed with the promotion of indecency rather than that of decency.
  Mr. Woodward: On a point of clarification, I had no hand in drafting the 1997 Conservative party election manifesto. I was involved in drafting the 1992 manifesto, and the then Conservative party chairman, Christopher Patten, and I shared with the then leader of the party an absolute abhorrence for any form of discrimination. As a matter of record, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), would very much want to distance himself from the kind of racist observations that I fear may be lurking behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman can throw insults at me, if he likes, because frankly they are just water off a duck's back. If he distanced himself from the 1997 manifesto, he had had five years in which he could have told Ministers to take what he thought of as a more robust attitude towards this issue. Suddenly he is sitting on the Government Benches and declaring himself hostile to everything that we stand for, but he kept remarkably silent until he had got his safe seat under his belt.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Don-ell), who explained why he could not stay, is no longer in his place. I oppose the Bill, but he made a point of principle when he said that there is a case for applying to the public sector that which is applied to the private sector, and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree that that is right in principle. However, my right hon. Friend gave me an opportunity to get myself off that hook by saying that he was nevertheless a pragmatic man, and I think that the Bill has something to do with pragmatism.
  I am pleased to share my duties on the Home Affairs Committee with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). He is an excellent member of that Committee. We may have our differences, but we get on well together. He made the fair point that ethnic minorities in this country are doing very well, and he was keen to paint a balanced picture.
  Since the hon. Gentleman spoke, I have discovered information from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at Exeter university which shows that the richest ethnic group is not native Brits—whites, if one likes—but Chinese. In terms of family wealth, native Britons come third after Chinese and Indians. The idea that ethnic minority communities are all in the lower wage bands and among the poorest is not borne out by the facts. I found also a statistic showing that black women earn on average more than white women, at £6.10 an hour to £5.19 an hour. I am told that the figures came from The Guardian, so Labour Members will know that they must be true.
  I want to make three key points, and I do not want to detain the House, although I suspect that my contribution will be rather different from the others, so I hope that the House will be indulgent towards me. The Bill clearly has its origins in the Macpherson report, and as I said in the debate on the report a year ago, I regard it as intellectually shoddy and devoid of logic. I advanced that argument
  1260
  because Sir William Macpherson's examination of the behaviour of each and every policeman responsible for the investigation of the awful, tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence revealed that none would have acted in a different way if the victim of that murder had been a white boy.
  The only person who was singled out for any criticism was Detective Inspector Bullock, and that was because he was insensitive in referring to Stephen Lawrence and his friend Duwayne Brooks as "those two coloured lads". Poor Detective Inspector Bullock was unaware that to use the word "coloured" was a sign of insensitivity.
  Having established that there was not a single case in which a single police man or police woman involved in the investigation of that murder had acted in a way that was racist, the committee under Sir William was driven to the conclusion that it would have to find something else, so it came up with the idea of institutional racism. That is a cop-out.
  The report and the reaction to it have been severely damaging to police morale throughout the country, but especially among officers of the Metropolitan police force. Officers at all levels, from the top all the way down to those with whom some of us in the House come into contact, feel anger, bewilderment and a sense of having been beaten senseless by the criticism. They see their senior officers beating their breasts and saying "Mea culpa—it is all our fault and we must change", yet the report on which we are invited to base a change in the law could not find that a single police officer had acted dishonourably, save for the one example that I gave, which I do not consider a very serious example.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I rise mainly to challenge the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints of the police response. Not long ago I attended a meeting of police of all ranks, members of the Thames Valley police in Slough. At the meeting they considered how they should respond to the Macpherson report, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they found it enhancing and empowering. In my constituency people of all races live together side by side, benefiting from that. The Macpherson report has given my local police force a route map showing how they can improve the quality of their service to the community, and they are pleased to have it.
  Mr. Howarth: Of course the police would say that; they cannot say anything else. I at least have the privilege of representing a constituency and having a voice in the House, where I can articulate my views. If a common or garden copper expressed such views, he would be at serious risk of impairing his promotion prospects or possibly of being dismissed from the service. I shall deal in a moment with a man who has been dismissed from the service.
  Reference has been made to stop and search. A year ago, in the aftermath of the report, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis told us that in Tottenham, stop and search fell by 48 per cent. and crime went up by 25 per cent.

  1261
  I make no apology for quoting again the remarks that I quoted a year ago, made by the chairman of the Police Federation in Hampshire, who said:
  Law-abiding ethnic communities have never caused problems for the police service, and indeed in Hampshire we have always enjoyed good relations with community leaders …
  The main concern is in dealing with criminals who just happen to be black or Asian.
  It is this element which I fear will attempt to capitalise on a well-intentioned report and try to use it to their advantage.
  The phrase "You have only stopped me because I am black" in light of this report will understandably cause officers concern.
  It will be exploited by that criminal element who attempt to hide their criminality behind their colour and attempt to thwart proactive policing by falsely alleging persecution on the basis of race rather than the truth.
  I believe that police officers will be intimidated into being soft on stop and search. The Home Secretary's argument that the Bill will not make the individual police officer liable, but will make the top man vicariously liable does not meet my objections. If a police officer is referred to his superior officer as the subject of a complaint, and the chief police officer is vicariously liable, and if there is a growing list of complaints against a particular officer, of course he will be hauled up before his boss and have questions asked about him. [HON. MEMBERS: "So he should."] If so, the police officer will hold back from enforcing the law equally and impartially for fear of being accused of racism.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, referred to a report that was conducted by Dr. Marian Fitzgerald and commissioned by the Metropolitan police. It found that there was support for stop and search among black youths. I hope that the police are encouraged by that. It was striking that those who had been searched were no less inclined to say that the power was necessary. A black school boy commented that police
  need to be able to do their job properly and as part of their job they have to stop and search people.
  I take some encouragement from that. However, the police are nervous about enforcing the law. Far from improving matters, the Bill will make them worse.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I do not intend any discourtesy, but I have already spoken for 14 minutes and I do not want to speak for too long.
  Let us consider the case of PC Steven Hutt, which was the subject of a big article in The Daily Telegraph the Saturday before last. He was dismissed from the police service because, in a lapse of self-discipline, which he acknowledges, he said to a lad who had been arrested:
  Sit down, you black bastard.
  I quote it so that I am not accused of holding back from what the chap said. He knows that what he said was wrong; all hon. Members know that it was wrong. However, it seems wrong for a man of unblemished record and 19 years of service to be drummed out of the police service after he had been provoked by a youth.
  1262
  The black mother of the youth believes that the sentence is disproportionate, as does the Police Federation. PC Hutt is being made a scapegoat for the Government's policy of trying to instil a rather crude form of political correctness in our police force. The article states:
  Mr. Hutt has another champion. Jerry—he would not give a surname—is a bouncer at a Fulham pub. The two men became friendly through Mr. Hutt's anti-hooliganism duties.
  "I know all about racism. I have been stabbed for being black, and my personal belief is that everyone is racist to a certain extent," said Jerry, 34. "I am not saying that we are best buddies, but Steve and I are mates and he's a good guy. The country is screaming out for good policemen like him and a severe reprimand would have been enough. But we're talking politics."
  The Government are playing politics with our police service, and a wholly disproportionate penalty has been given to a man who is widely acknowledged in both communities as an extremely successful policeman. We are considering political correctness gone mad. It is unforgivable to expect police officers to keep up with all the twists and turns of what language offends specific minorities.
  I thank the hon. Member for Witney, who did me one service. He saved me from having to repeat some of the points that I made a year ago by quoting extensively from my speech. I hope that he will be pleased to know that I stand by every word, and shall continue to do so.
  The Bill springs from an ideological desire for every institution to be a microcosm of society. It will damage the effectiveness of policing in this country. We expect our armed services to defend our country and not act as a crucible for social experimentation. The job of the police is not to act as a microcosm or reflection of society. It is the police service's job to enforce the law, and the job of our armed forces to fight for this country.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: Although the hon. Lady shares a birthday with me, and her father was a great man, I shall not give way to her.
  My real fear is that the Bill will be a licence to anyone subjected to stop and search or any other intervention by the police to complain that they have been picked on—discriminated against—because of the colour of their skin. That will result in a tidal wave of complaints. The Home Secretary made it clear that he differentiates between such complaints and charges that the police may level against the individual concerned, but we shall nevertheless find our courts clogged up with a whole load of cases because complainants will not have much to lose. He is living in cloud cuckoo land if he is not prepared to acknowledge that. If the Bill becomes law, it will provide complainants with the means by which to accuse the police of having acted in a racist fashion.
  The Bill will have an adverse effect on police morale and recruitment. I do not have the figures for Hendon, but I hope that the Minister will tell us how recruiting is going. I understand that not many recruits are coming forward—certainly not enough to meet the 1,000 shortfall in Metropolitan police numbers in London.
  The Macpherson report made one interesting comment with which I agree. On page 316, it says:
  We must at the same time warn some of those who are most vociferous in their condemnation of police officers that they should guard against their own racism. Not only during our Inquiry but in

  1263
  general there is readiness without justification to assume and to say that because police officers are white they must be acting to the disadvantage of minority ethnic communities. Racist prejudice and stereotyping can work and be evident both ways.
  Not one Labour Member acknowledged that to be the case.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is self-evident.
  Mr. Howarth: It is not self-evident, because racism is always perceived to be one way. Before I refer to remarks made by Sir Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, I want to point out that, as well as a flood of claims, a serious cost to the Exchequer will arise from the proposals. The explanatory notes, which the Government have kindly provided, set out a whole series of costs on page 13. There
  are likely to be additional costs to public authorities in relation to defending cases, settling cases, and paying damages if they lose cases.
  We can say that again. They continue:
  It is impossible to calculate what the overall financial effects of the Bill will be for those authorities
  specified in the Bill. Furthermore, they say:
  Additional public expenditure on the legal aid budget is also likely to arise from the new provision introduced in clause 1 …
  In addition, there are likely to be significant costs to the legal aid budget arising from cases starting in the Immigration Appellate Authority …
  Enormous costs will arise from the Bill—not only financial, but costs in terms of police morale, good race relations and effective policing.
  I am not only against the Bill. Personally, I should like all the race relations legislation to be removed from the statute book. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Hon. Members may say that, but I do not believe that it serves any useful effect, save to stir up trouble. By and large, I believe in a less regulated society. I certainly oppose the measure and I should have been happier if the race relations legislation—
  Mr. Woodward: Now we know.
  Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman does not know that he is obviously not very well informed.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman presents himself as a defender of the police, but I suspect that the vast majority of officers—good and decent people who work for us—would be appalled by his views on the race relations legislation. I want to place it on record that I think that they would dissociate themselves from his position.
  Mr. Howarth: The Minister is frightfully excited about that. I dare say that some policemen disagree with me, but others may agree. We live in a free society and I am expressing a view. I cannot see anything outrageous in suggesting that we should remove a degree of regulation.
  Let me finish by quoting the views of Sir Herman Ouseley, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality—an organisation that has itself been riven by internal feuding between the West Indian and Asian
  1264
  communities. That organisation, which claims to be able to represent the interests of good race relations, was consumed by such problems for months, if not years.
  According to Melanie Philips, in an article in The Sunday Times in December 1998, Sir Herman rejected the
  validity of a common culture,
  adding that black children needed to be taught black culture. Melanie Philips believes that this approach spelled
  disaster for black children in Britain.
  Without access to English culture, without command of its language, appreciation of its literature or a grasp of the history of its institutions, black children will be unable to play an equal part in a society which assumes such access as a given.
  I agree with Melanie Philips. I feel that there is an element of racism in Sir Herman Ouseley's comment that black children need to be taught black culture. What about English children being taught English culture? If I said that in the House, I would be accused of being a racist.
  I do not believe that the Bill is in the interests of good race relations. I shall not oppose it, because there will be no Division and I have to keep a constituency engagement, but I have made it clear that I do not support it, and if further opportunities arise I shall vote against it.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: It is a privilege to speak in the debate.
  I am sure that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) had any doubts about the wisdom of crossing the Floor, listening to what we have all just heard has dispelled any that remained. I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) will take the opportunity to repudiate the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and to condemn them as being unacceptable in his party.
  The hon. Gentleman painted a scary picture of the possible impact of the Bill, and spoke of cloud cuckoo land. I wanted to point out that he was condemning something that already applies in the private sector and has applied for the past 25 years, but—having not taken my intervention—he answered my point by saying that he did not think it should have applied during that time, and that people should not have such protection in any sector. I think that that view will be widely condemned by his constituents, and by people throughout the country.
  Along with speakers in all parts of the House, including Conservatives—particularly the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd)—I welcome the Bill. We face great challenges as a Parliament, and Government face great challenges in building an inclusive society. We must ourselves challenge bigotry, prejudice and discrimination. We must ensure that people's life chances are determined on the basis of their merit rather than their background, the colour of their skin or their ethnic origin.
  As others have said today, the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Lawrence family's struggle for justice shine a light for all of us who seek to get the law right. Everyone, I hope, can empathise with the sense of injustice, the suffering and the pain experienced by Neville and Doreen Lawrence. The British people responded positively and constructively to the courage and dignity shown by Mrs. Lawrence, a mother who had

  1265
  lost her son in tragic and terrible circumstances, and Mr. Lawrence, a father who, although his son had been murdered, could not secure justice from the system.
  Like many others, my constituency in suburban north London has a rich ethnic and cultural diversity. It contains a long-established and vibrant Jewish community, the largest number of Cypriots—both Greek and Turkish—outside Cyprus, a significant and growing Asian community and many people from African and Caribbean backgrounds. My constituents see that diversity as a source of great strength and opportunity for our local community. Overwhelmingly, there is acceptance and, indeed, celebration of that diversity. It is a community in harmony.
  Tragically, however, that harmony sometimes breaks down. Last autumn, Abdul Osman, an 18-year-old black student at Southgate college, was killed in Southgate. Michael Menson was murdered in the neighbouring constituency of Edmonton. I have spoken in the Chamber about events in the Oakwood ward of my constituency, where a small group of white youths conducted a sustained campaign of racist harassment, directed mostly against the Asian community, but also against the local Jewish community. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the opportunity of visiting my constituency to meet some of the families and business people who had been affected by that campaign of racist harassment.
  That is a good example of where harassment can be tackled. The various local agencies—the police, local authority, local schools, as well as the people themselves in that area—came together through the Enfield racial incidents action group and the Oakwood focus group to examine ways of tackling both the causes of racist crime and the racist crime itself. As a consequence, the latest statistics from that part of my constituency show a significant fall in its incidence.
  It is salutary to remember that the full weight of race relations legislation does not apply to the public sector, yet we already see some good examples of excellent practice, as I have described, including in the police. The former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who in the 1950s and 1960s was a consultant in the House to the Police Federation of England and Wales and, later, the Home Secretary when the race relations legislation was going through, has made the point that has been made by many hon. Members: the police should never have been exempted from the legislation. The Bill is welcome, but it should have been introduced 25 years ago.
  As other hon. Members have said, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Britain of the 1960s and 1970s—a Britain in which hotels had signs saying, "No dogs, no Irish, no Blacks", where north London golf clubs regularly excluded Jewish people from membership, and where pubs and shops could and did refuse to serve people simply on the basis of the colour of their skin.
  I remember as a 10-year-old in the mid-1970s going with my parents to demonstrate against the National Front as it marched through the streets of multi-racial north London, seeking to spread its message of hate and division. Looking at the debates in Hansard on earlier race relations legislation, I find it shocking to read the arguments that were used. Perhaps it is less shocking when we realise that they are still used today, as we have
  1266
  heard—arguments that, generally, would be regarded as unacceptable in 2000 when considering race, although such language is regularly used in the House of Commons and, more particularly, in the other place when Parliament discusses discrimination on the ground of sexuality.
  The Race Relations Act has had a powerful impact in shaping public attitudes. I do not believe that any hon. Member has asserted what was implied by the hon. Member for Aldershot—that changing legislation will in itself change conditions and determine people's attitudes. The process is far more sophisticated and complicated. I believe firmly that legislation can and has made a difference. Progress over the past 25 to 30 years has been real, but we still have a long way to go.
  Institutional racism is not a term that was invented by Macpherson. It was not referred to only in the light of the Stephen Lawrence case. There is nothing new about the concept. The report of Lord Scarman's inquiry, which was set up following the disturbances in Brixton almost 20 years ago, addressed institutional racism. It said:
  If … the suggestion being made is that practices may be adopted by public bodies as well as private individuals which are unwittingly discriminatory against black people, then this is an allegation which deserves serious consideration and, where proved, swift remedy.
  Two decades later, we finally have the opportunity to provide that swift remedy, which Lord Scarman called for in the early 1980s.
  The Bill is too late for the Lawrence family. It is too late for the family of Michael Menson. It is too late for the other families to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Witney referred. I am not saying that, had the Bill been in place 25 years ago, those tragedies would not have happened; they may well still have happened. However, if the Race Relations Acts had covered the public sector from the outset, we might have had the type of sea-change in institutions, such as the police and other public bodies, that we are now starting to witness. The culture of institutional racism could have been challenged, and families such as the Lawrence and Menson families could have been relieved of having to go through the additional burden of having to fight for justice when they were having to cope with bereavement. That is the point of the Bill.
  Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the shift announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to cover indirect as well as direct discrimination. However, I shall not deal at length with that matter, as other hon. Members have done so in full detail. I have no doubt, however, that discrimination today is more subtle and sophisticated than it was 20 or 30 years ago. We are less likely to see the overt differential practice and treatment that various speakers have mentioned, but we are more likely to see requirements created, the outcomes of which in practice disadvantage ethnic minorities. When those requirements cannot be justified, surely it is our duty to make them unlawful. That, I believe, is what indirect discrimination is all about.
  If we were not to address indirect discrimination, we would be failing to meet the challenge set by the Macpherson report to extend the full force of race relations legislation. There is also a good case to be made that we would be creating a recipe for legal confusion and unnecessary complexity. The distinctions between direct and indirect discrimination are not always clear or simple—legal experts in the sphere of discrimination

  1267
  themselves often disagree about whether something constitutes direct or indirect discrimination. My fear is that, if we took only the half step forward and extended provisions to cover only direct discrimination by public bodies, we would be failing those members of the public who are seeking a legal remedy to correct a civil wrong.
  Like other hon. Members, I very much welcome the proposal to amend the Bill to create a positive duty on public authorities. That follows similar provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and in the legislation creating the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, as well as in the legislation establishing the Greater London Authority. It builds on widespread existing good practice, some of which I have already mentioned, and it has been widely welcomed not only by the Commission for Racial Equality, but by the Confederation of Indian Organisations, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Runnymede Trust.
  The creation of such a duty is an essential further step if we are truly to root out all the forms of racism that disfigure and divide our country. I very much hope that, in Committee, the Government will ensure that that positive duty is clearly and explicitly enshrined in the Bill.
  As other hon. Members have said, the Commission for Racial Equality has made the point to Members of Parliament that the Government should consult on the details of the operation, monitoring and enforcement of those new provisions once the legislation is amended.
  Excellent work is already being done in schools and community organisations across the country. The Bill is not imposing something new or alien, but simply building on existing good practice in many parts of the country. I believe that its provisions can go hand in hand with the Government's plans for citizenship education to form part of the national curriculum from 2002. Such education is about celebrating the diversity of modern Britain, not teaching people about only some aspects of our culture. It is about recognising that modern British society is made up of many different forms of culture. I hope that tackling racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia will be an integral part of the new citizenship curriculum.
  Late last year, I had the privilege of seeing such good practice in action when I joined a seminar at St. Ignatius school, a local secondary school in Enfield, to discuss the holocaust. The seminar was led by two students, John Prendergast and Joseph Egan, who had joined a Holocaust Educational Trust delegation to Auschwitz and came back to report on their visit and discuss the historical context of the holocaust and its lessons for today. That is a good example of what we should include as part of citizenship in the national curriculum.
  By creating a positive duty on public authorities, we can ensure that such good practice is spread throughout the country. The Bill will open the door to real progress towards racial equality. Strengthening race relations legislation is good not just for the minority ethnic communities, but for all of us.
  As many have said during the debate, after almost three decades of legislation, there is no room for complacency. We are fast approaching the first anniversary of the appalling London nail bomb attacks in Brixton, Brick lane and Soho. They serve as a potent reminder to the House that racism and bigotry have not gone away. It is only right that we act now to do all that we can to root out
  1268
  racist discrimination in all its forms. We cannot afford to wait another 25 years. I commend the Government for bringing the Bill before us.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I shall make a very brief contribution from my perspective as a Member whose constituency is not metropolitan, but largely rural. It has a small ethnic minority community and the issue of racism does not assume as much salience as perhaps it should.
  It would be wrong to assume that the Bill was not of the utmost relevance to everyone in the United Kingdom, because it has to do with the nature and values of the wider society to which we belong. It would also be wrong to assume that people from all over the country were not profoundly troubled by the death of Stephen Lawrence and the failure of the subsequent police investigation—matters that have spurred on this legislation.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Bill represents a step change in race relations and that society would have to pay a very heavy price if we did not legislate—a moral cost and a cost of greater disaffection and higher crime rates. Those are matters that affect us all and we have a common interest in ensuring that we have a fair and tolerant society.
  I pay tribute to the eloquent comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who bore testimony to the issues that we should tackle to create a fairer and more tolerant society. It is high time the Race Relations Act 1976 was updated. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) that, as Lord Callaghan said recently, with the benefit of hindsight, not including the police within the ambit of that Act was a serious omission. I welcome the fact that the Bill will extend the provisions of that Act to the police and all public authorities that are not currently covered.
  The Government are entirely right to acknowledge the recommendations of the Macpherson report and to recognise the existence of institutional racism. As a society, we have learned much since 1976. There has been a process of education here and in the wider society about the nature of institutional racism.
  I am pleased that the Government are committed to tabling an amendment to outlaw indirect discrimination. I am pleased that the Government are taking such a robust approach. I am also pleased that they are prepared to table an amendment to place a duty on public bodies to promote social equality.
  In conclusion, the Bill is part of the Government's wider agenda of promoting equality of opportunity and creating a genuinely tolerant and inclusive society, and I welcome it.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on his speech, which was a model of the bipartisan support for the Bill. I may speak for slightly longer than he did, but I shall attempt not to try the patience of the House, particularly as I have not been able to listen to all the speeches that have been made this afternoon. However, I have heard some good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

  1269
  My speech is based partly on my own experience and partly on that of a doctor. I shall relate the doctor's story in the first person as it is better than saying that he or she is Indian. Let us imagine that I came to Britain in the late 1970s with a British passport. I spoke the language fluently, played Bob Dylan rather well on my guitar and had qualifications. I could not have been better equipped, but it has not all been plain sailing. The story does not end in total misery, as I became a consultant. However racism is not behind me—it does not stop when one finally attains a senior position.
  I should say in passing that I do not relate this story because the national health service has not been trying to put things right; when my wife was Minister for Health and then Secretary of State for Health, she worked very hard to get the NHS to overcome some of the difficulties that I am about to describe.
  I now return to the doctor's story. No one taught me, but criticism was rife when I failed. This is the one characteristic of racism that I find most distressing. My white friends received gentle instruction, but I was largely excluded unless I asked. At every stage in my career I have had to outperform white doctors in order to get a job.
  In my senior house officer post there was no in-house teaching of any sort. When I told my boss that I was leaving, he was aghast. He took me aside and, in the presence of his clinical assistant, said, "Do you realise you are resigning from a white job?" I apologised profusely, but left.
  I was delighted when I got my first general surgical rotational job. I had a boss who liked me, but a ward sister who did not. No matter how hard I tried, she reported me and took pleasure in disliking me. How can one tell that dislike is racist? Because it is instant and intractable.
  The most racist job that I did was as a rotating registrar in surgery in the east midlands. The consultant ignored me from the outset and spoke only to my senior house officer, a white doctor. He taught me nothing. If I could not negotiate the rectosigmoid junction at colonoscopy it was, "tut tut". If the senior house officer could not do it, it was all encouragement and teaching.
  I went to the fellowship examinations in London with a white fellow registrar in general surgery. He was asked to describe a cholecystectomy. I was asked rather aggressively to describe a hemilaminectomy, but only after the examiner had determined that I had no experience in the procedure. I failed, he passed. I got antidepressant pills from my general practitioner; he was given a research post.
  After four years as a rotating senior house officer and registrar, I received my first summons from the higher surgical training committee. "Do you really think that you will become a general surgeon?", they asked. I was 28, had two fellowships, had written two papers and was completing a recognised registrar rotation in surgery in a teaching hospital. I had encountered no problems with my attitude or capability. "Yes," I replied.
  It was at that point that someone else appeared. He sat down and all eyes turned to him. He did not beat about the bush, although I had never worked for him. He told me I was being quite unrealistic. He went on to remind me that I was Indian and he took me through the fate of
  1270
  all the previous Indian registrars in the city I was working in. "So you see, not one has made it," he said. The six other consultants present just sat there studying their pens. The committee had found me unsuitable for further training because I was Indian. I decided to move but to give my love for surgery one last go.
  The story continues with an application for a research fellowship and I congratulate the editor of the British Medical Journal on putting it into last week's issue—volume 320, 4 March 2000, for anybody who wishes to read the rest of that personal view.
  That story was published in this millennium but it is not so different from what I found when I was a junior Minister in the Department of Employment and I talked to the unions in ACAS—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I do not think that they will mind my saying this, because things have moved on since 1985. At that time, I asked the unions why there were no black or Asian field officers in ACAS. I was asked in return, "How do you know that they would be acceptable to all employers?" That attitude has changed.
  I listened to the 24 members of the race relations employment advisory service, and I congratulate Sir Michael Quinlan, then the Permanent Secretary at the Department, for agreeing to let two of the people from that service come into the Department. That Department had, in effect, responsibility for equal opportunities on grounds of sex and disability, as well as race, and Sir Michael produced a report to which—I hope—people in Departments still occasionally refer. It showed that even when a Department tried to do the right things as well as advocate them, it can fail, directly and indirectly.
  The Bill will make a difference, but not the biggest difference. Law at its best is obeyed, clear and fair. There are plenty of examples of areas in which race relations legislation already bites, but is not always obeyed. I shall not give the details of one example, but I helped a police officer and the Metropolitan police to come to an agreement and settle an employment case for probably a third of the cost of fighting the issue out. Both those who have reason to complain, and those against whom they complain, can often get together to resolve issues and learn from that.
  The people who really have to learn are top and middle management. In some parts of the public service, people are determined to make things better, but some are willing to sit at a higher level without ensuring that a regular routine improves matters at a lower level. I shall give an illustrative example. When I asked a slightly complicated question of the Home Office about at what stage and at what cost each claim by a Metropolitan police officer for discrimination on the grounds of race came in, the answer was that it was too expensive to provide the information. I suspect that it was too expensive—or at least would have cost more than £200. However, if there were so many cases that providing the answer would have been too expensive, I would have welcomed an answer that added that more extensive information could be made available reasonably easily.
  In my view, the Metropolitan police service is doing much more than it has done before, and in five years it will be able to look back and say that its progress since 2000 has been marked. I also acknowledge the presence of the ethnic teams from the armed forces, at the party given in the Locarno rooms of the Foreign and

  1271
  Commonwealth Office yesterday. The people there talked about their work in trying to overcome perceptions of racial inequality in the services. Things are not yet completely right, but I welcome the existence of those teams which can provide the positive action needed to make progress.
  I would have liked to make other points, but as I missed part of the debate I shall not trespass on the good will of the House.
  I have two final points. First, race and sex are not disabilities, and they should not be a handicap. Secondly, the people who have the responsibility for putting things right are not the victims, but white, middle class men in full-time occupations. They are the ones who have to meet what Richard Stone, a member of the Lawrence inquiry, called our challenge and our responsibility. We are the people who should be able to say to future generations that, in part because of what we did, the colour of our skin is no more important than the colour of our eyes or hair. People may notice it, but it tells them nothing more about us.
  6 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—who said that he would not continue to be in his place—talked of my constituents bearing the brunt of other races in Britain. That phrase provoked me to speak in the debate, as it suggests that the contribution of other races to our community has all been negative. I am confident that many of his constituents enjoy the services of an excellent Chinese restaurant, which is provided by one of those races which has migrated to Britain. I say that in the sure and certain knowledge that probably no constituency in this country does not have such an example.
  In my constituency, people have come from Poland, the Punjab and Pontypridd to work, and the children of Slough learn about the richness of all those different cultures and communities as part of their daily experience. It is a question not of bearing the brunt, but of learning about the world of which we are a part and obtaining new and rich experiences.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot described the inadvertent racism of a police officer as though the police officer were the victim. He failed to understand why the real victim is not the person in a position of responsibility who can and should learn about the consequences of racial abuse, but the person who cannot learn to change the colour of their skin. That is why having legislative protection against racism is an absolute signal of a civilised society.
  Racial violence and abuse work like terrorism. There is not just one victim, but everybody who shares that ethnicity and could be a victim is victimised by it. That is why it is a serious public duty upon us all to protect people who share that kinship with the victim and feel threatened. I am glad that we are moving to bring to an end something that horrified me—the fact that there are communities in this great city who were more afraid of the police than of the criminals who threatened them. The Bill is about putting an end to that kind of society.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot talked about people coming from Bangladesh to Britain as though the only reason they did so was to better themselves. Some did, but people now come from Bangladesh to Britain to be with their mums, dads, husbands, wives and children.
  Ms Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bangladeshi catering industry now has a larger turnover than the coal, iron and steel industries combined?
  Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed. We must not fail to recognise not just the cultural contributions made by different communities which, from Anglo-Saxon times, have come to Britain, but also their economic contribution to the success of our island.
  I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), who has reason to know the consequences of unthinking prejudice on factors over which people have no control. The moves towards equality in Northern Ireland provide a beacon for the process here. In that context, I hope to seek assurances from the Minister on issues which I hope will be looked at in Committee.
  First, I am worried about the power in the Bill that allows discrimination on ethnic as well as nationality grounds in the administration of immigration. For example, out of two people with Yugoslav nationality, we might be willing to accept as a refugee only one—not as a result of discrimination on ethnic grounds, but because only that one is a genuine refugee. The Bill evinces a certain muddle-headedness that must be sorted out.
  Secondly, I hope that the bond scheme will not be restricted to the Indian subcontinent. If the granny of a constituent of mine from Jamaica were refused a visit to the United Kingdom, why should not my constituent have the right to put up a bond as an insurance that that granny would go home? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to study that possibility, and not to rule it out.
  The Bill's definition of a public body is also a little shaky. That problem was solved in the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Bill should adopt the same approach. Increasingly, organisations such as Group 4 are taking on public responsibilities, and they want to be certain that they are covered in the same way as public bodies. The clear definition of public bodies in the 1998 Act is better than what is proposed in schedule 1.
  I was pleased to hear of the research being conducted into Islamophobia in Britain. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will consider extending more effective protection to the Muslim communities against the consequences of that phobia in future. I recognise, however, that that cannot be accomplished in this Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier this week that he had not put forward a single Bill that had not been improved in Committee. He has announced already that he is planning to improve this Bill in Committee, and I am glad of that. I hope very much that some of the points made today will be included among the matters being considered by the Committee. I do not want to end up with a Bill that is merely good: I want it to be excellent, and to make it clear that everyone in the country is of equal value, with equal rights and an equal opportunity to be served by the state.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: Let me begin by stating that I agree wholly with the objectives set out for the Bill by the Home Secretary in his introductory speech. I share his commitment to seek to build a society in which all British citizens, regardless of race, colour or religion,

  1273
  have an equal and honoured place and are encouraged to make the greatest possible use of the talents and energies given to them by God.
  Although I shall not agree with everything said by Labour Members, whether Front Benchers or Back Benchers, and although I shall certainly have questions about certain aspects of the Bill, I do not doubt for a moment the personal commitment of Ministers, nor the sincerity of their intentions in bringing this Bill before Parliament today.
  There is sometimes a temptation on the part of politicians, whichever party is in power, to place a little too much confidence in the power of the law alone to transform things. We do not change attitudes—certainly not in the short term—simply by passing an Act of Parliament. However, I accept that the law has a part to play here.
  I thought that some of the speeches of Labour Members, including that of the Home Secretary, did not make enough mention of the beneficial effect of the traditions of tolerance, respect for diversity and respect for individual freedom that have been characteristic features of British society as it has evolved over recent centuries and which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) talked of in his contribution. The hon. Gentleman said, and I agree, that what has been achieved has been underestimated in some parts of the House. While we should recognise, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) said, that a great deal still remains to be done, we can take legitimate pride in what Britain has done for racial integration in coming to terms in recent decades with the arrival in this country of a large number of people of various ethnic origins.
  Two things are very striking in the debates on immigration and race relations that took place in the 1960s. To some extent, the predictions that a large proportion of the population of British cities would in future be formed from people from ethnic minority communities have been borne out. However, the prophecies that that would result in riots, racial conflict on an unprecedented scale and communal tension that could not be cured have been proved demonstrably false.
  The duty that falls on us as legislators and political leaders is to take forward into a new century the success that previous generations have had. We must build on the success that many British blacks and Asians are making of their lives in the United Kingdom, whether in business, sport, art, literature or even politics. I say in passing that I shall regard it as a happy day, which I confidently expect to come after the next election, when there are black and Asian Britons sitting on the Conservative Benches of the House of Commons as well as on the Labour Benches.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West also warned of the risks of creating a cult of victimhood. I think that he was right to say that although the prime responsibility rests with those who are entrusted with positions of authority and leadership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) also said, the leaders of the ethnic communities also have a responsibility to help to bring about the tolerant and plural society that we wish to see evolve.
  Much has been achieved, but we still face great challenges. The Home Secretary, along with the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for
  1274
  Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), talked of how British society has been influenced and shaped over many centuries by successive waves of immigration to these islands. It is also the case that each wave of immigration has been accompanied by conflict, discrimination and resentment on the part of both the host and the incoming communities. Before I was elected, I spent much time studying the minutes of the Privy Council of the 16th century. In, I think, Essex and Suffolk, there were riots and violence because of the arrival in East Anglian villages of groups of Dutch people fleeing Spanish persecution in the Netherlands. The powers of that age had to deal with that problem, just as we must take account both of successes already achieved and the challenges that remain.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that when a new community comes to live in a host country, one of the inevitable initial problems is language? Does he agree that, as with my grandfather who could not read or write English properly until the end of his life, what really counts is that children and grandchildren of an immigrant community make the effort to integrate with the English language and the English culture? Does he agree that we must pay due attention to the need for incoming communities to adopt the language of the host community?
  Mr. Lidington: We could have a long debate about educational minority support grants and section 11 funding. I agree that fluency in both written and spoken English is an essential passport for many people from new immigrant communities to entering the mainstream of British life. The communities themselves are certainly responsible for that, because they have an interest in taking advantage of opportunities here; but those of us who exercise leadership in politics are responsible for doing all we can to ensure that the opportunity to gain proficiency in the English language is given as soon as possible to those who need help.
  Immense problems remain, as hon. Members on both sides have said. We must be honest about the mistrust of our police forces among British blacks and British Asians, particularly among young men from those communities. I saw that mistrust when I was a candidate for an inner-London seat about a decade ago. It is disturbing, and it merits political action on its own terms. However, mistrust also makes the police less effective in fighting crime, because it means that they are denied information and evidence that they need to secure convictions, including the conviction of those who are terrorising members of the ethnic minority communities themselves.
  I have no doubt that the problem of mistrust of the police among young British blacks and Asians has been worsened by the mishandling of the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence by the Metropolitan police. However, the roots of the problem go deeper than that. They derive in part from the experience of discrimination—perceived and actual—and from a belief that the police, and the white majority, have not taken racial harassment or racial attacks sufficiently seriously. The hon. Member for Bradford, West was unfair in his strictures on the previous Government, who took some steps towards improving the priority given to this problem.

  1275
  The matter was brought home to me only just after my election to this place in 1992. On one of the first occasions that I visited the Aylesbury mosque, I saw some extremely offensive racist graffiti that had been painted on a wall nearby. Yes, they were offensive, and if the wall had been plastered with graffiti about the Conservative party, I should probably have complained and grumbled a bit. Indeed, during the previous Parliament, one might have borne that with a certain amount of equanimity—Labour Members may soon have to learn to do the same.
  However, when I talked to members of the Muslim community in my constituency, I was struck by how the graffiti had taken on tremendous significance—they felt they showed how they were seen by other people in the town. Although I understand that those responsible for that graffiti were caught and convicted, members of the Muslim community felt—rightly or wrongly—that that act made their acceptance within the community of Aylesbury less secure than it had been or than they wanted it to be. For that reason, I came to the view that we have a duty to ensure not only that we understand that racial harassment and racial attacks are evil in themselves, but that they have a profound social effect because they poison community relations in a town or district.
  Sometimes, young people from the ethnic minorities—although not exclusively—receive some brusque treatment from police officers. I shall mention the difficulties of the police later in my speech. However, those of us who make a point of supporting the police also need to bear in mind that the experiences of my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Warwick or the Bishop of Stepney demonstrate that there is a genuine problem, which, to their credit, the police are actively trying to address.
  The other half of the problem is that the police themselves feel beleaguered—especially in London and other great cities. They, too, often go in fear of physical attack or threat. We are rightly offended and ashamed by the fact that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence are still free to swagger around the streets of south London. The grief and sense of loss of Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence can never be assuaged by anything that we do in this place. However, it is also true that the murderers of Keith Blakelock are walking around free somewhere in north London. The people who maimed Richard Coombes and drove him from the career that he loved are still walking free. Their families' suffering can never be assuaged by Act of Parliament.
  The police rightly feel that they have been unfairly traduced in some of the debate consequent on the Macpherson report. A detective constable told me that, on the day the report was published, he had attended Southwark Crown court where he gave evidence as the officer in charge of a case that resulted in a long custodial sentence for a man guilty of racial attacks. The constable said that, even after all the efforts of the Scotland Yard press office, that case merited about two inches somewhere on page 8 of a newspaper. It had taken weeks of painstaking police work and dedication to assemble the evidence to secure that conviction, but that seemed to be of no account in the hurricane of criticism that descended on the force in which he served.
  When we talk about labels such as institutional racism, we should be clear about several points. I am not persuaded that the failures of service experienced by the Lawrence family and other people in that case were exclusive to people in the black community. I know of a
  1276
  fair number of white youths who feel that the police treated them roughly and brusquely when they were stopped. There is a wider problem that the label of institutional racism does not accurately describe.
  As my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) pointed out, the label of institutional racism—whatever the wording in Sir William Macpherson's report—has led, in practice, to a widespread belief among police officers that they have all been branded as racists. Many people think that that is the charge that has been levelled at the Metropolitan police. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said, the last thing that any of us wants is a state of affairs in which the use of the label aggrieves the police, fuels resentment among ethnic communities and brings about the very state of confrontation that we all want to end.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am listening carefully to the balanced approach that the hon. Gentleman is taking—in stark contrast to the speech of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). When I spoke earlier, I suggested that the hon. Gentleman could take the opportunity to repudiate the remarks of the hon. Member for Aldershot. I would be grateful if he would do that.
  Mr. Lidington: I was about to say that I do not agree—I have made that clear in what I have said hitherto—with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said. However, the House would be foolish if it ignored the fact that the opinions that he quite legitimately expressed are shared by many of our fellow citizens. It is right that those arguments should be addressed maturely in debate rather than being simply pilloried and branded, which is not the way forward. He expressed his concerns about the Bill's possible impact on stop and search, and those concerns are shared quite widely by many people who would probably share the principled opposition to racism that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate outlined in his speech.
  One police superintendent told me that he was under great pressure from ethnic community leaders in his patch to reconsider his stop-and-search practices. He had done so, and he found that his officers had indeed stopped a disproportionately large number of people from a particular ethnic minority. However, he then described the difficulty that he faced. When he examined the papers case by case, he discovered that his officers had stopped frequently a relatively small number of people who had been identified through intelligence-led policing as villains who were involved in the type of street crime that stop-and-search techniques are extremely useful in deterring and in helping to secure convictions for. He asked how he was supposed to reconcile good, intelligence-led policing with what he believed were the demands on him to reduce the number of stops to match the ethnic proportions of the population that he served.
  The Home Secretary said—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that such police officers need not worry because other factors to justify stop-and-search should give them legal protection. However, the officer's question needs to be addressed seriously and we shall have the opportunity to consider it in Committee. It is important to guard against the law of unintended consequences.

  1277
  The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) said that it was a great mistake not to have included the whole public sector in the 1976 Act. When I read the Committee proceedings on that Bill, I found it striking that the nature and scope of exclusions from its provisions were barely discussed. It is incumbent on us carefully to consider the detail of the Government's proposals to make sure that we do not end up putting into statute a provision that will have unintended, unwanted consequences.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The whole House would support that point, and I hope that the Standing Committee will do so when it comes to consider the Bill. I underline my hon. Friend's point by stating that four of my middle-aged black friends have been stopped. One, Bill Morris, has not, as far as I know, possibly because he is the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union and has a driver. Bishop John Sentamu, our colleague Lord Taylor, the Liberal peer Lord Dholakia and Neville Lawrence were stopped. I do not know of a single white friend of my age who has been stopped. That is the underlying problem, and an outside audit of what the police do would be helpful to them.
  Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I agree with him.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) called for legal challenges to housing allocation and education policies, and I will want to explore in Committee exactly what the Bill will entail for services other than policing. Lord Bassam said, during debates in another place, that the Government were concerned that a legal challenge on grounds of indirect discrimination could
  potentially include any age-based policy because of the different demographic profiles of different racial groups, and also any regional policy because of the different regional spread of different racial groups.
  He went on to say that
  challenges could be mounted to those policies that are helping individuals from ethnic minority communities the most.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 130.]
  There is a need to explore further the reasons for the Government's change of heart.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the definitions of public bodies and the cost of the proposals. Those, too, are matters that we want to explore. I shall want also to explore further who should carry out investigations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said that if the Bill is to work, our purpose must be not to identify scapegoats but to help and encourage individuals and organisations in the public sector to improve the way in which they apply in practice the commitment to equality of opportunity that already exists on paper and in declared policy.
  When I read the Lawrence report, one of the sentences that I found most striking came near the end, and it was made by the coroner at the inquest into Mr. Lawrence's death. In his concluding remarks, following the jury's verdict, he said:
  We must teach our young, both in the family and in our schools that each individual, regardless of their race, regardless of their colour, regardless of their religion has the right to live peacefully without any fear or intimidation.
  1278
  That is an accurate description of what virtually every Member of the House is committed to.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West, I believe that one of the tests for us is whether in the next two or three generations we see British blacks and Asians in the Cabinet and as High Court judges, chief constables, senior commanders in the armed forces and permanent secretaries of Whitehall Departments, and know that they are there not by extraordinary achievement, but simply as a natural reward for the talent, application and drive of individual British citizens.
  I want a society, and I want my children to grow up in a nation, where everybody, no matter what ethnic or cultural group they originally came from, can not only take pride in their history but feel that they are inheritors of the political, cultural and artistic tradition of Britain, and that at the same time they are helping to play their part in and to shape the future of the mainstream of British life. It is against that objective that I look to test the legislation before us.
  6.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Bill fulfils a commitment to early legislation made by the Government in response to the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. It will significantly improve the ability of members of the public to hold to account public authorities that act in a racially discriminatory manner. It will make a difference. I hope that the Stephen Lawrence case will be seen as a watershed in race relations in Britain, from which we can go forward. The Bill is part of that key process.
  During the debate we heard a number of strong speeches from both sides of the House. Having heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), I am proud that he has decided to join the Labour party. He is very welcome to the party and spoke enormously well on our behalf today.
  There were strong speeches also from my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
  We heard good speeches from the Conservative Benches. I thought that in many ways the best speech of the day was that from the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who made an important contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) also showed that many in the Conservative party support the creation of a successful multicultural Britain. I welcome that.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) let the Conservative party and the House down, with a speech of monumental littleness and saloon bar prejudice. He posed as a defender of the police against race relations legislation, but as a former parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation and as a Home Office Minister, I know that most police officers in Britain would want to dissociate themselves from the hon. Gentleman's speech and his prejudice. They would have been appalled by it, just as I hope that they would have agreed with the comments of the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, the right hon. Member for Fareham.

  1279
  I welcome the support for the Bill from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, which was enthusiastic and principled. I welcome, too, the Tory Front-Bench support, which seemed to be carefully worded. It was the classic approach, particularly the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), supporting the objective and endorsing none of the detail, but picking apart some of the substance. At least, that seemed to be the right hon. Lady's approach. I was pleased to note that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who also speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, adopted a far more positive approach to the Bill and to tackling racism in Britain than she did. The hon. Gentleman taught his right hon. Friend some lessons today about how these issues should be addressed.[Interruption.] It is always nice to sow disunity on the other side. I had hoped for a broader approach. It would have been helpful if we had had a more positive response from the right hon. Lady. It would have sent out from the House a good all-party message, not just to ethnic minorities, but to everyone in our society, that we are determined to make sure that we are a success as a multiracial Britain.
  Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the one disappointing aspect of the summing-up by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was his lack of commitment to the concept of institutional racism? It is crucial that the subtleties of that key concept are well understood in all parts of the House in order to make progress.
  Mr. O'Brien: I agree that that is an important concept, and there has been much misunderstanding of its meaning. If we have time, I shall say a little more about how that misunderstanding has produced some of the problems to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred. Some police officers seem to have misunderstood the concept and construed it as a personal criticism, whereas we are highlighting the failures of an institution. Many of us, including me, are members of an institution that has many failings, although its policy is positively anti-racist. It is possible for an institution to have failings and an anti-racist policy.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with the Minister that the one sadness of debating such issues is that the Conservative party, inside and outside the House, sends mixed messages. Some Conservatives make clear their commitment to an anti-racist Britain, while others appear to pander to prejudice and bigotry. Until the Conservative party sorts that out internally and adopts the enlightened side of the argument, many people will not accept it as a responsible custodian of a multi-racial, equal Britain.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are receiving very mixed messages from the Conservative party. Its mayoral candidate describes as "disgusting" the policy of reintroducing the primary purpose rule that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald retains as an option.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: In a moment. We hear that the right hon. Lady wishes to restore a rule that caused great damage to
  1280
  British families, especially British-Asian families. One of our first actions was to get rid of it. The Conservative mayoral candidate appears to agree with us that its restoration would be a disgrace. Yet the right hon. Lady disowns the views of the mayoral candidate; she wants to keep open the option of reintroducing the primary purpose rule.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady will stand at the Dispatch Box and reassure the people of Britain who come from Asian families that they will not face the appalling, prejudicial primary purpose rule that the previous Government used when the right hon. Lady was a Home Office Minister.
  Miss Widdecombe: I ask the Minister to be a little franker—I believe that that is a parliamentary word—in his description of what Steve Norris said. When he used the words "immoral", "disgusting" and "disgraceful", he was referring to the Minister's proposal to introduce a £10,000 bond for people from selected countries. Steve Norris confirmed to me that that was the context of his remarks. Even before the newspaper report, he had already made those comments about the Minister's bond.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am appalled that the right hon. Lady stood at the Dispatch Box and made no effort to reassure the Asian people of Britain that she would not seek to restore the primary purpose rule. We now know that she wants to reintroduce that appalling rule.
  The Conservative mayoral candidate has not repudiated his remarks in The Times. He said that the Conservative party was proposing to bring back a rule that was enormously offensive. He also said that it was disgusting, immoral and missed the point.
  Miss Widdecombe: Your bond.
  Mr. O'Brien: The report refers to the right hon. Lady's wish to restore the primary purpose rule. She has had every opportunity to deny that wish. I shall give her another. Will she now tell British-Asian families that, if she got the opportunity—I hope she will not—to restore the primary purpose rule, she would not do it?
  Miss Widdecombe: I can tell families in all parts of the community in Britain that our policies will seek to promote good race relations and tackle all abuses of our immigration or asylum systems. The policies that we shall introduce to tackle those abuses will be announced in due course at an appropriate time, not in response to newspaper reports or mischief from the Minister, who is ruining what was hitherto a sensible debate.
  Mr. O'Brien: Once again, Asian British people will note the right hon. Lady's failure. In The Independent on 25 February, she suggested that it was inconceivable that the Conservative party would not promise at the next election to restore the primary purpose rule. We have given her the opportunity to deny that, but now we know.
  Mr. Singh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Lady's comments amount to an accusation that legitimate marriages between people living here and in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are abusive?
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right that the right hon. Lady appears to be besmirching the name of a large number of British Asian families. Will she now—
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: In a moment. Will the right hon. Lady give the commitment that she will not seek to restore the primary purpose rule as Conservative party policy? I ask her once again.
  Miss Widdecombe: I ask the Minister, very straightforwardly—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!] No, no. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) or will he acknowledge that there is some abuse in respect of using marriage as a way into this country? Is there any abuse or not?
  Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that the rules require that marriages be genuine. The primary purpose rule is not about that; it is an anti-family Tory policy.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The provisions to prevent entry through made-up and abusive marriages are powerful, but the primary purpose rule was clearly instituted to prevent genuine marriage in the arranged tradition and therefore discriminated against communities for which that is the way to form families. I urge my hon. Friend to continue to press the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on this matter because it concerns many Asian families in my constituency.
  Mr. O'Brien: It is clear that for many black and Asian people in Britain—many of whom were born here, as were their parents—some Members of the House have a very long way to go to understand that we need to create a proper multi-racial Britain which is fair, which treats families equally and which does not discriminate against people whose families are perhaps in another part of the world.
  Ethnic minorities in this country all too often have to face disproportionate exclusion from many of the better things in British life. They are often disproportionately victims of bad housing and school exclusion and are twice as likely to be unemployed. Their average pay is lower than that of white people, and we will build up problems for the future unless we address discrimination and racism.
  Anti-racism is not about helping black and Asian people; it is about our future—white and black. We all live in a multicultural society and we all have a choice: either we make a success of multicultural Britain or we do not. If we fail to address those issues, our children—white and black—will pay the price of that failure. That is why all of us, white and black, have a vested interest in the Bill and in anti-racism. We must make Britain a success as a multicultural society.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald also asked whether the Government have done a U-turn on indirect discrimination. We have not changed our mind
  1282
  about the desirability of including it in the Bill—we were always in favour of that in principle—but we were concerned about the risks of spurious challenges to Government policy. Having listened carefully to the arguments, we are convinced that the principle of including indirect discrimination outweighs the risks about which we were initially concerned. The Government have been open. We have listened and reflected carefully, which is what the parliamentary process is all about.
  Nor have we changed our mind about the need for a positive statutory duty to promote equality. We set out that commitment in our equality statement of 30 November 1999, before the publication of the Bill. What we are doing now is reinforcing that commitment by enshrining the principle in the Bill, leaving room for consultation on how the duty will operate in practice—as promised in our equality statement.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was worried about the police, and in particular about powers to stop and search. I join her in paying tribute to the police, who do a difficult job. When I was an adviser to the Police Federation, I came to understand very well the difficult work that it does. The Bill will not prevent police officers from carrying out their duties, but it will make it unlawful for them to do so in a manner that discriminates directly on grounds of race.
  Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires officers to have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or may be committed in order to conduct a stop-and-search operation. Under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, officers must have that reasonable belief. Reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief will depend on the circumstances, but there must be some objective basis. A police officer who goes beyond his powers and stops someone, say, solely on the grounds of race, or otherwise treats someone unfavourably on such grounds, could be challenged on the basis of direct discrimination following the enactment of the Bill.
  The Bill will enable discrimination in the use of stop and search to be challenged wherever it is not as a result of the inclusion of indirect discrimination in the Bill. Indirect discrimination is about requirements or conditions with which one racial group is better able to comply than another. In stop and search, no particular requirement or condition is imposed on an individual who is stopped or searched, and, at least, no requirement that cannot be complied with. Indirect discrimination would not apply in that context. The law places the onus on the police officer to have reasonable suspicion or belief to stop and search. Direct discrimination and victimisation, whether witting or unwitting, would apply, and would provide an appropriate remedy.
  Probably the best answer to the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald came from the right hon. Member for Fareham, who said that it would be wrong for the state, which should protect all its citizens, to be allowed to discriminate, in the person of its police officers, against those citizens when the private sector could not do so.
  The Police Federation has come in for criticism on some of the issues, but I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others in saying that Fred Broughton has sought to overcome some of the cautious approach to

  1283
  race relations that characterised comments by the federation in the past. He wants it to be much more open, and hopes that many future members will be black or Asian. That reflects well on him and on the federation.
  The right hon. Member for Fareham said that the police would be harmed if they continued to be outside the Act. I agree: suspicion would continue to multiply. The effectiveness of stop and search, for example, would be discounted when there was no access to the courts if people felt that it was being used inappropriately. I do not think that the extension granted by the Bill will in any way undermine the ability of the police to do their job effectively. Stop and search has already been the subject of criticism.
  In my view, the only legitimate route involves sensible court supervision of the way in which things are done. That will help the police to know where they stand with stop and search. As the right hon. Member for Fareham said, it is socially corrosive when individuals have no remedy for a grievance.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that, before stopping and searching a person, a police officer should ask himself, "Am I doing this for a good cause?" I agree, and I do not think that that applies only to the police. All of us who exercise power in one way or another should ask, "Why are we doing this?". Racism, unwitting or otherwise, undermines the fabric of Britain's multicultural society. I think that the police should join the rest of us in coming within the ambit of the laws that are necessary to protect our society.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West said in a perceptive and well-argued speech, problems can sometimes arise not out of deliberate racism by police officers—in my experience, most police officers are strongly anti-racist—but out of a lack of awareness, an insensitivity that may be unwitting or unintended. In those circumstances, it is right that police officers think carefully about what they do. Our police officers do a wonderful job for us, but, like the rest of us, they have to learn the ways in which to build a stronger multicultural Britain.
  On institutional racism, I have already said that there has been some misunderstanding, partly as a result of journalistic licence and the way in which the measure has been presented. We must be clear: most police officers are certainly not racist. However, some institutions may have problems in terms of the way in which they recruit, promote and deal with people who are from ethnic minorities. They should address those issues. In the provision of their services, they may have disproportionately disadvantaged those with whom they are dealing. Those issues should be dealt with. I agree with the hon. Member for Worthing, West, who said that the police are going through a period of change. It is difficult, but in five years' time they will be through it and will be a much better police force as a result.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood raised one important point. He asked whether I agreed that there should be the same law for the public and private sectors. I do not. Laws should be appropriate to the role, the sector and the circumstances. The public sector, for example, should have a duty to promote equality that goes beyond that of the private sector. Broad principles are good,
  1284
  but they are guides, and should not be applied in all their detail, because they could provide rigidity that does not make for good law making.
  Various questions have been raised in relation to immigration rules and the application of those laws, but I will perhaps be able to deal with those in more detail in Committee.
  The bond scheme has strong support from many people in the Asian community, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. The aim is to deal only with the difficult marginal cases. No one who gets a visa today should have to pay a bond under the scheme that we propose to introduce.
  Britain is a multicultural society. We are not yet a success as a multicultural society; the Stephen Lawrence inquiry teaches us that. The Government are determined to make Britain a beacon to the world as a successful multicultural society. That is a tough challenge for all of us, but it is not an unrealistic challenge because we have come a long way in the past 25 years since the race relations legislation. We benefit from the diversity in our culture and the success of our ethnic minorities in the professions, academia, business and, indeed, politics.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West reminded us, many stories of ethnic minorities in this country are stories of great success. Many ethnic minority people have succeeded and contributed enormously to this country. Britain is stronger because it is a multicultural society, but there is no room for complacency.
  There are problems to be resolved, but the Stephen Lawrence case shows that we are prepared to face up to our problems as a mature democracy and to tackle them. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, we deserve credit for having come a long way since the race relations legislation. Perhaps some need to come a little further. Perhaps we need to pick up the pace in the next few years on many issues, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) said. We will pick up the pace and move forward on an agenda to create a multicultural Britain. The Bill is part of that strategy and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  RACE RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any increase in expenditure of a Minister of the Crown, government department or other public authority which is attributable to complying with any provision made by virtue of the Act; and

  (b) any other increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. McNulty.]

  Question agreed to.

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    EDUCATION
    That the draft Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

    PENSIONS
    That the draft Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Penalties) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    Question agreed to.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Martin Bell: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this most important issue. All hon. Members have a variety of causes and campaigns clamouring for attention—an independent Member has perhaps more than most—but we know that if we take them all up, we will be ineffective on all of them. However, every now and again, a cause comes along that is so just, so right, so compelling and irresistible that it has to be adopted. Such is the case that I speak of today—the case for a one-off British Government gratuity to our heroes: those thousands of still surviving British service men who suffered for so long in Japanese prisoner of war camps.
  Most of them now are in their 80s or 90s, although some of them are still in their 70s. It is therefore not a cause that will wait while intergovernmental consultation goes on in back rooms. The need will fade away, as old soldiers fade away. The Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association has reported the death of 293 of its members in the past calendar year. It may well be that another died today, and that another will die tomorrow. They are dying out by the natural process of attrition.
  I have been drawn to this campaign not only by its urgency and its justice, but by some personal associations for which I make no apology. I was one of the last soldiers to be enlisted in the Suffolk Regiment—the Twelfth of Foot—one of the great infantry line regiments of the British Army. Fifteen years before I joined it, the Suffolk Regiment had two battalions—the Fourth and the Fifth—in Singapore, when Singapore fell. Of the Fourth Battalion, 286 men died in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Of the Fifth Battalion, 271 men died. There was a similar terrible death toll among the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Battalions of the Royal Norfolk Regiment and the First and Second Battalions of the Cambridgeshire Regiment, which made up the Eighteenth East Anglian Division.
  There is not a community in my native East Anglia that has not been touched in some way by that. We remember it, as do so many communities in the north-west, part of which I now represent. On 24 June, I shall be leaving my constituency early to attend a reunion of 300 of those grand old soldiers, who belong to the South Suffolk Association. I very much hope that I shall be able to join them and congratulate them on the successful conclusion of this campaign. It is a campaign of great importance.
  More than 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese, mostly in Singapore, but others after naval engagements, in 1942. Of those 50,000, almost a quarter were killed or died in captivity. Many were executed in cold blood in the act of surrendering. I shall return later in my speech to deal with the conditions of captivity, as that it is an important part of the case for special treatment.
  So far as is known, there are now 7,335 surviving British far east prisoners of war. With 3,300 widows, that comes to a little over 10,600 people whom we believe should qualify for compensation.

  1287
  The case was taken up by the Royal British Legion last autumn, and this is the first time that we have been able to make the case in the House of Commons. The campaign has the open and declared support of 328 Members of Parliament—almost exactly half the membership of the House. Earlier this year, a delegation from the Legion met the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), as did a parliamentary delegation composed of the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and me.
  We found the Minister sympathetic, but the case calls for very much more than sympathy. It calls for active intervention. We now believe that our pleas for justice—for it is justice—and the case of the old soldiers themselves are being heard in No. 10 Downing street. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will provide those necessary assurances.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman will know of my longstanding interest in the matter. I agree that the case that he is making is now absolutely compelling. In April 1998, the late Derek Fatchett, who was then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that the Government would no longer be pressing the Japanese Government to meet their moral responsibilities. However, have not the Isle of Man and Canada said that, if the United Kingdom Government will not press the Japanese on the issue, they themselves will step into the breach?
  Mr. Bell: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Such action from the Government would draw the acclamation not just of the entire House, but of the entire country.
  It has been argued that compensation should properly be a matter not for the British, but for the Japanese Government. So it should have been. Japan made a compensation payment in 1952, following the 1951 treaty of San Francisco with the United Kingdom and other countries. That compensation payment was £76 per veteran. Not only was that sum trivial, knowing what we know now of the treatment of those men, it was insulting. It was made from the sequestered Japanese assets in this country.
  New evidence has since come to light that the British Government failed in their duty in 1955 when they decided not to take advantage of an article of the San Francisco treaty that would have provided for further claims if Japan had concluded more advantageous arrangements with other countries. Lord Reading's reasoning at that time is now in the public domain. In a footnote, he stated:
  We are at present unpopular enough with the Japanese without trying to exert further pressure, which would be likely to cause the maximum resentment for the minimum advantage.
  Hon. Members might care to think about the diplomatic cast of mind that such a comment represents—a triumph of expediency over principle that has been the curse of our diplomacy down the ages.
  So it was that the far east prisoners of war were abandoned by the Government of that time and left to do what they could through the Japanese courts by their own actions and at their own expense. It cost a lot of money, took a lot of time and was not successful. Time was not on our side. All that the Japanese had to do was nothing and the problem would conveniently fade away.
  1288
  It therefore seems to me and to the old soldiers that the one Government to which they can reasonably turn for help is their own. The case for gratuity payments is strong and there are precedents. One comes from the United States. The American Government agreed in 1989 to pay a $20,000 gratuity to each of the citizens of Japanese origin who had been interned—in extremely benign circumstances—in the United States during the second world war. The other precedent comes from Canada. Fifteen months ago the Canadian Government announced that they would pay compensation to their former far east prisoners of war at the rate of 18 Canadian dollars a day for each day of captivity, up to a maximum of 24,000 dollars. The Ministers announcing those payments said that the issue had gone on too long and that the time had come to do the right thing. If that was the case for Canadian veterans then, how much more so is it the case for ours after the further passage of time?
  This is not a poor country—it is one of the richest in the world. We live in peace and prosperity—a situation that has, to a large extent, been bought by the sacrifices of those who served and suffered. Nowhere were those sacrifices greater than in the Japanese prison camps. The death rate was higher there than in any other theatre of war, including the Normandy landings. I respectfully argue that it is payback time—indeed, it is beyond payback time.
  If compensation is paid to former prisoners of war of the Japanese, an objection may be raised that the former prisoners of war of the Germans should also receive something. I believe that the British people, including those who were held in German prisoner of war camps, accept that the cases are different. The Japanese behaved with consistent brutality and disregard of the Geneva conventions, which the Germans, on the whole, did not. The declining band of forgotten heroes, the former far east prisoners of war, are a special case. The survival of each one of them is a miracle.
  I have here some letters sent from German and Italian prisoner of war camps to my father, Adrian Bell, who wrote a book called "Corduroy", which many soldiers carried in their kit bags, because he wrote of a peace in England and a farming way of life to which they wanted to return. Those who wrote those letters knew that they would return. Their repatriation was all but sure. He never got a letter from a Japanese prisoner of war camp and neither did anyone else. The Geneva conventions were not observed. The Red Cross was kept out. People died, people were killed and there were war crimes every day.
  From time to time I have spoken in the House about the peace and security that we enjoy in this country and how little we understand the nature of modern warfare. How much less do we understand the nature of what happened to them and how they suffered, yet the documentation is there.
  I have here the testimony of one of them, Harold Lock of Sudbury in Suffolk, in a pamphlet called "The Forgotten Men". He was 15 when he joined the Royal Navy, and not much older when the destroyer on which he served, HMS Jupiter, was sunk in the battle of the Java sea and he was lucky to struggle to shore with a companion. The Japanese soldiers made them dig their

  1289
  own graves and they were just about to be executed when they were saved by an English speaking officer. He writes in his book of what they went through:
  Four prisoners made a bid to escape, but were reported to the Japanese by some natives from whom they tried to get a boat. They were brought back to the camp and shot. We were all assembled to witness this barbaric act, but no one showed any emotion. Death had become commonplace, and we were getting like robots, all feelings disappearing except the desire to cling to life. It is strange how precious everything seems when you are on the verge of death as most of us were.
  For three and a half years those who survived were treated like that, facing the imminent prospect of death at all times. It is difficult for people who have not been close to death to know how that affects people. Those who could not work died. Those who could worked on in vermin-ridden rags. All of them, I believe, were marked for life. To come through such an experience was like living a nightmare for the rest of their lives.
  One of the service organisations that I support is Combat Stress, the ex-services mental welfare society, which recognises that long after the body has recovered from such an ordeal, the mind has not. No one suffered more than the thousands of British who were ill-treated by the Japanese.
  It is remarkable how cheerful so many of them are, how normal they seem and how slow they have been to campaign for themselves. They are the very reverse of whingeing campaigners. To some extent, we owe it to them to campaign for them.
  It is my view that in our lives, especially our parliamentary careers, however long or short they may be—and mine will be shorter—we have the choice between making a difference and filling a space. We can make a difference and the Government can make a magnificent difference, if they will. The opportunity is there and the case is strong. We are asking not for generosity, but for justice. I know that this cause will be supported by people across the country and on both sides of the House and I trust that we shall get a result very quickly.
  Finally, it is hard for us, who live in such a peaceful time, to pay this debt of honour, but we owe it to some of the finest gentlemen who ever served under our flag. I urge the Government to help them in the evening of their lives and to pay this debt.
  7.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing a debate on such an important issue—one with which all hon. Members feel sympathy. It is an indication of the interest in it that the attendance is rather larger than one would expect, even at 7 pm on a Thursday.
  I should apologise to the House as I am wearing an old pair of glasses and find it difficult to see the brief, which is slightly too far away from me.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: My hon. Friend needs a good optician.
  Dr. Moonie: Indeed I do. I also need not to sit on my glasses.
  1290
  The question of compensation for those held as prisoners of war in the far east during the second world war is one in which a number of Departments are concerned and my reply today covers issues that also fall within the responsibility of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.
  Just over 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese, many after the fall of Hong Kong and the subsequent fall of Singapore in late 1941 and early 1942. Commonwealth service men fighting with them were also captured. For example, the Canadians had more than 1,600 men captured in Hong Kong and the Australians more than 18,000 in Malaya, Singapore, Java and Sumatra.
  The treatment of prisoners of war was governed at the time by the 1929 Geneva convention. Japan had not ratified it, but said that it would, in general, recognise its provisions. However, as we know, it did not do so.
  The prisoners of war were held in camps throughout the far east, and while conditions and the availability of the relief supplies that we sent varied considerably between those camps, even the best were harsh. The work that the prisoners had to undertake, together with poor nutrition, and the sometimes brutal ill-treatment, which was so graphically described by the hon. Gentleman, all combined to take their toll of the prisoners, some 25 per cent. of whom did not survive their captivity.
  As a safeguard to the prisoners of war, the Japanese should have permitted inspection visits by the protecting power and the Red Cross. In many areas that was refused and even where, with considerable obstructions, visits were permitted, little could be achieved. That avenue, which in Europe produced improvements in the conditions and treatment of prisoners of war in a number of cases, achieved little for those held in the far east.
  The British Government were, however, able to make the point strongly that the ill-treatment of the POWs was unacceptable. That was done by means of war crimes trials and, through the Tokyo trials, a number of those held responsible for the ill-treatment of POWs were brought to justice for their crimes.
  Uniquely among British POWs, the far east POWs received some compensation after the war for their ill-treatment. They received it from their captors under the terms of the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. They also received the money that the British Government received under the treaty and that they decided to distribute to the POWs and to British civilian internees. The question has been raised many times of the possibility of reopening the peace treaty to seek a higher level of compensation. That is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I will say that the Government, having examined the position most carefully, accept the legal advice that the peace treaty is closed and cannot now be reopened.
  There have also been calls for an inquiry to be set up into the perceived failure of the then Conservative Government to invoke article 26 of the treaty and seek more compensation on the grounds that other countries had signed more favourable agreements. However, the records, which have been publicly available for many years, show that that decision was not taken solely because of the weak position of the Japanese economy at that time and the wish, which was in Britain's interest,

  1291
  to see it recover. It was also very much influenced by the fact that it was extremely difficult to ascertain what, if any, additional benefits this country would in practice be entitled to and what their worth might be. It is by no means clear, had the treaty been re-opened, that the British Government would have received any additional funds with which to provide compensation. Furthermore, there is no basis on which to reopen the issue of compensation for the far east POWs, because Japan signed no subsequent agreements conferring greater benefits upon the POWs of other countries than those awarded under the treaty.
  The Government are very much aware of the depth of feeling that the ill-treatment of the far east POWs continues to evoke and we continue to raise the issue with the Japanese Government and to seek ways to build reconciliation as a means of helping to overcome the past.
  At the end of the war, the pressure and support for compensation for the far east POWs was strong. The then Government suggested that the funds likely to be realised under the treaty should be shared on the basis of giving most to those who had suffered most. However, the representatives of the far east POWs wanted a simple per capita distribution, accepting that that might mean only small individual payments.
  Those speaking on behalf of the POWs made it clear in the House that in establishing the principle of compensation from the captor, they made no claim of any sort on the British taxpayer. Brigadier Smythe, a leading champion for the cause of the POWs in the House said that on no account would they accept money from the British taxpayer. He went on:
  The important thing about this claim is its moral principle. The Far Eastern prisoners of war do not mind so much about the money side as they do that the principle should be established that no nation shall treat the nationals of another when they have them in captivity as the Japanese treated our men.—[Official Report, 10 May 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2226.]
  It is clear from the views now being expressed on behalf of the far east POWs and their widows that that belief has now changed. They are seeking what is termed an "ex-gratia gratuity" from the British Government, and thus the British taxpayer. In essence, such a gratuity would be compensation.
  It is a policy of long standing that British Governments do not make compensation payments to those who have been prisoners of war on account of their imprisonment. There are many risks implicit for those engaged in conflict and the risk of being captured is sadly one of them. It is unrealistic to suppose that Governments could effectively insure individuals against that risk. Terrible through the conditions suffered by the far east POWs were, it is unrealistic to think that it would be possible to ring-fence just that one group of POWs.
  Mr. Bell: I wonder if the Minister actually believes what he is reading.
  Dr. Moonie: Yes—otherwise I would not be reading it.
  Objective decisions about degrees of suffering many years ago are impossible, and many thousands of other former prisoners of war who also suffered harsh conditions will be watching the outcome of the Royal British Legion's campaign with much interest.
  The arguments that have been put forward in support of the claim have of course been considered, and considered with sympathy and care. We are well aware of
  1292
  the payments, for example, that the Canadian Government have decided to make to that country's far eastern prisoners of war, which amount to some £10,000 for each individual. Many comparisons are made with the treatment of prisoners of war elsewhere, and with money received by other groups; we do not accept that that alters our position.
  British forces served throughout the world in the 20th century in two world wars, and in many other conflicts. Of course, they are still serving. For all of them, that service has involved risk and, for many—whether captured or not—it has involved difficult, dangerous and harsh conditions. Some have given their lives; others have received wounds and suffered illness.
  The sufferings and needs of all those who are disabled as a result of their service—including any period of captivity—are addressed primarily through the provision by the Department of Social Security of war pensions. The dependants of those who died during their service, or whose subsequent deaths can be linked to their service, are supported through war pensions.
  The service men themselves, in some cases, have received war pensions since the time of their leaving the forces; in other cases, where their disabilities have become apparent or worsened later in life, they have received war pensions or increased benefits at that stage. It is our aim in this country to target the resources available to help those whose service-related disabilities are the greatest, awarding pensions in proportion to those disabilities.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On behalf of the House, may I say that we recognise that the Minister replying to these debates does not necessarily give his personal view, but states what the Government have so far not agreed to do? Will he consider what the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has said in terms of giving recognition, rather than compensation? How is the Government's view different from that of Canada? Did the Canadian Government say that there was something unique about the experience, or did they say that they would have to take this action everywhere? If other Governments do not have to do so everywhere, this Government might do what the previous Government failed to do, which is to provide that recognition.
  Dr. Moonie: I can speak only for this Government and our views, and not for the views of the Canadian Government or the deliberations that went on prior to their decision. That is a matter for them.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Cannot the Minister recognise the difference between prisoners of war and prisoners who have been the victims of war crimes? We give compensation to victims of crime. Why not give compensation to victims of war crimes?
  Dr. Moonie: I have been making the point that there was a wide variety of suffering in many circumstances in prisoner of war camps, not only in the far east. It would be invidious to single out one group for special treatment.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Moonie: I shall not give way. I must make progress or I will be unable to say what I intend to say. If it becomes apparent that I can give way, I will be happy to do so later.

  1293
  I should stress that anybody whose health has suffered as a result of being a prisoner of war, or the dependants of those who have died for that reason, is entitled now to lodge a claim for a war pension or a war widow's pension.
  It is still possible to lodge a claim where health problems emerge many years after leaving the service, or to ask for a war pension to be reviewed where the health of the recipient has deteriorated. That is what we mean when we say that we are targeting resources on need.
  The special health needs and problems of the far eastern prisoners of war are also recognised in the provision for them of special tropical disease investigations, so that problems that might not otherwise be recognised as relating to their military service can be picked up. The national health service provides free health care in this country, whereas a number of other countries do not make the same provision. However, there is an extra benefit for veterans here, in that they receive priority over others with the same clinical priority for NHS treatment of their problem, or of the condition for which they receive a war pension.
  As I have said, it is not, and has not been, the policy of successive Governments to make across-the-board compensation payments. We prefer to target our resources on those suffering disablement as a result of their service. The Government do not feel, after careful thought, that to depart from this long-standing policy would be justified as being the right or the fair way forward.
  Mr. David Heath: The Minister must realise that his answer will deeply disappoint the enormous number of people who recognise that a unique barbarity was visited on the far eastern prisoners of war. Should not that have been recognised by the successive
  1294
  Governments who have failed those prisoners of war by not obtaining compensation from the Japanese? Is not that a job now for this Government?
  Dr. Moonie: Yes, I do recognise that. However, I believe that our policy is right. Although it produces disappointment, I will stand by it.
  Mr. Nicholls: If the Minister feels as badly about having to make his speech as we do about having to listen to it, he should realise that it would make a great resignation speech in a moment or two.
  I have done a lot of work with the national association representing former prisoners of war, and have met a great many men who were prisoners of the Germans. Some were confined in harsh conditions, but I have never met any prisoners of war from the German theatre who say that they would want part of any compensation that might be given to prisoners of war from the far east theatre. They recognise what the Minister does not—that the circumstances of the far eastern prisoners of war are unique. Given the strength of feeling expressed even in this short debate, will he not agree to reconsider the matter? If this is really to be the last word on the matter, listening to it has been a distressing experience.
  Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman brings his peculiarly repellant personality to a very important issue.
  We welcome the chance to continue discussions with the Royal British Legion about other ways to look after the special needs of the far eastern prisoners of war. I am therefore pleased to say that I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are to meet Legion representatives in April, and that we will discuss the matter fully with them.
  However, I must repeat that the Government have concluded that it would not be right to change the policy on the matter of compensation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Work-Life Balance
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): It is appropriate to have a debate on work-life balance following a night on which many of us stayed up very late in the House. No doubt some hon. Members will refer to that later.
In the wider context, this is an issue whose time has come. Achieving a good balance between work and the rest of our lives is central to the agenda of the Government, and to that of the British public. For the Government, economic success and social inclusion are not two conflicting aspirations, but inextricably linked objectives. Economic prosperity depends on our ability to harness our most valuable resources—the skills of our people—and businesses need to recruit and retain the best people that they can get. If businesses are to be globally competitive and responsive to changing consumer demands, they need to operate flexible working hours, which often involve 24-hour working.
Social inclusion depends on ensuring that work, for those who can, is the best route out of poverty and exclusion. Strong families help children to flourish, which means that parents need time to spend with their children. Flexible working practices support a better balance between work and life. They help businesses to operate flexibly, to recruit from the widest pool of talent and to retain their best people. At the same time, they help individuals to stay in, or return to, the workplace and juggle the competing demands on their lives. That is a win-win agenda, which enhances profitability and competitiveness for business at the same time as enhancing the quality of life for individuals. Our policies are grounded in businesses pursuing their business interests, enabling us to support families, communities and individuals in developing their strengths.
Work-life balance is not only about mothers and children. It is also important for fathers, who should be able to spend more time with their children, and for the changing circumstances in which people find themselves: for example, increasing numbers of people have to look after elderly, sick and disabled relatives, and need time in which to do so. Everybody wants a life outside work. As Members of Parliament, we recognise that as much as, if not more than, others. People may want to play sport, take an evening class, or put something back into their community. The policy is not only about fewer working hours—it can be about working in different ways, at different times, or in different places.
The issue has been driven by the increasing inclusion of women in the labour market. The statistics are stark: in 1971, women comprised about 38 per cent. of the
232WH
work force; now, they comprise more than half the work force. Interestingly, the number of women with children under five who are active in the labour market has increased rapidly: in 1998, 36 per cent. of such women worked; now, more than 50 per cent. work. Another interesting statistic relates to women who return to work after pregnancy: in 1979, about one in four women who became pregnant while in employment returned to work within nine months of giving birth; now, two out of three return to work within that time. Many women still work part time: 40 per cent. are part-time workers, compared with 8 per cent. of men. Nevertheless, their activity in the labour market has helped to drive the change in work-life balance practices.
It is of interest to the Government that lone mothers are less active than partnered mothers: a third of partnered mothers are not active in the labour market, whereas half of lone mothers are not active. That is largely because we do not have the right work-life balance and flexible working practices to enable lone parents in particular to juggle competing demands.
Women's entering and remaining in the workplace is a change that has driven interest in work-life balance issues, but as I said, men are also involved. Britain has a long hours culture, and our men work the longest hours in Europe: half the 7 million male workers in the European Union who work more than 48 hours a week live in Great Britain. That is bad for families but, as is increasingly being recognised, it also create stress in the workplace, which impacts on companies' bottom line. The Confederation of British Industry has recently calculated that stress costs business about £7 billion a year. The shocking conclusion of a survey undertaken in 1999 was that the quality of the working life of 86 per cent. of managers had an adverse impact on their relationship with their children. We know that the role of fathers in supporting and caring for young children is crucial in ensuring that they grow up to be effective adults. That fact is staring us in the face and the time has come to do something about it.
As I said, the question is not merely one of parenting, but of the growing responsibility to care for relatives. In 1997, there were 8 million people in Britain aged over 65; in 20 years time, that figure will have increased to 11 million. As people live longer, they will need to be cared for by relatives. Two thirds of carers are in paid employment, but one in five care for elderly, sick or disabled relatives for more than 20 hours a week. If they are to provide appropriate care, striking a proper balance between work and life is essential. That is important for relatives and in terms of public expenditure. Informal caring networks would be better, not only for the elderly, sick and disabled, but for society.
There is another dimension to this debate. I have responsibility for trying to break down the massive barriers to disabled people's participation in the labour market. Disabled people are half as likely to be active in the labour market as non-disabled people, and those who are active are twice as likely to be unemployed. Six times as many disabled people are dependent on benefits as non-disabled people. One way to break down those barriers is to achieve greater flexibility in the workplace, so that disabled people can get themselves off benefit, participate in work, work hours appropriate to their

233WH
particular disability, improve their quality of life and feel that they are valued and important members of society.
Those are the groups of people for whom work-life balance matters most, but it matters to everybody: we all want a life. My own children are beginning to enter the labour market, and they are less likely to tolerate the inflexibility in the workplace that I tolerated when I first went into work. They want time to do other things. If employers are to attract and retain the best people, they must ensure greater flexibility in the workplace.
We have today launched a number of initiatives to make work-life balance issues central to the concerns of business and the political agenda, and to open the debate on changing our behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I launched at Downing street this morning a business-led alliance, in which more than 20 leading businesses have come together. They have an interest in the issues, they all have good stories to tell about the way in which they have changed their working practices to the advantage of their business and their employees, and they will use the strength of the alliance to persuade other businesses of the case for a better balance between work and the rest of people's lives. At present, only one in 20 businesses offers the full range of flexible working practices essential to an improvement in work-life balance. We must improve that figure.
We have agreed with the alliance a set of principles, which we have set out in a discussion document published today called "Changing Patterns in a Changing World". I hope that all hon. Members will obtain and read a copy of that report, and give the Department their views on our initiatives to change work-life balance practices in this country. The principles underpin our philosophy. Work-life balance is about bringing benefits to industry and employees. We do not say that one working pattern is better than any other: flexibility means different things to different people. We want businesses, individuals and organisations to value the contribution that their employees make to the business, not focus on their working pattern. The initiative is not necessarily about working less. It may be about how people work, through job sharing, part-time working or term-time working; when they work, through systems of compressed hours, annualised hours or flexi-time; or where they work—home working is now more feasible, with the rapid improvements in information technology.
I hope that the business alliance will be an effective lever for change. I have no doubt that asking business to promote a culture change in the way in which organisations work is the best way to achieve real change in our working practices. As a Government, we want to work in partnership with that business-led alliance. We have a coherent strategy across government. We now have a basic framework of rights, a legislative settlement that will enable people to balance their work and the rest of their life better, with enhanced maternity rights and maternity leave and the benefits of the parental leave directive and the part-time directive, which is about to be introduced. We have introduced a series of fiscal measures, which also support a better
234WH
balance between work and the rest of one's life. The two that I draw to hon. Members' attention are the recent massive increase in child benefit and the introduction of working families tax credit and child care tax credit.
We are putting in place a supporting infrastructure that will enable individuals to balance work and the rest of their life better. In my Department, I am responsible for rolling out the national child care strategy and the early years education strategy. That is an £8 billion programme, to be implemented during the current comprehensive spending review period, which will enable parents to have high-quality and affordable child care and so allow them to choose between the children that they love and the jobs that they need.
Dr. Evan Harris: Before the Minister moves off the question of Government action—much of which is welcome—will she clarify the parental leave arrangements? Is she confident that in this country unpaid parental leave— unlike that in most other European countries, where an element of pay or benefit is attached— will allow low-income parents to take time off under the European directive, or will that option be open only to richer parents?
Ms Hodge: Not all European countries provide paid parental leave. We will have to test how well the new move works.
I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman, the first of which is that low-income families will be entitled to all of the other benefits through income support if they take time off. Secondly, as other parents in this Chamber will agree, the impact of child care responsibilities on the work-life balance does not stop at the age of five. In an odd way, the early years of a child's life are slightly easier because parents can organise their child's response to them from the moment that they come home. The child swiftly switches on to the parent, allowing the parent to give quality child care. I have had more difficulty with my four children as they have grown older and become teenagers. When I come home from work and am ready to spend time with them, they are busy watching "EastEnders" and "Coronation Street". When they do need me, I am tied up in a debate in the House.
My best work-life balance practice has been to carry my pager. It is not how I receive messages from Millbank, but how I receive instant messages from my children, saying "Ring home". My funniest story about that dates from the period in which the Labour party were in opposition. I had managed to secure a place behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, during Prime Minister's Question Time, and I was feeling quite pleased with myself, but then my pager went off: it was an urgent message, saying, "Ring home. Desperate to talk to you." I rushed out of the Chamber, thus losing my place, and rang home, thinking "What on earth has happened?" I found that my daughter was testing my pager to see whether it would go off, or whether I had set it to vibrate.
I was talking about the support infrastructure. If we are serious about this matter, we must lead by example. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given

235WH
Baroness Jay, the Leader of the House of Lords and Minister for Women, the responsibility to examine how better work-life balance policies could be introduced across the public sector. As a provider of services, we should also ensure that we enable people to balance their lives. As other hon. Members will readily understand, one of the worst problems a parent faces is trying to fit in a dentist's or doctor's appointment around one's working life. Flexibility in public services is as important as flexibility in employment practices.
Further announcements were made by the Government today. Employers for Work-Life Balance, the business-led alliance, will work over the coming year to achieve our shared aim. As I said, we have agreed a set of principles, about which I am delighted. Those principles are set out in our document and in the one launched today by the business alliance, in which it sets out its action plan. That plan includes the establishment of a website, which I believe went live today, and a telephone information line. The alliance will also work on accreditation for work-life balance issues in the Investors in People standard. It plans to produce an employers' manual, as well as a guide specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises, and it will hold a series of seminars. Its work will complement ours. We have produced the document to which I have referred today, and I hope that that will encourage debate. I also hope that hon. Members will respond, not only by supporting our ideas, but by suggesting others that the Government might pursue.
I have also announced today a new challenge fund, for which my Department will set aside £1.5 million over two years. This is the first time that the Government have put money aside to support changes in work-life balance policies. The money will provide free consultancy advice to businesses—large and small, in all sectors and across the regions—to make them think about how they organise their work, and about whether that work could be organised in a different way so as to support a better work-life balance. The Government are to become involved in a series of awards in conjunction with Lloyds TSB. We already have the employer of the year awards, but they are national awards, and we hope to have regional awards as well.
My Department will also invest in a new telephone helpline, called Equality Direct—a signposting service, which will provide detailed and comprehensive advice on work-life balance issues, among others, to support employers as they examine paticular problems. If an employee comes to work one day and says that her mother has had a heart attack, or that there has been some other change in her circumstances, that service will support the employer in working through the problem. We shall provide clear, simple information, advice and guidance, and supplement the telephone line that the employers alliance is setting up.
We shall sponsor conferences around the country to discuss these issues, and, most importantly, sponsor a great deal of research. There is to be a baseline study, the results of which will be announced this autumn, which will give us some idea of where our business practices currently stand. We shall follow that up with a study, two or three years hence, to see what impact our campaign has had.
236WH
We shall also sponsor other research projects, because using examples of good practice is a key lever in encouraging businesses to think about what they are doing. For example, we have supported a project undertaken by Lucy Cavendish college, Cambridge, which is working with two companies—Marks and Spencer and GEC Marconi—to reconfigure their working practices. It will then compare the results with the practices of two companies in the United States. That will provide interesting analysis and comparisons.
These policies are not about altruism, but about sheer common sense and business interest. They require people who have the imagination to think about the world of work as it is today and as it will be tomorrow, rather than those who are stuck in the world of work of the past. There is a growing array of good practice in the community, and I shall give some examples. Asda did a very simple thing: it found that many of its women staff were leaving at the end of the school summer term because they had to look after their children during the holidays, so it introduced an unpaid six-week leave during the holidays. The company found that the women stayed, and so saved itself £1 million overnight in recruitment costs.
Asda is a big business, but there is a small business in Norfolk called Listawood, which produces mouse mats. It started up in 1987, has a growth rate of 36 per cent. a year, and now employs 100 people. Located in rural Norfolk, it needed to employ local people, mainly women, but found that the women could not balance their work and home lives. The company, by introducing an evening shift from 6 to 10 o'clock during the school holidays, has achieved a massive growth rate.
The Nationwide building society now has 30 per cent. of its staff working part time. Bristol city council undertook an interesting exercise with its workers, who had approached it to say that they could not stand the existing working practices any longer. They worked out in partnership how to reconfigure working practices and ended up with practices which suited individuals better and which allowed the authority to open its libraries on a Sunday. Both the services that were offered and individuals' quality of life were thus improved.
I have given four examples, but many more are contained in the documents. We shall seek to spread good practice through those exemplars. We need to develop working practices for the present and the future, not the past. If we can make progress in this regard, we shall achieve the economic prosperity and success to which we aspire and create a more inclusive society that allows us to give better support to our families.
2.55 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I greatly appreciate the fact that so many hon. Gentlemen are present for this debate. It would be a mistake to think that the work-life balance is only a woman's problem.
The work-life balance involves the pace of cultural change, which was discussed yesterday by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) when she introduced her ten-minute Bill. She said that the pace of cultural change was too slow in relation to political power sharing. It can be difficult to achieve a life-work balance because the pace of cultural change is slow. I shall pursue the line of inquiry to which the

237WH
Minister referred, namely, whether we as a nation have a cultural problem. I draw to the Minister's attention an international global work force management study carried out by Gemini Consulting. It states:
When asked which attributes are most important in their working life, respondents from all major geographic areas selected "balance the needs of work and family or personal life" as one of their top three choices. The strength of feeling was strongest in Japan—26.0 per cent. selected balance as the most important attribute in a job, followed by Continental Europe—21.0 per cent., the United States—20 per cent. and then the United Kingdom—19.0 per cent. Only Russia placed balance down the scale—12.0 per cent. of respondents in Russia chose balance compared with 47.0 per cent. who would opt for a good salary above all else.
I am sure that hon. Members understand who so many Russians rate a good salary so highly. None the less, the study reveals much about our cultural attitudes towards the work-life balance. Changes in this respect will benefit men and women.
As the Minister said, people in this country work some of the longest hours, and we have some of the least imaginative approaches to child care and employment policies. Change is needed. Women declare themselves more vociferously than men do, often because they feel that they shoulder much more of the burden of domestic duties and caring responsibilities, even when they are in full-time work.
A delightful article that appeared on the BBC Online Network had the headline "Women still tied to kitchen sink". It reported a survey of men's and women's attitudes, and it found that
women spend twice as much time cooking as men, five times as long cleaning the house, and—
apparently—
eight times as long doing the laundry.
The survey did report some balance:
At least when it comes to doing repairs around the house, men come out on top, with 25 per cent. of couples saying that the man always gets lumbered with unblocking the sink.
The struggle to cope with the diverse responsibilities that women and carers shoulder is one of the causes of stress among the British work force.
The article continues:
despite the advance of women in the workplace the woman's role in the home has not changed so dramatically from that of her mother—it is still the woman in a partnership who usually has the major responsibility for household chores.
The Beijing plus five conclusions make interesting reading five years after the Beijing meeting. One of the conclusions on education is:
boys are not taught at school to share responsibility for household chores and childcare, so women still do 70 per cent. of the housework when they grow up.
As a nation, we shall have to consider cultural change.
A key to helping men and women in caring roles, especially those who care for young children, is to do more to provide high-quality, accessible child care. Let me make it clear that we share that objective with the Government. However, I want to refer to what the Minister said about provision of child care places. The Government made a pledge in their annual report for 1988–99 to provide up to 1 million new child care places,
238WH
and that pledge was repeated in the document produced by the women's unit, "Working for women at the heart of Government", in which the Government said that they would provide 1 million child care places over the next four years.
I am a little concerned by what the Minister said about the increasing number of child care places, because the most up-to-date information available to the Opposition, which comes from the House of Commons Library, shows that child care provision fell by 47,248 places last year. Those figures were discussed in a debate in this Chamber on 16 December and were not refuted by the Government then. The Government should be careful about making claims about an expansion in child care places when that might not have occurred. During that debate, we heard that there had been an increase in the number of child care places in what the Minister called "certain settings" and a decline in the number of places in other settings. It is undoubtedly in the more informal environments, particularly playgroups, that the number of places has diminished. Up to 150,000 places have been lost without being counterbalanced by provision in other settings.
In the Government's review of child care provision, which was published under the title "Tomorrow's Children", reasons were given for the closure of preschool playgroups. It is important to read the conclusions of the review because I feel strongly that those matters are not being fully addressed, with the result that places are still being lost. The review states that many groups struggle under what is perceived to be an excessive administrative burden, and that was reflected in the evidence collected by the consultants and widely reported. Playgroups face an excessive administrative burden, and it is possible that recent policies and developments have increased the burden and cost of regulation that they face. I know from my constituency, where two such groups have closed, that that acted as a disincentive to continuing.
I am not saying that additional child care places have not been provided in other settings, but there is a big contrast between a class of 30-plus for nursery provision and a small, informal playgroup where six or fewer children may be catered for. It is important to retain choice in quality of provision, because it is a case of horses for courses. Those of us who have children know that some are bolder than others in large groups, and that shyer children thrive in a smaller, more intimate environment. Statistics show a rise to more than 30 children in nursery classes, which runs contrary to the Government's pledge to limit class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30. Children in that age range need a good ratio of teachers to children. Parents who work need to be satisfied that while they are at work their children have the best available care and are not struggling in an oversized class. They do not want to worry about their local playgroup closing or have to think about where else they can get their children in.
Child care costs money: that is part of the equation for all parents who weigh up the work-life balance. In marginal circumstances, where work is poorly paid, sometimes it barely pays to obtain child care because the weekly take-home pay after paying for it leaves the parent wondering whether it is worth while. I accept that the working families tax credit is designed to provide help with the cost of child care, especially for lone

239WH
parents; but, unfortunately, it penalises two-parent, single-earner families because, unlike lone parents, they do not qualify for the child care tax credit. It is a couple's choice: if they have both been in work before starting a family, and one parent decides to stay at home as the carer, there is usually a considerable financial knock to their domestic circumstances. It therefore seems harsh to members of my party that they are excluded from child care tax credit, especially as no real account is taken of the cost of rearing a child at home, which is exactly the same as for a lone-parent family.
The American experience has shown that the result can be more family break-ups. It is also a perverse incentive, in that making the child care element of the working families tax credit unavailable to two-parent, one-earner families could encourage people to divorce, or not to formalise their relationship, so that they can continue to receive the tax credits. We should like the Government to revisit those elements.
We feel strongly that helping parents with the work-life balance must not be too prescriptive. There are different attitudes to balancing this important stage of life. Some parents are entirely fulfilled by remaining at home with their children because they see it as a responsible job. It is just unfortunate that that role is often not fully esteemed. Many parents who opt to stay at home suffer considerable loss of self-confidence and self-esteem. They often introduce themselves as "Just a housewife". I am sure that hon. Members find that unfortunate, because such mothers play a vital role, but it is another cultural aspect of the problem. I urge the Government to bear it in mind as they make their big drive to get people who are raising children to go out to work.
Tellingly, I have been asked in my surgeries, "Well, Mrs. Spelman, what do you think is more important: to be stacking the shelves in Safeway or to be outside the school gate to meet my child from school?" It is a hard question to answer and one way round the problem is to persuade companies such as Safeway to alter their shifts so that parents can meet their children from school. However, I understand that parent's legitimate question.
Another concern about the Government's child care provisions is that pledging a pre-school place for every four-year-old means moving away from small-scale provision to more institutionalised provision. Parents at work, wondering how their four-year-old is getting on at nursery, are worried about formal methods being used to teach such young children. The Government's intention to make similar provision for three-year-olds heightens those anxieties. As a working parent, I would find it difficult to come to terms with three-year-olds being in classes as large as 30.
The Minister mentioned several employment settings in which the culture is changing and I shall refer to others where there is good practice. Reading them on to the record is one way of spreading the word to the public domain. There are still many employers who are not very well disposed culturally to striking a good work-life balance. Statistics from the Equal Opportunities Commission, published today by The Express newspaper, show that half of all staff who asked for flexibility in their working life had their request rejected as unacceptable. I stress that statistic, because it illustrates a key cultural point: that a Government may
240WH
put in place whatever regulations they like, but if people feel that they cannot ask for what they need to balance their lives, little progress will be made.
The same report from the Equal Opportunities Commission shows that one fifth of those who request flexible working are sacked or made redundant. That is a very unenlightened attitude on the part of employers. As the Minister said, good-quality, human resources in the workplace are often what makes the difference between one company and another. Trying to retain good employees becomes all the more important in today's economic situation; there is a shortage of skills and of good-quality employees to fuel the good economic growth that I would argue the Government inherited. It is vital to Britain's competitive place in the global market to encourage good employees to remain in work, not only because of pay, but because account is taken of their families.
Recently, Diana Good, a litigation specialist and a partner of Linklaters and Alliance, was nominated for the award of female lawyer of the year. She spent 18 months researching the work-life balance in her company and found that a uniform and transparent policy was in place, rather than the old ad hoc arrangements. Although more than 50 per cent. of the firm's employees at recruitment level were women there were fewer women further up the ranks. In the preceding 12 years, only one in 10 had become a partner. That is a common average in a City firm, and the pattern is replicated in other professions. Linklaters was concerned about the loss of talented lawyers and thus wasted expenditure; that was the catalyst of the change.
Diana Good suggests presenting a business plan so that the needs of both the employee and the clients are met. Hours should then be drawn up, with some employees having a regular day off, others accruing extra holiday and others seeing a contract through and then having a couple of weeks off. The arrangements depend on the area in which the employee works. That kind of flexibility is practical, practicable and deliverable and Diana Good can prove it.
Asking for what is needed to help the work-life relationship stay in balance should not affect promotion or opportunities to achieve partner status but, all too often, anecdotal evidence reveals that that happens. Flexible working patterns were offered to men and women in Ms Good's company, but the majority of those who took up the offer were women; few men did so. That relates to the cultural problems that have been mentioned. The article appeared in The Times, and it is interesting that inquiries have been received from all over the world about Linklaters' approach, as it is the first City firm to implement such a policy.
I should like to refer to other examples of good practice, but first I reiterate that people will not be able to make progress unless they feel that they can ask for what they need. Despite the topicality of flexible working and family-friendly policies, the employee survey published in "First Findings" showed that the extent of personal access to flexible working provision was limited. A third of all employees said that they could work flexi-time, only 16 per cent. said that they could job share if necessary, and 9 per cent. said that they could work from home or at home.

241WH
I stumbled on a development during the spring recess. When I met a Foreign Office diplomat from the embassy in The Hague, I was astonished to discover that she was taking part in a job share with another woman. I remember not applying to the Foreign Office because I thought that it would be impossible to manage family life or even to get married. It was encouraging to discover that job sharing was possible even in the diplomatic service.
Only a quarter of employees said that they could take parental leave and a mere 4 per cent. of employees said that help with child care was available to them, either in the form of a workplace nursery or through help with meeting the cost of child care. However, fewer than half of employees said that none of those arrangements was available to them. The response in the marketplace to the genuine problem that many people have balancing their working lives with the demands of family life is still patchy. The bias is in women's favour, because they are much more likely than men to report on flexible working arrangements or even to ask for them in the first place.
It is Thursday afternoon, we are in Westminster Hall and it was a long night last night, so I should like to say that, although we are busy criticising employers who are not so enlightened and praising those who are more enlightened, we have to take the plank out of our own eye. It stikes me as a relatively new parliamentarian that high hopes were raised about modernising the working practices of the House, given the advent of a relatively young Government with a substantial majority. Indeed, their majority is so substantial that it exceeds the total number of official Opposition Members, so they can do whatever they want. However, I have been disappointed by the scale of change—although I hasten to add that even our Chief Whip, who is a family man, supported the changes to Thursday sittings. It is obvious that many Members have benefited from the revision in the timing of Thursday sittings, but that leads one to hope that it might be possible on other days.
Joan Ruddock: Many of us would endorse the sentiments that the hon. Lady expresses. If I am able to make a speech later, I shall mention them further. I hope that she will repeat those sentiments to her colleagues on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons and that we shall gain the support of all Members from each party to introduce further modernisation arrangements.
Mrs. Spelman: There are forces of conservatism on both sides. That is worth saying. We will not get 100 per cent. of Members of Parliament in favour of a change that would support work-life balances. I have a horrible feeling that the longer one remains here, the more one gets used to it and adapts. My own motivation in seeking a change concerns not only the work-life balance—I am a mother of three relatively young children—but the esteem in which Parliament is held as an institution.
One of our problems is that, out there in the wider country, it was expected that Parliament would change in some way and modernise. Certainly one of our practical problems with the sitting hours is that they are
242WH
poorly synchronised with the media day; therefore it is hard to get our work reported into media. If there was more coverage of Parliament, it would help to raise the esteem in which the institution is held. The more business that can be done before the lunchtime news, or the 6 pm news, the more chance there is of translating our efforts—sometimes very prolonged efforts—into good media coverage. That is a further reason for changing the way Parliament operates.
I should also like to speak for those hon. Members—none of them Conservative as far as I know, so I shall speak for Labour Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) laughs, but he is over-hasty: he has not seen where I am going. I wish to speak for Labour Back Benchers who have had the good fortune to produce a child while they have been Members of Parliament. I would like to put it on the record that the Palace authorities could do more to enable mothers, especially nursing mothers, to carry out their duties to the best of their ability and with peace of mind about the security and needs of a new-born infant. Perhaps the happy event expected by the Prime Minister and his wife in May will give a lead in that direction.
There is one other way in which Parliament works that makes it very difficult for the work-life balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. The hon. Lady is in danger of straying out of order.
Mrs. Spelman: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to relate this to the subject.
The synchronisation of parliamentary terms—they are not called that, but many working parents think of them as that—with school terms would be useful to hon. Members. The way in which Westminster sittings are organised is especially difficult for Scottish Members, as their children's school holidays start much earlier in the summer than ours, so they see less of their children at that time. Something could be done in that respect. I have mentioned the working situation in Parliament only because it would be hypocritical to criticise working practices in other sectors of the economy without touching on the life-work balances here.
Finally, the main points that come out of the debate are about changing the culture towards a healthy balance between life and work. There is no question that, economically speaking, it is disastrous for companies when employees go sick for long periods because of unacceptable stresses in their work-life balance. If changes can be achieved culturally in that domain, there would be an overall benefit to the economy. Because of the good practice that it offers, I shall refer to the Parents at Work employer of the year awards. A number of companies tendered for the title and as I examined the bids, several themes emerged that are relevant to our debate. For example, the Automobile Association offered a teleworking initiative, which it launched in 1997, consisting of call centre staff moving from an office-based environment to working in the home. That was an interesting nomination, which would help a working parent with the work-life balance, by allowing work to be built around domestic responsibilities.

243WH
Under BP Amoco's initiative, a parental advisory networking service was set up for employees. It is staffed by two part-timers who provide information on child care options and parenting issues. That was another good initiative. British Telecom tried to achieve culture change—its term, not mine—by encouraging employees to talk about balancing work and home. The theme that employees find it difficult to talk about home even to fellow employees, let alone to the employer, comes through over and over again.
The winner of employer of the year award was Littlewoods, on the basis of its "making policy work in practice" bid. The company aimed to create a culture in which people felt comfortable talking about work-life issues that could have an impact on performance. As well as one-to-one discussions with line managers, there were focus groups, employee climate surveys, open forums and sessions held with the chief executive—no less a person than the boss, which is revealing. The award was won for making that policy work in practice.
When today's debate enters the public domain, I hope that it will inspire others to adopt more flexible working practices without their being forced to do so, which might create resentment and slow down the process of change. I hope that it will change the cultural attitude in our society, because we seem to lag behind other countries in rating the importance of the work-life balance. Finally, I hope that it will help us to get away from a state of affairs described by no less a person than Germaine Greer who, offering advice to other women, said:
Oh yes, you can have equality, but you have to find the man to pay for it.
3.27 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: May I declare an interest? I am a trustee of the Daycare Trust and a spokesperson for the Institute of Management. One of my 60,000 constituents is Shirley Conran. I am pleased that, as chair of Mothers in Management, she sits on the ministerial advisory committee on work-life balance. Those of us were are old enough will remember her book "Superwoman", which set the agenda some 30 years ago. As a result, men and women who cared about parenting felt that there was a basis for working too. I am very pleased that Shirley is serving on the advisory committee.
I welcome the discussion paper on family-friendly policies, but I was disappointed to discover that it was launched at a business breakfast. It is important to ensure that fathers or mothers can take their children to school, make breakfast and have a good time at the start of the day. One of the aspects of parliamentary life that I enjoy, which I never had in business life, is that we start around 10 o'clock in the morning, so I can give my wife some breakfast, before she goes off to work, and take the children to school. It is more difficult on a Thursday, when we have to be here for 9 o'clock.
As a former director of a large company, I am pleased that we now have Employers for Work-Life Balance and that some of my former colleagues are on the list—Barry Gibson, for example, who does marvellous work at Littlewoods, and Margaret Salmon at the BBC. I noticed in today's newspaper the listing of new companies coming into the FTSE-100—primarily
244WH
dot.com, technology and telecom companies such as Freeserve, the telecoms company Thus, the digital television and telecoms business Cable & Wireless Communications, and Baltimore Technologies. None of those companies is on the list. E-commerce companies should be encouraged to join the initiative, so that is is not seen as the preserve of companies representing old industry and the old economy.
I am pleased that the list includes PricewaterhouseCoopers, which audits e-commerce companies. The recent Turnbull report on corporate governance examined reputation, and how health and safety at work were scrutinised in internal and external aspects of the company report. As part of its involvement in the initiative, I hope that PricewaterhouseCoopers will be asked to ensure that it takes account of that in its audit of many major UK companies.
I am pleased that the Ministry's advisory committee included Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses, whom I know. It is often said that large companies can make progress on this issue, but small companies cannot. In a previous debate, I drew attention to research that my wife, in her company capacity, did as part of her masters degree at Kingston university—an institution that has done a lot of work on the subject. The £1.5 million research fund will put to rest the canard about small firms not being family friendly.
The House takes a different line, and the discussion document encourages a flexible approach. It is inappropriate for such concerns to apply only to large companies. I am sure that Mr. Alambritis will ensure that the concerns of small companies are not undermined, but enhanced. Certainly, research that I have studied shows that family-friendly policies have huge benefits for companies.
I have previously mentioned the tremendous campaign mounted by the Institute of Management on work-life policy. Its most recent research "Taking the Strain" was written by Ruth Wheatley. Hon. Members were surely shocked to hear the Minister say that more than 50 per cent. of people in the European Union working more than 48 hours a week work in Britain. That is borne out by Ruth Wheatley's research which shows that almost 37 per cent. of those studied had a working week of more than 48 hours. One hopes that that was before the regulations were introduced and is not the present position.
Almost half the respondents regularly took work home at the weekend and four people in 10 worked through most weekends. Almost 72 per cent. of managers received criticism from family and friends about their long hours of work. Nevertheless, 73 per cent. claimed that they did not take any time off during the previous year because of stress. Only 8 per cent. of respondents said that a stress audit had been conducted in their organisation in the past year. Audit companies such as PricewaterhouseCoopers have an important role in ensuring that companies keep health and safety and company reputation up to the mark.
Of course, the contra-view has been expressed. I picked out of my wife's post the 29 February issue of Personnel Today. An article headed "Do family-friendly policies keep parents at work?" cites the research of the

245WH
Berkeley professor Arlie Hochschild, who has discovered that family-friendly policies and creche facilities result in people being happier at work than at home and preferring to work on.
Parenting is the most difficult thing to do in the world; it is much harder than earning a living. One learns that over time. Having raised eight children now aged six to 34, I can testify that it does not get any easier. We should pursue and support family-friendly policies, but that does not mean that parents should automatically spend more time at home than they do at present. Some parents are good at parenting, but some are, frankly, awful. It is important for the child or elderly person to have a choice as to who provides the care, and that may not necessarily be the parent or the adult who is looking after an elderly parent.
As the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, there is an equal number of men and women in this Chamber. I may still be smarting from international women's day, which was yesterday, but it is equally important to ensure that men are able to take an equal place in society. Perhaps there should be an international men's day.
The ministerial advisory committee lacks balance when considering the issues involved in caring for elderly relatives or dependents. I should like Age Concern to be represented as well as the Carers National Association. Problems arise not only in looking after the children of a family, but its elderly relatives. That dimension is missing.
Taking a blue-sky approach, I should like the Government to continue what they are doing, keep trumpeting it, and keep industry up to the mark. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, paid parental leave must be kept on the agenda as a priority, and be available for all income groups in society, not only as a perk for those who earn enough to be able to take upaid parental leave.
Companies should receive more tax help in implementing work-life balance policies. We have heard about the life-long learning contract between Government and the individual. Perhaps a company could have an account with Government, whereby if it adopted polices that promoted work-life balance, which is what all of us, as a community of stakeholders in that company, want, it would qualify for a tax credit.
In preparing for my speech, I went to the Department for Education and Employment, where I was disappointed to find that the management goals set out in its "1999–2000 Workplan" contained no mention of work-life balance. I suggest that, when the 2000–01 document is produced, you may want to be seen as a model employer promoting work-life balance. I agree with the hon. Member for Meriden that it is important to take the mote out of one's own eye first.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that I am a model employer, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address himself to the Minister, not to me.
Mr. Colman: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was of course referring to the Minister and her role at the Department.
246WH
I lauded the fact that I am able to deal with early-morning chores, but it is absurd that we have to work through the night. As Back Benchers, some of us wonder why that is. It is a bit of a cheek for the hon. Member for Meriden to mention late sittings, given that it is usually the Opposition who decide, for one reason or another, to keep us here all night. Many of us would like more timetabled debates to ensure that we get home at a reasonable hour. When we score own goals in that way, we make ourselves appear extremely foolish to our constituents and the media. That is a matter not only for the Modernisation Committee, but for the Government and Opposition whips, who could get together and decide that, as the House has operated in this way for the past 600 years, it might be time to have a rethink. Timetabled motions that would enable debates at reasonable times—for example, not in the middle of the night, when we are half asleep—would be a move towards a work-life balance.
I welcome the discussion document and strongly recommend it. I have banged on about the matter during my 30 years in business and, to be frank, it is good to see business taking a lead over Parliament. When we return to the matter in, say, a year's time, I hope that significant progress will have been made throughout the country, and in the way in which parliamentary business is conducted.
3.40 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I agree with most of the comments made so far and I shall briefly add to them. I am still getting used to the term "work-life balance", which implies that work is not part of life. I want people to enjoy work, and too few do. The Government want to tackle that issue by providing the skills and training to enable people in all trades and professions to have the confidence to enjoy their working lives.
There remains too much of the British macho culture. In a previous career, I was as guilty as others of wanting always to be the last person to leave the office, thereby encouraging others to stay longer than they should. Of course, working longer does not necessarily mean working better, and hon. Members will be aware that tiredness reduces efficiency.
There are lessons to be learned in the public and private sectors. At a hospital in which I worked, a senior staff post came up for renewal, and I suggested to the director of nursing services that it be made a part-time post. That would have enabled many senior women nurses to apply for it, and it would have been filled in an unusual way. A woman—or, indeed, a man—could thereby have had a part-time job that would have enabled the balancing of family life with work. However, my suggestion met with enormous opposition. I found it strange that a so-called full-time post that involved working 37 hours in a week was regarded as particularly precious. Why was it so important to work those particular hours, given that the hospital worked 24 hours a day? I never received a proper answer to that question. That issue is part of the general change in culture that we need to create.
I welcome the Government's efforts to get the balance right for everyone. The Minister rightly pointed out that proportionally fewer lone parents work outside the

247WH
home. I should stress that it is work undertaken inside the home that often presents the biggest challenge. Some of the most impressive people that I have met in Swindon are the mothers, especially lone parents, who raise four or five children incredibly well on the smallest of incomes. This week, the chairman of Unilever said that, if one wants to employ the best project manager, one should find a mum who has combined bringing up children with working outside the home. We should remember that when discussing work inside and outside the home. Some lone parents in Swindon have been greatly helped by the Government's new deal for lone parents. It has enabled them to work outside their homes, and there have been some fantastic and inspiring projects. One lone parent in my constituency has set up a hairdressing business. She cuts hair in people's own homes, which enables her to fit work around her children and her spare time.
Similarly, the working families tax credit is helping people to strike the right balance between work outside and inside the home, and it is ensuring that they are rewarded for working outside the home. A Labour councillor recently stood outside a school and handed out leaflets advertising the working families tax credit. He went back a week later to hand out more leaflets and was accosted by a woman who gave him the biggest bear hug he had had in a long time, saying, "I have realised that this will give me £40 a week extra. That will make a huge difference to my family." The credit would make her work outside the home pay and enable her to support her family better.
I want to pursue a point relating to the working families tax credit that has been raised with me by constituents. It relates particularly to shift workers. The Minister rightly said she expects more and more people—people who cannot find a child-minder or other types of child care and are covered by working families tax credit—to work on a 24-hour, shift-work basis. Many of them are solving the problem by using nannies, but nannies are not covered by working families tax credit, and the Government should look at that. A range of quality child care initiatives should be available.
Mrs. Spelman: In its newsletter "Cascade", published on 8 March, the National Childminding Association says:
childminders are getting a raw deal in some areas, where parents are trying to get the new childcare tax credit but are then not using spaces which they have agreed to use.
That is another concern that I have been made aware of.
Ms. Drown: I am aware of that issue, which has also been raised with me.
I want to refer, as other hon. Members have done, to an issue raised by the Minister. Baroness Jay has been asked to make sure that the public sector leads by example and to look across the public sector with a view to enhancing family-friendly policies. Clearly, the House of Commons must lead by example. When we talk about changing our own practices, the question of consensus always comes up, but that is a recipe for staying as we are. Various surveys have been carried out into sittings in the House. There was a majority in favour of changing the times of sittings, but, because people chose slightly different times, the conclusion was
248WH
"We can't change, because we can't agree on one way forward." We know that the whole House will never agree on one way forward, so this might be an occasion for abandoning consensus. I support the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who said that she would like the Government to use their majority in this case. Let us use the majority and change the House for the better.
When I began talking to colleagues and constituents about this issue, they all said, "Stop worrying about it. You are being selfish. All these other things in the country need dealing with." I agree, but I am surprised how many constituents come to me and say, "No, this is important. You need to sort that place out. We don't admire it as much as we should. How can we be sure that the best people will stand for Parliament when it is run so inefficiently and does not allow you to balance your work and your family life?" They are absolutely right. We have a duty to improve the House. Therefore, let us consider doing away with consensus in the search for a system that we can make work. I remember that, in discussions about Thursdays, hon. Members said, "It won't work. Nobody will turn up for the Thursday morning debate." Yet for Treasury questions this morning the Chamber was packed. We can and we must do it.
We must also look at child care. We are not asking for free child care, or provision reserved for Members of Parliament. Ten thousand people work in and around the House of Commons, so it makes sense. We should lead the way.
We must keep trying to get the balance right. There are too many people in paid work who work far too many hours and there are too many people out of paid work. That is an equation that we should be able to resolve in the interests of everybody and their families.
I congratulate the Government on everything that they are doing in this respect and I look forward to seeing the results, some of which may take a long time to work their way through. We need to do more work, but the Government's initiatives will be good for families, good for employees and good for business.
3.49 pm
Joan Ruddock: I did not come with a prepared speech, but I want to join in what I think is proving to be a consensus in this Chamber. I especially welcome the announcements that my hon. Friend the Minister has made. They are good news, and they represent a win-win scenario, for which we are extremely grateful. It is immensely important that business is to lead the endeavour, because that is where the experience lies and that is the place from which the cultural change can come.
We are not talking only about very large companies. Many of those already have the resources, the consultants and the facilities to do the sums and to work out how much it costs to recruit a new worker when they have lost one—a prime example being that of losing a woman from the work force after maternity. They have been able to prove the business case—the financial case. However, the majority of our businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises, which have much greater difficulty understanding the case and in making the appropriate calculations. I especially welcome what my

249WH
hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the Government's funding of consultancy advice, and I hope that it will be used to promote the message in the sector that experiences greater difficulties, and so get it on board.
Managers need advice if they are to be able to work out a proper strategy. Often, a well meaning employer will be able to deal with a one-off situation, but it is important to have a plan that is fair to employees and can be documented. Middle management in many companies have learned lessons, many of them applicable to themselves: I am not suggesting that they are always off at the golf course, but they have tended to work out over the years a way of balancing what they deem the important aspects of work and life.
However, the same considerations are often not applied to ordinary workers. My constituency—Lewisham, Deptford—is a very deprived part of the United Kingdom, in which there are still many unemployed people, although the number has halved since the Labour Government took office. There are also many low-paid workers, whose conditions of work are already unsatisfactory before we even start to take into account the issues before us today.
I ask the Under-Secretary to pay attention to the progress, or lackof it, being made in factories and service industries—places where some of the best modern management practices have yet to be applied, and where people may be experiencing a less than adequate quality of life, both in the home and in the community. They are likely to be the most deprived both at work and in terms of their life prospects.
I also draw the Minsiter's attention to the fact that for many of those workers, flexibility means insecurity. We must take into account the great sense of worry in many people's minds. We understand that the culture is changing and that young people are aware that they will have to change their jobs more frequently than their parents, but we must help people to feel that that is a challenge that can be met without experiencing desperate insecurity. That insecurity can lead to the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), in which a lack of confidence inhibits people from asking the quesiton "Can I have time off?", even when they have good, pressing reasons for so doing.
Trade unions have fought for many years for the rights of ordinary people to have time off for public duties. That is another aspect of the satisfactory, rounded lives that many professional people and managers at the top have secured for themselves. Why should not the ordinary worker enjoy similar rights? I heard a discussion on the radio earlier this week about the magistracy. I suspect that other hon. Members may not have heard it because they were in the Chamber; I, however, was elsewhere and able to listen. I heard a man talking about his home city, where, 20 years ago, many ordinary working people came forward to be magistrates. Today, that is not happening, which is exactly the reverse of what we would expect. As society has changed and become less class-structured, we would expect more ordinary people to come forward. I cannot provide a national example, but that man's experience
250WH
was that although more and more women, people from ethnic minorities and younger people were coming forward to be magistrates, they were primarily from the professional classes. We must be careful to ensure that that kind of work-life balance, for private or public duty, or just because people want to add an extra dimension to their lives, is considered through the eyes of all our people—the many not the few, as the Labour party is wont to say.
I want to bring a little of my experience to hon. Members' attention. When I was Minister for Women, I began some of the work that has resulted in the programme outlined by the Government today. I went around different Government Departments to see what each could contribute. Employers were brought together to provide advice, and to hear what kind of experiences could be used as the basis of policy. One manager told me about a lowly woman worker who had to give in her notice because—this harks back to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)—she had to become a carer for her elderly mother. When the woman's case was discussed, her employer found that all she needed to do was go home at lunchtime to administer some medicine. That was all, but she felt that she had to give up her job. As she saw it, that would ruin her life, because she got huge satisfaction from her job, and was valuable to her company.
The strategy adopted was simple. The woman was given the managing director's car space, because, by being able to park her car outside the office, she was able to get home to her mother and return to the office within her normal lunch hour. Such an imaginative approach is a good example of what can be done. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will use such examples to encourage and enthuse people, and to demonstrate what can be done.
Twenty-five years ago, I was a manager of a voluntary organisation. I was in control—the top person—albeit with a committee to refer to. I took on a public responsibility that just grew and grew, and I needed to adjust my working time. As I was a manager, I was well placed to make an argument; but I went in trepidation to my board of management to propose that my deputy manager would benefit enormously from working one day a week as the manager of the enterprise, while I had one day a week off. I changed from a five-day week to a four-day working week. That was revolutionary at the time, and, as my employers saw it, a huge risk, but it worked absolutely brilliantly. The woman who worked as a deputy four days a week gained tremendously from being completely in control: it is refreshing for someone who is a deputy most of the time to have control for one day of the week. It worked splendidly for both of us, and, as is so often the case, the organisation received double the value from us.
As Members of Parliament, we are all small employers. Six people have worked for me during a 13-year period. Two of the women out of those six have had children while in my employ. If one has just two full-time members of staff, it is not easy when one of them is away. Many small employers say that that is why they cannot cope with women employees. However, the appropriate attitude is to recognise that to have children is a woman's right, and to see that she is a valuable employee.

251WH
I know from my experience that it is possible to work around the problem and I have benefited enormously from the loyalty of those employees and their commitment to our work. Not only have I had to make adjustments to cover maternity leave, I have had a woman employee decide that she had to have fixed hours. We do not have fixed hours in this place, but she had to have fixed hours to continue in her job. It was not convenient for me, but I decided that she was so valuable that I would say yes; she then decided that she needed to reduce her hours from five days to four days. We accommodated all that and if I, as a small employer could do that, any employer in the country could do the same. However, help is needed and I strongly endorse the proposal that consultants should be provided free of charge and that there should be help in sharing experience and learning.
I want to endorse a couple of comments that have been made today and which are not currently Government policy. More work must be done on aspects of child care and financial support. More work must also be done to assist lone parents who want to work, particularly with training, to enable them to have more appropriate career paths and a better work-life balance and ensure that they are not stuck at one level of employment. I support an element of paid parental leave and, again, I am conscious of people in my constituency who can least afford to take the time off that they most need because of the financial penalties.
I endorse wholeheartedly what has been said about the Government setting a good example. One of my tasks as Minister for Women was to examine the position in Government Departments and I was particularly interested in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned her surprise at finding a diplomat with a job share. Matters have improved enormously, particularly under the current Government. It was only in the 1970s that we raised the ban on married women remaining in the foreign service, and it is extraordinary that it should have been as late as that. The families association within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office pressed the Government, who responded, to ensure that men and women could serve overseas in our embassies and high commissions without having to send their children away to boarding school for the whole of their young lives. Now, parents often keep their children with them, or opt for home leave in the United Kingdom. They can have proper jobs and do what is necessary for their children. However, there are still problems with serving soldiers who become pregnant and the Ministry of Defence has a little more work to do.
I am proud that my Government have looked across the board at how to ensure that we are the exemplary employer that we should be, but that brings us to this place. A charge of hypocrisy is properly levelled at our Parliament, which is the only Parliament in the world that has no fixed hours. We are the only Parliament in which people habitually say that women and men with children cannot enter the House because the difficulties they would face would mean that they could not care for their children at the same time. It is nonsense and it must end. We must modernise ourselves. If we are not to suffer continually the charge of hypocrisy and lack of respect to which other hon. Members referred, we must
252WH
modernise this place and bring it in line with the philosophy of a proper work-life balance that the Government have announced today.
4.4 pm
Mr. David Drew: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. I was supposed to be in Committee, but, thankfully, it was cancelled, so I was able to listen to this interesting debate.
I start by saying mea culpa, because I was a member of the Modernisation Committee for some 18 months. I can only say that one tends to travel at the speed of the slowest wagon in the convoy. I sometimes wondered whether we were going forwards or backwards, but the fact that we are able to be here today to discuss the issue—which we would not have had the opportunity to do if we had had to wait for a debate on the Floor of the House—proves that some progress has been made, even if it is not enough, and has not been fast enough.
My main reason for speaking today is to explain some of the different structures at work and their impact on the work-life balance. I shall relate a couple of anecdotes that show how serious the problem is: it is getting better, but we have come from a long way back.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave us some fairly frightening statistics. By pure chance, I have been involved in direct negotiations between employers and employees in one of the major firms in my constituency. It has been a real eye-opener. We tend to parody both sides in a company for conspiring to increase overtime, but we must recognise that that is what they have done for many years. Employers have almost condoned employees who go slow during the normal week so as to be able to do overtime, and employees have made it clear that overtime is a sacred cow. Employers could touch everything else about the work, but they could not touch overtime, because that was paid at an additional rate and it enabled employees to choose how long they wanted to work. Things are changing, but it is depressing that at the beginning of the new millennium we have to pick our way through these fairly negative attitudes and for no good reason. It is clear that if production were reorganised so as to get the work done in a normal week, not only could employers save money but everybody's lifestyle would improve. However, it is hard going, because it leads to stress.
An enormous number people in all types of work increasingly face stress. The 48-hour working week is important because it makes a statement about our expectation of the maximum working week. However, there is still a long way to go. We must not fool ourselves about that.
I want to talk about the structures of work, and consider the definition of work. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) touched on this. She kindly came to my constituency when she was Minister for Women for what I hope was an interesting, enlightening day.
What has not been brought out so far is that when we talk about work, we do not mean only paid work. Carers have been mentioned, and we have spoken about people who have to compensate for the other things that they do with their lives. I shall talk about volunteer work, which is also important. Last week the time bank was

253WH
formally launched, and during Prime Minister's questions the Prime Minister offered to do a day's voluntary work. Last Thursday I addressed Prohelp in Gloucestershire, which is an offshoot of Business in the Community. Prohelp involves smaller professional businesses that offer their time to various Gloucestershire community and neighbourhood groups—my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham-Deptford is aware of its work. It provides assistance and advice which otherwise would not be available because there would be no money to pay for it and no time to do so.
It is sad that we often take volunteer work for granted: it has always been so. However, if we emphasise it enough, we can begin to change the culture. I have always used the silly term "compulsory volunteering"—an oxymoron. I believe that everybody should volunteer, not only for the benefit of the people whom they help but for their own self-esteem. Volunteering is one of the most rewarding things that people do. Many are unable to volunteer because they are too busy with work or children, but we should examine ways of opening up volunteering.
From the 1970s onwards people began to live longer, which is a jolly good thing, and began to retire slightly earlier: they did not go for the 60 to 65 age restriction. Many companies put on pre-retirement courses. I spoke to Judith Taylor of the Gloucestershire Women's Royal Voluntary Service about six months ago. She was worried that so few major companies now ran such courses. There are several reasons for that. Perhaps only a huge number of people leaving at the same time made them viable. Nuclear Electric, in my constituency, laid off hundreds of people within a reasonably short time.
It is important to encourage companies to run courses. I asked the business link group in Gloucestershire to write to companies who used to run such courses asking them to start them up again, because they are an important way of contacting people in the prime age group of 60 to early 70s. It will make an enormous difference. It is sad that in my constituency 80-year-olds are driving 90-year-olds around: a few more 60-year-olds would not come amiss in rural areas. There is a definite shortage of "younger" people, which may be because there is more demand on their time as many are grandparents and child carers. Although there has been a tremendous growth in the voluntary sector, we will be missing an enormous opportunity if we do not encourage more people to take part. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look into the matter and try to do something about it.
I live in Stonehouse in my constituency, which has a time donor scheme for caring initiated by Edgar Khan. For the first time in this country, people can give their time in exchange for services. Such initiatives are important. One of the new stuctures of work is portfolio working, which is a lovely term, although I am not quite sure what it means. It enables people to be more flexible in how they work and who they work for, or to choose to work for themselves. There has been much innovation; there are many ways for people at the end of their working lives to be more flexible about how they apply themselves. However, employment rights need to be extended, because often people in those areas of work
254WH
are vulnerable and need help. I have been involved in collective portfolio schemes in which people share the costs of equipment, advice and so on. Such arrangements are not easy when people choose to operate more flexibly, but if we do not try to help, opportunities will be lost and many people will be more vulnerable. As a Co-operative Member of Parliament, I think that it is important to look for genuinely co-operative solutions such as portfolio working. Such good practice should be extended to the whole country and to different types of work.
Politicians went through a learning curve recently in the IR35 debate. I shall not dwell on the matter, but whether one thinks that the Government are right or wrong, we would all be taken aback by the definition of a contractor, and how it affects insurance and tax. I shall be honest and say that I am not sure that the Government have got it right, but I am worried about the increase in contractorisation. There are some big issues at play; we all have examples of that, and some of us, although not I, have been directly affected by people being made redundant. They have had to find a way back into the work force, and have often returned as contractors. It is not unknown for them to return to the same workplace, which may be what firms and individuals want. The people who are most angry about IR35 are those who have been made redundant, as they see it, through no fault of their own, and who are being hit again due to changes outside their control. That has certainly left an indelible mark on my mind.
There is much to be done and many negotiations to be had. I do not want to spend any longer on that issue, except to say that the structure of our work force affects not only how people work, but how they find time to do other things. We must understand that.
Mr. Colman: Does my hon. Friend agree that many individuals involved in contractorisation operate according to standard company practice and work as sole traders or within a company scheme? Currently, those people are disadvantaged because of the tax haven system. IR35 seems to have covered that up.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There are many bizarre practices. It was drawn to my attention today that lecturers may be caught by IR35. I have never previously come across that. They may work in a succession of colleges. It is clear that some funny things are going on. I would like to know how a lecturer sets up his company so that he can sell his labour on the basis that he is a contractor. However, nothing surprises me in this regard. As I said, I do not want to get hung up on that issue, except to relate it to other experiences that we have had and to what has been done.
I do not know whether I should say that I am young enough or old enough to remember that, about 10 years ago, we bought out an enormous number of people in the public sector, especially in teaching, but in other areas as well, which has resulted in some skewing in employment. What has that got to do with work-life balance? Well, an awful lot—if we could get those people to do other things. However, it has caused some bitterness in the public sector, because employees who have previously seen people retire at 50 will have to

255WH
work for the normal 40 years into their 60s. There are very few enhanced schemes, unless employees make their own contributions, and that has an impact.
How do we map out our careers? It is a question of life episodes. Will we work continuously for 40 years, or will we have breaks? Traditionally, women have had such breaks; increasingly, men are doing so. It is about what we do not only during the week, but during life. That is linked to volunteering, among other things. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would deal with that important issue.
I shall now consider the other side of the issue. I have written down the word "leisure"—not very cleverly—as an alternative to working life. When we are not working, the idea is that we are enjoying leisure time. I leave to hon. Members' imaginations whether bringing up children constitutes leisure, but that is how it is regarded.
People frequently refer to the notion of the income rich and time poor and the time rich and income poor. However, many of my constituents are both income poor and time poor, and there are two aspects to that. First, many people are employed in multiple part-time jobs, which means that their working time is much greater than it would be if they had only one job. That needs to be factored in. Again, it is a question of flexibility and what people can choose to do. The level of exploitation must be reduced.
I am especially interested in the second element: how people are affected by being so busy that they do not have any leisure time or, more importantly, time to spend with their family. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that. We are doing good work in this area, and the Government deserve a glowing tribute for that. However, people increasingly have to consider the costs of taking part in leisure activities. It is not cheap to take three or four children to the cinema or leisure centre. The summer play schemes run in many areas are highly laudable. Kids want to take part in them during those six weeks of holiday, and many parents want them to because it gives them more time to themselves. It is good that such schemes exist, but they are costly.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman is making some good points, but one of the problems with holiday schemes is that they often last only one week; they do not cover the whole holiday period. Even parents who work part-time find that those schemes do not cover the critical period when many child care providers are unavailable.
Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Lady. Several schemes that originally lasted a week now last two. The duration of the schemes is gradually being increased, but the money needed to do so must come from somewhere. People need to organise such schemes carefully. They cannot be fully funded, because that would mean that they would be offered in fewer areas.
How can we offer access to leisure activities to low-income families without being patronising? I know that people often turn a blind eye and let others go on trips for nothing, but doing so can be difficult. Those who are poor but in work are often unable to afford leisure activities either for themselves or, more especially, for their children.
256WH
I hope that we can be creative. I am a great believer in local solutions. Schemes cannot be imposed from on high. Summer play schemes cannot be centralised; funding and flexibility are needed. I hope that my hon Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with those matters.
4.21 pm
Caroline Flint: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here from the start of the debate. I was juggling my own work-life balance: I spent most of the day waiting for a surveyor to inspect some plastering work at my house. I am very frustrated that the person did not show up. All of us who work and have families deal with similar experiences. I shall refer not only to family-friendly employment, but to family-friendly services, which are another aspect of the debate.
I was pleased to take part in the debate on child care that the Department for Education and Employment initiated before Christmas, in which my hon. Friend Under-Secretary spoke. She is here today, pushing forward the debate yet again on issues that are important to families and working people. As many hon. Members have said, we must consider not only children, but the fact that many families care for elderly relatives; such care needs will grow in future. It is important to discuss the work-life balance, but it involves much more than child care places; it is the framework in which we live and raise our children, which takes into account the pressures of work, caring for elderly relatives, waiting at home for plumbers who never turn up, and everything else. It is right that we should start to bring those issues together.
I suggest that my hon. Friend considers extending the excellent early years and child care partnerships that the Department has established beyond providing child care places, although places are important. I say that as chair of the all-party child care group, I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is here, because she is the vice-chair of that group.
The issues go beyond child care and involve the way in which employers structure work to provide the best opportunities for local partnerships. In the next phase, we need to consider how to make businesses play a much more dynamic role in those partnerships.
Many parents and those who care for others want to work flexibly. It is interesting that the women's unit in its "listening to women" survey, found that more than 90 per cent. of women said that the unit would encourage the Government to do more to promote family-friendly practices. That is a pretty ringing endorsement. The women who spoke were practical; they understood that it was difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to achieve flexibility, but it came through loud and clear that flexibility was wanted.
Some years ago when I worked in local government in London I was pleased to be part of a cross-London working group that looked at shift working in different organisations from the underground to local authorities and other agencies. The issue of how people organise their hours was being discussed 10 years ago, and it has continued to be a subject of debate. What I have always found interesting, both as a former shop steward and in my work in human resources, were the arguments about part-time workers. Both trade unionists and employers

257WH
put part-time workers down: it was too much trouble to organise a work pattern around them because they were used to the traditional work patterns that everyone else followed. One employer doubted whether he was getting as much productivity out of his part-time workers, but my experience has been that their productivity is likely to be much higher.
I remember discussing this with someone from the gas industry and we looked at an example of a gas showroom. A new manager came in and looked at working hours. She found that the problem was that everyone was working nine to five, which meant that there was not much flexibility for anyone who did not want to do those hours. She stepped back for a moment and thought about who used the gas showroom and when its peak hours were. The peak weekday hours were between 10 am and 2 pm: that was the time when people came in to pay their gas bills and to look at the products on show. At that stage, the showroom was not open on a Saturday morning, which was another crucial period for people who could not get out of work during the week to visit the gas showroom.
When the manager had a few vacancies, rather than issuing a job description that gave the usual hours that everyone did, she asked for people who could work from 10 am to 2 pm. That was an ideal job for parents with children at school: they could drop the kids at 9 am, go to the gas showroom and be out by 2 pm, ready to pick up at 3.30 pm. She also asked for extra people for Saturday mornings—she offered a contract for one day a week. My hon. Friend the Minister has been looking hard at employment issues facing people with disabilities and I would suggest that such contracts would be ideal for someone who may not be able to sustain a job over a full week or traditional part-time hours.
The starting point is to look at the services that people want as consumers and to kill two birds with one stone: a solution can be found that meets the needs of different people who demand different working patterns and provides a better service for those who want to use it. There is so much scope for imagination in that area that it is worth looking at.
Another development that needs to be addressed is shift parenting. The majority of parents do not use any formal paid child care: they cobble together different systems of parents, families and friends to look after their children. In shift parenting, mum goes off during the day, comes back and dad goes off during the evening. That is an issue that must be looked at. Remembering my experience of the working party in London, talking to staff on the underground, it occurs to me that some single people without dependants would be willing to do the more anti-social shift hours, possibly with a premium in recognition of that. If it were organised managerially, it would enable parents to take a common-sense approach to their family life.
I am a parent myself and I know that as children age, so child care changes. I have teenagers now, and the need to have parents around all the time lessens. There is scope for flexibility management and trade unions now regard it as part of the negotiating agenda that they operate.
258WH
I know how keen you are, Madam Deputy Speaker, on debating transport issues, so let me mention a conference about transport and work that took place last year in Don Valley, which I attended with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). It dealt with creating a dynamic between transport providers and employers in a local area. For example, when new buildings are being constructed, employers can be encouraged to create a turn-around for buses, enabling them to approach the factory or office gate instead of stopping half a mile down the road; that encourages workers to use the bus. I sought to bring child care into the picture and to promote thinking about the best places for buses to stop to assist child care providers. Ideally, there would be a seamless stream of people getting on buses, dropping off their children, getting back on them, travelling to work and so forth.
The potentially enormous resources around train stations are often overlooked. I have mentioned it in several previous debates, but it is a missing link in all our discussions. We know how many buildings around train stations are underused. St. Pancras is a good example—I use King's Cross every week to travel up to Doncaster. There are many underused buildings there, so what better place is there to create a nursery, so that commuters can drop their young children there on the way to work?
Mr. Colman: My youngest two children attended Buffer Bear nurseries, which were created by British Rail, though spun off as a separate company. I understand that there are only around six of them in the country, so I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to expand them.
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend. I am not talking off the top of my head: there are real practical examples of where the private sector sees an opportunity. My hon. Friend the Minister should talk with her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—joined-up government, as they say—to examine where permissions are granted to establish new interchanges, as in Doncaster. Such interchanges can provide opportunities to set up child care provision, which will help people who want to leave their children in order to go to work; it might also prove an attractive option for shoppers. Creche facilities may encourage people to come and spend their money in the wonderful shops in places like Doncaster. There are real opportunities there.
Some interesting projects have been set up in America to deal with sick children. Having time off when children are sick is important. My three children have been through chicken pox and the like. Once the main part of their illness is over, children are recuperating. They cannot go back to school, but child care services will often not accept them, thus creating additional problems for parents. An American association has sprung up to examine the extent to which child care services can meet people's needs—either at home or through establishments with staff properly qualified to deal with health and other matters.
The other day I encountered a company that provides employers with maternity packages. We have a fantastic ante-natal system of support in this country, which

259WH
operates across every community and social class and is widely taken up, yet when women return to work, provision is still too patchy. A few weeks ago, I read an article about women's rates of return to work after maternity leave. I was worried because it showed how often women found the experience of returning to work overwhelming—in terms of the inflexibility of adjusting hours of work to suit their needs. Many of them left.
I put a question to every Department in Whitehall about the return of women to work after pregnancy. I have been told that the information is not readily to hand and that it would cost too much to answer my question. That might be part of the answer to my question: not enough research is being done into the terms on which women return to work and whether, 12 months down the line, they are at the same workplace.
Many important issues are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned holiday play schemes. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have spoken about the way in which the school year is structured. It always seems daft to me. At one point in my parenting, I had to drop my children off at my child minder's at half-past eight in the morning for her to walk them round to school for quarter to nine. She was a wonderful child minder, but it seems ridiculous that many parents should have to arrange that on top of everything else. I welcome the breakfast clubs, but we must deal with the issue about schools. I understand their educational role, but we should make the most of school buildings by allowing them to be used by other care providers, so that parents have less stress.
We want to take the stress off mums, who undoubtedly bear the largest burden of child care. Only today, on my way in on the tube, I saw a report saying that, even where a mother and a father work full time, the mother does twice as much domestic work as the father. However, there has been an encouraging increase in the contribution made by men.
Mr. Colman: One in five single parents are single fathers. I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that they also need the help that she is suggesting.
Caroline Flint: Absolutely. I welcome the fact that so many fathers in the House have not only attended their children's birth, but support the review of the working of the House and its facilities. They are a new generation of fathers who want to undo the old perception of fatherhood and the man's role. However, women are still doing far more than their fair share of the domestic work, and we must address that issue.
There must be less stress for mum, and we must create more space for dad. Men have said to me that when women colleagues have asked for time off from work it has been granted, but when men do, the request is not considered in the same light, because it is seen as something that they should not be asking for. That view needs to be changed. If we are to create confidence in child care, it must be of higher quality, but we must involve business more and allow the family-friendly employment agenda to play a larger part in our local partnerships to develop child care.
I have recently written to the Chairman of the Administration Committee seeking support for the issue of child care in the House to be discussed again. Many
260WH
hon. Members support that request, and it is time for a debate. There is no simple solution, but we must have a discussion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, the Government are doing their job, but it is for the Members of the House to decide how the House is run.
4.37 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: This has been a fascinating debate and I am delighted to be able to contribute to it from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
One of the Minister's first remarks was that the issue of work-life balance did not concern only women. Clearly, I am not a woman. [Laughter.] I can assure you that that is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker. The debate has shown that the issues span both genders. It would have been disappointing if the debate had attracted only women Members, and I am delighted that there has almost been parity between the genders.
We must ensure that men are involved in the discussions on this issue, as on many others. Many of the barriers to a good work-life balance that are put up by employers or the establishment are down to men. The danger is that, however brillantly and incisively they do so, only women in public life will discuss this issue, based on their own experience, while those who should change their practices and thought processes may switch off.
That is why I pay sincere tribute to my party leader, who took a mould-breaking step in challenging stereotypes when he asked me to speak for the Liberal Democrats on issues of special but not exclusive interest or relevance to women. Someone in the Labour party said at the time that it was a retrograde step—a comment that was attributed to the Minister who is here today. I give her the opportunity to say that she welcomes the diversity that appointments such as mine bring.
I would not criticise a party for insisting that, in general, a woman should speak on these issues, but we need to breakdown stereotypes, so it is helpful for men to speak on them as well. I have received many faxes and letters from men who heard me speak on issues of particular interest to women, saying that they realised for the first time that some of their attitudes were not progressive. On that occasion, they did not switch off the television because I was speaking. Sadly, many people would, and no doubt do.
I am neither a woman nor a parent, but many work-life balance issues apply to potential parents as well. Moreover, I recognise those issues as an employer. One of the first people that I employed in my office was a single parent, fresh from university. Her contribution was first class and in no way impaired by the parental responsiblities that she retained once she had paid for child care from what I admit was not a wonderful salary. I am pleased to say that I did not consider whether a person with such responsibilities could do the job, and I can say from experience that people who have to juggle the hours of their day work very efficiently. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) recently described parents, particularly single parents, as experienced project managers, and that is certainly true in my experience.

261WH
The discussion document looks interesting, but given that it was not available before today, it is difficult for hon. Members to respond to it. Had it been released earlier, we could have read it properly and discussed with the Minister those matters with which it deals, and those it omits. Alternatively, the Minister could have made the document available after the debate, and explained to us during the debate this very important initiative. I do not want to nitpick, but it has been difficult fully to engage with the subject, and I hope that we will be able to discuss it again in the near future.
Mrs. Spelman: I should like to place on record the fact that I could not obtain a copy of the document and, as Opposition spokesman, I was unclear about the relationship between its launch and this debate. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's view that the debate would have benefited by our being furnished with copies of it.
Dr. Harris: I should like to mention a feature of the document that is well known. People feel that they must work, and are prevented from getting right the work-life balance. They are dissuaded from taking certain jobs by the scourge—that is the right word—of presenteeism, which obliges them to work over and above the requirements of their job. Presenteeism could be described as the Lemsip phenomenon. Hon. Members will have seen the dreadful advertisement in which a macho man with flu struggles into work to find another macho man in his seat, trying to clinch the deal. The first macho man says that he was able to struggle in because his symptoms were alleviated by Lemsip and he wanted to stop his position being taken by another person. He appears to be happy to spread his germs left, right and centre and to delay his recovery in order to ensure that he is not usurped. I wrote to the manufacturer to ask whether that is the image that it wants to give. I am sure that the product is reasonable, but the macho work culture does not appeal.
The Government's consultation document states that people should be judged not on their working pattern but on the contribution that they make to business. They should also feel that working their contracted hours is what counts, and that if they only work those hours that should not affect their career. The medical profession, in which I worked, has an incredibly macho culture. The expectation of junior doctors was that when they had done their weekly hours, they should head straight to the library and then return to the wards in an effort to be spotted working beyond their contracted hours, which were already long enough. As I shall explain, that made it difficult to maintain a family life. The break up of my marriage was partly due to that regime. I was contracted to work 72 hours a week—I had contractual presenteeism. My wife at the time had non-contractual presenteeism of about 72 hours a week as a management consultant in a new business sector. The marriages of several of my medical cohorts also broke down either because the partner—it did not matter whether it was a man or woman—could not understand why his or her partner was not there, or because work demands meant that the couple never saw each other.
262WH
I inform Conservative Members that the working time directive is important—it protects people against employers' attempts to exploit them and against their own attempts to comply with opportunities to exploit themselves. As a Liberal, I have no qualms about introducing legislative controls over people's freedom to work long hours, for their own health and for the health of those who depend on them and who are in relationships with them.
There is a culture in the workplace that involves the need to lie to employers to get time off for family activities. We are all familiar with anecdotes about people who are not allowed the time off that they require—that applies in particular to men, and feeds into the macho culture.
Caroline Flint: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of research that was conducted into women's sick leave patterns? It showed that women quite often said that they were sick when they were tending to family matters. That creates a huge imbalance and distorts women's patterns of sick leave. It is terrible that women feel forced to take such steps.
Dr. Harris: I have heard of that research, and I agree that the situation is wrong. I am reminded of the old joke in a workplace notice that stated, "Employeers who wish to take time off to attend their grandmother's funeral should inform management at least three days before the day of the match." One can appreciate the humour of using one's grandmother's funeral as an excuse to attend a football match—the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) discussed the need for leisure. However, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, people often lie about being ill in order to get time off to look after children or older relatives.
The Minister and other hon. Members rightly stressed that care for older people can be provided by their relations or by other people. I am glad to say that my parents are still in good health, although they have had recent health scares. I am their only close relative living in this country, and the pager messages to which I respond most quickly are those from my parents. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I receive a message from them during this debate. The arrangement brought home, for the first time, the inevitably limited lifespan of one's parents. I am now of the age when I notice that my parents are getting older, and I think that they are aware that in future there will be a need for closer contact.
The Government would move the debate on if they responded to the royal commission on long-term care. Many insurance companies are waiting to develop policies, and individuals are finding it difficult to plan their caring careers—sometimes it can be a career—because they do not know what they will be entitled to. The Government's response to the royal commission is long overdue, and I hope they will take into account the issues that we have discussed today.
The Minister said that parents need time to nurture their children. When I pressed her on the question of parental leave, I was pleased to receive support from Labour Members. A parental leave system was much needed, and I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced it. However, the leave is unpaid. The

263WH
Minister correctly said that not all European countries provide paid leave. However, the majority do so. Research shows that take-up of parental leave, especially among low-income groups, is higher if it is paid. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in that area by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), other Labour Members and the Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has, in many respects, led the way.
Given that the research shows that take-up among low-income families is greater when leave is paid, it would be embarrassing for the Government to find that the UK is among the minority of countries that do not provide it. Countries that provide some form of payment include Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France—although it is unpaid for the first child—Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland and Sweden. As the Minister is probably aware, the Swedes have paid great attention to the issue of whether parental leave increases the role of the man in bringing up children in a relationship. Research by the European Network, "Family and Work and New Ways to Work", revealed that Sweden has undergone significant changes in the attitude of Swedish men to their families. It is commonplace in Sweden to see almost as many men pushing prams as women, which is a positive development. The researchers recognised that the high level of parental leave—and the compulsion to take it, because otherwise it will be lost, even to the other partner—has contributed to that situation. Will the Minister tell us whether her Department is considering that sort of model? Nobody could describe Sweden as uncompetitive, historically speaking.
This can be viewed positively in respect of the private sector. From what I have seen of the worked examples in the consultation document, businesses can accrue huge advantages from ensuring that they have family-friendly policies. Those business benefits can be assessed from the research that the DfEE commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies. For example, casual sickness absence has been reduced. That echoes the point that was made by the hon. Member for Don Valley. Employers felt that sickness absence due to employees' caring responsibilities had been reduced. That was reinforced by employees, who felt more able to be honest about absence due to dependents' illness. There were also benefits in terms of improved retention. That is logical, as people stay with firms longer because of access to family-friendly provision. As the labour supply is tight in many skill areas in the job market, that will be increasingly important.
Improved productivity was a third benefit. Many firms were convinced that employees working flexible hours were more productive than those working traditional hours. A routine is not as inspiring as enabling people to work flexibly and contribute the most that they can. The status of home working should be raised. People who have worked for me from home are at least as productive as those who come into a workplace. Home working has the extra advantage of ensuring greater opportunities for disabled people, although, clearly, such opportunities should not be restricted to working from home.
A fourth benefit is improved recruitment. Firms felt that offering family-friendly practices can attract recruits, and assist them in making comparative
264WH
judgments of job offers. That underlines the point about it being a prospective employee's market, in which an individual can choose between firms.
The fifth benefit is improved morale and commitment, because people can regard traditional working practices as restrictive. Various approaches can be taken in the public and private sector: innovative work organisation, examples of which are in the Government's document; employee development; leave provision, about which I have spoken; employee backup support; and, importantly, encouraging take-up. We need a workplace culture in which taking advantage of family-friendly policies is not seen as a cop-out, but as something to be positively encouraged.
The importance of a good work-life balance is, and continues to be, important for women. I am grateful to Cherie Booth QC for her speech on the "allerednic" syndrome, which is Cinderella in reverse. I heard the speech at an event organised by the Fawcett Society in commemoration of a woman's suffrage anniversary. In that syndrome, the princess marries the prince and becomes the scullery maid. The analogy is with a woman who is able to progress in her career and become a high earner and high achiever as a single woman, but who subsequently marries and has children. She then finds no way to continue with her former role or status because of the lack of opportunities in her chosen field to take the necessary time off to maintain a family and work life to the degree that she would like. Some women who have such difficulties never achieve their former high earning potential. Having been the highest earner when they became married, they never catch up with the earnings and status of the man in the relationship. I am not saying that earnings and work status are everything, but it is wrong to discriminate against a group of people who have to take time off at least to bear children, if not to look after those children in the early parts of their lives.
I think that Cherie Booth said—I scribbled it down during her speech—that the introduction of parental leave as a bridge between returning to work and nurturing one's family would be an important step in ensuring that the "allerednic" sydrome is not allowed to take off. I hope that the Prime Minister's household is not split on the matter. Unless the Government change their policy on paid parental leave, however, I fear that such a split will exist.
I want to refer to one area of the public sector where there are still major problems. This is an example from my own experience in the health service. It is a Government responsibility, which cannot be achieved through partnership with the private sector, however laudable. I want the Minister to reflect on the situation that I am about to describe and to reply to me at a later date with some ideas for solutions, as it is not reasonable to expect her to have the prescription now.
Clearly we are aware of the issues facing nurses. In no way do I denigrate those, and I acknowledge the Government's words and the fact that proposals are being made to ensure family-friendly practices for nurses. Another important group of health service workers, though not necessarily the most important, is doctors, particularly, doctors in training. About a third of a million pounds is needed to train a doctor, and it would be a terrible financial loss to the public sector, if not a personal tragedy, if we wasted doctors by not allowing those, particularly junior doctors, who want to

265WH
have families to train flexibly and appropriately. The NHS has been behind the times in this respect, and continues to be behind the times.
When I first began as a medical student and junior doctor, which was not long ago, the flexible training scheme, as it is now known, was called the married women's part-time scheme. I need not explain how the grossly misplaced assumptions arising from the name of the scheme can put many people off seeking to train part-time. However, I should stress what flexible training as a junior doctor means for men and women who wish to combine their training with having a family.
Does the Minister know that flexible trainees in the medical work force are expected to work 40 hours, which is not part time in any sense? They are expected to do around five sessions between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm and then do half the on-call work of other doctors. The standard rate is 72 hours and around 32 hours on call—16 hours on top of about 24 a week. Those extra hours are paid at half rate, so this is compulsory overtime in unfriendly hours—weekends and evenings—at half-rate pay of about £4 an hour, which is less than one would have to pay for child care. Therefore, doctors seeking to train flexibly, who have to do the on-call commitment, are forced to be net losers from employment.
I know that the Government are in protracted—extremely protracted—negotiations with junior doctors about out-of-hours pay and I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt that, although I should like her to, but I want to draw her attention to other problems faced by doctors who wish to train flexibly, most of whom are women.
The first is the lack of child care in the NHS. Clearly it would be sensible if all resident doctors who needed it—this also applies to resident nurses—had on-site affordable child care, so that people do not lose out from working in the health service. Hon. Members will agree that we desperately need to retain people in the system.
The fact that one has to offer well-founded reasons for seeking to train flexibly is a great deterrent, particularly to men with family commitments, who feel that they will not be given permission to train flexibly and will therefore spend even longer in the training grade than those working full time. There have been cases where people who wished to work flexibly have been turned down, although there would be no obvious disadvantage to the health service if they were allowed to do so.
There is an automatic assumption that if one works less than full time, one's training will have to be extended pro rata. In other words, if a person wishes to work half time, instead of training for five years, he is expected to train for 10 years, regardless of the level of competence reached in the time or whether the ratio of training to service in part-time work is higher, as it should be, than for full-timers. The blame for that cannot be placed exclusively at this Government's door or even, as the health service tends say, at the previous Government's door, because European Community rules state that training must increase pro rata for those working less than full time. If we are to achieve work-life balance in the health service, that issue must be tackled.
266WH
Finally, the issue applies to older people. I know older people in the health service who cannot function at 4 am, but otherwise work well as, for example, breast surgeons. They have a choice either to give up work altogether or work full time, including on-call time. That is unreasonable. Will the Minister examine the matter with the Department of Health in a joined-up way and make specific proposals on non-pay issues? Otherwise, we shall be in danger of losing valuable resources. Our debate has been useful and I look forward to the Minister's response.
5.6 pm
Ms Hodge: With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate. This is my second debate in Westminster Hall, and it is a joy to have an informed and intelligent debate. The open exchange of views and ideas is preferable to being entrenched in political banter, which is the style on the Floor of the House.
I shall respond briefly to the matters raised in the debate. I offer apologies if I do not cover everything but, in the interests of work-life balance, I shall keep my response short. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke about the culture change that we are attempting to achieve by our campaign. The Government will act in partnership with others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned, a committee will support our work and a comprehensive range of initiatives will be undertaken, the key to which is the employers alliance.
The hon. Member for Meriden made a number of points about child care. We shall deliver child care places for a million children. This week, I received quarterly figures on the progress of the national child care strategy. The figures are always way behind, but those for the first three quarters of last year show that more than 107,000 new places were created, greatly exceeding the annual target of 82,000. In the first 18 months of the strategy, we have created three times as many child care places as the previous Government achieved in 18 years.
Mrs. Spelman: So that I am clear about the pledge, will the Minister confirm that it is for a million new places in four years, of which eighteen months have elapsed? The women's unit document certainly states that. If that is correct, the figures that the Minister just gave are not quite on target.
Ms Hodge: The pledge offers places for a million children: many children will not require a full-time place. This issue also relates to parents. As we have discussed, 40 per cent. of women working with children are part-timers, so will require part-time places.
Contrary to what the hon. Lady said, there is an expansion of places. We accept that there is a reconfiguration of available places, and are anxious to encourage child minders to provide child care. That is especially important in relation to provision for children up to the age of three, where there is currently a big gap. We are taking steps to recruit many more child minders.
Playgroups are closing. However, the Government have taken positive steps to support pre-schools that wish to remain open. Under the present Government,

267WH
more money has gone into the pre-school sector than under any previous Government. Resources are generous: we have provided a two-year grant of £500,000 for places for three and four-year-olds and money to the Pre-School Learning Alliance. Much work has to be done to ensure that pre-schools meet the changing needs of parents and families. I am engaged in that work now with the Pre-School Learning Alliance.
Let me correct the hon. Member for Meriden. There is no way that any three-year-old will be in a reception class. The expansion of provision for three-year-olds will take place in appropriate settings with appropriate adult-child ratios. It is interesting that 80 per cent. of the places created in the first phase of expansion have been in the private and voluntary sector. I must also tell the hon. Lady that this is all about choice—not about valuing work outside the home more than work inside it. It is about recognising the changing patterns of our world, in which 70 per cent. of mothers are now in the labour market. We must ensure that they have proper choices to enable them to balance their work and their life. Part of that choice is the provision of high-quality child care.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for his contribution. Shirley Conran is certainly making a forceful contribution to the work of the advisory committee. Both my hon. Friends the Member for Putney and for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) raised the issue of small and medium-sized enterprises. We are conscious that we have a great deal to do in that sector. The research to which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred dealt specifically with small and medium-sized enterprises. It showed that there are some examples of good practice in that sector.
In my view—as yet untested, but we shall undertake the necessary research—many SMEs have good flexible work-life practices to meet the needs of the employee and the job, they just do not call it that: they do not formalise it, and it may not be offered to all employees within the organisation. It is operated more formally by bigger firms. We need to capture the good practice that undoubtedly exists within the SME sector, spread it and support it in attempting to do more. The Government and the employers alliance are conscious of how important that is,
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney also asked whether those who care for the elderly were sufficiently represented on the advisory committee. I intentionally kept it small, so it can be a good working committee that can genuinely brainstorm new ideas in this new area of public policy. We have one representative for the elderly, but there is a range of initiatives. I have worked closely with my colleagues in the Department of Health on this, and I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to awards for caring about carers, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Hutton) has conferred in the past week or two.
Some hon. Members referred to the Government putting their own house in order. Ironically, the Department for Education and Employment launched its own "right balance" campaign today, and it will be examining work-life issues. The document that we produced today refers to some Departments, such as the
268WH
Lord Chancellor's Department, that are not traditionally viewed as being at the forefront of public policy developments.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has three senior civil service posts that are filled by job sharers. One has been job shared since 1988 and the pair head up a policy division that advises the Lord Chancellor on reforming the justice system in respect of families, children and divorce. Their last job dealt with the appointment of senior judiciary—I ought to declare an interest—and Queen's Counsel. Another pair of job sharers head the personnel management division and are responsible for human resource strategy. We are beginning to make progress in that area, and I know that Baroness Jay, with her new responsibilities across Government, is determined to advance it further.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) asked why we use the term "work-life". We discussed that extensively. We no longer use the term "family-friendly"—though some hon. Members have used it in our debate—because it tends to make most people think about women and children, and we wanted to extend the parameters beyond that. We thought about "work-home", but many people work at home, such as those with flexible working practices, given the development of information and communication technologies. We ended up with the term "work-life" because it embraced the concept more fully. It meant that we could respond to the needs of carers as well as parents and everyone who wants a life. I should like to pay a warm tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford did during her time as Minister for Women in furthering this agenda. I like to think that I am building on the firm foundations that she established when she held that office.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said that we should look across all sectors at those organisations and businesses that do not have a tradition of progress in this area. We have commissioned a broad-based study to give us that information from all sectors and all sizes of business, so that we can consider what measures we can undertake to pursue that agenda. She talked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), about flexibility being traditionally associated with insecurity.
We need to recapture the term "flexibility". It should not be associated, as it has been in the past, with insecurity but with a sensible range of working practices that enable people to manage their lives and get the most they can out of life. Part of the campaign must be to recapture that term and refocus it in a much more positive way. The story that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford told about the individual who had to care for her mother and was thinking about giving up work when all she needed was a car parking space was poignant and true; I come across such stories every day in my work. We are not talking about big expenditure—often we are not talking about any expenditure. We are talking about a lot of imagination and basic common sense. If imagination and common sense can inform thinking in this area we will be able to make enormous progress to the benefit of both business and the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned volunteering. I have responsibility for that as well. One of the reasons that we are pursuing the policy is to

269WH
encourage people to give to their communities. That is why we are trying to take the focus away from parenting. Another document that hon. Members will not have seen was launched today by the employers alliance. It gives an example from Prudential plc of a woman called Rosy Harris—the head of the independent financial advice service centre—who for the past seven years has worked flexible hours to enable her to balance work and other commitments—not only bringing up her family but, until recently, working in a voluntary and fund-raising capacity as deputy chairman for an NHS hospital. That is another good example of the sort of flexibility that we are trying to encourage so that people can volunteer within their communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud talked about work-poor and income-poor families. The number of holiday play schemes that we are encouraging is growing, and we have introduced a new accreditation of such schemes. Indeed, at the annual conference of Kids Club Network this morning, I was able to announce the first three organisations to be accredited by the Secretary of State to accredit those holiday play schemes that cater for children in the eight-to-14 age group. Kids Club Network received that accreditation, which means that parents who use those facilities are eligible for child care tax credit. We therefore hope that those schemes will be available even for low-income families.
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) who throughout her time as a Member of Parliament, and before—she helped me when we were in opposition—has worked hard on all these issues. I completely agree with her that this debate is not just about employment policies, but about family-friendly services. There is a convergence of interests on which we need to build, and that is what we are doing. I also agree that we need to engage businesses more positively in the national child care strategy. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I have met employers several times recently to find out what further steps we can take to bring them into the strategy. I will attend another brainstorming session next week with a group of more progressive employers to discover what issues they want us to raise.
My hon. Friend raised some interesting issues that we need to consider, such as shift parenting. I am talking to
270WH
colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about how we can work together to ensure that child care is considered not only in managing railway stations but in granting planning approvals, which will release some potential.
I have recently spoken to child care providers. A growing number of employers pay for back-up care, so an instant response is provided if children become sick, thus enabling employees to stay in work. The issues that my hon. Friend raised about school buildings are close to my heart, as she knows. School buildings are a central resource in our communities. We want to raise educational standards and ensure that those resources are used in the best way possible.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that such issues involves men. Most of those at the breakfast held this morning with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education were men, which was deliberate. Company chief executives attended the breakfast, and they have now signed up to thinking about work-life balance. That is an important step forward in ensuring that they lead the cultural change that we desire. Incidentally, I apologise to those hon. members who have not seen the document. The timing of the launch in the Prime Minister's diary took place long ago, but the date of the debate was determined only a few days ago.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred to presenteeism. The document contains several cartoons, which is probably a first for a Government publication. There are two Dot cartoons. I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with Dot cartoons; they are good fun. A further cartoon shows a boss talking to an employee: the employee asks the boss, "I finished all my work. Can I go home early?" to which the boss replies, "No. You're an 'exempt' employee. That means you're exempt from having a life." The employee then says, "I guess I could clutch an unimportant document and shuffle around in quiet desperation", to which the boss replies, "That's the spirit!" We want to change that culture in partnership with business, trade unions and employees because we believe that business, individuals, families and society will benefit from better work-life balance.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Atomic Energy Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the budget allocation to atomic energy research made by his Department for each financial year from 1989–90 to 1999–2000; and what is his Department's anticipated expenditure for 2000–01.[113299]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The budget allocation to Nuclear R&D made by my Department (and by the Department of Energy prior to amalgamation) for each financial year since 1989–90 to 1999–2000, and the anticipated expenditure for 2000–01, is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  163.8

  1990–91

  126.4

  1991–92

  93.6

  1992–93

  85.3

  1993–94

  76.9

  1994–95

  28.4

  1995–96

  21.7

  1996–97

  21.4

  1997–98

  17.6

  1998–99

  14.2

  1999–2000

  16.8

  2000–01

  16.8

  Petrol
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he collects on the percentage market share of each of the major suppliers of petroleum fuel to petroleum retailers. [113536]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: My Department collects and collates data from the individual companies that supply petroleum products into the UK market. However, this information is provided under strict commercial confidentiality constraints, and, as such, data on individual company market shares cannot be published.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls exist to prevent petrol suppliers charging petrol retailers for petrol which has evaporated before delivery. [113531]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Evaporative losses occurring between loading petrol from a storage terminal and delivering it to a retail site have been minimised by the use of vapour recovery systems. Under EC Directive 94/63/EC all storage and distribution terminals delivering more than 50,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of petrol already operate vapour recovery equipment, and all other terminals will have to comply by 2001 or
  776W
  2004 (depending on the volume of their deliveries). It is estimated that the implementation of vapour recovery has already reduced vapour losses arising from the transportation and delivery of petrol by 98 per cent. since 1996.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Emergency Towing Vessels
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the provision of emergency towing vessels (tugs) around the UK. [114330]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is announcing today the extension of the contract for the provision of the Emergency Towing Vessel (Tug) Anglia Monarch, to provide emergency cover for the Fair Isle Channel and the Pentland Firth for a further winter period, commencing from October 2000, and the conclusion of an agreement with the French authorities which will ensure all year round emergency tug cover for the Dover straits. A tug review team is now working to review all emergency towing provision around the UK and is expected to report its findings during summer 2000.

  Code of Audit Practice
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to replace the Code of Audit Practice which ceases to have effect on 21 July; and if he will make a statement. [114331]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 2 March the Audit Commission approved a new Code of Audit Practice which it has submitted to my right hon. Friend who has today laid a copy before the House.

  It is now for the House to consider the Code and, if it sees fit, to approve it. If approved, the Code will prescribe the way in which auditors in England and Wales must carry out their audits of local government and NHS bodies, and it will also set out auditors' responsibilities in relation to the audit of local government Best Value Performance Plans.

  The Code has been prepared under the Audit Commission Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 1999. The Code sets out the general principles to be followed by auditors, and the audit framework within which auditors will carry out their responsibilities. It also sets out auditors' responsibilities in relation to reviews of the financial aspects of corporate governance; the audit of the accounts; and reviews of aspects performance management.

  Modern Zoo Practice
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the revised Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. [114356]

  Mr. Mullin
  I am pleased to announce that I shall be launching the revised standards at Bristol Zoo today. They will come into effect on 3 April 2000.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Ministers have responsibility for the new unit to co-ordinate the Government's approach to the regions; and how often the ministerial board of the unit will meet. [113153]

  Mr. Prescott
  Lord Falconer, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, will have day-to-day responsibility for the Regional Co-ordination Unit reporting to me. Matters relating to the new unit that require collective agreement will be considered by an interdepartmental committee of Ministers, which will meet under my chairmanship when business requires.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many civil servants have been assigned to the new unit to co-ordinate the Government's approach to the regions. [113156]

  Mr. Prescott
  A team of three civil servants is currently preparing for the setting up of the core of the Regional Co-ordination Unit on 1 April. Staff will be assigned to the new unit as the implementation plan on the Performance and Innovation Unit report "Reaching Out" progresses.

  Domestic Emissions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in developing a domestic emissions trading scheme. [113054]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government, in their new Draft Climate Change Programme, recognise that carbon emissions trading is a key part of the longer-term solution to greenhouse gas emissions. It will complement other measures in the business sector by offering cost-effective and flexible options for achieving emissions reductions. And an early start to emissions trading in the UK should bring valuable experience and expertise to UK business and to the City of London. This will be particularly important in advance of the international emissions trading scheme envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol, and the European trading scheme put forward in the recent European Commission Green Paper.

  The design of a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme has been taken forward by the business-led UK Emissions Trading Group (ETG), with Government officials working closely alongside. The ETG has made speedy progress in addressing the key issues involved in the design of a domestic emissions trading scheme. Outline proposals for a UK trading scheme were presented to Government in October 1999, and the ETG has recently reported to Government on follow-up work in a number of areas. The group's conclusions have moved the UK significantly along the road to the launch of a domestic trading scheme. But much work on the detail of the scheme remains to be done, and the Government will expect to take this work forward with the Emissions Trading Group.

  The Government have also said that firms within climate change levy agreements, who have agreed a target to increase their energy efficiency or reduce their carbon emissions, will be able to use carbon trading as one way of helping them meet their targets. And the Government
  778W
  are currently discussing with members of the Emissions Trading Group and climate change levy agreement sectors the most suitable way for these firms to participate in this trading, and in trading with the wider domestic scheme.

  Rural Bus Fund
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the last five years for which figures are available(a) the total allocation to Shrewsbury and Atcham from the Rural Bus Fund and (b) the number of (i) additional and (ii) improved bus services supported by these grants; and if he will make a statement. [113484]

  Mr. Hill
  The rural bus subsidy grant is allocated at county council level and it is for each county to decide which services to support. In the first year of the grant, 1998–99, Shropshire county council was allocated £630,354. The same amount has also been allocated to the council for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  In 1998–99 Shropshire county council used its allocation to fund 46 services, of which 16 served Shrewsbury. Of the total of 46 services, 16 were entirely new and 30 improvements to existing services. We shall be obtaining information on any changes to those figures at the end of the current financial year.

  Freight
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to which specific classes of freight currently predominately transported by road, his policy on moving freight transport from road to rail applies. [113485]

  Mr. Hill
  The policy of encouraging more freight on rail extends to all classes of freight. Freight grant applications are assessed purely on the basis of environmental benefit of lorry miles saved. The process does not take into account the type of goods proposed to be transported by rail.

  North Wales Main Line
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has received for an increase in freight traffic on the North Wales main line(a) in general and (b) with reference to traffic between the Republic of Ireland and other member states of the EU. [113636]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Rate Relief
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about rate relief for businesses in rural areas. [112248]

  Ms Armstrong
  Mandatory rate relief of 50 per cent. is available to the sole village shop or post office in a qualifying settlement (one which is in a designated rural area and has a population of fewer than 3,000), provided the property has a rateable value less than £5,000. Local authorities have the discretion to provide additional relief up to 100 per cent. of the rates bill.
  779W
  Local authorities also have the discretion to provide rate relief of up to 100 per cent. to any other business in a qualifying settlement, which they consider to be of benefit to the community, provided the property concerned has a rateable value less than £10,000.

  These rateable value thresholds will be increased to £6,000 and £12,000 respectively on 1 April 2000, when Revaluation takes effect, giving all non-domestic properties in England new rateable values. The thresholds are being increased broadly in line with the overall effects of the revaluation on properties of the size affected, to ensure that no one loses eligibility for rate relief as a result of the general movement in property values.

  Rate relief is one of a number of issues affecting rural businesses which will be considered in preparing the forthcoming Rural White Paper.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received regarding commercial cultivation of Novartis genetically modified Bt maize in Germany; and what their implications are for decision-making in the(a) UK and (b) EU. [113617]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have received no reports regarding commercial cultivation of Novartis genetically modified Bt maize in Germany.

  Novartis Bt maize is not and never has been grown in the United Kingdom and Novartis, through the industry body SCIMAC, have given an assurance that there are no plans to do so in the next few years. Therefore any decisions on cultivation in Germany have no implications for the UK.

  GLA (Mayoral Candidates)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory authority exists for costs to be met by him for expenditure incurred on the provision of a booklet of election addresses by mayoral candidates at the first election of the Greater London Authority. [114329]

  Mr. Hill
  Pending parliamentary approval of powers in the Representation of the People Bill, urgent expenditure on the preparation and delivery of the booklet, estimated at some £0.4 million in 1999–2000, will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. The cost of repaying the advances will be met from within the Department's existing provision.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Sports and Community Sports Clubs
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to promote closer links between school sports activities and local community sports clubs. [113059]

  Kate Hoey
  The first School Sport Co-ordinators, an initiative being supported by the Lottery Sports Fund, with additional support expected to come from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), will be in place in September.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the administrative cost to the BBC of issuing free TV licences to households containing a person aged over 75 years. [112851]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Estimates are currently being prepared and will be incorporated in the Department of Social Security's Departmental Report, which is due for publication following the Budget.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice he has been given on the question of possible breach of EU state aid rules as a result of payments to the BBC in lieu of the revenue lost through giving free TV licences to those aged over 75 years. [112849]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: The Government have taken legal advice on the application of state aid rules to its recently announced policy on free television licences for people aged 75 or over.

  NESTA
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with what assistance the NESTA programme provides for talented young sports people. [112955]

  Kate Hoey
  The NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) programme, created under the National Lottery Act 1998, with £200 million of National Lottery money to invest, exclusively focuses on British creativity and innovation. NESTA's main aims are to nurture talented people to pursue potential and produce services, and to bring the appreciation of science, technology and the arts to the public domain.

  While NESTA does not offer support to sporting activities, Sport England's Lottery Fund has created an opportunity to help young people develop their sporting skills and talent, with several million pounds being invested in education based projects. The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) is intended to promote after-school-hours activity with £180 million earmarked across the UK for revenue funding to support after school clubs. NOF has a target of funding 50 per cent. of secondary schools and 25 per cent. of primary schools by 2001 with after-school sports being a major beneficiary. Sport England is now able to solicit applications where it can identify significant need to ensure that young people develop their sporting skills and talent.

  Youth Sports Unit
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to set up a youth sports unit within his Department; and if he will make a statement. [112956]

  Kate Hoey
  The Unit is dedicated to the implementation of young people's sport and activity, from children's play to sport in schools. It works closely with the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) and other organisations involved in sport and physical education for young people.

  British Resorts Association
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when Ministers from his Department last held discussions with the representatives of the British Resorts Association. [113437]

  Janet Anderson
  I last met representatives of the British Resorts Association (BRA) when I spoke at their conference on 21 June 1999. I am in regular contact with BRA via their president, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), whom I will next be meeting on 13 March. I will also be addressing the BRA conference in Eastbourne this June.

DEFENCE

  Hercules
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the specifications for number of crew in cockpit required in contracts placed for the Hercules C130J. [113471]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Peter Keetch, dated 9 March 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the specifications for number of crew required in the cockpit of the C-130J transport aircraft. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The specification for the RAF C-130J states that the cockpit crew shall consist of a pilot and a co-pilot situated in a conventional side-by-side arrangement. In addition the specification calls for an additional crew seat aft of the pilots for the use by a third cockpit crew member should one be required for missions where high crew workload is expected.

  Anthrax Vaccines
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of squalene and mercury are used as preservative and adjuvant in anthrax vaccines used by his Department. [113000]

  Mr. Spellar
  Squalene is not added to or used in anthrax vaccine used by the Ministry of Defence. Mercury is a component of the preservative Thiomersal which is used in the manufacture of anthrax vaccine. The maximum quantity of mercury allowed under the Department of Health Marketing Authorisation is 1.5 microgrammes per dose and the anthrax vaccine used by the Ministry of Defence does not exceed this limit.

  Mozambique
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military transporters that can carry helicopters are in service; and if he will estimate the journey time for them to travel to Mozambique. [113086]

  Mr. Spellar
  The only UK military aircraft capable of transporting helicopters is the RAF Hercules C130 of which there are currently 54 in service. A C130 can transport one Puma, two Lynx or two Gazelle per flight. The estimated flying time for a Hercules to fly from the 782W
  UK to Mozambique is 25 hours. However, the estimated total time to transport a Puma to Mozambique in a Hercules, including dismantling, reassembling and stops to refuel and change crew, is a minimum of four days if relief aircrew are prepositioned along the route and up to six days if relief aircrew are not available.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development about humanitarian aid to Mozambique. [113781]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have discussed the provision of humanitarian aid to Mozambique with my right hon. Friend on a number of occasions since the onset of the crisis. Other Ministers and officials have been in regular contact with DFID throughout.

  Force Operating Costs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of operating(a) an air defence squadron (43 Squadron), (b) a strike attack squadron (12 Squadron), (c) an offensive support squadron (1 Squadron), (d) a photo-reconnaissance squadron (41 Squadron and 51 Squadron), (e) a maritime reconnaissance squadron (120 Squadron), (f) a transport squadron (24 Squadron), (g) a transport flight (C130), (h) a refuelling squadron, (i) a refuelling flight, (j) a support helicopter squadron (18 Squadron and 33 Squadron), (k) an SAR squadron (202 Squadron), (l UAS, (m) JEFTS and (n) No. 3 FTS in the last year for which figures are available. [112854]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: We do not account for squadron operating costs in this way. Budgets are broken down to station level only. A station's operating budget would include the costs of personnel, fuel, maintenance and works services, infrastructure, utilities and other overheads, all of which contribute to the proper and effective functioning of squadrons based there. The costs for aircraft maintenance and spares would not be included, as these costs are managed separately on a fleet-wide basis.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many pupillages have been offered by the Crown Prosecution Service in the last 12 months. [113420]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has not offered any pupillages in the last 12 months. The position is currently under review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Street Signs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 6W, on street signs, what is his assessment of the community relations impact of the erection of bilingual street signs in (a) Irish and (b) Ulster Scots; how he will monitor the rise or fall of opposition

  783W
  and support for bilingual signs (i) internally within each tradition and (ii) between different traditions; how many bilingual signs have been erected and if any have subsequently been removed; and if he will issue guidelines to ensure that instances of criminal damage that have a sectarian or racist element are recorded as a distinct category. [111944]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 2 March 2000]: Current research, funded by the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, will assess the demand for, and attitude towards, the use of Irish in the provision of services, including bilingual signage. Consideration is being given to commissioning similar research on Ulster-Scots. Otherwise, there has been no separate assessment made of the community relations impact of the erection of bilingual street signs.

  As the erection of street nameplates is a function of district councils in Northern Ireland, information on the number of bilingual signs erected and on whether any have subsequently been removed, is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Currently, information recorded by the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the motivation of a crime can only be obtained manually. It is intended to introduce, during 2001, an Integrated Crime Information System which will permit the central recording of crime motivation, where this can be determined. The system is presently being designed to record the motive of any crime, be it racial, sectarian, domestic or other designated motive, in line with the Association of Chief Police Officers' guidelines.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Belize
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to Guatamala, in support of the Government of Belize, in relation to the incursion into Belize territory and seizure of officials on 24 February; and what future action is proposed. [113615]

  Mr. Battle
  Following the detention by the Guatemalan Armed Forces on 24 February of three members of the Belizean Defence Force and a Belizean policeman, the British Ambassador in Guatemala City was instructed to call on the Guatemalan Foreign Ministry. He stressed our hope for an early and amicable resolution. I am pleased to report that the four Belizeans were conditionally released on 3 March. We shall continue to monitor developments closely.

  Entry Clearance Times (Indian Sub-continent)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the waiting time for a person applying for entry clearance for settlement in(a) September 1999, (b) October 1999, (c) November 1999, (d) December 1999, (e) January 2000 and (f) February 2000 for an interview in each queue at each post in the Indian sub-continent; and if he will make a statement. [113587]
  784W
  Mr. Vaz
  The statistics requested are as follows:

  Waiting times in weeks on last day of each month

  Post

  Queue

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Bombay

  Q1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Q2

  4

  4

  6

  5

  6

  Q3

  4

  4

  6

  5

  6

  Q4

  4

  4

  6

  5

  6

  Calcutta

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colombo

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dhaka

  Q1

  17

  14

  18

  16

  16

  Q2

  26

  28

  28

  30

  28

  Q3

  11

  12

  12

  16

  16

  Q4

  49

  60

  59

  61

  56

  Karachi

  1—

  8

  8

  10

  14

  10

  Madras

  1—

  2

  2

  3

  5

  2

  New Delhi

  Q1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Q2

  4

  4

  6

  5

  8

  Q3

  21

  22

  24

  20

  8

  Q4

  25

  28

  24

  25

  8

  1 Calcutta, Colombo, Karachi and Madras do not operate separate queues

  Notes:

  Queue 1—Right of Abode cases and Dependant Relatives over 65

  Queue 2—Spouses and Children under 18

  Queue 3—Finance(e)s and Other First Time Applicants

  Queue 4—Re-applicants

  Statistics for the month of February are not yet available

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how much Price Waterhouse is being paid to headhunt applicants for the post of chairman of the Appointments Commission. [112817]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There is no single identifiable cost payable to PricewaterhouseCoopers Executive Search and Selection solely for the "headhunting" of the chairman.

  The cost for recruiting the whole Commission will be £52,000 plus expenses and VAT. Advertising costs will be in addition to this.

  Parliamentary Counsel
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Council how many hours have been spent by Parliamentary Counsel in preparing(a) Government legislation announced in the Queen's speeches, (b) private members' Bills, (c) Law Commission work and (d) private legislation, and what proportion of Parliamentary Counsel's time was spent on each, in each of the parliamentary sessions (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000 to date. [113349]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Parliamentary Counsel Office answers to the Prime Minister, but I am replying to this question since it relates to the Government's legislative programme.

  Information is not available on the number of hours spent by Parliamentary Counsel on different types of legislation. However, a reasonable indication of how the Counsel are deployed is given by their location. Counsel at 36 Whitehall work on Government Bills and on Private

  785W
  Members' Bills supported by the Government. Other Counsel are on loan to the Law Commission, to the Inland Revenue's Tax Law Rewrite Project and to the Department of Trade and Industry's Company Law Review.

  The following table shows the total number of Counsel in these locations in the 1997–98 and 1998–99 Sessions (as at 1 January) and at present. The figures exclude Scottish and Northern Ireland Parliamentary Counsel.

  Deployment of Parliamentary Counsel by type of work (numbers of Counsel, full-time equivalents, as at 1 January 1998, 1 January 1999 and at present

  Type of legislation

  Counsel

  1997–98 Percentage

  Counsel

  1998–99 Percentage

  Counsel

  Session 1999–20001 Percentage

  Government Bills (est.)

  227½

  77

  224½

  73

  230

  80

  Private Members' Bills supported by the Government (est.)

  21

  3

  21½

  5

  2½

  1

  Sub-total 36 Whitehall

  28½

  80

  26

  78

  30½

  81

  Law Commission

  4½

  13

  5

  15

  4

  11

  Inland Revenue

  2½

  7

  2½

  7

  2½

  7

  DTI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ½

  1

  Total

  35½

  100

  33½

  100

  37½

  100

  1 To date

  2 Rounded to the nearest ½

  Although there are minor fluctuations from year to year, the figures show that, since the start of the 1997–98 Session, about one-fifth of the Parliamentary Counsel have been engaged on work for the Law Commission, for the Inland Revenue Tax Law Rewrite Project or (since the beginning of this month) for the DTI's Company Law Review. Some four-fifths of Counsel work on the Government's Bills and Private Members' Bills, with on average about 97 per cent. of that work concentrated on the Government's Bills.

HEALTH

  Infertility Services
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will receive the third set of guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on the provision of specialised infertility services; [108122]

  (2) what have been the findings of his Department's survey to ascertain the current provision of infertility services; [108123]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to ensure that equality of access to infertility services is provided throughout England; [108124]

  (4) what guidelines he plans to issue to health authorities on the provision of infertility services. [108125]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published its final set of guidelines on the provision of specialised infertility services on 20 January 2000. The Department has copies.

  The survey returns are still being analysed. The conclusions will be published shortly.
  786W
  In the table, part-time Counsel are counted as equivalent to half a full-time Counsel. The split between Government legislation and Private Members' Bills supported by the Government is pro rata the number of pages of each enacted in the Session or, in the case of the 1999–2000 Session, the number of pages enacted to date plus the number of pages, on introduction, of Bills introduced but not yet enacted. A split of work on Government Bills between those in the Queen's Speech and others is not available. Parliamentary Counsel are not involved in drafting Private Bills.

  While the Government have already set their priorities for the National Health Service in the immediate future (cancer, coronary heart disease, mental health) we remain committed to ending the postcode lottery for all services in the National Health Service. We will therefore be working towards greater equity in access to services within available resources over the coming years.

  There are no immediate plans to issue guidance to health authorities on infertility services.

  BSE
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out his Department's assessment of the hierarchy, by method of transmission, of likelihood of risk of transmission of BSE. [111897]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: In experiments involving strains of prion that have been adapted to laboratory animals, such as mice, it has been shown that intracerebral inoculation is more likely to cause infection than intravenous injection which, in turn, is more likely to cause infection than intra-peritoneal or sub-cutaneous inoculation. Parenteral exposure is, in turn, more likely to cause infection than oral exposure.

  Experiments on mice challenged with a strain of scrapie—a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy of sheep—that had been adapted to mice showed that exposure by placing the inoculum directly into the stomach was about 100,000 fold less efficient than by direct inoculation into the brain.

  As part of its remit to consider emerging scientific findings the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), the expert Committee that advises the Government on all aspects of TSEs, has considered

  787W
  the results of experiments designed to investigate the link between BSE and variant CJD (vCJD). The Committee has stated that
  BSE and vCJD were caused by a closely similar prion strain, and concluded that vCJD was an acquired prion disease caused by exposure to BSE or BSE like agent.

  However, these results do not provide information about the route of exposure, and research to establish this factor remains part of the Government's TSE Research Strategy.

  Cancer
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health What funding there is in the current year for medical activities relating to(a) prostate, (b) breast and (c) testicular cancer; if he will break down each figure into (i) treatment, (ii) prevention, (iii) detection and (iv) research; and if he will make a statement. [112331]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: The information on overall spending on cancer is not currently held centrally. Spending on cancer in-patient care is estimated to account for 6.3 per cent. (£1,479 million) of National Health Service hospital expenditure but there is no measure of the additional spending on cancer services not normally provided on an in-patient basis, for example cancer screening, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and community palliative care services. Breast screening for women aged 50–64 is estimated to cost around £37 million per annum. However, information is not available on the annual spend for cancer diagnosis, treatment and prevention for individual cancer tumour types.

  Government funding for cancer research is provided through the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The MRC funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base and is the main agency through which the Government support research on the causes and treatment of disease. The Department also funds research to support policy development in health and social care and manages the NHS research and development budgets.

  The Department also provides support for research commissioned by charities and the MRC that takes place in the NHS. Over £63 million per year of this funding supports cancer research, with £16 million going to the Royal Marsden Hospital alone.

  Total Government expenditure on cancer research is estimated to be £110 million per annum. This does not include basic biomedical research, which may lead to breakthroughs for cancer treatment.

  The latest figures available for annual Government (Department of Health/NHS, MRC and other Government Departments—principally devolved Health Departments) expenditure on breast cancer, prostate cancer and testicular cancer:

  £ million

  Breast

  9.33

  Prostate

  1.55

  Testicular

  0.49

  788W
  We have recently agreed an additional £1 million for prostate cancer research next year.

  These figures underestimate the total expenditure, as detailed estimates of NHS support funding expenditure are not collected routinely.

  New research projects are being funded regularly through both the MRC and DH/NHS directly commissioned programmes and priorities for research funding are kept under review.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what planning assumptions he has made on the basis of the additional revenue which the NHS will receive as a result of hypothecation of increased levels of tobacco duty in 2000–01. [112785]

  Yvette Cooper
  The allocations to health authorities for 2000–01 take account of the possibility that £250 million will be available to the National Health Service as a result of changes in tobacco duty, in the light of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Pre-Budget Report speech last November. Decisions about tobacco duty will be announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Speech.

  Cerebral Palsy
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of cerebral palsy per thousand of the population(a) nationally and (b) in the north-west Region for each of the past 10 years. [113661]

  Ms Stuart
  Data are not collected centrally on the numbers of children in England with cerebral palsy.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 2000–01 for the Medical Devices Agency. [114357]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have agreed the agency's key targets for 2000-01 and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Medicines Control Agency and the interest each one has in(a) local, (b) national and (c) international drug companies. [113614]

  Ms Stuart
  The Medicines Control Agency is an executive agency of the Department of Health and is accountable direct to Ministers. It has over 500 staff who are Civil Servants and subject to all the normal Civil Service employment rules, including those on interests in commercial concerns.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chest and Heart Services (Wales)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if his proposals to establish fast track chest pain clinics and a National Heart Director apply in Wales. [113635]
  789W
  The Prime Minister
  The responsibility for health in Wales has been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Government Contracts (Representations)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions when Heads of foreign Governments have made representations to him relating to the allocation of a particular Government contract; who the Head of Government was in each case; and in each case if the contract allocation was in accord with the representations made. [113065]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under exemption 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  Prior Options Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what evaluation he has made of the mechanisms presented in the Prior Options Review for opening up the operation of non-departmental public bodies. [113304]

  The Prime Minister
  In line with a commitment in the Modernising Government White Paper, we have recently reviewed the entire review process for non-departmental public bodies. We have concluded that the Prior Options stage of the review process should reflect the Government's wider objectives. This includes taking greater account of the views of stakeholders and focusing on delivering services which are of a higher quality, more responsive and better integrated.

CABINET OFFICE

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if she will make it a requirement for non-departmental public bodies that they should record the matters discussed and agreements reached in meetings held with other NDPBs in the form of minutes; [113302]

  (2) what proportion of non-departmental public bodies hold open meetings; [113307]

  (3) how many people are board members of non-departmental public bodies in the United Kingdom; broken down between (a) England, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales. [113311]

  Mr. Stringer
  All executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are encouraged to publish minutes of meetings, either whole or in summary form, and to hold meetings in public. Individual Departments and NDPBs themselves are best placed to determine whether this is appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Information on the number of NDPBs holding open meetings is not held centrally.

  There are currently over 30,000 men and women serving on the boards of NDPBs (and their equivalents) across the UK. Information on these office-holders, including information on the numbers serving in Northern
  790W
  Ireland, Scotland and Wales, is published in "Public Bodies 1999". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" are available from the libraries of the House.

  Public Sector Ombudsman
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the review of public sector ombudsman schemes will be published. [113421]

  Mr. Stringer
  I expect the report on the review of public sector ombudsman in England to be published by the end of March.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Global Warming Refrigerants
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to issue advice to local education authorities discouraging against the use of global warming refrigerants, including HFCs, on their estates. [112566]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department gives advice to local education authorities and schools in Building Bulletin 83, "Schools Environmental Assessment Method (SEAM)". This recommends specifying refrigerants which do not cause both ozone depletion and global warming.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions steers policy on issues concerning ozone depleting chemicals and greenhouse gases, and the European Union has issued regulations to phase out the use of certain of these, such as CFCs and HCFCs. HFCs are often used as refrigerants in place of CFCs and HCFCs, and I understand that there are not any plans to prohibit their use at present.

  Post-16 Curriculum
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities which(a) have and (b) have not made additional funds available to schools for the implementation of the new post-16 curriculum. [113666]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available. Local education authorities are not required to publish budget statements for school funding until 31 March 2000; and in any case such statements identify funding for 16+ pupils only in terms of the factors used for distribution rather than the curriculum components of sixth-form funding.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people have stayed at school after the age of 16 years in each of the 12 pilot areas for education maintenance allowance since the scheme was introduced; and what the figures were for the comparable period in 1998. [113120]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Comparative data at this level of detail are not yet available for the period of the pilots. However, early

  791W
  indications are promising, with a number of schools and colleges in EMA areas reporting higher post-16 intakes this year.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost of extending the Education Maintenance Allowance to the whole of England(a) if everyone eligible applied and (b) if take-up was the same as in the pilot areas. [111715]

  Mr. Wicks
  Extending the Educational Maintenance Allowance to the whole of England would cost between £670 million and £940 million for an academic year if everybody eligible applied, depending on which model is chosen. However, we would not expect to achieve 100 per cent. take-up, as some young people would continue to choose alternatives to education such as a modern apprenticeship or a job with training.

  If take-up is the same as in the pilot areas so far, the cost would be between £440 million and £560 million for an academic year, depending on which model is chosen.

  ONE Service (Mentally Ill People)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make it his policy that people with a mental illness will not be required to attend a ONE interview, if they do not wish to, for a period of three months following discharge from a psychiatric hospital; [113291]

  (2) how many people with a mental illness have attended for a voluntary ONE interview across the pilot sites in England; [113292]

  (3) if ONE personal advisers will visit places of work to check their suitability for clients with a mental illness prior to placement; [113293]

  (4) if the training of personal advisers and start-up personnel involved in the ONE project has involved directly people with a mental illness; and if he will make a statement; [113294]

  (5) if clients will have the choice of an interview at home with ONE personal advisers. [113295]

  Ms Jowell
  ONE puts work, and helping people to overcome barriers to work, at the heart of the benefit system. Everyone of working age making a claim to benefit meets with a Personal Adviser, who works with them to assess their job potential and provides access to a variety of help and information on work, benefit and services. Clients are treated as individuals with their own unique needs, abilities and circumstances, instead of being categorised as "unemployed", "lone parent" or "disabled".

  It is entirely reasonable to expect all clients to come in for meetings with a personal adviser as a part of their claim so they can stay in touch with the labour market and be informed about the help and support on offer. We want to treat people as individuals, not to categorise people and make assumptions about whether or not they can work.

  The requirements of ONE should be appropriate for all, including people with a mental illness. In developing the policy and the detailed processes, officials have had in-depth discussions with some of the key organisations dealing in mental illness (including MIND and the
  792W
  National Schizophrenia Fellowship) to ensure that ONE enables the groups they represent to participate in a positive way.

  All ONE advisers have been trained to work effectively and sensitively with all ONE clients. Those with experience of, or expertise in, mental illness have participated in the training process. Advisers have guidance on working with clients with special needs which has been developed with their help.

  Where it is appropriate for people to attend interviews, the ONE process is designed to give them sufficient time to make arrangements and sufficient opportunities to attend. Clients can bring an advocate with them to interview if they wish, and home visits can be offered where appropriate. Personal advisers also have the discretion to waive or defer an interview.

  Personal advisers may consult with a Disability Employment Adviser (DEA) and the DEA may accompany the personal adviser on the home visit. If a client has recently stayed in a psychiatric hospital, advisers should certainly consider carefully whether to defer an interview—but should not automatically assume that to be so. For some people the priority may be to sort out the benefits they are entitled to and to ensure their welfare needs are properly identified. Where ONE advisers place clients into work, we have no present plans for personal advisers to visit places of work prior to placement.

  Finally, it is not possible to provide the information requested on participation in ONE by people with mental illnesses. Separate statistics on the numbers of people with mental health illness attending ONE meetings are not recorded.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of his Department's regional initiatives will come under the remit of the new unit to co-ordinate the Government's approach to the regions. [113155]

  Mr. Wicks
  The work of the Government Offices for the Regions on behalf of DfEE will come under the remit of the interdepartmental unit to co-ordinate the Government's approach to the regions.

  School Sports
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means his Department monitors the quality and range of(a) sports teaching and (b) sports provision in schools; and if he will make a statement. [113058]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ofsted has the remit to monitor the quality and range of all teaching in schools, including PE activities, and to report on the quality and range of provision in schools. Ofsted's 1999 review of primary schools in England found that overall progress in PE is satisfactory or better in 97 per cent. of schools. The review of secondary schools found that in physical education pupils make good progress in most schools in Key Stage 3. The performance of skills and their application in games are usually satisfactory or better.
  793W
  We have set an aspiration that all schools should provide two hours of curricular or extra-curricular activities a week, and my officials are meeting with DCMS and representatives of PE and sport organisations to discuss ways of promoting that aspiration in schools.

  Further Education (Enrolments)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the total enrolments and (b) the full-time equivalent enrolments in further education in England in each year since 1992. [112118]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The information requested is shown in the tables.

  The decline in headcount numbers in 1998–99 reflects the clampdown on the unacceptable aspects of franchising which grew up under the previous Administration.

  The Further Education Funding Council will be consulting on measures to support recruitment in line with our plans, which provide for an increase of 700,000 students in further education by 2002.

  (a) Further education student numbers

  000s

  1992–93

  —

  1993–94

  —

  1994–951

  3,034

  1995–961

  3,845

  1996–971

  4,245

  1997–981

  4,259

  1998–992

  4,142

  (b) Full-time equivalents (FTE) in further eduction

  000s

  1992–931

  1,101

  1993–941

  1,140

  1994–951

  1,179

  1995–961

  1,262

  1996–971

  1,295

  1997–982

  1,263

  1998–99

  —

  1 Actual

  2 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provided on a whole year basis. Student numbers include Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) funded and non funded students.

  2. Table (a):

  Student numbers for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are excluded as the available figures are inconsistent with later years.

  Student numbers for 1994–95 onwards are from the Individualised Student Record and give the numbers of students enrolling, rather than the total number of qualifications entered.

  The figures relate to FE sector colleges and FEFC funded students in External Institutions.

  External Institutions did not return data in 1994–95 and are not included in the student numbers for that year. For later years only FEFC funded provision is included.

  In line with the normal publishing convention, Specialist Designated Institutions (SDI's) are not included.

  FEFC funded HE students in FE sector colleges are included but FE students in HE institutions are excluded.

  Three colleges transferred to the HE sector in 1998–99 and are not included in the figures for 1998–99.
  794W
  3. Table (b):

  In line with the normal publishing convention, FTE data include FEFC funded and non funded FE students in FE sector colleges, FEFC funded FE students in External Institutions, Specialist Designated Institutions, Higher Education Institutions and non FEFC funded FE students in adult education centres. Also included are FEFC funded HE students in FE sector colleges.

  Outturn FTE figures for 1998–99 are not yet available.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Sure Start pilots. [111666]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Of the 60 Sure Start trailblazers that were announced in January 1999, 47 have now received approval and are now starting to help young children and their families. The remaining 13 will follow shortly. In November 1999 we launched the second wave of Sure Start by inviting a further 69 areas to develop local programmes, and these are now drawing up their outline plans. This brings the number of Sure Start programmes so far announced to 129, more than half-way towards the target of 250 by March 2002.

  Food Technology (National Curriculum)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will replace food technology with home economics in the National Curriculum. [111951]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in September last year the revised National Curriculum which will apply from September 2000. The revisions were the outcome of a wide-ranging review and consultation which considered, among other matters, how pupils are taught about food, nutrition and textiles in the curriculum.

  Within the revised National Curriculum, food technology (including cooking) and textiles remain within the Design and Technology programmes of study; and nutrition and health eating are covered in Science and Personal, Social and Health Education. Home economics also can play a complementary role, and many schools include it within their curriculum. It is also available as a GCSE option.

  We are continuing to look at food and cooking in the curriculum with the aim of ensuring a more coherent approach. We will, of course, take into account the role of home economics in this context.

  School Sports Links
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to encourage sporting links between private schools and state schools; and if he will make a statement. [113679]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are keen to encourage links between independent and state schools in all areas, including sport. The Government are currently considering the future role of sport and PE in schools, and part of that will involve developing links that can be made with the independent sector.
  795W
  There is already good practice in this area including sharing facilities and teaching resources. We will seek to build on that.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  G8 Development Ministers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many meetings of the G8 Development Ministers, Ministers in her Department have attended since 1 May 1997, indicating the Minister involved and the date and location of each meeting. [113090]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Neither the Secretary of State nor myself has attended any meetings of the G8 Development Ministers.

  Technical Co-operation
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much bilateral aid has been spent on technical co-operation in each of the last 10 years(a) in cash terms and (b) as a proportion of total overseas development aid. [113492]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Technical Co-operation is defined to include expenditure on personnel, training, scholarships, knowledge and research. DFID's expenditure on Technical Co-operation over the latest 10 years is shown in the table, both in cash terms and as a percentage of the bilateral programme in each year.

  Technical co-operation

  £000

  As percentage of DFID bilateral programme

  1989–90

  309,335

  31

  1990–91

  354,568

  33

  1991–92

  412,956

  38

  1992–93

  422,975

  37

  1993–94

  423,811

  36

  1994–95

  430,447

  38

  1995–96

  453,149

  40

  1996–97

  467,682

  44

  1997–98

  496,003

  47

  1998–99

  503,878

  43

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of technical co-operation contracts are awarded to non-UK companies. [113489]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In the financial year 1998–99 DFID issued just under 3,000 contracts for services with a value of nearly £250 million. Of these 776 contracts with a value of some £14 million were issued by DFID's Overseas Offices to local consultants, i.e. non-UK companies.

  Aid Programme
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the likely impact on the UK economy of(a) unilaterally, and (b) multilaterally untying the UK's aid programme. [113487]
  796W
  Mr. Foulkes
  Studies have shown that both unilateral and multilateral untying are likely to bring benefits to the UK economy. Multilateral untying will, however, bring greater development benefits. We are working to encourage all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries to join the OECD's Development Assistance Committee initiative to untie development assistance to the least developed countries.

  Management Consultants
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the services that management consultants provided to her Department in each of the last 10 years, indicating the remuneration made in each case and the number of person days employed. [113491]

  Mr. Foulkes
  DFID does not collate this information centrally and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the projected spending plans by her Department in Mozambique for 2000–01 and 2001–02 were first included in a document in the public domain. [113662]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The plans for Mozambique for 2000–01 and 2001–02 were first published on 30 March 1999 in the Departmental Report 1999.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development at what time on what date officials in her Department first discussed sending helicopters to Mozambique with the Ministry of Defence. [113663]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We first asked the Ministry of Defence what military assets were available in the region on Saturday 26 February at 19.30. At that point we were informed that no military assets were available within 3,000 miles.

  On Tuesday 29 February at 9:00 we held further discussions regarding the use of UK military helicopters with the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on what date her Department first requested assistance from the armed services to alleviate hardship in the floods of Mozambique. [113674]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We first asked the Ministry of Defence what military assets were available in the region on Saturday 26 February. At that point we were informed that no military assets were available within 3,000 miles.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Toilet Facilities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what access there is to toilet facilities in the House for people who are wheelchair users. [113603]
  797W
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Specially equipped lavatories for wheelchair users are situated off the Lower Waiting Hall, the Committee Corridor, the Upper Committee Corridor and the Centre Curtain Corridor. The hon. Member may wish to note that there is also a specially equipped lavatory off Peers' lobby.

SCOTLAND

  Pay Inequalities
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what data he has collated on current inequalities in pay between men and women in Scotland; and what measures the Government(a) is taking and (b) plans to take to tackle such inequalities. [111346]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Average pay of full-time employees in Scotland and Great Britain, 1999, is as follows:

  Hourly

  Weekly

  Annual

  Scotland

  Women (£)

  8.03

  298

  15,001

  Men (£)

  9.83

  406

  21,791

  Women's pay as a percentage of men's

  82

  173

  169

  Great Britain

  Women (£)

  8.70

  327

  16,481

  Men (£)

  10.75

  442

  23,412

  Women's pay as a percentage of men's

  81

  174

  170

  1 Widening of pay gap for weekly and annual earnings reflects that men work on average 3.9 hours more per week than women, including 1.9 hours more overtime

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey 1999

  Other figures on earnings for men and women in Scotland can be found in "Scottish Economic Statistics" which is available in the Library.

  We are tackling the gender pay gap across Great Britain through a range of action to ensure women can reach their full potential, including tackling gender stereotyping in career choices; and encouraging them to take up opportunities in the information and communication technology sector. We will also be consulting on changes to Employment Tribunal procedures to speed up and simplify equal pay claims. This builds on action we have already taken to help women combine work and family responsibilities, including the National Childcare Strategy, parental leave and improved maternity leave.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much European agrimonetary compensation scheme funds have been drawn down to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement. [112230]
  798W
  Ms Quin
  A total of £397 million in EU-funded agrimonetary compensation has been paid.

  Fields
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fields with uncropped margins in excess of two metres were recorded in 1999, as a proportion of the total number of the integrated administrative and control system fields inspections during the year. [112818]

  Ms Quin
  Of the total number of fields inspected by MAFF in 1999 under the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), it is estimated that just under 4 per cent. involved claims for arable area payments which were paid on the basis of full Ordnance Survey field areas but which, because the field margins were found to be wider than two metres, would only be payable on the basis of actual cropped areas in 2000.

  CAP Payments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the 10 largest recipients of CAP payments made to farms in Herefordshire for the calendar year 1998; and if he will make a statement. [113482]

  Ms Quin
  Amount received by each of the 10 largest recipients of CAP payments in Herefordshire during the 1998 calendar year were:

  £236,601.76

  £217,922.74

  £191,714.98

  £172,860.74

  £168,856.75

  £144,200.16

  £136,475.79

  £119,918.47

  £115,826.01

  £115,646.58

  Farmland
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the estimated acreage of farmland taken out of farming in each of the last five years in the United Kingdom. [111988]

  Ms Quin
  The total area on agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom over the last five years is shown in the table.

  thousand hectares

  Year

  Area

  Area difference

  1994

  17,626

  —

  1995

  17,520

  (-)106

  1996

  17,527

  (+)7

  1997

  17,432

  (-)95

  1998

  17,372

  (-)60

  1999

  17,351

  (-)21

  Notes:

  Total area includes tillage and grass, rough grazing, woodland, set-aside and other land (paths, buildings etc).

  Source:

  Agricultural Census Statistics 1998 and June Statistical News Release. Data include minor holdings.

  Seed Lists
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons in the proposed draft Seeds (National Lists of Variations) Regulations 2000 consultation he proposes to abolish statutory measures relating to(a) oral representations at a public hearing, (b) the definition of persons affected, (c) rules of conduct for public hearings and (d) the requirement of fees in respect of such hearing; and replace them with ministerial discretion. [111649]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The proposed regulations do not abolish statutory rights to make oral representations about proposed decisions on National Listing. The proposal is to transfer the detail of how such rights are exercised from Regulations to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette. It is now more usual to set out such administrative detail separately, rather than include it in legislation. The proposals also provide for all fees associated with National Listing to be set administratively, rather than by regulation, subject to such fees being reasonable. The draft regulatory impact assessment which accompanied the proposals explained that we do not expect them to result in extra costs to industry, citizens or the environment.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what applications in respect of genetically modified wheat and genetically modified maize(a) have been considered and (b) are currently under consideration in respect of inclusion on the European seed list common register; if such applications will be a matter for joint consideration with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; and if he will make a statement. [111412]

  Ms Quin
  Prior to February 2000, varieties added to a member state's National List could be included on the Agricultural Common Catalogue provided no member state indicated they intended to seek a derogation prohibiting marketing of the variety in their territory. No Genetically Modified varieties of wheat or maize were added to the Agricultural Common Catalogue under these arrangements.

  Under new arrangements which came into effect in February 2000, varieties may progress automatically from member states National Lists to the Common Catalogue. For genetically modified plant varieties, this progression requires a marketing consent under Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Varieties and, where appropriate, an authorisation under the Novel Foods Regulation No. 97/258/EEC. No genetically modified wheat varieties have either been considered or added to the Common Catalogue under these new arrangements. There are currently three genetically modified maize varieties included in member states' National Lists which the EU Commission is considering for inclusion in the Common Catalogue. These are CHARDON LL, included in the Dutch National List, and COMPA CB and JORDI CB, included in the Spanish National List. The decision on whether to add these varieties to the Common Catalogue is for the Commission to determine on the basis of whether the necessary regulatory requirements have been met.
  800W
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not involved in considering whether plant varieties may be added to the Common Catalogue.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the cost of BSE to the pig industry. [111706]

  Ms Quin
  No official assessment has been made by Government, but industry assessments have been discussed between Government and industry representatives.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations were made to him in January by representatives of the pig industry regarding legal opinion on the feasibility of state aid for the pig sector under European law. [111709]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister received a letter from a group of solicitors acting on behalf of the British Pig Industry Support Group, threatening to bring a Judicial Review of the Minister's failure to grant state aid to the pig sector.

  Salmon Freshwater Fisheries
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the report of the independent Salmon Freshwater Fisheries Review Group will be published. [114309]

  Mr. Morley
  I am pleased to announce that the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group's report is being published today. The group has carried out a very thorough and wide ranging examination of salmon and freshwater fisheries policy and legislation in England and Wales. We now intend to seek the views of interested parties; the consultation period will run until 31 July 2000. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have been denied access to any benefits for each month of(a) 1999 and (b) the current year to date. [110486]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 21 February 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. Leigh Lewis to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn dated 9 March 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claimants who have been denied access to any benefits after failing to attend an Employment Service advisory interview. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.

  801W
  Information on the numbers and types of decisions given by Employment Service Decision Makers on labour market questions are recorded quarterly rather than monthly, and published in the 'Analysis of Sector Decision Making' (formerly known as the 'Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions'), copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. The most recent publication is for the quarter ending 30 September 1999.
  For each quarter in the calendar year 1999, the numbers of jobseekers whose entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance ceased as a result of failing to attend an Employment Service advisory interview are as follows:

  Quarter ending

  Number

  31 March 1999

  29,335

  30 June 1999

  31,400

  30 September 1999

  35,189

  Information for the quarter ending December 1999 will be published by 31 March 2000 and lodged with the Library.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of people in the Elmet constituency aged over 60 years who are not claiming benefit to which they are entitled. [113416]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of numbers not claiming their entitlement at constituency level.

  Pensions
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the compensation and general levies payable under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 by occupational and personal pension schemes. [114334]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that the rate of the Compensation Levy will remain unchanged at a maximum of 23 pence per member for the third year in a row and that it will not be necessary to raise a Compensation Levy in 2000–01.

  Regulations are being laid today for the General Levy that will increase rates for most pension schemes from 1 April 2000 with the exception of occupational schemes with 6,604 or more members. Rates for these schemes have been frozen at their present levels for the coming year. The rates for 2000–01 are shown in the table.

  The General Levy covers the costs of the bodies that safeguard the rights of pension scheme members or provide them with help, advice and information. These bodies are the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra), the Pensions Ombudsman, the Pensions Advisory Service and the Pension Schemes Registry. It is essential that these bodies have the resources necessary to meet their continuing and new responsibilities so that all scheme members' interests are properly protected.

  The increase in the General Levy rates for most, but not all, occupational pension schemes reflects that the biggest schemes generate little work for Opra, and have not contributed to the steady increase in the number of cases referred to them or to the complexity of the issues with which they deal. The new rates for personal pension
  802W
  schemes reflect that Opra's regulatory functions are extended to those schemes and to Stakeholder pension schemes by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999.

  General Levy rates 2000–01

  Scheme size (Number of members)

  Basis

  Amount per member (£)

  Minimum payment per scheme1 (£)

  >Occupation Pension Schemes

  2 to 11

  £12 per scheme

  —

  —

  12 to 99

  Per member

  1.25

  —

  100 to 999

  Per member

  0.90

  125

  1,000 to 4,999

  Per member

  0.70

  900

  5,000 to 9,999

  Per member

  0.53

  3,500

  10,000 or more

  Per member

  0.37

  5,300

  Personal Pension Schemes

  2 to 11

  £5.20 per scheme

  —

  —

  12 to 99

  Per member

  0.50

  —

  100 to 999

  Per member

  0.35

  50

  1,000 to 4,999

  Per member

  0.30

  350

  5,000 to 9,999

  Per member

  0.20

  1,500

  10,000 or more

  Per member

  0.15

  2,000

  1 Minimum payments ensure that schemes in the lower bands do not pay more overall than those in the higher bands.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to consult on draft regulations on employer payments to personal pensions and stakeholder pensions. [114332]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are today issuing a consultation document containing draft regulations on employer payments to personal pensions and stakeholder pensions.

  The new requirements represent a major change for both insurance companies and employers. The consultation document contains a full description of the new arrangements. We want to alert employers and insurance companies now so that they can start planning for the new regime, which we plan to bring into force in April 2001.

  An important part of our pension reforms is that people should have greater confidence in private pensions. Regulations require deductions from pay to be paid by employers to occupational pension schemes within set deadlines. Today's draft regulations extend this requirement to personal pensions and stakeholder pensions.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he plans to make to the all work test in Incapacity Benefits. [114333]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are laying regulations today which, together with regulations made in November (The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1999), give effect to the changes to the All Work Test which were introduced by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act.

  The All Work Test provides an assessment of the effect of a person's medical condition on their functional abilities, to determine whether they reach the threshold at which it is appropriate to pay incapacity benefits rather than to treat them as unemployed. It is a negative test in that it currently looks only at people's incapacities and

  803W
  not at why they are able to do despite their illness or disability. The very name gives the wrong impression that people who reach the benefit threshold are unfit to do any work. But many sick and disabled people already work, and many more want to and may be able to, given the right encouragement and support.

  From 3 April 2000 the All Work Test will be replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment. The threshold for entitlement to incapacity benefits, and the way that incapacity is assessed will not change in any way. But the doctor who advises the decision maker will also be able to prepare a Capability Report, with positive and constructive advice on what the person can do despite their incapacity and on measures such as workplace adaptations which might help them to work. This report will not be seen by the benefit decision maker but will go to Personal Advisers, to help them and their clients plan a return to employment.

  As part of the ONE pilots, our doctors are already providing Capability Reports in appropriate cases. The process was trialled successfully last summer. We aim to extend the use of Capability Reports as we gain experience through the pilots and as Personal Adviser services are expanded.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the pilot areas for enhanced medical assessment for incapacity benefits in respect of incapability information; and on what basis they were selected. [113046]

  Mr. Bayley
  From 3 April, the All Work Test for incapacity benefits will be replaced by the Personal Capability Assessment. This will continue to determine benefit entitlement in exactly the same way as now but will also allow the doctor who assesses a person's incapacity to prepare a separate Capability Report with positive information on what they can do despite their medical condition and on measures such as workplace adaptations that might enable them to return to employment.

  Capability Reports will not be seen by benefit decision-makers. They are intended to assist Personal Advisers in providing advice and support to people who want to plan a return to work. Some initial trialling of the Capability Report was undertaken for a short period last summer in Bolton, and in Bristol, East and Bath, two of the areas in which Personal Adviser services are being piloted as part of the New Deal for Disabled People. Since last November, the new procedure has been included in the 12 ONE service pilots. The ONE pilot areas were selected on the basis of a number of criteria including the need to cover a range of geographical and labour market conditions so as to minimise bias and enable results to be extrapolated nationally.

  The areas are:

  Clyde Coast and Renfrew Lea Roding

  South Essex

  Warwickshire

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  Gwent Borders

  Buckinghamshire

  Somerset

  804W

  Leeds

  Suffolk

  North Nottinghamshire

  North Cheshire.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when payments will be made to those people under the age of 65 years entitled to receive winter fuel payments. [112656]

  Angela Eagle
  Following the European Court's judgment in the Taylor case, we have decided that help through Winter Fuel Payments will be extended to everyone aged 60 or over, regardless of whether they are receiving a pension or another qualifying benefit.

  We accept the judgment of the Court and intend to comply by equalising the age of the Winter Fuel Payment entitlement to men and women at age 60.

  The Winter Fuel Payment qualifying age will be increased in line with the increases previously announced in respect of the State Retirement Pension (between April 2010 and April 2020 State pension age for women will be increased in stages until both men and women share a State pension age of 65).

  We intend to make retrospective payments to all people now included within the scope of the scheme in respect of the previous three winters (1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000).

  We are carefully considering what arrangements need to be made in order to issue payments securely to customers not already in the scope of the existing scheme. An announcement outlining the full details of how and when these payments will be made will be announced as soon a possible.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many workers and former workers in the power industry received awards for asbestos-related diseases in the last year for which figures are available; and how many deaths from asbestos-related diseases occurred in this sector for the same period. [113330]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Awards of industrial injuries disablement benefit for asbestos related prescribed diseases in the generation, production and distribution of electricity

  Period

  Number

  January to September 1999

  50

  January to December 1998

  57

  Notes:

  1. The following prescribed diseases have been used when identifying asbestos related diseases:

  D1—Pneumoconiosis (in the asbestos industry).

  D3—Diffuse mesothelioma.

  D8—Primary carcinoma of the lung with accompanying evidence of 1 or both (a) asbestosis (b) unilateral or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.

  D9—Unilateral or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.
  805W
  2. D1 and D3 are paid from 1 per cent. disablement, and D8 and D9 are paid from 14 per cent. disablement.

  3. Figures are based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of economic activities 1992 and the following has been used: 40.10—Production and distribution of electricity; Electricity generation.

  4. These figures are based on a 100 per cent. count of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit initial assessments.

  5. Figures for 1999 are for nine months only. December 1999 quarterly figures are not yet available.

  6. The number of deaths related to this sector resulting from asbestos-related prescribed diseases is not available.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division.

  Verification Framework
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average cost to local authorities since April 1999 of implementing the Verification Framework; and how much of that cost has been met by(a) central Government and (b) local government since April 1999. [113625]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. The cost of implementing the Verification Framework (VF) will vary according to the size and nature of each local authority's caseload, and the extent to which they already have systems required under the VF in place.

  The funds the Department makes available to local authorities are distributed on the same basis as they receive their main administration subsidy. We expect to pay over £29 million in total to 229 local authorities for the Verification Framework during 1999–2000. Some authorities will have received set-up costs, some will have received continuing costs and some will have received both set-up and continuing costs.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent examination of the performance of housing benefit delivery in the London Borough of Islington he has undertaken. [113673]

  Angela Eagle
  As part of our determination to drive up the standards of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit administration, we have asked the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to inspect the 30 local authorities which spend most on these benefits. The London Borough of Islington is included among these authorities and will be inspected this summer.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the margin of error of the estimate of housing benefit(a) fraud and (b) error to be provided by the on going Area Benefit Review. [113817]

  Angela Eagle
  The margin of error expressed as a percentage of estimated losses depends to a degree on the amount of fraud and error found in the review: the less found the wider the margin.

  The current prediction for the first set of review data covering the period October 1999 to March 2000, is that the margin of error on the estimated value of losses will lie between +/- 10 per cent. and +/- 20 per cent. of those
  806W
  losses. When data for the period October 1999 to September 2000 become available we expect the margin of error to contract.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authorities are covered by the Area Benefit Review of Housing Benefit. [113784]

  Angela Eagle
  195 Local authorities have volunteered to take part in the Area Benefit Review of Housing Benefit.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what data his Department collates on the time taken to process(a) initial and (b) repeat housing benefit applications for each London borough. [113669]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department collects data from all local authorities on a quarterly basis in relation to both new and renewal Housing Benefit claims. The data collected for both types of claim includes:

  the number of claims determined successful;

  the number of claims determined unsuccessful;

  the number of these claims ((a) + (b)) determined within 14 days of receipt of all necessary information.

  From this April, Best Value performance indicators will be the main yardstick against which local authorities' performance will be judged. The indicators we have set for Housing Benefit delivery include new measures of the average time taken to process new claims and notifications of changes of circumstance, and the percentage of renewal claims processed on time. Local authorities will be required to set challenging targets for improved performance against these indicators year on year.

  The Department has made arrangements' for data on performance against all the Best Value indicators to be reported periodically by authorities as part of the normal provision of Housing Benefit management information. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 6 March 2000, Official Report, column 756, his intention to use his statutory powers to compel authorities to provide this information.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many tenants were evicted from(a) local authority, (b) housing association and (c) private rented accommodation in each London borough because of delays in payment of housing benefit in 1999. [113672]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average cost, for each London borough, of the administration of housing benefit in the last year for which figures are available. [113670]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Housing benefit administration costs 1998–99

  £

  Local authority

  Average cost per case

  Barking and Dagenham

  37

  Barnet

  110

  Bexley

  41

  Brent

  128

  Bromley

  114

  Camden

  105

  807W

  Housing benefit administration costs 1998–99

  £

  Local authority

  Average cost per case

  City of London

  206

  Croydon

  84

  Ealing

  176

  Enfield

  116

  Greenwich

  141

  Hackney

  118

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  139

  Haringey

  174

  Harrow

  110

  Havering

  91

  Hillingdon

  78

  Hounslow

  78

  Islington

  94

  Kensington and Chelsea

  194

  Kingston upon Thames

  82

  Lambeth

  105

  Lewisham

  222

  Merton

  65

  Newham

  205

  Redbridge

  190

  Richmond upon Thames

  101

  Southwark

  157

  Sutton

  121

  Tower Hamlets

  81

  Waltham Forest

  86

  Wandsworth

  86

  Westminster

  234

  Notes:

  1. 1998–99 are the latest figures available.

  2. The "average cost" has been calculated as the cost per case using the authority's total expenditure on administration costs and the total Housing Benefit caseload.

  3. The total expenditure on administration costs used in the calculations are those reported by the authorities to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the RO4 forms. The caseload figures used are the Housing Benefit caseloads supplied by the local authorities on the Management Information Statistics Stats forms 121 and 122. The caseload figures for financial year 1998–99 were calculated by taking an average of the data for the four quarters May 1998 to February 1999.

  4. As can be seen from the table, the average cost per case varies considerably between authorities. Different local authorities use different basis to calculate the administration costs they report. The reasons for the differences include the different mix of caseload the authorities have and their relative complexities to administer, and also the different components included in the total administration costs expenditure, for example, the treatment of overheads.

  Source:

  The information is as supplied on the RO4 forms to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions by the local authorities.

  MIS information supplied by local authorities on forms 121 and 122.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if remote access terminals are being installed with software that will automatically cross reference details of claimants of housing benefit with other benefits. [113624]

  Angela Eagle
  Remote Access Terminals are currently used by LAs to access a range of the DSS held information which is relevant to the administration of Housing and Council Tax benefit. Although there are no plans in place to install software for the purpose described, the Housing Benefit Matching Service performs a similar function. This quarterly operation cross 808W
  references a range of DSS held data with data provided by the LAs. The results are then used to identify potential fraud and error.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which local authorities, in each of the past three years, have been served with improvement notices on the administration of housing benefit. [113671]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has powers under section 139D of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to direct an Authority as to the standards which it is to attain, in the prevention and detection of fraud relating to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit or otherwise in the administration of benefits. To date, we have not issued any such directions.

  However, as my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced in the House on 6 March 2000, Official Report, column 756, we have warned councils that where investigation by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate identify persistent failings, we will use our statutory powers to direct standards and timescales for improving performance.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the margin of error for the inspection of fraud and error in each of the benefits inspected in the most recently published Area Benefit Review. [113629]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is 95 per cent. confidence that the true figures for fraud and error for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance in the most recently published Area Benefit Review report are within 8 per cent. of the estimates.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he is taking to (i) measure accurately and (ii) reduce fraud and error in(a) invalid care allowance, (b) disability living allowance and (c) incapacity benefit; [113795]

  (2) what was the monetary value of (i) official error, (ii) customer error, (iii) confirmed claimant fraud, (iv) high suspicion claimant fraud, (v) low suspicion claimant fraud, (vi) confirmed official fraud, (vii) high suspicion official fraud, (viii) low suspicion official fraud for (a) invalid care allowance, (b) disability living allowance and (c) incapacity benefit for each of the past three years. [113794]

  Mr. Rooker
  The results of national benefit reviews carried out on Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) were published in July 1996 and February 1997 respectively. These are the latest figures for fraud and error in these benefits and the reports are in the Library.

  We plan to conduct a national benefit review of Incapacity Benefit later this year.
  809W
  There are security checks in place in these benefits to make sure that tackling fraud and error is an integral part of their administration. In addition there are a number of initiatives to promote greater security and accuracy in these benefits. Examples include:
  From April, the ICA payment order book, normally valid for 22 weeks, will be aligned to the length of time for which a qualifying benefit is in payment where that is shorter than 22 weeks.
  From April, Automated Credit Transfer will be introduced for ICA customers receiving Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based).
  For DLA, work being undertaken within the Disability Benefits Modernisation Programme which is focused on getting benefit entitlement right at the outset and keeping it right from first to final payment.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which ministers are currently in the Ministerial counter-fraud group; [113620]

  (2) how many times the Ministerial counter-fraud group (a) has met since it was formed and (b) met in 1999. [113621]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet or Cabinet Committees is not made public under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evaluations his Department has conducted of the use of biometric data as a means by which to reduce benefit fraud. [113793]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department already makes use of biometric data in certain exceptional circumstances. The War Pensions Agency use fingerprinting in overseas cases where they suspect that a pensioner or widow is no longer alive and a pension is still in payment. The Child Support Agency use DNA testing to confirm paternity, where the alleged non-resident parent has contacted the Agency to dispute that they are the father.

  There are problems with biometric technology, such as the absence of 100 per cent. reliable tests to establish whether an individual matches his record in the database. Such failure rates would clearly be unacceptable from a Social Security customer service standpoint. Until we see advances in the biometric technology particularly in terms of reliability, but also in ease of use and cost we must continue to rely on other authentication techniques for bulk day to day business.

  We will continue to monitor progress on the reliability of using biometric data to reduce benefit fraud.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to eradicate fraudulent housing benefit claims by landlords. [113792]
  810W
  Angela Eagle
  We have already introduced a range of approaches to tackle landlord fraud which we are continuing to develop;we are already involved in very successful joint activities between the Benefits Agency (BA), local authorities (LAs) and the police which are getting positive results;
  we have given LAs new powers to control direct payments more tightly and recover overpayments more easily, and to require landlords to provide information;
  we are involved in matching exercises with Inland Revenue (IR) of landlords and savings;
  we have established an agreement with IR to allow BA and LA fraud investigators to ask centrally for tax information on a case by case basis.
  We are setting up a new national benefits intelligence unit to co-ordinate and extend intelligence on Social Security fraud, as the basis for both prevention and detection;
  overhauling and strengthening the capability and professionalism of investigators to tackle organised benefit fraud right across the benefit system. A senior civil servant will be appointed to manage the central organised fraud investigation service and to act as the Head of Profession for all benefit fraud investigators;
  setting up new arrangements with local authorities to ensure investigations are targeted properly across the Social Security system.

  Weekly Benefit Savings Scheme
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the annual savings were from the weekly benefit savings scheme for each year from 1996 to 1999. [113791]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.

  Security control programme savings

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total weekly benefit savings claimed

  1996–97

  1,509.0

  1997–98

  1,918.5

  1998–99

  1,645.5

  Note:

  The figures are not comparable, as from April 1998 the WBS claiming criteria was tightened.

  Local authority weekly benefit savings (WBS) data for England, Scotland and Wales

  £

  Financial year

  Total weekly benefit savings claimed

  1996–97

  293,672,397

  1997–98

  346,407,498

  1998–99

  235,679,923

  Note:

  The figures are not comparable, as from April 1998 the Weekly Benefit Savings claiming criteria for Local Authorities was tightened.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 334W, on National Insurance staff, if he will list the types of automatic security check that prompt a management check. [113665]
  811W
  Mr. Rooker
  The types of security features which trigger management checks are:where there is an excessive time between receiving access powers and the issue of a new National Insurance Number (NINO);
  where a NINO is issued and no record of the issuer is held on the central database;
  the audit trail and analysis (ATAS) system which detects when there is any unusual activity e.g. a larger than normal volume of NINOs issued.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 334W, on National Insurance staff, by what criteria the number of staff able to allocate new numbers were reduced. [113664]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of staff who had National Insurance number allocation powers were reduced by critically reviewing the existing users and ensuring only those with essential business need were allowed to keep National Insurance number allocation powers, and restricting to a single group of specialists the facility to allocate National Insurance numbers.

  Previously staff had various levels of access to the Departmental Central Index, each of which allowed them to carry out a range of activities on Departmental Central Index, such as viewing data, or allocating National Insurance numbers. The number of access levels providing the facility to allocate National Insurance numbers has been reduced, so that the power is not routinely given to staff who do not need it.

  Cheque Cashers Association
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's formal memorandum of understanding with the British Cheque Cashers Association. [113619]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Memorandum of Understanding between the British Cheque Cashiers Association and the Benefits Agency is still under negotiation at this time. Once the document is finalised a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Programme Protection Fund
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the funding for the Departmental Programme Protection Fund for each year for which it has been budgeted; and what savings(a) it has achieved so far and (b) it is expected to achieve each year to meet the Public Service Agreement targets. [113790]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Programme Protection Fund consists of money whose main purpose is to safeguard Social Security against fraud and error. The budget for the current financial year was £464 million, the actual level of spending will not be known until after the year ends. Funding for 2000–01 is currently being finalised.

  One of the fund's main goals is to ensure the achievement of the Public Service Agreement target, to reduce fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 30 per cent. by March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by March 2002. We do not yet have figures for this, the first, year in which the fund has been in operation. However, our initial expectations are that we shall achieve a reduction in the rate of
  812W
  overpayments of 1.5 per cent. in 1999–2000, 3.5 per cent. in 2000–01 and 5 per cent. in 2001–02. We shall reconsider these figures in the light of performance in the first year.

  Tax Credits (Remote Access Terminals)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if local authorities will be able to access information held by the Inland Revenue on each of the tax credits using remote access terminals. [113622]

  Angela Eagle
  Remote Access Terminals are currently used by LAs to access a range of DSS held information relating to claims for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance which is relevant to the administration of Housing and Council Tax benefit. We are currently exploring the implications of extending the range of available information to include details relating to other benefits and tailored access to the Departmental Central Index.

  We anticipate being able to start implementing these enhancements within the next financial year. There are no plans at present to extend this level to access to include Inland Revenue systems.

  The Inland Revenue do not currently have Remote Access Terminals for local authorities to access tax credits information. However, they do operate several dedicated helplines to provide local authorities with information about tax credits.

  Benefit Uptake
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of people in Barnsley, East and Mexborough aged over 60 years who are not claiming benefits to which they are entitled. [112979]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates of numbers not claiming their entitlement at constituency level.

  Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further progress has been made on the establishment of a fund to assist those eligible under the vaccine damage payment scheme; and if he will make a statement. [113044]

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made with establishing a fund to compensate vaccine-damaged children. [113418]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are examining the feasibility of setting up a fund to provide help to people who have received vaccine damage payments.

TREASURY

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his proposals for an aggregates tax. [112229]
  813W
  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations from a range of organisations about the Government's proposals for an aggregates tax.

  Climate Change Levy
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since his pre-Budget report on the climate change levy. [112231]

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding the proposed climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [112232]

  Mr. Timms
  The refinements to the design of the climate change levy announced in the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report will increase its environmental effectiveness, whilst protecting the competitiveness of UK firms. The changes made were widely welcomed by both business leaders and environmental groups.

  Small Businesses
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact tax changes since May 1997 have had on small businesses. [112233]

  Mr. Timms
  The effects of the tax announcements are shown in the relevant tables of the Red Book. A number of these measures are of particular benefit to small businesses.

  Employment Trends
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on employment trends since May 1997. [112234]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since May 1997 employment has increased by over 800,000 and there are now more people in work than ever before.

  BT
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his speech on BT charging and access to the internet. [112235]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor receives numerous representations on a wide range of issues.

  Enterprise Culture
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that his policy in respect of the United Kingdom's enterprise culture, described in his recent speech in New York, takes account of the needs of the labour force; and if he will make a statement. [112236]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's productivity agenda takes full account of the needs of the labour market through the New Deal funded from the Windfall Tax and through investing an extra £19 billion over three years, both to increase standards in schools and to encourage life-long learning.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to increase the take-home pay of those in low-paid work. [112238]

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to increase the level of take-home pay for low-paid workers in the east midlands. [112250]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to creating employment opportunities for all.

  A key element of this strategy is the commitment to making work pay, and creating a fairer system for all low-paid workers. The key measures are:
  The National Minimum Wage, which was introduced in April 1999 and has boosted the hourly wage of over 1.5 million low-paid workers. The adult rate will be increased from £3.60 per hour to £3.70 per hour from October 2000, while the youth rate will be increased from £3.00 per hour to £3.20 per hour from June 2000;
  The 10p rate of income tax from April 1999, which has halved the marginal tax rate for 2.3 million people, of whom 1.7 million are low-paid. Those on the lowest taxable incomes have gained up to £2.88 a week, compared to £1.15 a week for basic rate taxpayers;
  Reforms to National Insurance Contributions which will remove around one million low-paid people from national insurance, while protecting their benefit entitlement;
  The cut in the basic rate to 22p, from April 2000;
  For families with children, the Working Families Tax Credit, which guarantees a minimum income of £200 a week for a family with someone in full-time employment—£80 a week more than a couple would receive on Income Support.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has held with the telecommunications industry. [112239]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor regularly meets people from a wide range of industries.

  Future Spending
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning future spending levels in relation to his forthcoming Budget; and if he will make a statement. [112240]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers have received representations from a number of organisations in relation to the forthcoming Budget.

  Taxation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax will be payable in the period 1997–98 to 2001–02 as a result of his Budget measures to date. [112241]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Details of the Budget measures can be found in relevant tables of the July 1997, March 1998 and March 1999 Red Book. As a result of these Budgets, the direct tax rate on an average family with children will fall below 20 per cent. for the first time since 1979, and be at its lowest level since 1972.
  815W
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer during which quarters since May 1997 the level of tax taken by Government have fallen as a proportion of GDP. [112228]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As a result of the last Budget, the tax/GDP ratio is lower this year than last year. The tax ratio in the two following years will also be lower than last year. Under the last Government's plans these rates would have been higher than the latest projections, not only in this year and both of the next two years.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra tax will be paid in 2000–01 as a result of measures announced in his Budgets to date. [112226]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  All changes to the tax system are included in the relevant Budget reports, which are publicly available. As a result of these Budgets, the direct tax rate on an average family with children will fall below 20 per cent. for the first time since 1979, and be at its lowest level since 1972.

  Inflation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many months since the power to set interest rates was transferred to the Bank of England, Britain's inflation rate has(a) exceeded and (b) fallen below the median range of its inflation target. [112243]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's inflation target since May, 1997 has been 2.5 per cent. for RPIX inflation. In the 33 months since operational independence was given to the Bank, inflation has exceeded the target on 16 occasions, has fallen below on 11 occasions and been exactly on target on 6 occasions. RPIX inflation has averaged 2.5 per cent. during this period and has been in the range of 2.1 to 3.2 per cent.

  Film Industry
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the efficacy of his tax relief measures to support the film industry; and if he will make a statement. [112244]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are continuing to assess the effectiveness of the tax measures introduced in 1997 and indications are that they are working well. It would of course be improper for me to anticipate what may or may not be in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.

  Market-sensitive Announcements
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the making of announcements which are market sensitive. [112245]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury has well-established procedures which allow us to advance policy while taking account of any potential market sensitivity.

  VAT (House Renovations)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of VAT on house renovations. [112246]
  816W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on renovated dwellings and on the VAT relating to such work are not directly available.

  Based on data published in Housing and Construction Statistics 1988–98, VAT charged in 1998 in respect of repairs, maintenance and improvements carried out by contractors on private sector housing in Great Britain is estimated at £1.7 billion. It is not possible to identify renovations separately.

  Contingency Fund (Kosovo)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest costs to the contingency fund of(a) civil and (b) military actions in Kosovo. [112247]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No advances from the Contingencies Fund have been made to Departments in respect of military or civil actions in Kosovo. There have however in the course of the current financial year been allocations from the Reserve of £396 million in respect of military operations and £154 million in respect of peacekeeping, humanitarian and refugee programmes.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his objective to harmonize Sterling interest rates with those of the euro-zone. [112249]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Monetary Policy Committee sets UK interest rates at the level it considers necessary, in its best collective judgment, to keep inflation on track to meet the Government's inflation target. Similarly, the European Central Bank set interest rates to achieve their objective of maintaining price stability in the euro-area.

  Public Finances
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net effect on public finances arising from changes in the rate of employment since May 1997. [112251]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Employment has increased by over 800,000 since the last election, and there are now more people in work than ever before. While higher employment improves the public finances by raising revenue and reducing social security payments, it is difficult to identify the precise effect of changes in the rate of employment on the public finances, as this depends on a large number of factors. None the less, a higher rate of sustainable employment has been an important contributory factor to the substantial improvement seen in the public finances since May 1997.

  EU Trade
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of United Kingdom jobs dependent on trade with the European Union. [112237]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is estimated that up to 3½ million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the exports of goods and services to the European Union from the UK.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of including within the working families tax credit an additional £32 per week if the claimant is 18 or over and is married; and what would be the cost if this additional credit was also extended to claimants who are not married but living with someone as though they are married to that person. [112807]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Within the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), both those couples who are married and those living together as if they are married are treated alike. It is therefore not possible to provide separate estimates for the two groups.

  Based on the full year cost of the WFTC, the cost of including an additional £32 per week within the credits for all couples already in receipt of WFTC would be about £1.3 billion. In addition, there will be couples who previously did not qualify on income grounds who will become eligible because of the additional credit. It is not possible to estimate the additional costs arising from this and other behavioural effects, except at disproportionate cost.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of low cost airlines to discuss air passenger duty. [112216]

  Mr. Timms
  I have recently had various discussions about air passenger duty with representatives from a wide range of organisations within the airline industry, including EasyJet.

  Sterling
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to help reduce the level of sterling. [112223]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government want a stable and competitive pound over the medium term that is consistent with price stability, but does not have a target for the exchange rate. The best contribution the Government can make, consistent with this objective, is to maintain sound public finances and low inflation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 379W, if he was informed before the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February that additional funding had been promised to Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd by his Department; if he or any of his Ministers authorised such funding or promises of funding; and if he will make a statement. [113800]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I do not accept that a promise was made to provide additional funding.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 288W, concerning the
  818W
  Global Cultural Diversity Congress, if he will make a statement on the timescale for the review to be conducted by the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality which he announced on 22 February. [113803]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The timetable is still under discussion with Gurbux Singh. It will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 288W, concerning the Global Cultural Diversity Congress, if he will place the full text of the report by the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality in the Library when it is available, along with the key findings of the report. [113802]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 548W.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 2 March 2000,Official Report, columns 378–83W, if he had been informed of (a) the involvement of Mr. Hugh Harris with Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. and (b) the fact that additional funding for Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd. was to be discussed at the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February, when he appointed Mr. Harris as acting Chairman of the Commission of Racial Equality on 7 February; and if he will make a statement. [113804]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, was aware that Hugh Harris was a member of the Board of Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd at the time of his appointment, but did not become aware until later of all the issues that led my right hon. Friend, to decide that substantial public funds could not be justified to support the Congress.

  My right hon. Friend was also aware that additional funding for Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd was to be discussed at the Commission for Racial Equality's meeting on 7 February.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations which have agreed to provide accommodation on contract to the National Asylum Seekers Support Agency. [113785]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are currently concluding negotiations with accommodation providers prior to awarding contracts very shortly. In the meantime, information about those providers, including their identities, must be treated as commercially confidential.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2000,Official Report, columns 556–58W, to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) what additional funding will be provided to local authorities supporting asylum seekers after 1 April. [113797]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office has a provisional allocation of £300 million to meet the costs of supporting asylum seekers in 2000–01. The cost of supporting asylum seekers is sensitive to a wide range of factors,
  819W
  including the level of applications, the rate for take-up of support and the speed with which applications are processed. We are continuing to work with local authorities and others to determine an accurate estimate of costs and consider the most suitable method of reimbursement.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of accommodation for asylum seekers after 1 April he has asked the National Asylum Seekers Support Agency to secure; how many such units of accommodation have been secured so far; and if he will make a statement. [113788]

  Mrs. Roche
  We intend to have enough accommodation from 3 April to take destitute port asylum applicants on to the new support arrangements. We aim to build up numbers fairly swiftly from there on to be able to bring in-country applicants on to the arrangements as soon as possible.

  We expect to conclude supplier negotiations and award contracts very shortly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of his Department's expenditure on asylum seeker support in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; [113787]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount of money his Department will pay to local authorities in 2000–01 to reimburse them for the costs of supporting asylum seekers who claim asylum on or after 1 April. [113789]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office has provisional allocations of £300 million to meet the costs of supporting asylum seekers in 2000–01 and £250 million in 2001–02.

  The cost of supporting asylum seekers is sensitive to a wide range of factors, including the level of applications, the rate for take-up of support and the speed with which applications are processed. We are continuing to work with local authorities and others to determine an accurate estimate of costs and consider the most suitable method of reimbursement.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for asylum have been submitted by people who came into the United Kingdom(a) under the United Nations Humanitarian Evacuation Plan from Kosovo and (b) through organised medical evacuations from Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [113323]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Non-Governmental Organisations representing Kosovan Albanians evacuated to the United Kingdom have been asked to direct applications for asylum to a central unit in the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. These records show two asylum applications to have been made by people who came into the United Kingdom from Kosovo under the United Nations Humanitarian Evacuation Plan, one of which has subsequently been withdrawn, and that none have been made by people who came into the United Kingdom from Kosovo through organised medical evacuations.

  Jury Trial
  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 March 2000,Official Report, column 376W, for what reasons he has assumed that 25 per cent. of defendants who would have elected Crown Court trial and whom the magistrates decided to try would appeal against the magistrates' decision; what research he has undertaken into the likelihood of a defendant appealing against the magistrate's decision; and if he will make a statement. [113805]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the number of defendants who would appeal against the magistrates' decision on mode of trial; we have merely made the cautious assumption that a quarter of defendants would do so. By way of comparison, the percentage of defendants availing themselves of the unfettered right to appeal against summary conviction after a contested trial is about 14 per cent.

  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 March 2000,Official Report, column 377W, on which judges will hear appeals from magistrates on mode of trial, if he will list, for each Crown Court centre in England and Wales, the estimated number of appeals to be heard by each resident judge; what discussions he has had with (a) resident judges and (b) senior presiding judges regarding the requirement for resident judges to hear such appeals, and what representations have been made to him; how the requirement for resident judges to hear such appeals relates to his estimate of a hearing within 48 hours; and if he will make a statement. [113809]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Assuming that 25 per cent. of defendants appeal against the magistrates' decision on mode of trial, it is estimated that there will be 3,500 appeals a year, which is on average less than one appeal per week for each of the 78 Crown Court centres. The proposal that these appeals should be heard by the resident judge has already been discussed with the Lord Chief Justice, who further proposed that a deputy should be nominated by the senior presiding judge of the Circuit to provide cover. This will ensure that appeals will be heard within 48 hours.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the increased number of committals to the Crown Court for sentence if the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is enacted. [113806]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Assuming that eight per cent. would be committed for sentence, the number of formerly-electing defendants who under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill would be convicted in the magistrates' courts and committed for sentence would be 1,050, 160 more than under the original Bill.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the assumption of the increased number of defendants who would be tried in the magistrates' court rather than the Crown Court changed from 12,000 under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)
  821W
  Bill to 14,000 under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill; what the basis was for each of those assumptions; and if he will make a statement. [113807]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The estimate that 12,000 formerly-electing defendants would have been tried in the magistrates' courts under the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill was based on the generous assumption that a quarter of such defendants might, through representations, have been able to persuade the magistrates to direct their case to the Crown Court. Since the criteria in the No. 2 Bill are more restrictive, it has been assumed—again generously—that this proportion would be halved.

  Press Officers
  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 March 2000,Official Report, column 385W, for what reasons the statistics given on the number of press officers in his Department differed from the statistics given to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report, The Government Information and Communication Service (HC770) in July 1998; and if he will publish statistics comparable to those provided to the Select Committee for the dates requested by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald; and if he will make a statement. [113801]

  Mr. Straw
  One difference between the two sets of statistics is that the figures provided to the Select Committee included senior managers, press officers and staff on temporary attachments; whereas the question asked by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) specifically requested only the number of press officers employed in the Department on certain dates.

  The other difference lies in the fact that the figures provided to the Select Committee represented averages of Press Office staff over 12 month periods as opposed to the figures requested by the right hon. Member for a specific series of dates.

  In addition, some secondments and attachments are very short term and individuals are not always on the Home Office payroll.

  Therefore, it is not possible to supply comparable statistics in the form requested by the hon. Member.

  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 3 March 2000,Official Report, column 384W, on press officer salaries, on what basis press officers recruited to the news team could have earnings up to and beyond £30,000, as stated in the recruitment document, Just Another Day at the Office; what will be the maximum earnings of press officers recruited to the news team; and if he will make a statement. [113808]

  Mr. Straw
  As stated in my reply of 3 March, to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), press officers will be largely recruited at Information Officer grade for which the pay band salary is up to £27,709. Press officers working on the news team will be operating on a rota system for which there is an 822W
  additional shift disturbance allowance amounting to 12.5 per cent. of salary. All press officers, including those on the news team, are expected to join an out of hours duty rota, nights and weekends, for which overtime is paid. There is also a non-pensionable recruitment and retention allowance which can be varied at management's discretion.

  For those candidates recruited at the top end of the Information Officer pay scale, which would be dependent on factors such as experience and current salary, annual earnings could therefore be up to and beyond £30,000 as stated in the recruitment document.

  Due to the varying hours press officers will work, their individual circumstances on taking up post and the unpredictable amount of overtime which might be payable, it is not possible to give an exact figure for the maximum earnings of a press officer.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the report by Clear Communications Ltd. which led to the restructuring of his Department's Press Office. [113799]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. I will place a copy in the Library today.

  Press Office Database
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purposes his Department's Press Office Briefing and Research Database is to be used; what information will be stored on it; and if he will place its technical specifications in the Library. [113798]

  Mr. Straw
  The purpose of the Briefing and Reference Database (BARD) is to improve my Department's capability to handle media inquiries and to enable more effective briefing of Ministers on current and developing Home Office policies. BARD is a central database that stores news releases, speeches, Parliamentary business and basic facts and figures about Home Office business. BARD is currently being piloted and its technical specification will be placed in the Library once the pilot is complete.

  Royal Family (Protection)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many members of the Royal Family currently receive protection from officers of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad; and what is the cost; [113049]

  (2) how many officers of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad are assigned to protect members of the Royal Family; [113048]

  (3) if he will list those members of the Royal Family who have received protection from officers of the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Squad in the past five years but no longer do so. [113050]

  Mr. Straw
  We seek to ensure the most effective and efficient protective arrangements for the Royal Family and other public figures in the light of the changing threat from terrorism and other continuing risks. It is our policy not to comment on the details of protection arrangements for individuals, as to do so could compromise their security.

  Prisoners
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the reoffending rates of former inmates of(a) private and (b) publicly owned prisons in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [113483]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since prisoners may move between privately owned and publicly owned prisons on a number of occasions during their sentence, it is not possible to calculate the reoffending rates requested.

  Prisons
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received from the 824W
  operators of HMP Blakenhurst and HMP Forest Bank as to the current financial difficulties being experienced by Prison Realty Trust Inc. and Corrections Corporation of America; and what assurances he has obtained that these financial difficulties will have no detrimental effect on the companies currently operating HMP Blakenhurst and HMP Forest Bank and their ability to meet all their respective contractual obligations. [113563]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has received a verbal report from the operator of Blakenhurst prison and Forest Bank prison, UKDS, about the financial issues being faced by Prison Realty Inc. or Corrections Corporation of America. The Service has received adequate written assurance that they will not have a detrimental effect on UKDS and will not affect its ability to meet its contractual obligations.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Inward Investment
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the promotion of inward investment does not disadvantage the growth prospects of British-owned companies.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, there is strong competition from other countries for internationally mobile projects. Projects which do not come to the United Kingdom still generate competition for UK companies. It is sensible to secure the benefits of such projects for the UK where we can. Benefits include supply chain opportunities for existing companies, the creation of new jobs and the introduction of new products and new processes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I must declare an interest. This is a question about Saltaire. Is the Minister aware that both Pace Micro and Filtronic, companies that have their headquarters in Saltaire, have strongly emphasised their efforts to train electronic engineers and technicians in West Yorkshire? Is he also aware of the attempts of the regional development agency to attract in competing foreign investment without making any comparable plans to provide additional training and thus to alleviate the sharp shortage of qualified staff? Is the Minister aware that the shortage of qualified staff in West Yorkshire is due to the happy growth of those companies? Is he also conscious that encouraging Korean, Taiwanese and other companies into the area may lead to inflation and damage British companies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is open to any region that does not want to receive prospective investors (because it believes that they will pinch skilled labour) to inform the Invest in Britain Bureau so that that region is not included in any visits from foreign investors. However, I believe that that would be an extraordinarily short-sighted view to take. I agree that it is better to focus on, and to take action to rectify, the identified skill shortages in the region. The regional development agency is in a good position to do that. A further weapon will be the learning and skills councils when they are setup. I believe that the problem should be faced on the skills level and not by trying to keep high technology jobs out of the region.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not a fact that as inward investors in receipt of grants from the
1154
Government have to source a high proportion of their materials in the United Kingdom, the growth of inward investment is therefore a great advantage to UK companies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I took that as read. Clearly, we want to attract companies to this country. If such companies do not come here, they will go to other countries and compete against businesses here, which will be of no advantage to them, and competition will be increased. If companies come to this country, all sorts of advantages ensue, not only in terms of bringing in high-skilled jobs, but, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, in terms of the supply chain.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is possibly something wrong with the management of a company that is incapable of planning its labour resources and of attracting labour if it experiences any competition?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can understand the position of a company that has taken a lot of trouble to build up a skilled staff; but there will always be competition and if that does not come from foreign companies, it is likely to come from expanding companies within the region. One has to assume that the way to deal with that is through building up skills rather than trying to keep out competition.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear whether he is in favour of inward investment? I do not believe noble Lords on either side of the House are opposed to the single market, it having been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Do the Government agree that inward investment is not something that we should oppose?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a major task of the DTI is to attract investment into this country. That is done on the basis that it is good for the economy. I assumed that that was understood in the House and that it was not in dispute.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is particularly surprising to see such a Question on the Order Paper in view of the enormous benefit that this country derives, in terms of employment and prosperity, from inward investment, and that it is particularly surprising coming from a party which, given half a chance, would sell us out to a federal united states of Europe and a single currency?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one should never be surprised by Questions on the Order Paper. I thought it was in the same category as the third Question on the Order Paper, on beavers!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness speaking from the Opposition Front Bench has missed a trick. What is really surprising is the fact that the Liberals used to believe in free trade. One wonders when they abandoned that position. Does the

1155
Minister believe that inward investment is the most positive and heartening sign of the world's faith in the success of the British economy? Is not that why we should be in favour of it rather than against it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, of course, inward investment has huge benefits. Equally absurd would be a policy that actually tried to encourage companies to come to this country that were low skilled and did not require highly skilled labour. That is exactly the sort of policy of the past from which we are trying to get away.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is not a new issue? It is a very old question with which the Liberals have now caught up. Nissan came to this country when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There was some criticism then (for all sorts of xenophobic reasons that Liberals put forward), but that company has contributed not only to the motor industry, but also to the improvement of management skills of all kinds, which have been transferred into the economy at large.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am absolutely amazed that I agree with the noble Lord on an issue on industrial policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that inward investment is good, particularly for those of us who believe in free trade? Can he also confirm that this country and its firms invest far more abroad than people from abroad invest here?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have high ratios in terms of both attracting inward investment and our companies investing abroad. Therefore, we are particularly dependent on free trade and the free movement of capital in such areas, which is greatly to be encouraged.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Pace Micro and Filtronic have invested a great deal in training staff, including a new MSc course at Leeds University, subsidies for maths teachers at nine schools in Bradford, and subsidies for people to take further maths and physics at A-level? That has all been carried out at their own expense and has not yet been fully supported by regional authorities. Did I understand the Minister to say that in future RDAs will co-ordinate with regional training requirements when considering inward investment to ensure that those skills are provided and that our home-grown companies are not left to train their staff without any assistance from the Government?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the RDAs should look carefully at the skill requirements which follow from inward investment and seek within their powers to take account of that. I confirm that Filtronic received a grant of £5 million to create 500 high quality
1156
jobs at the old Fujitsu plant at Newton Aycliffe, County Durham. I have no doubt that that also had an effect on the local supply of labour.

Apsley House and Wellington Museum
3.10 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made a decision about the future management of Apsley House and the Wellington Museum.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a review of the management arrangements for Apsley House and the Wellington Museum is under way and we are considering the establishment of an independent charitable trust. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be asking an outside expert to confirm the viability of such a trust. Key criteria will be safeguards for the public interest with regard to both the collection and the building; enhancing the visitor experience and achieving value for money. This Answer has been cleared with the Wellesley family and the Victoria and Albert Museum.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I have a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph this morning, signed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which says almost exactly the same thing as the Minister said in answering my Question. Is it in accordance with our conventions that the first statement of government policy should be made in correspondence with the press and not in Parliament? It seems to me rather odd.
I make no criticism of his Grace, the Duke of Wellington, or his family, but the public have a deep interest in this matter. Has not a great deal of public money been spent since 1947, when the 7th Duke gave Apsley House to the nation, on the house and the collection? Would it not be in accordance with the Government's policy of open government to replace press speculation by publishing details of the independent trust to which the Minister referred and the details of any other proposals put forward—for example, by the V&A and English Heritage—so that there could be public debate on this important matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord's two questions are in conflict with each other. First, he chides me that the Secretary of State responded to ill-informed press speculation with a letter in the Daily Telegraph this morning. I am relieved that he recognises that what the Secretary of State is saying is the same as what I am saying; I do not know whether that counts as "joined-up government". But then he goes on to say that it is right that that ill-informed press speculation should be counteracted by the Government.
We are being as transparent as we can. We are considering setting up an independent trust. We want to be sure that it will work in terms of its charitable

1157
status; in terms of protecting the building and the collection; improving value for money; and increasing access to Apsley House. We are bringing in somebody from outside, whom we will name as soon as it is agreed, to investigate whether or not that is possible. When we know that, we will make all the details public in relation to the charitable trust. There is no concealment other than on matters which have yet to be decided.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, while I welcome the setting up of this trust, which seems to be the best way out of the current impasse and difficulties, will my noble friend confirm that access to the house and its magnificent collection, so generously given to the nation by the late 7th Duke, will not be restricted in any way as it has from time to time in the recent past?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, existing access is not particularly marvellous. There have only been between 40,000 and 50,000 visitors a year over each of the past three years. The house is only open from 11 o'clock until four o'clock. And although a great deal of public money has been spent on the building and marvellous contributions have been made by the Victoria and Albert Museum to the collections in the building, it is not as well known and as valued as it should be. My noble friend is right. We need improvements.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a former chairman of the trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Will the Minister confirm that, as the Secretary of State made clear to my successor, the fact that he is considering the future management of the Wellington Museum in no way implies or reflects any dissatisfaction whatever on his part with the V&A's stewardship of it?
Further, is the Minister of State aware that, though the Duke of Wellington cares deeply about the wellbeing of the museum, it is perhaps inevitable that the interests of those members of the family who live in the house by virtue of the 1947 Act do not always coincide with the public interest of what has been for 50 years a publicly-funded and national museum? That is why, when I was chairman of the V&A, we set up a Wellington Committee in order to see whether those differences could be reconciled and resolved. The Duke of Wellington was the deputy chairman of that committee.
Is the Minister further aware that the present arrangements give the Wellington Museum unlimited free access to the V&A's curatorial, conservation and warning services? Will the Minister consider whether it is going to be easy for that to be provided under a new trust without additional public expenditure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nothing I have said could be nor should be interpreted as a criticism of the management of the Victoria and Albert Museum. But as the noble Lord knows, there has been conflict between the Victoria and Albert Museum and the family, who occupy part of the house. It is in order
1158
to avoid that conflict that we are proposing, by mutual agreement, to set up an independent trust which will neither be dominated by the Wellesley family nor by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Of course, curatorial standards will be part of the consideration in how to set up that trust. The role of the V&A in curatorial standards is not undervalued.

European Beavers
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect the European beaver to be introduced into the United Kingdom during the next three years.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce the European beaver into England. To do so without a proper licence obtained from the department would be illegal.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords. I do not know whether or not I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. But will my noble friend make it clear that, should the European beaver be introduced, it will be a reintroduction? It is not an alien species. Will she ensure also that if a firm proposal comes forward, it must ensure that the species is settled in an appropriate and socially acceptable environment that will be secure? While it may promote tourist attractions, one hopes that it will not feed peculiar gourmets with a taste for unusual foods.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend has knowledge of gourmet dishes beyond my experience. I am aware of people who have eaten other things, but in my experience people have only worn the fur of the beaver.
My noble friend is wrong. The European beaver is covered by sex—Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Noble Lords: Section 28!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my briefing does not cover the sexual habits of the beaver! It would be treated as a new introduction because it is not a regular visitor to this country.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that many years ago an animal whose name I cannot remember—it is not Alzheimer's—was imported because of its fur (nutria) but became an absolute scourge to farmers on the east side of England, eating all the sugar beet? It was finally eliminated by bounty. I fear that if the beaver was introduced into this country the same could happen, maybe in a different way, but it would be a destructive force for agriculture.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the introduction of

1159
alien species into this country has done great damage. Grey squirrels are one example. The coypu, mentioned by the noble Baroness, created a problem for the banks of the Norfolk Broads as well as a problem for farmers. I believe that great care should be taken over this matter.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that lessons will be learnt from the past, in particular as regards those animals under threat, such as the otter? If beaver are introduced, both species will need to use the same food source; namely, fish. Will the Minister ensure that particular care will be taken to ensure that the position as regards otters is taken into account?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, clearly that would be a consideration.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that beaver skins make lovely fur coats? Furthermore, does she know whether beaver can be farmed? If so, would this not be a wonderful alternative crop for our hard-pressed farmers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware that any applications have been made in relation to farming beaver. My Lords, this is an extremely serious question!
For those noble Baronesses and noble Ladies who are Members of this House fortunate—or unfortunate—enough to own a fur coat, it should be remembered that the release of mink into the environment has caused enormous damage.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, in view of the fact that all governments over many years have encouraged afforestation, is it not illogical for the Government to finance an organisation in Scotland which yesterday announced that it would import beaver? Those animals will destroy countless trees.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of any policies or plans in hand in the Scottish Parliament on this. However, it must be a matter for that parliament.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that if, in the unfortunate circumstance of the beaver being introduced, it will not immediately be appended to the long and irreversible list of endangered species?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that I can give that assurance to the noble Earl. Everyone concerned would wish to behave responsibly as regards this matter. It may interest noble Lords to know that we have not received any applications for possums either. I understand that there is a problem with possums in New Zealand. However, they do have one added benefit in New
1160
Zealand in that they are very attached to marijuana. They seek it out and eat it all. It may be that the drugs tsar would have an interest.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in the unlikely situation of a proper licence being issued for the importation of the European beaver, would a person who had been issued with such a licence be financially liable for the damage that that animal would cause, if any damage were caused at a later date?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would need to seek legal advice on that point because it would depend on the circumstances that applied at the time. That would be the wisest course to take.

Utilities: Regulation
3.23 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have with regard to the regulation of utilities.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Utilities Bill was published in another place on 21st January this year. An announcement was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 2nd March in another place that the Government intended to remove the telecoms and water provisions from the Utilities Bill. What remains in the Utilities Bill is a very substantial programme of reform to the framework of gas and electricity regulation which the Government are wholly committed to getting on to the statute book.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the action by the Government of substantially reducing the scope of the Bill, which is passing through its Committee stage in another place, has created a degree of uncertainty about the Government's intentions concerning regulation of the utilities? In order to reduce that uncertainty to some degree, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. First, as regards gas and electricity, will he confirm explicitly—he may feel that he has already done this—that it is the intention of the Government to go ahead with the Bill with its present contents in spite of the very substantial number of amendments which I understand the Government have deposited in another place and which may also be set down when eventually the Bill comes to this House?
Secondly, as regards telecoms and water, can we assume that any subsequent proposals that the Government plan to make will be roughly in line with the provisions previously in the Bill that is now before another place, bearing in mind that they have stated that their objective is to ensure that the regulatory systems of the four utilities are consistent with one another?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while there may be a little uncertainty on this matter, the decision

1161
taken by the Government—which was driven by arguments put to the Government by the industries involved—that they would reduce the amount of regulatory change if these measures are carried forward as a part of separate legislation relating to water and to a separate communications Bill was entirely the right one. As I said in my original reply, I can confirm that gas and electricity will be carried forward essentially in their present form. Amendments will be coming through and we shall take care of them when the Bill comes to this House. As regards telecommunications and water, we will carry forward the principles that apply to them, in particular in relation to securing for all the utilities a more transparent framework, an independent voice for consumers and a stronger focus on protecting the interests of consumers. I repeat, all those principles will be carried forward.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, would it not have been a better idea if the Minister had come to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the changes to this Bill on the same day that a Deferred Question was tabled and answered in another place? Furthermore, will the Minister remind the House when was the last time a government, halfway through the passage of a Bill, simply abandoned a great many of its provisions? Is not the truth of the matter that the same problems with telecoms and water—overregulation, burdens on business and so forth—also apply to electricity and gas? Those industries are not happy about the situation. Do the Minister and his right honourable friend agree that it would far better to withdraw the entire Bill and then to return solely with the provisions of Clause 56, which would reform the entire pool? We could all agree with that and expeditiously pass such a piece of legislation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. It is not right to show such an extraordinary thirst for regulatory change and have a series of Bills covering what could otherwise easily be compressed into a single Bill. In the circumstances, it seemed to us to be right to listen to what industry had to say, to take account of those views and to move forward appropriately.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given that this is the fourth Question on a Thursday and that it is a balloted, topical Question, and given also the fact that the Bill is still immersed in Committee in another place, no matter what changes are being made to it and that we will only receive it in due course, will the Minister discuss with his noble friend the Leader of the House the reasons why this Question was allowed to be put on to the Order Paper today?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is a topical subject and reflects the nature of Question Time in this House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister taken note that one of the reasons given by British Telecom
1162
for its failure to reduce the price of access to the Internet is the regulatory framework? Can the Minister assure the House that, when the Bill comes before noble Lords, adequate provision will be made to enable British Telecom to compete and to make such facilities available to consumers at reasonable prices?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, those are precisely the kind of issues that will be covered when we reach the communications Bill which will bring forward the relevant legislation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend help me on one matter that has left me slightly bewildered? Are the regulatory regimes for all four of the former public utilities we are seeking to amend with these pieces of legislation those regimes that were introduced by the previous government while they were in power? Am I not right in thinking that the whole point of this new legislation is to improve on those regulatory regimes and to make them less burdensome? As I intend to say in my Second Reading speech in due course, I thought that that was what the Bill was meant to address.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the essential thrust of the Utilities Bill is to introduce some new principles, one of which, for example, will be the independent consumer council in each case. These are new principles that we have brought forward. In due course, we shall ensure that they apply to all the Bills that relate to the utilities.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the value of the Bill is already being experienced in view of the fact that the price of electricity in the pool is already coming down in anticipation of the Bill?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. It is the prospect of the new system of electricity trading that is already having an impact on the forward market for electricity.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not intend to delay the House, nor, obviously, shall I oppose the Motion. However, I rise to express some concerns about this afternoon's business, of which I have given the Government Chief Whip some notice.
In response to requests from my noble friend Lord Roberts, the Government have brought forward a very large number of amendments dealing

1163
with the Welsh aspects of the Bill. I gather that there are some 115 new amendments being brought forward at this Third Reading. The amendments were tabled yesterday, the day before or even the day before that; but they were put down very recently. We all know that my noble friend will, with some difficulty, be able to assimilate and grasp the content of such a large number of amendments, but can that be true of all other noble Lords, bearing in mind the complexity of these issues and the timing with which they were tabled? As regards the future, I must say that I hope the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip can offer some guarantee that such a large number of amendments will not be tabled quite so late in the proceedings of a Bill.
That brings me to the second point that I wish to discuss. This afternoon we are debating two government Bills. I have no objection to that; indeed, I think that that is perfectly legitimate because, on certain occasions, the business managers should be able to complete two Bills in one day. Obviously, the first is the Third Reading of the Local Government Bill and the second is the Report stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. The latter is a Bill that had its Committee stage in the Moses Room. I am sure that the House will agree that Bills which start their Committee stage in the Moses Room should have their Report and Third Reading stages at a convenient time of the day for the House and not be hidden away late in the evening, as is likely to happen on this occasion.
Therefore, can I have confirmation from the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that if consideration on the Local Government Bill does not finish by 8.30 p.m., we will not proceed with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and will leave it to be dealt with on another day?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I make no comment on the "Welsh amendments", if I may so describe them. However, on the second issue raised, does the noble Lord recall our conversation when I expressed serious disquiet about a Bill that had been considered in the Moses Room not getting prime time in this House? I believe that must be done if we are to continue to consider Bills in the Moses Room.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who told me just before Questions commenced that he was going to raise these points. He is correct to say that government amendments were tabled on Monday, and yesterday, on the Local Government Bill. The amendments tabled on Monday have all been brought forward in response to points raised by the parties opposite on Report. It was not possible to have them drafted and tabled any earlier. Although a large number of amendments were tabled yesterday, they all related to a single issue: namely, the application of the new ethical framework in Wales. I am advised that the vast majority of them are consequential and technical.
1164
I understand that my noble friend Lord Whitty sent copies of the amendments to the Front Bench spokesmen of the parties opposite on Monday so as to give them slightly longer to consider the detail. I only became aware of the situation at the end of last week. In the case of the Welsh matters, they seem to require another layer of consultation. Noble Lords will know that, as Chief Whip, I have made a lot of effort to get amendments tabled in reasonable time. Indeed, as Chief Whip, I can say that that applies just as much to government amendments as to those from the Opposition.
As regards the timing of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill this evening, both noble Lords will know that it was agreed between the usual channels that we would take it as the second business of the day. However, if we have not completed the Local Government Bill by 8.30 p.m., we will not be proceeding with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill this evening.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "local authority" in this Part]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 14. at end insert—
("() a parish council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. However, I feel that I should perhaps find some general verbiage at this point to fill in the first 30 seconds or so of my introduction—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wish that noble Lords leaving the Chamber could do so quietly because we cannot hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introducing her amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, though I was not suggesting that my words were so full of import that they needed silence in order to be heard.
The Bill introduces powers for local authorities that we on these Benches, the Opposition and the whole of the local government world outside this place have very much welcomed; namely, the new powers regarding social, economic and environmental wellbeing. However, the powers will not extend to all local authorities: they will extend only to those in the spheres above parishes in England and their equivalents—community councils—in Wales.
I believe that there are some 10,000 parish councils in England alone which represent nearly 16 million people. Those who have lived in areas that have been served by parish councils, as well as by those in other spheres—I have not had the benefit of this, having spent the whole of my adult life in London where we have no parishes or their equivalents—are very well aware in many cases of the huge benefits that parishes can bring. Of course, not every parish council is as good as the next, but many are energetic and bring together people who wish to contribute to their

1165
communities. Those people do a great deal of work at a very local level and often in a pretty much unsung fashion.
The importance of parish councils has been recognised across the board for many years. The Redcliffe-Maud Report in 1969 acknowledged the vital elements that they contribute to democratic local government. The report said:
"Their key function should be to focus opinion about anything that affects the well being"—
I stress the words "well being"—
"of each community".
Quite rightly, this Government's recent publications, including In Touch with the People, have recognised the essential part of the structure of local democracy in this country to which local authorities contribute. My amendments seek to extend the powers of well-being to that level of local democracy.
I am obliged to the National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish councils, for briefing me on this matter. We on these Benches, in our turn, very much support the work that it accomplishes. The association is concerned that the power to promote economic, environmental and social well-being excludes that sphere of local government. Many parish councils wish to be involved—indeed, many of them are—with partnership arrangements incorporating other parts of local government, and of course with the private, business and voluntary sectors. This is to the benefit of their local communities.
The powers of parish councils are limited. Section 137 of the 1972 Local Government Act will remain on the statute book. That gives parish councils a certain but limited freedom beyond the statutory duties to do the right thing for their communities, as they see it. The power to incur expenditure under Section 137 is limited.
If Section 137 were an adequate provision for local authorities to undertake the wider responsibilities and the broader powers that this Bill will provide in other spheres, it seems to me that the Government would have left it on the statute book, or perhaps raised the financial limits, and would simply have extended Section 137 to the whole of local government. For it to be repealed, save for parish and community councils, is, I think, a sad failure.
I realise that I should also have tabled an amendment to Clause 9 of the Bill which would be consequential on this amendment. We have skirted round the powers of parish councils at previous stages of the Bill. I do not believe that we have addressed the question quite as directly as the amendments I am discussing seek to do. I do not seek to divide the House
1166
on this matter because I note the technical deficiency in what I have tabled. However, I hope that we can be told why the Government have excluded parish councils from the provision. That will provide material for our colleagues in another place to take the matter further as they will also be concerned with the powers of parish councils. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it may be appropriate to refer to the general content of the noble Baroness's remarks in relation to the importance of parish councils. We are not sympathetic to the amendment but we need to make clear that parish councils are an essential part of the structure of local democracy and that they will continue to play a vital part in the life of our towns, villages and rural communities, as they have in the past. I want to repeat again—as there has been a number of rumours to the contrary—that that remains government policy, and will continue to be government policy.
While we expect parish councils to play an important role in the community planning process, we do not expect them to be the leaders in that process. We would expect effective parishes to be one of the strategic partners engaged in community planning with other local government units. The guidance will make that clear. We would expect parishes to have a role in identifying needs, but we would expect the higher tiers of local government to be in the lead in matters of well-being and community planning, even though the parishes will have a role to play in the local partnerships which develop under those provisions.
In support of that role we shall continue to make use of the parish powers under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 which allow them to support a wide range of activities for the local good. Parishes have developed a number of new approaches to delivering benefits to their communities, for example through funding citizens advice bureaux, sports and leisure facilities and so on.
The noble Baroness referred to the possible inadequacy of the limits under that section. We recognise that some parish councils feel restrained by the annual limit on expenditure, of £3.50 per elector, from playing a full role in local government. The Government have stated previously—I emphasise this again—that we realise that this is a difficulty, albeit for a minority of parish and town councils. We shall review the current limit on Section 137 as part of the wider local government finance review to which I have referred at earlier stages of this Bill.
The Government believe that parishes have an important role to play. But that is not the leading role, either as regards the power of well-being or in the preparation of community strategies. I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that, and that parish councils will recognise that that is their role and that we have a positive attitude to their role. However, the amendment would not further that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he comment on the Countryside Agency's proposal that it will help villages to prepare appraisals? I accept that district and county councils have the lead role in preparing overall strategy. However, I thought that the Countryside Agency had a well-funded programme to help villages to prepare appraisals which would be most unlikely to fit into an overall strategy to be followed by district or county councils. How will parishes regard these village appraisals in the light of the comments that the Minister has just made? Will that work be worth while, unless the Government view as important within the wider framework such work at a local level?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Countryside Commission's initiative would allow parish councils to engage in a range of initiatives, but to do so within their current powers. Village appraisals would be conducted in such a way that parishes could help play a part in the community planning which is being undertaken by the district or county. The manner of participation may differ from village to village. That is understood and forms part of the whole approach to parish activities which the Countryside Commission is endeavouring to nurture. However, that does not alter the point that the well-being power itself and the community planning strategy are not the responsibility of parish councils but of district or county councils.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister says that he expects parishes to play a full part in partnerships and that the guidance which the Secretary of State will issue will make that clear. I do not think that that quite answers the question, because the guidance will presumably primarily be guidance for levels of local government other than parishes.
I accept that parishes do not always play a primary role in their communities' well-being, but I do not accept that they never play a primary role. It seems to me that the Government have failed to answer the basic underlying question: namely, what harm can there be in extending these powers to parish councils? Simply leaving on the statute book Section 137, which is widely accepted to contain inherent difficulties, seems to go against the assurances that the Government have given about how they value parishes.
I did not make that point in my opening remarks as it did not lie behind the amendment. The amendment was not tabled to have a go at the Government but to support parishes. As we all agree that it is right to do so, I fear that I have not been given an answer to my question as to why the well-being power should not apply equally to that part of our local government and our local history. I hope that another place will be able
1168
to pursue this matter more effectively than clearly I have been able to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Limits on power to promote well-being]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("() In its application to Wales, this section has effect as if for any reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I wish to place on record my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their understanding with regard to the difficulties that we faced in ensuring that the views of the Assembly were taken into account. We understand the strain that was placed on them in dealing with amendments that were tabled late.
These amendments make provision for the role of the National Assembly for Wales in respect of the well-being powers in Wales. Amendment No. 4 would give the National Assembly for Wales the power to make regulations under Clause 3(3) to place restrictions on the use of the well-being power by local authorities in Wales. It also makes it clear that the National Assembly may issue guidance to which Welsh authorities must have regard when using the well-being power.
Amendment No. 6 sets out the particular arrangements which must be followed when the Secretary of State proposes to use the Clause 5 power in a way that will affect Welsh local authorities. First, the Secretary of State must consult the National Assembly before making any provision that would affect Welsh authorities. Secondly, the Secretary of State cannot make any provision that would affect legislation that has been made by the Assembly unless the Assembly has given its consent for him to do so. These provisions will protect the legitimate interests of the National Assembly in matters relating to local government in Wales.
It is of course entirely possible that the Assembly will wish to see specific legislative changes made for the benefit of authorities in Wales. So Amendment No. 6 also provides a formal mechanism for the Assembly to make proposals to the Secretary of State for such changes to be made.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 make consequential changes to the detailed consultation and scrutiny procedures in Clause 8. These procedures will apply to any order that the Secretary of State proposes to make under Clause 5 or Clause 6 and which affects Welsh authorities. Amendment No. 7 requires the Secretary of State to consult the National Assembly on any proposal for legislation that affects Wales. Amendment No. 8 is a simple drafting change to reflect the new provisions of Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 9 requires that the views of the Welsh

1169
Assembly, like those of other consultees, must be made available to the House alongside any proposed draft order.
Together these provisions will ensure that the Assembly is fully consulted and has ample opportunity to scrutinise any proposed changes to legislation in Wales. They will ensure that the views of the Assembly are available to Parliament when it comes to scrutinise any proposed orders made under Clause 5 or Clause 6. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, this is the first of a series of Welsh amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for tabling them—if not by Report, as once promised, then at least by Third Reading.
There was a time not so long ago when Ministers thought that they might not be able to table the bulk of these amendments until the Bill reached another place. They have clearly pulled out all the stops, and we had a deluge of amendments earlier in the week. Had we not received these amendments today, they would have had to be moved in the other place and we would have been able to discuss them only during our consideration of Commons amendments, with all the limitations that that involves.
The Government's difficulty arose because of continuing discussions, internally and with the National Assembly for Wales,
"both about the process which should be used to amend primary legislation affecting local government in Wales and about the procedures for implementing this legislation for Welsh local authorities".
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will recognise that a substantial part of what I have just said is a quotation from a letter which the noble Lord was good enough to send me on the 25th of last month.
I think that we have a right to know of major changes proposed by the Government before Bills pass through this House. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to table the Welsh amendments, albeit at a late stage. I think that that is an acknowledgement of the principle that we should be able to see changes proposed by the Government.
I detect a similar difficulty in connection with the Learning and Skills Bill, which occasioned my comment that the Assembly was out of step with the primary legislative process for which this Westminster Parliament is still responsible. I think that the Government have had a hand in this too; perhaps I was too heavy in my criticism of the Assembly. I shall come to that in a moment.
A similar difficulty seems to be arising in the case of the Care Standards Bill. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Wales, Paul Murphy MP, intimated in the Welsh affairs debate that provision for a children's commissioner for Wales may well be introduced into the Care Standards Bill, which is in an advanced stage of its progress through this House. Of course, in that case there were special circumstances arising from the Waterhouse report. I am sure that this House will be understanding about that, as it always is.
1170
I do not want to labour the point, but it is becoming increasingly clear that if we are to provide Wales with the legislation it needs, the Assembly and the Government must be in step with the legislative process here. I am not sure that this principle is, as yet, fully accepted and understood. I think that the Government understand it, but perhaps the message has not, as yet, got down to Cardiff Bay. I say this in a helpful rather than critical spirit.
I know that the Assembly is not yet a year old and that there are bound to be teething troubles and so on, and that the Government are well aware of the problem. My sole concern—I think it is a legitimate concern and I know that this is the Government's wish too—is to ensure that the primary legislation that this Parliament provides is not defective so far as it concerns Wales; that it is as sound and as comprehensive as we can make it; and that people will benefit from it and not suffer because of inadequacies.
The House will be glad to hear me say that I fully appreciate the purpose of the amendments, as outlined by the noble Baroness, which is, of course, to provide for the inclusion of the National Assembly in Clauses 3, 5 and 8. Clause 5 contains a very substantial power to amend or repeal enactments. In so far as it is right to grant such a power at all, it is appropriate that the Assembly should be consulted in Wales.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House or to oppose these amendments. My noble friend on the Front Bench supports them; who am I to oppose them? But I should like to make one or two observations.
I have never had unbounded admiration for the wisdom of Secretaries of State in giving guidance or in consulting. I think that Secretaries of State are—more than most people—open to error. The amendment seeks to substitute the Assembly for the Secretary of State and I wonder whether—I mean no disrespect to the National Assembly for Wales—perhaps an assembly collectively giving guidance and being consulted would produce an even worse muddle than that produced by a Secretary of State.
I may have completely misunderstood the amendments but I should be obliged to the noble Baroness if she could set at rest my burgeoning anxieties on this subject.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford wanted to be present and said that if we could keep going until 4.30 the debate on the first group of amendments, he would be. I decided that if I were to try to do that, it might not make these Benches entirely popular with the House. I know that my noble friend would like to have recorded his thanks to the Minister for the time he was able to spend with my noble friend discussing the Welsh amendments.
However, we must express our concern about improving the process. The Bill started life in this House not in the form in which the Government were

1171
promoting it. We debated a raft of amendments at the Committee stage to turn it into something more like the Government's preferred version. To treat the position of Wales as something of an add-on, whether to this Bill or to any other Bill, does not give proper acknowledgement to the role of Welsh government. I hope that we will very soon start regarding the involvement of our colleagues in Wales as integral to the initial process and not as something to be considered at a later stage. Wales is not an add-on. For Cardiff and the whole of Wales to have to sit back and wait for Westminster and Whitehall to sort out how they wish to express certain matters in legislation is not the right way to go forward. I am aware that the Government were consulting colleagues in Wales on how to express and deal with certain matters, but on this occasion I do not think that we have served them very well.
Like other noble Lords, I have had time only at a fairly unsocial hour to look at the amendments affecting Wales. Though they seem to be such as we would wish to see, I find it difficult to satisfy myself that they really are. I hope that longer consideration can be given if it is needed, as it may be. From these Benches we express our wish that Wales should be allowed to run its own affairs, as was the thrust of the legislation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by repeating the offer that I made with the knowledge of the Secretary of State for Wales to arrange a meeting after Easter to look at the procedure and the processes that need to be followed to cover the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. Such a meeting would then be able to look at the processes and procedure that have been used both for the Learning and Skills Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred, and the Care Standards Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord. We, too, wish to ensure that in future the procedure that is adopted is one of proper consultation and proper time for full parliamentary scrutiny following that consultation.
Perhaps I may say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, that the settlement and the devolution arrangements provide under the Government of Wales Act that the Assembly is a corporate body which has delegated executive power to the cabinet. Consultation will be with the cabinet. The appropriate Assembly Secretary will be the one to issue guidance where the issue is one of guidance.
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I remind the House that the Assembly started to work using the powers which transferred only on 1st July. We are having discussions with the Assembly about the future legislative process and the Assembly is clear on the matter. I understand that it has suggested to the Secretary of State for Wales a protocol.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder why the arrangement as
1172
to who will give guidance and who will consult is not made clear on the face of the Bill. It looks so odd. We suddenly find guidance being given by an Assembly. Not even your Lordships' House would always give the most coherent advice. There might be a good deal of disagreement. I wonder at the idea of putting down an Assembly as the source of advice or guidance. If someone else is giving the advice or guidance, why not say so?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would be concerned were we to be in a process of offering guidance from a gathering as large as your Lordships' House. But the devolution settlement makes it quite clear that it is the Assembly which must be consulted. The Assembly can give to the cabinet that power of consultation to go ahead. That is a matter for the Assembly. But it is the Assembly as a whole which must be consulted before changes are made that are rightly in its power to decide on.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
STRATEGY FOR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL WELL-BEING IN WALES
(" .—(1) Every local authority in Wales is to have a duty to prepare a strategy for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area.
(2) In preparing any strategy under this section, a local authority—

(a) may consult or seek the participation of such persons as they consider appropriate; and

(b) must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) Before issuing any guidance under this section, the National Assembly for Wales must consult the Partnership Council and such other persons (if any) as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I introduce this new clause with the support of the Welsh Local Government Association and of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in absentia for the time being. The underlying principle has been previously discussed by your Lordships in an England and Wales context and rejected by the Government, but the new clause applies to Wales only.
As currently drafted, the Bill provides for each local authority in Wales and England to have a power to prepare a community strategy to promote well-being subject to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The proposed new clause replaces the power with a duty upon local authorities in Wales to be fulfilled with regard to guidance issued by the National Assembly for Wales. In my experience, it is not often that local authorities ask for duties, but here is an exceptional case. The effect of the new clause would be to ensure that every local authority in Wales prepared a community strategy according to a timetable and with scope and procedures defined in guidance by the National Assembly after widespread consultation in Wales.
The Local Government Association wishes to develop an innovative and distinctive approach to the governance of Wales. The community strategy for each local government area is widely regarded within Wales as an essential part of the new governance, as is the partnership that is being constructed between the National Assembly and local government. It is urged that Wales needs a national framework for local community planning which can be achieved only by laying a duty on local authorities. It is envisaged that each local authority will work with local people, voluntary and business organisations and other public organisations to agree, in partnership, shared aims and strategies for the local community which can inform the more detailed planning and actions of each of the partner organisations. The National Assembly is currently developing a strategic plan for Wales through a process of partnership and consultation.
This national strategy proposes key priorities and targets for Wales in the medium and long term. The intention is that local government will collectively consider how its priorities match those of the Assembly, and where, as anticipated, there is congruence, the Assembly and local government will make a policy agreement, where both agree to pursue selected target outcomes. Local agreements will be informed by the national agreement as each local authority considers the circumstances of its community and its potential contribution to the national strategy. It is anticipated that the policy agreements, national and local, will inform the local partnerships that come together to develop a community strategy.
Much work has already been done on this innovative approach to partnership which has been developed in Wales through its unique statutory Partnership Council between the Assembly and local government. During the preparations, one of the key foundations was the Government's commitment in the Welsh Office White Paper, Local Voices, in 1998. They stated in the White Paper:
"There is a need for greater policy cohesion and coherence at local level between the public, business and voluntary sectors. The new duty will include a requirement for authorities to prepare overarching strategies for promoting the well-being of their areas … It is important that all authorities should carry out community planning in a strategic and comprehensive way. The Government considers it essential that there should be a strategy for every area".
So the Government themselves spoke then, in 1998, of a "duty" rather than a power.
In 1999, the Welsh Local Government Association undertook consultation on the purpose and form of community planning. There was a full response from local organisations. All responses were positive on the need for community strategies and all expressed the view that the National Assembly should provide guidance on community plans which balanced the need for local innovation and diversity with the need for some consistency.
The Partnership Council, comprising the National Assembly and local government representatives, has considered the Welsh Local Government Association's consultation and responses. It has
1174
established a working group between itself and partners in the voluntary and business sectors to begin the preparations for national guidance in anticipation of the Bill being amended. We shall see whether they were wise in their anticipation.
I understand that the Welsh Local Government Association persuaded its English colleagues in the LGA of the merits of this amendment. As I said earlier, the House has debated amendments on two occasions which sought to substitute the term "power" with "duty", but on both occasions the Government opposed the amendments. But clearly a special situation has developed in Wales. I hope that the Government are as sympathetic to the proposal as I am. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches support all the reasons advanced by the noble Lord as to why Wales should place such a duty on its local authorities. I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments that I advanced on the first day of the Report stage on 28th February (at col. 363). In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that, on balance, he was not convinced that a duty should be placed on local authorities. Over the years I have learnt to regard "on balance" as sometimes being an optimistic sign.
If, as I hope, the Government are minded for reasons of good argument advanced previously also by the LGA and now by colleagues in Wales to rethink this matter, that will be widely welcomed. I hope that the same provision will apply to local authorities in England—without which they will continue to struggle with the many statutory plans that they must prepare. I believe the noble Baroness said that they number over 40. We should welcome a rationalisation of the position in regard to England as well as Wales.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has spoken eloquently in favour of the duty of community planning in Wales. We have also heard a strong case put, both inside this House and in discussions outside, by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and her noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Local Government Association have expressed similar views. Where a different approach to local government matters in Wales is justified, we are, of course, prepared to consider that.
So far as concerns a duty, it is fair to say that the views expressed in relation to Wales were no different from the general views which have already been expressed in this House and by organisations such as the LGA and the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.
I think that there is widespread agreement within the House and beyond as to what could be achieved at local level through effective community planning. We

1175
have always said that community strategies—developed by local strategic partnerships, involving local agencies, the private and voluntary sectors and the community—have the potential to deliver real benefits for local people. They can improve local quality of life and enhance local pride.
We have always considered that effective community planning can help to deliver many of the changes that the Government believe are essential if local quality of life is to be improved. The legislation, therefore, has to be seen in the context of the Government's efforts to ensure coherent delivery of public services and to tackle such issues as social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal. Policy in these areas is developing rapidly. The Social Exclusion Unit is due to report soon on its national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. A crucial part of that strategy will be broadly-based, local strategic partnerships along the lines that we envisage here. It should come as no surprise to noble Lords that against that background we have kept the legislative provisions in the Bill under constant review.
We have always recognised that a duty to prepare community strategies would emphasise the importance that we attach to local action to tackle these issues and deliver sustainable development. Clearly, it would also provide the means to ensure that more reluctant local authorities also take action for the benefit of their communities. But equally, we have always believed that it is not a prerequisite for effective community planning.
Nevertheless, given the way in which the policy is developing and the critical role that we now see being played by local strategic partnerships, we are minded to reconsider the approach currently taken in Clause 4. We shall need to give careful consideration to the way in which a duty might be framed. We shall want to ensure that it does not preclude the sort of local flexibility that is crucial to the success of local partnerships; and the proposals will need to reflect the different structure of local government in England and Wales. We shall bring forward appropriate amendments for both England and Wales when the Bill passes to another place.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their interest and their explanations and comments within this field. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches for her support. I also thank the Minister for the change of attitude that I detected. Her promise to consider further and bring forward amendments in the other place has been duly noted and welcomed. As I am speaking on behalf of Wales, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether, as I presume is the case, the promise to reconsider which covers Clause 4 extends to England as well. Perhaps she will confirm that. I understand the noble Baroness's change of heart in that it was a duty promised in the White Paper
1176
1998. Indeed, the Partnership Council in Wales has gone ahead, as I said, to form a working group with local business and so forth. Therefore, I am glad that the work is clearly not going to be in vain. Perhaps the Minister would like to clear up the point about the impact of what she said on the English situation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry, but I may not have been as clear as I might. The proposals brought forward will need to reflect the different structures of local government in England and in Wales.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and explanation. Obviously the Government are going to reconsider the situation as regards Clause 4 and England as well as Wales. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Power to amend or repeal enactments]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
("() In exercising the power under subsection (1) the Secretary of State—

(a) must not make any provision which has effect in relation to Wales unless he has consulted the National Assembly for Wales, and

(b) must not make any provision in relation to legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the Assembly.

() The National Assembly for Wales may submit proposals to the Secretary of State that the power under subsection (1) should be exercised in relation to Wales in accordance with those proposals.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Procedure for orders under section 5 or 6]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Where those proposals affect any local authorities in Wales, the Secretary of State must also consult the National Assembly for Wales.").
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("the preceding provisions of this section").
Page 4, line 30, at end insert (", and
() where consultation has taken place under subsection (1A), sets out the views of the National Assembly for Wales").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INTRODUCE EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(" .—(1) A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions.
(2) Nothing in this Part shall have effect in respect of a local authority not making executive arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regard Part II of the Bill as its heart. Therefore, it is right that at previous stages we have devoted considerable time to debating it; and it is right that we should do so again this afternoon.
For me, the prime reason for debating this again with great care and attention is not just because of the content of the Bill but, more importantly, because of what it says about the Government's attitude to local government, democracy, the electorate and regulation. On odd occasions when those on this side of the House have suggested that a small insertion might help the Bill or local government, we have had it thrown in our teeth that, in fact, it would be intrusive regulation which would not help and that therefore the matter should be left to local authorities to decide. This Bill is a huge series of regulations and, my goodness, they are intrusive. In this part of the Bill the intrusion is at its most prominent.
The Government say that this part of the Bill will support, strengthen and stimulate local democracy. I wish that there was some evidence that that might be the case. It is true that there have been pilot schemes, but they have not lasted for a sufficient length of time to show any impact at all on the electorate or the interest that local communities take in what their authorities do.
The Government have quoted national statistics in aid of this part of the Bill. I accept that they show that those surveyed—they are quite narrow surveys—in the majority of cases are in favour of the kinds of proposal that are envisaged. In particular, they say that if there were a local mayor they might be more inclined to vote at local elections. Perhaps that is not surprising.
But the bulk of the population is urban, not to say metropolitan. When one surveys many people on a national base, inevitably one will have a natural slightly urban bias. However, local government is about communities. Many of them are not urban, but they are included in the national figures. They might have been the 40 per cent who said "no" or who have not expressed very great interest. They might be 100 per cent of a rural community. Therefore, the basis of the statistical support for this part of the Bill seems flawed. If we are looking at stimulating local democracy, it seems to me that Ken Livingstone might be doing more about this matter in a real sense than are the Government.
The Government assert that these provisions will reinvigorate the interest of local communities and electorates. The loss of interest that has continued consistently for a very long time in local communities and among local electors about what happens to local government and local councils has been driven by increasing government control and regulation of what local authorities can and may do. This Bill does nothing to tackle that fundamental issue.
Even if the Government are correct and executive arrangements are in fact as virtuous and as good as they hold them to be—I have already said that they have no evidence which demonstrates that that is so; it is an assertion—I must point out that local authorities
1178
and councillors are not insensitive, and still less are they not keen, to see improved performance in their authorities. If these ideas are good, local councillors and local authorities will adopt them without the compulsion that this Bill imposes.
Even if local councillors were reluctant, and there were a better system, given that local electorates are neither ignorant, insensitive nor stupid, they would rapidly demand that the system be changed. Sadly, if one looks at the way the Bill is worded and what is done in other cases, one might suppose that the Government have little confidence in either local councillors or local electors.
Local electors are the same as those who vote in national elections; but that is all right and the vote is valid. But if those electors vote in a local referendum—an issue on which I pressed the Government that there should be a floor in the number of people voting in order to make sure that a sufficient number of electors support a proposal before it is made mandatory—the Government said that they do not need such a floor and that vote is valid. However, all of a sudden, when those same electors vote for a local councillor, that vote is discounted. The Government's attitude is just too inconsistent, and they cannot have it both ways. That is the difference between the Minister and myself. Whatever may have happened in the past—my position has not altered—we are now prepared to trust local communities, but the problem is that, as revealed by the psychology of Part II of the Bill, the Government are not.
That brings me to the amendments. Part II of the Bill as drafted will require local authorities to change their ways and operate under "executive arrangements". They are not given an option; they are required to do it. The Government may slide around the edges and say that there are a number of ways in which that may be done, which is perfectly true. However, the principle is there: it is a requirement. I have already said that sensible, sensitive and efficient local authorities will, if the principles are correct, adopt those arrangements. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are designed specifically to remove the compulsion and make it possible for local councils to decide for themselves whether or not to adopt those arrangements.
I do not oppose the suggested arrangements contained in the Bill. My opposition is to a provision that forces local authorities to adopt those arrangements on a time-scale that the Minister can determine, which is wrong. That represents a fundamental division between us. My amendments correct that flaw in the Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my name is added to the two amendments in this group which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We on these Benches have tabled Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 to which the noble Lord has added his name.
During earlier debate on this matter the Government made much of the great variety of executive arrangements on offer. I still find it difficult

1179
to read into Clause 10 an almost infinite variety of arrangements, especially when the options on offer in future are subject to what regulations "may, in particular, provide for". In this context, I believe that, yet again, "may" means "shall". I find it even harder to appreciate what we are told is the open mind of the Government since local authorities must have executive arrangements. The strong term "must" is used in Clauses 9 and 10. In legislation one is accustomed to seeing the term "shall" or "may", which itself sometimes means "shall", but very rarely does one see "must". Here one sees "must" without allowing for an incremental approach and the experience of pilots in areas with different geography, demography, political history and background.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, spoke powerfully about the differences between almost single-party-dominated authorities, perhaps in inner cities, and those in rural areas which involved members of all parties and of none. What is proposed will take place without waiting to see what may be learnt from the experience of London. I do not suggest that the Greater London Authority and local authorities which adopt executive arrangements are absolutely equivalent. We are, however, in the middle of a mayoral election at the moment from which lessons can be learnt—and not only on such matters as how best to adopt candidates!
It would be understandable if the Government's objection was based on the suspicion that those who are currently councillors simply seek to defend the status quo. It would be understandable if the Government regarded that with some cynicism. I referred at an earlier stage to the work undertaken by Camden council. I believe that that council has acquired beacon status from the Government in two areas: housing benefit and schools. That authority undertook major consultation with local people and rejected the proposals. I quote the resolution passed by that council which rejected the proposals,
"on grounds that they will reduce democracy, lessen effective decision-making and seriously weaken accountability".
Academics and commentators are not united behind the Government's proposals. It is not suggested that local authorities should not be allowed to adopt an executive/scrutiny split; rather, that there should be local choice. We on these Benches are very ready to acknowledge that the Government have moved on important matters, such as area committees and, to an extent, the role of the overview and scrutiny committee. Sadly, we have not yet succeeded in explaining sufficiently clearly to the Government our concern about the likely split into two classes of councillor. We believe that the proposals with which we are now dealing are flawed because of the Government's innate preference for a system that is centred on personality.
A few days ago I spoke at a meeting in London about the forthcoming elections. The view of a number of people who attended that meeting can be summarised as follows: they do not like something that is going on locally and want to be assured that the
1180
mayor will put everything right. It is very dangerous to allow people to get into a mindset about the position of an individual, even with the benefit of an overview and scrutiny committee to look at decisions and actions, who is in control of a large community. The Government's attitude encourages that rather disingenuous approach on the part of those who believe that a new type of government will somehow make all the decisions perfect.
The Government are concerned that councils which fail to modernise (to use their term) will be the ones that opt out of the executive arrangements. I acknowledge that there is something in that. However, this is a matter of local choice. It is to be expected that if an authority is not a good one there will be opposition to the administration at the next election on the basis of modernising that authority, and that will allow for local debate.
Amendment No. 13 deals with the criteria for executive arrangements, if there are to be such, in addition to those which the Government propose. The amendment, which is the same as that tabled at the previous stage, proposes that the executive arrangements,
"may take such form as the local authority considers, after it has taken reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area, will … enhance decision-making … meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency"—
as we have debated throughout the Bill, those matters should underlie good local government—
"and … be appropriate to local circumstances".
The Minister dismissed the amendment on the basis that a local authority could, should it so wish, devise a form of executive arrangement which approximated very closely to the status quo. He talked about other enactments needing to be modified but it is not clear how that will be achieved. If there is a problem in drafting, let us face that problem and not dismiss the principle because putting it into effect is too difficult.
If the new executive arrangements are close to the status quo but meet the tough criteria, what is the problem? Why could not that model be adopted? The Government's answer at the last stage was that Clause 10(5) allows for other models. I do not regard that as a complete answer. We shall need the Secretary of State's model before a locally devised model can be put in place.
Your Lordships will understand the strength of feeling from these Benches. In the context of the good new powers for local government, we are sad that what is being given with one hand may be taken away by imposition by the other. We support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I apologise for not having intervened previously on the issue and for my presumption in making even a small speech. I do so because I live in Guildford, and Guildford justifiably prides itself on being one of the best local authorities in England. At present it is a hung council; it is normally Conservative. It treats its Labour members with

1181
immense respect and great honour. It is privileged enough to have a chief executive who would have been undoubtedly in earlier years a star in the Indian Civil Service. He would have been Watts' protector of the poor.
He wrote to me—it was too late for me to take an active role in past debates—of the view held by himself and most of the Guildford borough councillors. They believe that the new arrangements will have the effect of concentrating power more than occurs at present. If matters were to go seriously sour fewer people would need to be bribed. They say, "We are a good authority. Please could we have the right to continue as we are".
I am sorry that I have not intervened previously on the issue. I apologise on behalf of Watts protector of the poor because he, too, missed the opportunity. I wish to put into the public domain that a very good chief executive of a well run borough council is deeply unhappy about the proposed arrangements, as are the independent members of Guildford Borough Council. It is that factor which worries me about the Government's plan. To allow people to keep the status quo if it is good, subject to controls and checks, would not be a bad idea.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I speak for myself, having had some experience of local government and having the honour to serve on the Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and another place under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who is not in her place at present, were members. The point was discussed and an equivalent amendment moved to which the Joint Committee agreed. However, the Government did not agree with the Joint Committee.
I have always believed that there should be more flexibility. A great majority of local authorities have looked carefully into the matter and are applying the suggestions made by the Government as regards executive and scrutiny committees. (I have the Local Government Association report in front of me.) That is good news for the Government. But some local authorities want strongly to achieve the aim in a slightly different way.
That is all that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are saying. The Government should listen to minorities—in particular independent councils—which feel strongly that they do not quite fit into the Government's three "musts". I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we have cantered around this race track a number of times. I raise a point which has not been recognised in previous debates.
There is concern—the Government have put it forward—that electors should be more attracted to voting in local government elections. It is perfectly proper that that should be so; we all want to see it happen. However, the other side of the coin is that
1182
people must want to become councillors. If they do not want to become councillors because they are not attracted to the organisation in which they would work, no amount of change, as proposed in the Bill, will have the slightest effect.
People may want to become councillors because, first, they wish to serve their local community, and, secondly because they believe that it is proper that representatives should make decisions on behalf of that community. The proposals disfranchise more than half of any council from making decisions. Only those who are ultimately in the executive will make the decisions on behalf of a council.
No amount of overview, scrutiny, discussion and debate constitutes a decision. They are not binding on any group. A group can agree to decide on all manner of things but until the decision is made by one of the executives it is not a decision. I believe that many councillors will find this a very serious loss. Many individuals will believe it to be a real drawback from coming into local government to represent and make decisions on behalf of their local communities, after consultation. One can talk endlessly but at some stage decisions need to be taken, and taken in the open. We have discussed that previously. The Bill makes allowance for doing so. It must be right to allow people to decide.
There must be a mechanism within the Bill to enable local authorities to say, "We would like our members in total to take the decisions". I have heard all the arguments about it being a mere blind: that decisions are taken in back rooms before any issue is discussed in public. That is not a scenario I recognise. Many local authorities take decisions after discussion in committee. In my local authority we are often swayed by points put forward by the opposition; and decisions are then made.
The great sadness about the proposals is that that option will not be available. We may not wish to contemplate the spin-offs from that but as a result we may be picking up the pieces in the future.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as a novice, I shall try to resist the temptation to recycle what was said at previous stages, but I want to make one or two points. I remain concerned that in our distractions there is a danger of missing the wood for the trees.
First, the Bill does not seek to enforce elected mayors on all parts of Britain. It is impossible for there to be elected mayors anywhere, even if the councils were in favour of that, unless the public vote for it. Secondly, there is no expectation in anyone who is realistic that a simple, single Bill can restore local democracy. I am confident that if it were that simple, the noble Lord's party would have passed such a Bill some years previously.
We need to recognise that there is a problem: the public have lost interest in local government. They by and large value the services of local government, but they do not believe that its political processes are particularly relevant or meaningful. They say so frequently and act so by choosing not to vote in local government elections.

1183
If we choose, we can say that there is no problem and that the status quo is fine. However, I am convinced that the consequence of failing to modernise local government in a sensible fashion will be the progressive residualisation and marginalisation of its functions. During the past 20 years, we have seen that all central governments are prone to that disease.
Therefore, we must look at the central thrust of Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right in saying that it is central to the whole debate. The question is whether the existing committee system serves the public well. We have heard the criticisms of it: that the responsibility is opaque; that it undervalues the importance of representation; and that scrutiny is largely non-existent in most local authorities in which that system operates. There are problems which have frequently been affirmed by the Audit Commission. It is not true that the current system is adequate, satisfactory, or universally working well. It often works well because of the efforts of talented members and officers, but that is not because of the system itself.
The impression is being given that there is to be a monolithic imposition of a single system on all authorities across the country. That is untrue. Some of us might wish that there were more of an imposition of the stronger systems of executive governance, but that is not on offer. All that is required is that the local authorities must establish certain principles. First, they must consult their public on their executive arrangements. Secondly, they must make it clearer who is responsible for decision making. Thirdly, they must draw up a constitution which indicates where decision making will take place within the authority and the balance of power that will sit between the executive and the assembly. Finally, there must be a powerful, effective system of scrutiny. Those are the principles which the Bill and guidance set out—no more and no less.
Let us take the example of the non-party shire district council that is frequently talked about. Let us look what it can do. It must consult its public; and it is right and proper that it should do so. We are talking about the public and not about the traditions of officers and members and whether they are comfortable with that requirement. But if after that process of consultation that council decides that it does not want to have a strong executive system, it is perfectly able to establish arrangements in the following fashion. First, it can determine where most policy can be decided and it can put the weight of that determination in the full council, in the assembly itself. It can give only a limited scope for policy determination to the separate executive.
Secondly, it can determine that the executive will be a cross-party or non-party body which will always meet in public and that there will be a strong power of "call-in" to the assembly. In other words, before an issue is implemented, any member can call it in for full debate either in scrutiny committees or into the assembly itself. The executive members would not have individual portfolios, but would have to act in concert. The assembly could meet as frequently as it
1184
wished in order to ensure the tightest possible scrutiny over the actions of the executive. It could establish area committees and encourage the participation of the public in those processes.
In my view, that model would be an improvement on the current system. The public would know that there was a system of scrutiny. They would be clearer about who was responsible, yet the power of the executive would be tightly constrained and trammelled by the assembly. In my view, that is a cause not for fear, but, if anything, for excessively cautious incrementalism. Nevertheless, that is what the Bill offers to an authority, if it so decides.
Therefore, I cannot believe that it is necessary to force the amendment. It is hard to judge the need for it because of the consequences were we to do so. We are not talking about a minimalist escape clause; it goes to the heart of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had the courtesy to acknowledge. It would go to the heart of the desire, the necessity, for reform.
Last January, the LGA published research that had been undertaken by Strathclyde and de Montfort universities. It asked councils what were their preferred options. Thirty-nine per cent of councils stated that they wanted neither an elected mayor—fair enough—nor a separate executive. If the amendment were passed, it would undermine the heart and thrust of the Bill. One might say that that is good, but it will not serve the public well if we are serious about trying to move forward local government so that it has more relevance and enjoys more respect.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I agree that we have cantered around the subject a great deal, but I want to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the feeling was strong on this side of the House. I believe that the feeling is strong in local government generally. If we were to survey our 20,000-odd councillors, we would find that barely 10 per cent support the executive/non-executive split. It does more to make councillors uneasy and unhappy with the Bill than anything I have known in my years in local government. One cannot underestimate the strength of that feeling.
There are more than 400 local authorities in this country and they vary greatly: from the small district councils to the large authorities such as Birmingham or my own, Essex County Council. They vary in the number of their members from perhaps 30, to 119 in Birmingham. I do not mind mayors if people want them. Judging by comments made in the past few days, it appears that I prefer mayors more than does the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not mind people having Cabinets, if that is what they want. However, the fault of the Bill is in imposing the executive/non-executive split. People see it as a two-tier system. It is an unnecessary part of the Bill.
We all want to see local government modernised and streamlined. When North Yorkshire was reorganised as North York it set itself up with four streamlined

1185
committees and meets very infrequently. That is the model many of us would want to see. However, to say that we have to have 10 people in Essex, say, out of my 79 members on the executive and 69 people on select scrutiny committees is not acceptable to most of my members.
Where experiments have been carried out, people feel that they have been excluded. A while ago I attended a meeting at which, unfortunately, my party was in a minority on the council. It had set up some scrutiny committees and every time my members raised an item, the rest of the committee moved for the next business, and we moved on. I believe that small representations of other parties will feel even more excluded. That is the whole thrust and problem of the executive/non-executive split.
It is all very well to be told that it will work better and will increase participation and voting, but it is not seen to be a democratic process. It is seen to be imposing something on local government that should not be necessary. I cannot imagine many other countries or parliaments imposing such detail on local government. I hope that tonight we shall give local authorities a clear message that although we want to see them modernising and moving into the 21st century, we want them to design their own systems best suited to their areas.
In many ways, voting is different in local government elections. Much of the low turn-out is in areas in which one party is dominant. In Thurrock in my county, where the Labour Party will romp in, there might be a 12 per cent turn-out. However, where three parties fight an election keenly, there will be a 55 or 60 per cent turn-out. That is the difference; that is what it is all about; and that is what we need more of. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to pass this amendment so that we can give local government the opportunity to design its own systems.
5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I doubt whether it is helpful to say that the longer this debate goes on at the different stages, the more I feel myself being pulled in two directions. I agree very much with what the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, said. Because of local circumstances in a number of authorities—not a large number, but some—I am convinced that one of the proposed executive models would not suit, and that there should be an alternative form. On the other hand (and this is why I am pulled in the other direction), the amendments that we are discussing today, as drafted, seem to provide an escape clause for an authority that should be taking action to reorganise itself. The amendments seem to allow it to escape taking any action.
That is why at earlier stages of the Bill some of us pressed the Government to produce a fourth option. Provided that criteria of efficiency, accountability, transparency and so on were met, due to certain local circumstances that option would allow an authority not necessarily to retain the status quo but to produce a different option not necessarily based on the executive
1186
scrutiny split. I hope that even at this stage the Government will think again about the fourth option. I believe that the alternative of providing an escape clause for any authority which would prefer to continue in the same old way is unsatisfactory. Equally, the opposite is unsatisfactory.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to some of the contributions made in this debate. I realise that it is a tradition of this House that everyone speaks in tones of sweet reason, even though their arguments might not be entirely reasonable in themselves.
However, I have noticed a number of contradictions in what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seemed to argue that the arrival of an elected mayor in London would inspire a great deal of excitement and interest among the electorate. He contrasted that with the lack of excitement and interest that at present appears to exist in local government more generally. If that is the case, and if it is the case that a change in the system will inspire interest and excitement in London, that rather suggests that the existing system is not inspiring interest elsewhere within local government. It also suggests that we should look very seriously at the proposals before us.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his contribution. I believe that it highlights the exact problem that we are debating. If it is believed—it is certainly a belief that I share—that by introducing an executive scrutiny split one introduces clarity into local government decision-making, that in itself should produce greater interest and confidence in the processes. People will know who is responsible for what decision. It will not be possible for councillors to hide behind baroque committee systems in terms of where decisions are being taken. Of course, as has happened in so many authorities—I believe that people are being slightly disingenuous if they pretend that it has not happened—it will no longer be necessary for decisions to be taken by small groups and then processed through public committee meetings and public structures.
However, I am concerned that—
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I raise a point that later we shall come to more substantially with our amendment. However, will the noble Lord concede that where the executive is allowed to meet in private and to take decisions, no notice of which has been given to the public, the Bill as drafted will still allow that lack of clarity to continue because the public will discover those decisions only after the event?
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that. Who is responsible for the decision will be absolutely fundamentally clear to the electorate. It will be clear where that decision has been made. A whole series of requirements will be set down in the statute regarding how it may be scrutinised and, if need be, called in by the full council. Therefore, I believe that the provision will aid clarity rather than otherwise.

1187
However, at the moment the public do not know which body may or may not be looking at a matter and do not know when that issue is resolved. This provision will at least ensure that there is a proper process, subject to subsequent scrutiny.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, raised the point that some authorities will have very different circumstances and that those will require special consideration. That argument may have some force. Unfortunately, none of the amendments before us in this grouping allows us to examine that point. I do not say that I would have supported it, but if someone had put forward an amendment stating that authorities would be entitled to look at alternative models for district councils of that particular nature or those with no overall control, or councils with a variety of other definitions where that would be a problem, I believe that that would have enabled us to debate what I suspect is the real issue. However, the present wording of the amendments permits authorities which are not particularly keen, for whatever reason, on having a clear executive scrutiny split to get round this legislation. I believe that that is unfortunate.
I suspect that one of the reasons why this House encourages its Members to talk in tones of sweet reason is that it enables them to propose amendments which remove the heart of a piece of legislation in tones of such sweetness and lightness that perhaps it is hoped that the Government will not notice what is being proposed. However, I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes on this occasion is fairly clear. He is aiming to take the heart out of this particular part of the legislation. I believe that it is unfortunate that we do not have before us an amendment which would test the question which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and a number of other noble Lords have suggested they are concerned about; that is, the question of certain types of council where an executive scrutiny split is perhaps not appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked how we can ensure that people will continue to want to be councillors. I suggest that if we put forward a structure which provides clarity about the role for which people put themselves forward for election, that is likely to induce a much greater degree of job satisfaction than does the existing arrangement. Under the current arrangement, even if people are in the party which wins the election, when they put themselves forward they do not know whether they will be part of a charmed circle which makes decisions or outside that circle. If, as is the case with some of the models which will be permissible under the executive scrutiny split, it is possible for people to put themselves forward to be executive decision-makers or, alternatively, to be local representative councillors involved in overview and scrutiny of policy, I believe that that will produce more clarity and will lead to better "job satisfaction" (if noble Lords will forgive the term) among local councillors.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was right to say that there are strong feelings within local government about this issue. Those strong feelings
1188
often come from those who do not want to proceed to an executive scrutiny split. Yet it is precisely because so many of those people who do not even want to consider the executive scrutiny split will be given comfort by the amendments in this grouping today that I would urge noble Lords to reject the amendments in favour of something which at least allows us to provide clear and explicit roles for executive and scrutiny members.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I hope being sweetly reasonable, which I regard as a virtue rather than the opposite—does he not accept that my Amendment No. 13, which provides for executive arrangements which are, among other things, appropriate to local circumstances, is, if not perfect, at any rate a reasonable stab at addressing the difficulties of councils with a history of independence or where there is no overall political control? If the noble Lord is himself sweetly reasonable, as I am sure he will be, then rather than dismiss all the amendments in this group, he might seek to build on that approach.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I gave a great deal of thought to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 13 because I thought that might be the opportunity to address the concerns which had been raised by noble Lords on the Cross Benches. But I do not believe that it achieves that.
I would hope that in every case, people will put forward proposals which will enhance decision-making; which will meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency; and will be appropriate to their local circumstances. Nothing in the Bill precludes that. But I do not believe that a subsection with the words,
"be appropriate to local circumstances",
quite meets the requirements. Those requirements must be to address the particular circumstances of certain types of local authorities with a certain type of population and certain political make-ups. If the amendments had gone on to spell that out in some detail, then we could have had the debate which people claim they want to have today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained why the system will work well. I can see from the point of view of his council, that it may be very helpful indeed. But I want to ask one question.
My noble friend Lord Onslow described the council of Guildford. In such a council, will the officials have the same role as they have now, vis-à-vis individual councillors? Among all the amendments, I cannot see any place where the Bill defines the role of the officials. I may have missed it because it is difficult to absorb them all. It certainly was not in the Bill before. Is there to be any legal requirement on officials to advise all councillors, whichever side of the divide they are on and whichever committee they are on? It is absolutely essential that in local government, every member has access to officials and to information from officials.

1189
I should be interested to know whether that is provided in the Bill or whether the Government are trusting to luck.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I wish to support the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, views which I have expressed myself, as to the difficulty of recruiting people to be what you might call second-class councillors.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, attempted to defuse that argument by saying that it would clarify the situation. Yes, it would. But, for example, what would I have done in my early years in the county council? I should have had to go to the electorate of Dorking South and say, "Look, chaps, there is not a cat in hell's chance that I am going to be on the executive because I have only been on the council for a few years. So you will have to elect me in order that once decisions have been taken, I can query why they have been taken and what the costs of them will be".
I can tell your Lordships what happened when I was a councillor. First, quite often, even as a very junior councillor with a large Tory majority at that time, I was able to influence decisions as they were taken; for example, in the education committee, of which I was then a member, and later in the highways and transport committee.
Not only that, but I told people in my part of the world in which decisions I had been involved and what I had done about them. I did that either through the press or through the literature which I circulated. If they did not like what I had been doing, they had a very simple remedy: they could throw me out at the next election.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, when he said that where there are contested elections, the percentage of people who bother to go to the polls increases. As a Liberal and subsequently as a Liberal Democrat, my observation has been that every time we have made a really successful foray into local government elections, the percentage of people going out to vote increases, and the reason is that people have something to vote for or against, depending on their viewpoint.
The suggestion was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that some of the disadvantages which the Government are suggesting could be overcome if the council was made the main decision-taker. We may all have had experiences of sensible decision-taking in committee, where people listen to the argument, decide and, to some extent, modify proposals in the light of argument. I have succeeded in modifying decisions in precisely that way. But I have seldom seen decisions taken seriously in full council because that is where every member makes either the speech determined by his group prior to the council meeting or—in some cases I have seen it happen—the speech handed down by party headquarters to make on that occasion on that subject. It is by far the most party-political part of the process.
1190
In some councils there is a large majority of one party. They do still exist, despite our best efforts. I can remember some doubts expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench when her council became not just a Liberal, as it then was, majority but a Liberal monopoly. Serious doubts were then raised as to the democratic nature of the vote, which was determined in the old-fashioned way and not by proportional representation, when the Labour Party and the Conservative Party were entirely excluded from the government of Richmond-upon-Thames. So the matter is as close and as relevant to us as it is to other people.
But where there are large overall majorities, it is extremely difficult to make sure that there is a fully public discussion of policy and that decisions are taken which reflect that debate. It is in relation to those councils which will be subject to all the regulations which this Government are trying to put in this Bill—which I consider to be, on the whole, bad for local government—that the effects will he the worst.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we have been round this course before. I am not entirely sure that "canter" is the right term, but many points have been made at earlier stages of the Bill. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has been consistent on this and that he regards this as a central principle of the Bill. He has been consistent, but I am not entirely sure that his party has been consistent as regards the relationship it wants between central and local government. In the long term, once this change has taken place, the noble Lord and I will probably be closer as regards what the appropriate relationship should be.
But at present, we do need change. I recognise also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield and others have said, that there is unease and concern among councillors. But we are at a point where we wish to change the way in which local government operates. Those in your Lordships' House who believe that the status quo is appropriate are few and far between. They are saying that, in practice, most councils will choose to change. Does that not mean that there is a need for change in local government and does it not probably mean—not inevitably, logically—that that minority of councils which do not wish to change are probably the councils which really should change and need to change?
That, therefore, lies behind the whole of the Government's approach. We are seeking a quiet revolution in local government. I am not often allowed to use those terms from these Benches but I do so today. That requires all councils to look at change and decide which form of change they want.
The status quo, based on the committee system, which, at various points, has served local government well but is now creaking at the seams, is not an option and cannot be an option.
The Government believe that we need a whole new form of governance which rests, as we have said, on transparency in relation to who is taking decisions;

1191
what those decisions are; and what is the accountability for those decisions. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and others have said, we believe that the fact that we can identify with clarity those decisions and those responsible for them will both enhance the appeal of local government for those who might wish to come into it and enhance confidence in local government among the electorate as a whole, as my noble friends Lord Filkin and Lord Harris of Haringey have said.
Therefore, the Government require, as a principle of the Bill, that all councils should change, and change to a system which involves an executive structure. The Bill also requires that those proposals must be put forward in consultation with local people and it gives local people the right to decide explicitly in relation to a directly-elected mayor, if that is the proposition. The key to accountability is a system of governance which people understand and support.
Having said that we wish to achieve a revolution, clearly in the best revolutions, once change is achieved, diversity follows. There is diversity within our proposals. Within the three categories of executive arrangements that the Bill makes available, there is great diversity and substantial choice, as distinct from the old system which specified one structure for committees which was stretched as far as possible by many local authorities, but nevertheless was laid down by countless Local Government Acts over the past century and a bit. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I believe that most other countries would lay down more precisely the structure of local government in their written constitutions than we are attempting or wishing to do.
The Bill allows us also, by virtue of subsection 10(5), to make available other categories of executive if appropriate. If a council has a proposal for a further form of executive which meets our aims, the Secretary of State can use the power to establish such a form of executive. Our bottom line is that, whatever additional arrangements may be made, there must be a separate executive under our structure. The first three of these amendments, including the one moved by the noble Lord, in fact undermine that central principle of the Bill. There are a number of arguments that the division between executive and scrutiny, in whatever form it takes, will undermine the role of existing councillors and of councils themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that she did not recognise our view of existing local government; that on occasion decisions have been taken which are unaccounted for and completely lacking in clarity and transparency. I make no judgment on the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but I know of councils represented primarily by my own party where that has been the case. In a neighbouring council to the noble Baroness's own, in which we currently sit, it was not long ago transparently the case that all decisions were taken behind closed doors; in fact, behind one particular closed door, if I recall. That was Westminster City
1192
Council. The rest of the Conservative group did not know what was going on, let alone the rest of the council as a whole.
I therefore believe that there are problems with the old structure and that there are probably more problems in those areas resistant to change. Our proposals will not mean that councillors are disfranchised or downgraded. The whole council will set the broad policy and the budget. Every councillor will be represented. If they are in scrutiny roles, they will be in a more powerful position to scrutinise the decisions of the executive than they were as junior members of the committee.
The Bill is a proposal for change. The role of councillors will be changed. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether the role of officers would be changed. That is not essentially the case. Officers will, of course, continue to serve the full council. We have explained in our guidance that councils will have to consider carefully the structure of support officers in relation to their own particular form of executive structure, but the principle remains that officers serve the whole council.
I turn now to Amendment No. 13, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. I believe that she was hoping that it approximated more to the fourth option proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and perhaps also to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I do not believe that the amendment fulfils their purpose. As I understand the point made in the Joint Committee to which the noble Earl referred, it related specifically to councils which had no real tradition of one party control or dominant party control. The Joint Committee put that forward for that particular situation. The noble Baroness's option is of course a far more generalised option, but the members of the Joint Committee recognised that there should be arrangements for a council manager—in other words, an option which is already there and which already has a wide variety of forms.
The Bill explicitly provides executive arrangements for an elected mayor and a council. That will probably be appropriate in relation to the kind of council to which I believe the noble Earl referred. I do not believe that the amendment fulfils the fourth option ambitions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because it is too loosely drafted—as perhaps the noble Baroness herself was hinting—not to exclude entirely something which is close to backsliding to a committee-based structure.
We are at a crucial point in the Bill. For the Government, this is a crucial issue in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue his amendment. If he does, he needs to know and understand that he is challenging a central part of the Bill. The Government will resist the amendment and will continue to resist such amendments during the passage of the Bill. I therefore must oppose Amendment No. 10 which he moved. I oppose Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 for the reasons I have outlined. The Government would also oppose Amendment No. 13. I do not believe that

1193
Amendment No. 13, as drafted, achieves what a number of noble Lords were hoping for. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may take him up briefly on his last point. I shall not go down the road of speculating whether Lady Porter is a good example of what was close to an elected mayor.
The Minister referred to the question of local authorities with no overall control or where there is a tradition of independence, and commented on my amendment. Will he confirm that the Government have made no attempt themselves to come up with an amendment? I am perfectly happy to accept criticism of my drafting, but I should prefer to have drafting from the Government to which we could respond. I am glad to see support being indicated from the Cross Benches.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are not in favour of a fourth option. There are a whole range of options under our structure. In so far as we recognise that there may be other options, there are provisions in the Bill. If councils come up with further options which meet our requirements, we are prepared to regulate for them. We are not in favour of a specific fourth option, but in any case I do not believe that the drafting of the amendment confirms to our principles.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we have had yet another long and interesting debate on this subject. It is right that we should have done so. In my opening remarks I said that we were at the heart of the Bill. The debate on these amendments is at the heart of the principles of the Bill and much more at the heart of the principles of democracy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about not waiting for London and remarked on the work of Camden Council in that area. Its members came to the completely unanimous conclusion that the arrangements under the Bill would not help them forward much. My noble friend Lord Onslow was quite clear about the reaction of his local authority in Guildford. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, came out with the fact that the Joint Committee which considered the draft Bill before it came to the House was also of the view that compulsion was perhaps not the proper way forward.
My noble friend Lady Hanham mentioned the importance of councillors actually wanting to do the work and questioned whether under the new arrangements the job of being a councillor would be as attractive as it has been. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, gave a good resume of the different systems available in the Bill. I have acknowledged that I have no complaint with any of them. But he did not address the issue of why the Bill has to compel local authorities to make a change. Therefore, I believe that he rather missed the point of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who is vice-chairman of the Local Government Association and therefore intimately involved in what is going on in
1194
local government at the present time, talked about the lack of support that there is in local government among councillors for the executive scrutiny split. I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who is torn two ways on this issue. When the matter comes to issue in the next moment or two, he will find he has to vote one way or the other. Of course, I hope that he will find himself able to vote with our side.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that I seemed to be arguing that London was inspiring. Let us just deal with London. The inspiration that is coming out of the current interest in London has two causes. They are very simple. The first concerns the Government's machinations to try to produce a result that they thought was desirable, if necessary with complete disregard for the views of the members of the London Labour Party. I think that is arrogance of a high order. The second reason that is stimulating interest is the arrival of Mr Ken Livingstone on the scene as a candidate. Apart from the fact that we had a huge Bill, which brought this situation into being, neither of those two facts actually has any general relevance to local government. I agree that they have stimulated enormous interest, but I suspect that the Minister, who is smiling at me rather nicely, would agree that the interest is all of the wrong sort.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, rightly raised the role of the staff who work for local government. The changes that will come about as a result of this Bill are not, and cannot be, defined within it and local authorities will have to find a solution to that problem themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, rightly questioned how attractive the role of a scrutineer will be to the electors, and I do not know the answer.
So we come to the Minister. He rightly said, as I did at the beginning, that these amendments go to the heart of the Bill. Of course they do: I do not doubt that. Nothing in these amendments does anything to invalidate any of the proposals that the Government are making—nothing—but these amendments do give local councils and local communities the right to make their own determination on the matter. That is a cause in which I believe in passionately, and it is one on which I think we should test the view of this House.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 144; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley L

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blaker, L.

Attlee, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Avebury, L.

Boardman, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bowness, L.

Barker, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

1195

Bradshaw, L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Bridges, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L.

McConnell, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Maddock, B.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Methuen, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chadlington, L.

Monson, L.

Chilver, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Montrose, D.

Clement-Jones, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Onslow, E.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Patten, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dholakia, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Elles, B.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

Rennard, L

Erroll, E.

Renton, L.

Ezra, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Falkland, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fookes, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Freeman, L.

Russell, E.

Garel-Jones, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Seecombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Selborne, E.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tenby, V.

Haslam, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Higgins, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hogg, B.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Hooper, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howe, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Jacobs, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Wharton, B.

Kingsland, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Liverpool, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Amos, B.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Burlison, L.

Bach, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Barnett, L.

Christopher, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Brett, L.

Crawley, B.

1196

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Desai, L.

Diamond, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Paul, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Puttnam, L.

Filkin, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harrison, L.

Sawyer, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Sewel, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Turner of Camden, B.

Uddin, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Warner, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilkins, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Clause 9 [Executive arrangements]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("which determines to adopt executive arrangements").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Local authority executives]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("must") and insert ("may").
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was prepared to accept that Amendment No. 11 can be seen as consequential to the previous decision but, although Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 were grouped for convenience with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, we would not accept them as consequential.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am now puzzled as to how one should proceed. I certainly had no responsibility for the groupings. If we must vote again, so be it. The groupings for the amendments were put together by officials acting on behalf of the Government. It seems to me that under the conventions of the House a group would normally be taken together, but I am open to correction.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the groupings are agreed for the purposes of debate, but procedurally it is correct to say that the only amendments in a group that

1197
automatically follow a victory or a defeat are those that are directly consequential. Although Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are in the group for the purpose of debate, they are not actually consequential on the decision on Amendment No. 10.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in that case I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert—
("() It may take such form as the local authority considers, after it has taken reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area, will—

(a) enhance decision-making.

(b) meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency, and

(c) be appropriate to local circumstances.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps it is worth repeating, as some noble Lords are not always aware of the position, that these amendments are not directly consequential. Therefore, we have done the correct thing procedurally and in terms of the sense of the House.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip. He has also taught me a lesson and it is a useful one to learn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 14:
Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: REPORT OF IMMEDIATE ACTION
(" . Where a decision by or on behalf of an executive of a local authority requires immediate action by the authority, the decision and action shall be reported to the chairman of the relevant overview and scrutiny committee on the same day.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, both Amendment No. 14 and the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 16 deal with the issue of urgency of action and how urgent action is to be reported to the local scrutiny committee. In future, overview and scrutiny will become an important function because, despite what happened with the earlier amendment, we can be satisfied that the executive scrutiny split will increasingly be adopted by local councils. That being the case, the work of the scrutineers will become more and more significant.
However, there is always the problem of urgent action. On many occasions an executive working under the new rules may well be required to take a decision that requires immediate implementation. Amendment No. 14 seeks to deal with that situation simply by requiring that the decision and the action be reported to the chairman of the relevant overview and scrutiny committee on the same day as the decision is
1198
taken and the action takes place. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable imposition. It would ensure that transparency was improved. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 is included in this group. Unless there are arrangements for allowing an overview and scrutiny committee to call in—to use the terminology—a decision by the executive, the powers of that committee are somewhat hollow. My amendment, which builds on one that I moved at the previous stage of the Bill, provides that unless a matter is urgent it should not be implemented in fewer than eight days. That would allow for it to be called in and referred to the council or a committee under Clause 19(3). The objection to the amendment in the form in which it was tabled at the previous stage seemed to be that to use a monitoring officer of the local authority to certify whether a matter was urgent was not appropriate and that decisions about obtaining advice, for instance, by the executive should not be delayed.
This new amendment seeks to meet both those points. It provides that,
"Unless the matter is certified by a proper officer of the authority";
and that officer will be the monitoring officer unless the authority designated another officer or officers. So it will be not only a "proper officer" technically, but also the appropriate officer. The amendment provides also that,
"This section shall not apply to decisions solely requiring the preparation of advice or the undertaking of research".
If the system is to be seen not to allow old-style decisions in smoke-filled private rooms, it must allow for call-in by the overview and scrutiny committee. The term "overview" is therefore important. It must allow for call-in on an effective basis.
The Government have been passionate in their advocacy of the good workings of their proposed new system. We will see what the outcome of the recent amendments is. If an overview and scrutiny committee is to do its job properly and take local authorities beyond the days when decisions were taken in private and were not questioned, and were not as transparent and accountable as we would like to see, a provision such as this must be included in the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is not in his place. When I was asking him about his view of executives during the last debate, he said that it would be fine if they met in public because they would be subject to subsequent scrutiny. Amendment No. 16 allows for exactly that. The Bill as drafted does not allow for subsequent scrutiny until the moment has passed.
The recent LGA survey—Local Leadership, Local Choice—shows that 60 per cent of councils are running their executives as a majority party executive. Amendment No. 16 would allow that decision to be open not only to local members, who would therefore be re-enfranchised in terms of knowing what the

1199
decision was and being able to take part in discussion on it, but also to opposition members. We have said a great deal about the disadvantages of the one-party state and the opposition not having a voice. It will not be much use if that voice can only be exercised weeks after the event to much less effect. I therefore support Amendment No. 16.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am afraid that I must oppose these amendments. I see some coalition politics opposite as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, regains his normal place.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that is not a criticism of co-operation and an attempt to make the work of the Chamber move smoothly.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when a degree of cooperation operates between ourselves and the Liberal Democratic Benches, the Benches opposite usually remark on it. I am returning the compliment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, why does the Minister think it was a "co-operative" move?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am afraid that I must oppose both of these amendments. Indeed, I am not entirely sure what Amendment No. 14 would achieve. Any decision would be recorded. It would be made publicly available for scrutiny and the overview and scrutiny committee could therefore decide whether or not to ask the executive to explain its actions. As it stands, the amendment suggests that if the executive asked, for example, for a bit of research to be done or for some further information to be gathered, it would need to inform the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee. That surely cannot be the intention, but it is the implication of the clause.
If the intention is to avoid decisions of the executive being called in, then it does not achieve that either. The overview and scrutiny committee has substantial powers. It could call in members of the executive at any time it wished. It could have them before it every day to explain their decisions and it could invite the press and the public as well. The overview and scrutiny committee does not lack powers in this area and the consequence of Amendment No. 14 therefore is not clear.
Amendment No. 16 would delay implementation by five days. As the noble Baroness said, we discussed a similar amendment on Report. I am relieved that the amendment was altered so that decisions that simply require officers to work up proposals for future action will no longer be delayed. However, the new addition, while sensible, does not remove my fundamental objection to it; namely, that urgent decisions should not be delayed while seeking a proper officer to confirm that the matter is urgent. Indeed, I am not sure that it should be the role of any officer to pass judgment on the urgency of decisions taken by the executive. It will be for the executive to justify the urgency of its decision, if required to do so, by the overview and scrutiny committee.
1200
Noble Lords are anticipating problems which may not arise. We explained in our draft guidance that councils should set out in their arrangements how soon decisions should be recorded and made available and that generally there should be a delay between a decision being taken and being implemented so as to allow the overview and scrutiny committee time to call in decisions. To impose the kind of constraints implied by these amendments would not be appropriate in primary legislation. It is for councils to work out the best way of achieving that. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, responded to my amendment by telling me that the consequences it would bring about are not clear. But the consequences are quite simple. First, there would be absolutely no delay; secondly, the scrutineering side of the authority would have immediate knowledge of what was going on. That is all that was intended.
The Minister said that it will be for the executive to justify the urgency to the overview and scrutiny committee. That may be right, but doing it one or two months later is really a bit late and would not be satisfactory. However, he offered the siren words, "It is for the local authority to decide how it makes the arrangements". That is something with which I am happy to agree. I make the blithe assumption, though it is probably sometimes incorrect, that proceedings in this House are valid and that even local authorities will pay attention to what is said in this Chamber. With that, I am happy to have had the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Discharge of functions: s.10(5) executive]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("includes") and insert ("may include").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, concern has been expressed by members of my party and the Welsh Assembly as to whether the prescriptive nature of Part II would act as a fetter upon the way in which local government is organised in Wales. Perhaps that fear has been overtaken by events and by the votes we had recently where some degree of discretion has been introduced into the English provisions.
Perhaps I may follow that through. The National Assembly for Wales would have power, under Clause 10(5) of the Bill, to prescribe a form in regulations by which executive arrangements are to be made. As I understand it there is cross-party agreement in the National Assembly for Wales that the form of executive arrangements for Wales should mirror the machinery that has been introduced into the Welsh Assembly. It is thought it would be useful if the 22 local unitary authorities in Wales operated in a way similar

1201
to that in which the Assembly itself works. Consequently, when one turns to Clause 15,
"Discharge of functions: x.10(5) executive",
it is my concern that subsection (2) should not make it mandatory that the provisions referred to in that subsection should necessarily mirror the provisions of Clauses 12, 13 or 14.
I do not think that, as drafted, the subsection does that. I believe that it is the intention to put a straitjacket on the provisions to be made under those regulations. However, the purpose of my amendment to delete the word "includes" in line 22 and insert "may include" was to put beyond all question that the nature of those regulations would be within the discretion of the National Assembly for Wales and would not be bound by the terms of the primary legislation now going through the House.
If the Minister can give me an assurance that nothing in this subsection constricts in any way that discretion, I shall be happy not to pursue the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord. Clause 15(2) does not require provisions similar to Clauses 12, 13 and 14; it merely enables such provision to be made. The subsection in question states that such provision,
"may be made by regulations",
not that it must be made by regulations. Moreover, Clause 15(3) states that nothing in subsection (2) restricts the general nature of the powers set out in subsection (1). That means that subsection (2), which the noble Lord seeks to amend, does not restrict the scope of the regulation power simply to applying or reproducing the provisions set out in Clauses 12, 13 and 14, with or without modifications. I believe that the objective of the noble Lord's amendment has been met in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It certainly removes concerns that may have been expressed in Cardiff. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY UNDER EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
(" .—(1) Unless the matter is certified by a proper officer of the authority to be urgent, no decision by a local authority taken under its executive arrangements shall be implemented within less than five working days after the decision.
(2) The proper officer of an authority for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be its monitoring officer unless the authority has designated another officer or officers.
(3) This section shall not apply to decisions solely requiring the preparation of advice or the undertaking of research.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the Minister responded to this amendment in a previous grouping he voiced his concern about delays while awaiting a decision of the proper officer. As is the case at present, nothing will be in place to prevent the executive from agreeing to delegation either to an individual member of the executive or to an officer. The overview and scrutiny committee is likely to agree to any sensible delegation.
I have to tell the Minister that I do not believe that that criticism provides an adequate response to what I believe to be a very important issue. The Minister has been good enough to acknowledge that the rest of my amendment, at least in its spirit and intention if not in the technical sense, meets the points made by the Minister at the previous stage. If the Government, as I do, truly saw that the issue of delay while waiting for the certification of a proper officer is important, they would have brought forward a form of words to tackle that. I do not believe that this point cannot be addressed. In the hope that the Minister will be able to give me further reassurance, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness has alighted on one of my objections to introducing such an amendment to Clause 16 relating to the designation of an appropriate officer. It may well be that the overview and scrutiny committee or even the council as a whole may be prepared to delegate such responsibility to an officer, but I do not think that it is the role of primary legislation to require those bodies to do so. This is basically a procedural issue.
I simply repeat that different councils will arrange these matters in different ways. It is important that the Bill leaves them the flexibility to ensure that that is the case. If such a provision is prescribed on the face of the Bill, we will inhibit proper co-operation between the overview and scrutiny committee and the executive rather than enhance it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I fear that I am not convinced by that response. There is already a great deal of prescription in the Bill and I am not convinced when I hear the Minister say that it is not appropriate for primary legislation to prescribe in this area. I do not believe that this is a peripheral matter. It goes to the heart of how authorities operate. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 76.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Avebury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barker, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Bowness, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

1203

Clement-Jones, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. [Teller]

Courtown, E.

Dholakia, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ezra, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rennard, L

Renton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanham, B

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Seccombe, B.

Haslam, L.

Sharman, L.

Howe, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kingsland, L.

Swinfen, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Liverpool, E.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Lucas, L.

Tordoff, L.

Luke, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maddock, B.

Wilcox, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Methuen, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Amos, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lipsey, L.

Bach, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brookman, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Burlison, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Christopher, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Puttnam, L.

Crawley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Diamond, L.

Richard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Eatwell, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harrison, L.

Uddin, B.

Haskel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hayman, B.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Williams of Elvel, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 19 [Overview and scrutiny committees]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) An overview and scrutiny committee may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than functions which are the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements or functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the functions of the overview and scrutiny committees. Clause 19(4) provides that an overview and scrutiny committee,
"may not discharge any functions other than its functions under this section".
At the last stage, we sought to tip the coin and reverse the matter so that certain functions were those which the committee could not undertake provided that they were designated by the Secretary of State. That would have allowed the committee to undertake other functions not so specified, provided that the local authority—the council—so designated them.
The Minister objected to that earlier version of the amendment because he said that allowing the overview and scrutiny committee to take on other functions would mean that it would take on executive functions, which would not be appropriate. I have sought to deal with that in this version of the amendment, which says:
"An overview and scrutiny committee may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than functions which are the responsibility of an executive of the authority under executive arrangements or functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations".
These matters that the overview and scrutiny committee may not take on have been dealt with as carefully as possible so as to accept the executive/scrutiny split that the Government are promoting, while still allowing the Secretary of State to specify functions—not necessarily executive functions—which he regards as not being appropriate for the committee.
I was concerned on the last occasion, and remain so, that the Government are so sure that everything is hunky-dory. When we debated the previous version of this amendment, the Minister acknowledged that there were still matters that the Government were considering. We talked a little about the client/contractor split and the noble Lord acknowledged that the Government are considering the implications involved and how they may be dealt with by the executive/scrutiny split. He said:
"There may be some edges which need to be made clearer in the final guidance".[Official Report, 28/2/00; col. 430.]
I do not believe that it should be a matter for guidance; indeed, I do not even believe that it can be, given the way that Clause 19(4) is drafted. I said then that I admired the Government's confidence that they had got this Bill absolutely perfect.
I do not want to descend into un-parliamentary language, but I feel that the Government are being perhaps rather narrow in the way that they are approaching the matter. We are not trying by stealth to extend the powers of the overview and scrutiny committee; we are merely attempting by way of this amendment to ensure that, given our own responsibilities for scrutinising legislation, we are not storing up problems for the future when we discover something that an overview and scrutiny committee could usefully do but which no one in this House had thought of. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if' it has not been obvious, perhaps I may put on record the fact that the Government do not necessarily think that the Bill is absolutely perfect. Indeed, if that were so, we would not have brought forward a number of amendments at various stages in the passage of this Bill. Nevertheless, we think that this attempt by the Liberal Democrats to broaden the role of overview and scrutiny committees—even in the modest way that the noble Baroness suggests in the amendment—is the wrong approach. We need overview and scrutiny committees to deal with just overview and scrutiny. That role needs to be distinct and identifiable. People need to know what that role is and who holds the decision-makers to account.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness has modified her previous approach to this matter, but, nevertheless she seeks to allow overview and scrutiny committees to do what they are not expressly forbidden to do. There are areas of council responsibilities which are not the responsibility of the executive—for example, an exercise in policy review or in moving towards future decisions, or a more regulatory activity of the council—which an overview and scrutiny committee might subsequently wish to review or scrutinise. Had it already been party to that decision or had some responsibility for it, that would blur its role. We should not blur its role on the face of the Bill.
The noble Baroness referred to an earlier discussion on the issue of client contractor relationships for direct services. That is an area that we are considering in the light of the responses we have received to the draft guidance. That issue may need some clarification which I believe is appropriate for guidance. There is flexibility as regards this matter in Clause 11. However, an overview and scrutiny committee would not take responsibility for functions in such arrangements; an ordinary committee of the council appointed by the council would do so, as now.
We believe that to allow overview and scrutiny committees to discharge functions, including those which are not the responsibility of the executive but could be subject to overview and scrutiny, would blur their roles. I therefore do not think that we should open up that possibility in this clause. Flexibility already exists, but the essential role of the overview and scrutiny
1206
committee needs to be preserved. This amendment would put it in doubt; I hope that the noble Baroness does not pursue it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall not pursue the matter but I still have anxieties as to whether we shall get it right. It seems to me that the number of amendments that the Government have had to table and the number of provisions that will be dealt with by regulations makes my case for me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Access to information etc.]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 1, after ("executive,") insert ("or a joint committee or a sub-committee of any such committee,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 to 25 with which it is grouped and which stand in my name. Amendment No. 26, in the name of the Minister, is also grouped with it.
These amendments deal with access to information, the provision of information and the question of transparency, on which we have already touched. On Report the Minister said that my amendment failed to recognise the nature of executive arrangements. I recognise the structure that the Government are putting in place but I take issue with the proposal which sets up executive arrangements and then deals with issues of transparency and accountability as if they were somehow separate or at best semi-detached from the nature of the arrangements themselves. We on these Benches believe that the basic design must ensure transparency and accountability.
Amendment No. 18, refers to,
"a joint committee or a sub-committee of any such committee".
This is a matter on which I seek clarity. The point may have been answered as I believe that the amendment standing in the Minister's name allows for regulations to cover joint committees and their sub-committees. However, the Minister is merely allowing the application of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972—which deals with access to information—by regulation; and not requiring its application.
Part VA deals fully with admission to meetings, access to agendas and reports, the inspection of minutes and documents after a meeting, the inspection of background documents and additional access for members. Much of this is touched on in Clause 20 of the Bill, but none of the provisions, with the exception of Clause 20(1), will certainly be applied. The other provisions are subject to regulation. Clause 20(1) simply states,
"Meetings of a local authority executive, or a committee of such an executive, are to be open to the public or held in private".
Therein lies our objection; namely, the only thing that is certain is that the meetings may be held in private.
The Department of the Environment, as it used to be called, undertook research in 1995 to evaluate the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. A

1207
number of its findings appeared to give the Act a pretty clean bill of health, although I shall in a moment mention some of its recommendations for improvement. The summary of the document stated:
"The Act was found to be effective in establishing minimum standards for openness and accountability, with which all local authorities appear to be complying".
The document further stated that,
"the Act facilitated a transition to more open attitudes and working practices".
However, it also stated that,
"More could be done to facilitate access to information".
It further stated that,
"Members of the public and the press use their rights under the Act, although local authorities perceive the take-up to be low".
I accept that, although I emphasise that a low take-up does not mean that a provision has no merit; quite the contrary. The document further stated:
"Steps taken by local authorities to meet the requirements of the Act, and even to exceed them, had generally been achieved without incurring significant additional costs".
As I say, that seems to me to be a pretty good approval rating for the Act.
The document made a number of recommendations. It stated:
"Authorities should review their overall approach to … take account of the different objectives of information provision: public relations, accountability and informing people about services".
The document proposed that,
"Authorities might benefit from a review of the extent to which … they actively make information accessible … Authorities might also consider their approach to public participation, involvement and consultation".
I do not take issue with any of that, but it seeks to improve on what is not too bad a position, although it can, of course, always be improved.
I believe that Clause 20(10) is the most important part of the clause. It defines "prescribed". That term crops up quite often in the clause. Clause 20(10) states that,
"'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
Clause 20(6),(7),(8) and (9) refers to regulations. Clause 20(8)(a) gives the game away as it states that,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision",
with regard to access to meetings,
"including provision enabling such meetings to be held in private".
I believe that these matters should be dealt with in primary legislation, not by regulation, as this clause provides. To the uninformed reader it may appear to be rather a long clause; it covers a page and a half. The provisions of the Act are, of necessity, much longer. It seems to me that either the Government have not had enough time to draw up the detail which needs to underpin the provisions of Clause 20 as printed in the Bill—if that is the case, that is not good enough, although there will be an opportunity to rectify the matter in another place—or they are simply not sufficiently enthusiastic as regards the importance of the issue.
Access to information affords protection to the public. It affords protection to the media, who in turn pass information to the public. It is protection for other councillors, who serve the public and are part of the whole process. Access after the event to the decisions of a "strong mayor"—I put the term in inverted commas; we have been using it as jargon—and access after the event to the reasons for the decisions, are a poor substitute. Accountability every four years, or perhaps more frequently, at the ballot box will not rectify a lack of knowledge at the time that that knowledge would count. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Government have often quoted that the reason for bringing in the Bill is to improve the relationship between the public and local authorities. I should like to dwell for a moment on the fundamental role that residents see their local authority playing. They see their councillors as people who make decisions. Up until now, they have often been seen as not very accountable—here I agree with the Minister—because decisions have been made behind closed doors in smoked-filled rooms. Councillors' postbags are full of letters from residents who write in and say, "When you make a decision, will you please take this matter into account?". They have the agendas of meetings, not only on regulatory issues, which I know will not be subject to this same discipline, but on all manner of issues.
It is noticeable that usually it is one letter per citizen. Residents in a council's area do not write in frequently on all kinds of subjects; they will write in once about something on the council's agenda that particularly concerns them and on which they would like to have some influence. It' the Government include in the Bill a provision for the executives to meet in private, particularly the executives of a majority party—which, as I said, will be some 60 per cent of executives—the public will be no better served in councils which operate such a system. For them it will be a very poor second to hear that the scrutiny committee will consider the views of other members of the council, which will probably include their elected councillor. They will question what they elected that councillor for, and the relationship between local authorities and the public will be further damaged. This process of modernisation has led people to believe that they will have a closer relationship with their local authorities and that they will be included more in meetings.
The more successful local authorities are those which have done their best to go out to meet the public in places to which they have easy access—community halls and so on—and to make their meetings public friendly. It is noticeable that the public will turn out when they feel they will have some influence on the decisions to be made. On the whole, the public are not interested in being part of the ongoing discussions about scrutiny and policy making. Why should they be? They have elected people to do that job. A remark often heard is, "You were elected to make that

1209
decision. I just want to put my point of view to you, as my councillor, and I hope that you will put forward my view to the council".
If an executive is able to meet in private, this cycle of events will not happen and many of the benefits of accountability that the Government believe will come out of the Bill will be lost. The public will see that important decisions are made by executives meeting in private, in those authorities that allow them to do so. The last time this matter was discussed the Minister said that the issue was not whether meetings are held in public or private but accountability. The kind of accountability the public want is where they can see, hear and be part of the process of decision making; they do not want to know who made the decisions and to receive some dry papers only after the event.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support my colleague's amendments. Grouped with them is a government amendment, and I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the Government's intentions in a number of respects.
I understand that the proposed regulations could not override subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 20 which allow executives to choose to make all formal decisions in private. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to require executives to make any categories of decision in public?
There are other elements of the existing legislation which could be used. For instance, do the Government intend to use regulations to require public notice of the time and place of executive meetings to be posted at least three days before the meeting? Do the Government intend regulations to include the requirement that copies of the agenda and any reports for the meetings of the executive are to be available for public inspection at least three clear days in advance; and that copies of these agendas and reports are available to all members of the council at least as soon as they are available to the public? Do the Government intend regulations made on the keeping and publication of records of decisions to incorporate aspects of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972? Do the Government intend the regulations to define enforcement and penalties as they are defined in that part of the Local Government Act 1972, and so on?
I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to answer some at least of these questions, and perhaps write to me on others. I hope that he will be clearer about the Government's intentions for these regulations, should their amendment be successful.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it might be helpful if I speak first to Amendment No. 26, which stands in my name. In a sense, that will cover some of the aspects, including some of those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Regulations made under Clause 20 as a result of my amendment, if adopted, will be able to apply parts of the existing access to information provisions—including those in regard to issues such as penalties, timings and so on—to, for example, meetings of the
1210
executive held in public. We have already set out on the face of the Bill the key provisions we should like to apply to meetings and decisions of the executive. The executive may choose whether to meet in private or public. Where it meets and takes decisions in private, or where decisions are taken by an individual member, such decisions must be recorded and made public, together with the reasons and the relevant background papers. It is made clear in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 20 that the prescribed decisions must be recorded and must be made publicly available.
My amendment would assist also in the making of broader regulations. It would allow us to specify in regulations that where an executive chooses to meet in public, the existing access to information regime covering public meetings would apply, as it would to other council committees. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked me for explicit confirmation on that point. I am glad to reassure him and to reiterate our intentions. This amendment should satisfy his concerns.
The noble Baroness's amendment, in effect—she would probably not dispute this—seeks to apply the existing Part VA of the Local Government Act regulations to decisions taken under the new structure. The whole point of the executive structure is its flexibility. Reading across those provisions directly would not ensure, for example, that where an individual member of the executive takes a decision, that individual is held to account for that decision or even has to make a record of it. That is one example of where the traditional provisions would not be appropriate and would not meet the enhanced accountability that we are seeking for our decision-takers.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether agendas would be circulated in advance. Again, to some extent that misses the point of the committee. Certainly one might make regulations in relation to the agenda of the committee, but many of those decisions will be taken by individual members of the executive. We shall be consulting on the regulations for the procedure of the committee—whether it should be private or public—but the point about agendas misses the implications of how the executive would function in many respects.
The whole of the debate, at earlier stages and today, misses the point that the totality of the new executive arrangements will identify both the decisions and the persons responsible for those decisions in a much clearer way than is the case at the moment. The totality of the arrangements brings greater transparency than the present arrangements where accountability and clarity of decision-making are not apparent. Simply applying the traditional access to information regime under the 1972 Act, as the noble Baroness's amendments intend, would fail to recognise the nature of the executive. My amendment would allow us to use some of the existing provisions, so that, for example, meetings were held in public subject to the same provisions, but we would need different kinds of

1211
regulations in relation to the other aspects of decision-making and accountability. I do not think that the noble Baroness's amendment would be appropriate and I ask her not to pursue it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister has told us that the point of the executive is flexibility. But—and I have probably said this before in the course of the proceedings on the Bill—local authorities are not the same as plcs. There are different standards and different criteria. I do not believe that one should read over into local authorities the imperatives for immediate action that directors of a company might often feel would be overriding criteria.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not know what it was in my remarks that implied that I was reading across into local government the regulations for company directors. I certainly was not.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. I made the point because it seems that many of these arrangements seek to reflect how life is carried on in different sectors.
The Minister said that I missed the point. I do not think that I missed the point. I disagree with the point. He told us that different regulations are needed under a new regime. As I have said before, the 1985 Act succeeded in spelling out what was required as a matter of primary legislation. I do not believe that it is adequate or appropriate to leave to regulations a matter of such importance, particularly given the framework of a clause which states that meetings can be held in private—there may be provisions under the regulations for meetings to be held in private. That is not appropriate. I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister is attempting to hide anything from the House or that there is any malign motive, but I think that the Government are misguided in their approach to this important matter. We believe that proper access to information and real transparency will go to the benefit of local government. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goodhart, L.

Avebury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barker, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Haslam, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Courtown, E.

Lucas, L.

Dholakia, L.

Maddock, B.

1212

Methuen, L.

Russell, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. [Teller]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Newby, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Northesk, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Rennard, L

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Amos, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jay of Paddington. B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bach, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Brett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Harinaey, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Christopher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Puttnam, L.

Crawley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Desai, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Filkin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Uddin, B.

Harrison, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Haskel, L.

Warner, L.

Hayman, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 15, line 15, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision which, in relation to meetings of—

(a) local authority executives or committees of such executives, or

(b) joint committees, or sub-committees of such committees, falling within subsection (8)(a),

applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Proposals]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 15. line 39, after ("area,") insert—

1213
("(aa) must consider the extent to which the proposals, if implemented, are likely to assist in securing continuous improvement in the way in which the authority's functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 which are grouped with it.
We brought forward Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 in response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in Committee and on Report. The noble Lord raised a number of important points in speaking to his amendments during the previous stages. I believe that these amendments will meet the substance of his concerns and will not, therefore, be seen as controversial.
We believe that the new forms of constitution available in Part II of the Bill will lead to more efficient, transparent and accountable local government and that they will reinforce the best value regime in the Local Government Act 1999 for delivering value for money and high-quality services.
At the end of the day, it is outcomes that will be the test of new constitutions. It is right, therefore, that in drawing up proposals for executive arrangements councils should be required to consider how their proposals will affect outcomes.
Amendment No. 27 places exactly such a requirement on the face of the Bill when councils draw up "first time" proposals for executive arrangements. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 import identical requirements if councils need to draw up detailed fallback proposals in the event of a "no" vote in a referendum.
The amendments draw directly on the wording of the duty of best value in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999. They therefore make a direct link between two very important strands of our programme of local government modernisation: best value and new constitutions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, although I understand what has led to this proposal and, indeed, the need for councils to consider their best value duty, will the Minister confirm that, in drawing up proposals for executive arrangements, local authorities should consider all of their statutory duties and not merely the best value duty?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords. The reason that we have included this provision is that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was concerned that we should be explicit on this specific item.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall change my name!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Referendum in case of proposals involving elected mayor]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
Page 17, line 23, after ("(3)(a)") insert ("and (aa)")
Page 17, line 26, after ("(3)(a)") insert ("and (aa)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Elected mayors]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 22, line 5, at end insert—
("(1A) In this Part "elected executive member" means an individual elected as a member of a local authority executive by the local government electors for the authority's area in accordance with the provisions made by or under this Part, but does not include an elected mayor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 42 in this group. They are all designed to respond to a request put forward in the form of an amendment at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and in response to those amendments that were designed to extend the Bill's electoral provisions in relation to elected mayors to the election of members of directly elected cabinets, were they to be pursued under Clause 10(5).
In response to those amendments my noble friend Lady Farrington indicated that the Government were sympathetic. The amendments provide for the definition of an "elected executive member" as a person who is elected to a local authority executive by the electors for the whole of the authority's area. These are the directly elected cabinets in the various guises that we have talked about in relation to the possible types of new executive structure that might emerge from local authorities deciding to trigger the provision under Clause 10(5) and the Secretary of State agreeing.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that these amendments would not mean that directly elected cabinets would become an option on the face of the Bill. The situation will arise only if Clause 10(5) is triggered. If such regulations were to be made, the amendments to Clauses 35 and 38 will provide that directly elected executive members will have the same electoral franchise and term of office as elected mayors. The amendments to Clauses 36 and 39 will extend the regulation-making powers in those clauses to enable those regulations to deal with the timing and conduct of elections for directly elected cabinets. The amendments would, therefore, cover the contingency of directly elected cabinets emerging under Clause 10(5). I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 22, line 11, after ("mayor") insert ("or elected executive member")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Time of elections etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 32 to 35:
Page 22, line 14, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 22, line 15, at end insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 22, line 16, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 22, line 17, at end insert ("or elected executive member").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38: [Entitlement to vote]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 22, line 35, after ("mayor") insert ("or elected executive member").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to make provision about elections]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 41:
Page 23, line 3, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 23, line 4, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 23, line 14, at end insert ("(including elections for the return of elected executive members), and
() for the combination of polls at elections for the return of elected executive members and other elections (including elections for the return of elected mayors).").
Page 23, line 23, after ("mayors") insert ("or elected executive members").
Page 23, line 28, after ("mayor") insert ("or elected executive member").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 24, line 38, at end insert—
(""elected executive member" has the meaning given by section 35(1A),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Model code of conduct]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 27, line 17, leave out from ("code") to end of line 19.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 51, 53 to 91, 93 to 117, 128 to 156, and 158 to 175, which are grouped with it.
The justification for devolution of power to the National Assembly for Wales is to enable the enactment of legislation tailored specifically to Welsh needs and circumstances. The most significant of the government amendments that I propose today reflect the National Assembly's preference for conferring the powers which in England will be exercised by the standards board on the Commission for Local Administration in Wales.
The difference in approach in Wales is driven by the smaller scale of the task there. It is clear that there is unlikely to be a sufficient number of breaches to justify the creation of a separate body. Secondly, following the consultations with local government, the National Assembly concluded that the task of investigating allegations of breaches of the code of conduct would be more efficiently and effectively carried out by the local commissioner and his team of investigating officers and that such a one-stop shop would be more accessible to the public. The amendments are also intended to give the National Assembly the flexibility to make regulations to implement the legislation in a way that reflects Welsh circumstances and requirements.
The inclusion of the specific Welsh provisions and the need to group them also gives rise to a substantial number of consequential and drafting amendments. These have taken the form of distinguishing between the situation in England and Wales and substituting the local commissioner or the Commission for Local Administration in Wales for the Standards Board in England.
I shall now go through the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 43 removes from the face of the Bill the requirement for the Partnership Council to prepare a model code of conduct. This is a superfluous provision as the Government of Wales Act gives the Assembly the power to maintain a Partnership Council. These provisions are sufficient to enable the National Assembly to engage the Partnership Council in the way envisaged to draw up a code of conduct for elected members in local government. The code will be issued by the National Assembly. Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 are consequential drafting amendments to Clause 45.
Amendments Nos. 48 to 58, excluding Amendment No. 52, are consequential amendments resulting from Amendment No. 59 which bring together the provisions relating to standards committees in Wales in a new subsection (13) to Clause 48. This amendments gives the Assembly the power to make regulations governing the operation, size, composition, procedures, chairing etc. of standards committees in Welsh councils.
Amendment No. 60 enables the National Assembly for Wales to issue guidance to standards committees of local authorities in Wales on the exercise of their functions.
Amendment No. 62 allows the standards committees or sub-committees of such committees to discharge functions in relation to community councils and their members which are situated in the area of the county or county borough council concerned. It also requires the principal councils to consult their community councils on whether to use the council's main standards committee or to set up a specific sub-committee to hear allegations against community councils. Amendment No. 61 is a minor consequential drafting change to Clause 50.
Amendments Nos. 47, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 through to Amendment No. 85 are minor consequential and drafting amendments resulting from Amendment No. 86. That amendment confers the role of the Standards Board in England on the local commissioner in Wales (local ombudsman). It also provides for the Commission for Local Administration in Wales to issue guidance to local authorities on issues relating to the conduct of elected and co-opted members on councils.
Amendment No. 87 allows the local commissioner in Wales to investigate written allegations of breaches of the code of conduct made against councils' elected members and co-optees. The four possible outcomes of these investigations are the same as those set out in Clause 53(5) for the Standards Board in England.
Amendment No. 88 enables the National Assembly to make orders modifying the restrictions on the disclosure of information in the Local Government Act 1974 to provide the local commissioner with the powers of investigation available to the ethical standards officers in England. This amendment also permits the local commissioner to cease an investigation at any stage before its completion and, where appropriate, to refer the matter to the council's monitoring officer.
Amendment No. 89 applies the existing Clause 58 which applies only to England to Wales as well. It lays out what action the local commissioner should take, including the preparation of reports, depending upon the findings of the investigations.
Amendment No. 90 replicates existing Clause 59, which applies to England. It permits the local commissioner in Wales to issue an interim report if his investigations reveal matters that are sufficiently serious that it is in the public interest to do so. The local commissioner may recommend in such a report a maximum period of suspension of six months on the member concerned. Before any suspension is effective it has to be decided by an interim case tribunal.
Amendment No. 103 provides that when a person who is subject to an interim report appears before an interim case tribunal, the local commissioner will be able to continue with his investigations following a decision of the interim case tribunal.
Amendment No. 91 replicates the existing Clause 60 which applies to England only. It enables the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations in relation to the way in which local authorities' monitoring officers undertake their roles. These regulations could also enable the standards committees of authorities to consider monitoring officers' reports and to take appropriate action, subject to the existence of rights of appeal against their decisions. Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 make minor drafting amendments to Clause 61. Amendments Nos. 95 to 100 are minor drafting amendments to Clause 62.
Amendment No. 101 enables the National Assembly for Wales to fund the secretariat and administrative support for the adjudication panel. This would ensure that it is separate and independent from the local commissioner and the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, whose investigations it will adjudicate upon. Amendments No. 102 and 104 are consequential drafting changes to Clause 64. Amendments Nos. 105 to 110 are consequential drafting amendments.
Amendment No. 112 enables the National Assembly to prescribe in regulations the circumstances in which standards committees may grant dispensations to members to speak and vote at council meetings when they have declared a pecuniary or other interest in the matter being discussed. Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 make minor consequential drafting changes to Clause 69.
Amendment No. 117 provides for the functions of the monitoring officer for community councils in respect of the new ethical framework to be discharged
1218
by the monitoring officer of the county or county borough councils in whose area the community council is located. Amendments Nos. 128 to 175 are minor consequential and drafting amendments to Schedule 3.
As currently drafted, the Bill does not include all the Welsh provisions. We shall bring two further Welsh amendments in the House of Commons to extend the local ombudsman's remit to enable him to hear complaints of maladministration against combined fire authorities and registered social landlords such as housing associations. The proposal to extend the ombudsman's remit to hear complaints from the tenants of registered social landlords in Wales was the subject of consultation and agreement between the National Assembly and the UK Government.
I am very grateful for the courteous, helpful and patient consideration which, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, have shown towards me personally. I apologise again. I shall set out a proper procedure for ensuring that this sort of thing does not happen in future. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking us through what is, according to my calculation, a total of 115 amendments in this grouping. As the noble Baroness explained, some are more important than others. She will be relieved to know that at least I agree with the main purpose of the amendments and the decision to hand over the functions of the standards board in Wales to the Local Government Commission. The commission already has the ability to deal with complaints from the public about maladministration in local government. The commission has a close and intimate knowledge of the 22 local authorities in Wales. The present commissioner, Mr Moseley, enjoys a high reputation for integrity and fairness, and I believe that the proposed extension of powers to cover the field of standards sits well with his current duties.
I am glad to hear that the duties of the commission are to be extended further by later amendments in the other place. The commissioner is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Secretary of State and, therefore, has an independent status. By way of reminiscence, there was a time when local authorities did not always accept his judgment in cases of maladministration when he was critical of them. I understand that those days have passed with the advent of legislative changes that require authorities to publish their reasons if they disagree with the commissioner's findings. In short, I believe that to take over the functions of the standards board is to complement the powers of the commissioner by virtue of his present office. I commend the National Assembly for its decision, I believe that it is right in its recommendation.
Currently, if a councillor behaves badly he can be named and shamed by a mention in a commission report. Under this Bill he can be punished under the adjudication panel procedure. If he breaks the code to

1219
be laid down in model form by the National Assembly, after consultation with the local authorities and other bodies as specified in Clause 44(4), the punishment is suspension under an interim report with possibly worse to follow. At the moment, the commissioner has a small staff of about half a dozen researchers and a similar number of secretarial typists. I hope that we shall not see a huge increase in staff as a result of the additional duties imposed on the commission. However, like other Members of your Lordships' House I should like to see the commission well able to carry out its functions.
I have noticed one substantial difference. In Wales we shall not have ethical standards officers but the commission will have the powers which attach to those individuals. I am sure that through his staff the commissioner will be able to carry out equivalent or similar functions. There is a further extension, in that community councils are also brought into the frame. It is quite right that, limited though their powers may be, those councils, which are equivalent to parish councils in England, should be brought into the frame. About 800 community councils in Wales are in receipt of council taxpayers' money which is raised by the county authorities. Therefore, I believe that there should be an arrangement whereby the county standards committee, or a sub-committee, has oversight of the community councils. Community councillors should be subject to the same standards as councillors of other authorities.
In Amendments Nos. 86 to 91 there are some very important new clauses which spell out how investigations are to be conducted. On first reading what emerged was the importance of the local authority monitoring officer and the need for him or her to be a person of unquestionable integrity and independence and to have the trust and backing of the authority's standards committee. Regrettably, in Wales there are certain local authorities where low standards have become the norm. I have in mind one South Wales local authority where half, if not more, of the elected members were subject to police investigations at the same time. I hope that the National Assembly makes regulations, in accordance with Amendment No. 91, to indicate how matters referred to a monitoring officer are to be dealt with. He will require strong backing from outside the authority in certain circumstances. He may also be directed by the Local Government Commissioner as to how matters should be dealt with.
I have studied the amendments as closely as I can in the time available. I acknowledge the help provided to me by the Government at a late hour. It is, nevertheless, welcome for all that. I agree that the amendments improve the Bill in one way; namely, they place the onus for issuing a model code squarely on the National Assembly, following consultation with local authorities, the Audit Commission, the Commission for Local Administration and other appropriate bodies. It would have been wrong, surely, to leave the partnership council with the initiative to produce the model code, because that body includes members of
1220
local authorities as well as members of the National Assembly. It is much better that the National Assembly alone bears a clear responsibility for producing the model code.
We shall study these changes further, as will others in Wales who no doubt will in time give us the benefit of their views. Some of these are key amendments which reflect the procedures to be followed by the standards board in England. We benefit from the extensive debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House on the duties and responsibilities of the board in England. If there are defects in the amendments which have been tabled at a fairly late stage—the bulk of them yesterday—I hope that the Government will bring forward any changes that they feel are necessary. I am sure that any defects will be pointed out to us and Members in the other place by the Welsh electorate when it has had time to study the matter. Meanwhile, we are prepared to give these amendments a fair wind.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the advance notice of the amendments and the helpful discussions. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, mentioned, the path of local authorities in Wales has not been entirely smooth over the past two or three years. I am grateful for the assistance given in Wales by my colleague Michael Farmer QC, in one of the authorities where problems emerged. I welcome the provision of a model code which I hope will ensure that such matters do not arise again.
I am also grateful for the widespread consultation on the provisions with the National Assembly for Wales. It is unfortunate that these matters come forward at a late stage. I hope that through discussion we shall be able to create a machinery which does not give rise to such problems. It is important that this House should have the opportunity for advance notice and full consideration of these matters. I hope that by discussion we shall be able to arrive at an agreed procedure.
I look to the National Assembly for Wales being able to consider in draft form legislation which affects Wales, a situation provided for somewhat more concisely than in the Bill. Providing that the National Assembly for Wales should replace the Secretary of State as expressed in various parts of the Bill is a confusing procedure. I am happy to say that in subsequent Bills the position of Welsh primary legislation is more clearly stated. The more we can proceed along those lines, the better it will be for clarity and the good governance of Wales. As does the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords. We must all work together to ensure that the saying, "Better late than never" is replaced by ensuring that we are never late.
All institutions and organisations need to be vigilant against corruption and malpractice. The code of conduct in Wales and its enforcement will be rigorous. The Assembly is committed to the maintenance of the

1221
highest standards of conduct in local government. The code will be produced by the Assembly in consultation with Welsh local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, rightly drew attention to the staffing issue. We are confident that the proposals for Wales will ensure that there will be opportunity for additional staff, but not as many would have been needed had the two bodies remained separate. The commissioner for local administration will have all the powers available to ethical standards officers in England. In the smaller organisation in Wales it would be clumsy to set up a separate and distinct role for ethical standards officers.
We accept that the monitoring officer role is crucial, and believe that the Assembly is well aware of the need to monitor what is happening.
I thank noble Lords for their support. If I have not covered any point of detail, I shall write to the noble Lords. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 46:
Page 27, line 23, leave out ("or National Assembly for Wales (as the case may be)").
Page 27, line 27, leave out ("or the Partnership Council (as the case may be)").
Page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Duty of relevant authorities to adopt codes of conduct]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 28, leave out line 27 and insert ("Commission for Local Administration in Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Standards committees]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 51:
Page 30, line 4, after first ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("or (7)(a)").
Page 30, line 6, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 10, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 30, line 13, at end insert (", and
(c) may not have less than half its members who are not members of the executive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we debated the amendment at Report stage we did so in general terms. The Minister indicated that he did not think that the behaviour prohibited in the amendment was what the Bill intended, but thought that the matter was appropriate to local authorities and that they should decide these matters for themselves. It is a sentiment with which I agree.
I would not have put down the amendment had I not had written communication from a member of one local authority indicating that his authority was planning to act in breach of the prohibition I have tabled. I do not apologise for bringing back the issue. It seems right to give the Minister the opportunity to reconsider the matter and either give a clear assurance that the behaviour prohibited by the amendment would not be acceptable to the Government, or accept the amendment.
It is a narrow point. I agree with the Minister that it is unlikely that most authorities will act in this way. When discussing legislation, we have to consider the individual who may wish to behave in a way that normal people would regard as aberrant. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is our intention in this part of the Bill to provide maximum flexibility. That maximum flexibility allows conceptually for the outcome against which the noble Lord's amendment is directed. However, that can be achieved only with the full agreement of the council. The executive cannot determine that it will be in the majority. The full council would decide that. Councils need to have flexibility to decide what is best to uphold standards of probity without our laying it down too precisely. There may be strong arguments for the majority of the standards committee to be councillors, even if there is not a strong argument for them to be executive members. Once one starts prescribing, one has to go into other prescriptions.
There is a fall-back power. Although our preferred approach is not to be prescriptive, under Clause 48 the Secretary of State has power to make regulations if he should so wish on the size, composition, proceedings and membership of standards committees. So if this proves to be a serious problem leading to abuse, we have the power to deal with it. I hope that that sufficiently reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. He seems to have satisfied the concerns underlying my tabling the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 59:
Page 30, line 21, leave out subsection (7).
Page 30, line 33, leave out subsection (9).
Page 30, line 38, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 41, after ("authority") insert ("in England").
Page 30, line 44, leave out from ("England") to end of line 1 on page 31.
Page 31, line 2, after ("authority") insert ("in England")
Page 31, line 4, at end insert—
("(13) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision—

(a) as to the size and composition of standards committees of relevant authorities in Wales (including provision with respect to the appointment to any such committee of persons who arc not members of the relevant authority concerned),

(b) as to the persons who may, may not or must chair any such committees,

(c) as to the entitlement to vote of members of any such committee who are not members of the relevant authority concerned,

(d) for or in connection with treating any such standards committees as bodies to which section 15 of the Local Government Act 1989 does not apply,

(e) as to the proceedings and validity of proceedings of such committees.

(f) for or in connection with requiring relevant authorities in Wales to send to the Commission for Local Administration in Wales statements which set out the terms of reference of their standards committees.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Functions of standards committees]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 31, line 30, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("National Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Standards committees or sub-committees for parish councils]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 33, line 15, after ('county") insert ("in England").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
STANDARDS COMMITTEES OR SUB-COMMITTEES FOR COMMUNITY COUNCILS
(".—(1) A standards committee of a county council in Wales is to have the same functions in relation to—

(a) the community councils which are situated in the area of the county council, and

(b) the members of those community councils,

as the standards committee has under section 49(1) and (2) in relation to the county council and the members of the county council.
(2) A standards committee of a county borough council is to have the same functions in relation to—

(a) the community councils which are situated in the area of the county borough council, and

(b) the members of those community councils,

as the standards committee has under section 49(1) and (2) in relation to the county borough council and the members of the county borough council.
(3) A standards committee of a county council or county borough council may appoint a sub-committee for the purpose of discharging all of the functions conferred on the standards committee by this section.
(4) In deciding whether it will be their standards committee, or a sub-committee of their standards committee, which is to discharge the functions conferred by this section, a county council or county borough council must consult the community councils which are situated in their area.
(5) Regulations under section 48(13) may make provision in relation to sub-committees appointed under this section.
(6) Subsections (5) and (7) of section 49 apply in relation to subcommittees of standards committees appointed under this section as they apply in relation to standards committees.
(7) In relation to a community council, any reference in the following provisions of this Part to the standards committee of a relevant authority is a reference—

(a) to the standards committee of the county council or county borough council in whose are the community council is situated, or

(b) where that standards committee has appointed a subcommittee under this section, to that sub-committee.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Standards Boards]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments No. 63 to 66:
Page 33, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
Page 33, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
Page 33, line 35, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
Page 34, line 1, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Written allegations]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved amendment No. 67:
Page 34, line 10, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Functions of ethical standards officers]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 72:
Page 34, line 18, leave out ("of the Standards Board for England").
Page 34, line 20, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Standards Board for England").
Page 34, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Page 34, line 34, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board for England").
Page 35, line 2, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54 [Conduct of investigations]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("by which he is employed") and insert ("for England").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Procedure in respect of investigations]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 35, line 42, leave out from ("the") to end of line 3 on page 36 and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Investigations: further provisions]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 37, line 10, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 17 and insert ("Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 80:
Page 37, line 31, leave out ("the Standards Board for Wales,").
Page 37, line 32, leave out ("of either of those Boards") and insert (", a Local Commissioner in Wales").
Page 37, line 46, leave out ("of the Standards Board for England").
Page 38, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
Page 38, line 15, leave out ("or (3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Reports etc.]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
Page 39, line 2, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
Page 39, line 5, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interim reports]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 84:
Page 39, line 39, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
Page 39, line 45, leave out ("relevant Adjudication Panel") and insert ("Adjudication Panel for England").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Matters referred to monitoring officers]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 41, line 7, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 91:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN WALES
(".—(1) A Local Commissioner in Wales is to have the functions conferred on him by this Part and such other functions as may conferred on him by order made by the National Assembly for Wales under this subsection.
(2) The Commission for Local Administration in Wales—

(a) may issue guidance to relevant authorities in Wales on matters relating to the conduct of members and co-opted members of such authorities, and

(b) may arrange for any such guidance to be made public.

(3) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision which, for the purpose of any provisions of Part III of
1226
the Local Government Act 1974 specified in the regulations, treats—

(a) functions of a Local Commissioner in Wales under Part III of that Act as including his functions under this Part.

(b) functions of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales under Part III of that Act as including functions of the Commission under this Part, or

(c) expenses of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales under Part III of that Act as including expenses of the Commission, or a Local Commissioner in Wales, under this Part.

(4) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (3) includes provision which modifies, or applies or reproduces (with or without modifications), any provisions of Part III of that Act.
(5) In this Part "Local Commissioner in Wales" means a Local Commissioner (within the meaning of Part III of that Act) who is a member of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales.").
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
INVESTIGATIONS BY LOCAL COMMISSIONER IN
WALES
(".—(1) A Local Commissioner in Wales may investigate—

(a) cases in which a written allegation is made to him by any person that a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in Wales has failed, or may have failed, to comply with the authority's code of conduct, and

(b) other cases in which he considers that a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in Wales has failed, or may have failed, to comply with the authority's code of conduct and which have come to his attention as a result of an investigation under paragraph (a).

(2) The purpose of an investigation under this section is to determine which of the findings mentioned in subsection (3) is appropriate.
(3) Those findings are—

(a) that there is no evidence of any failure to comply with the code of conduct of the relevant authority concerned,

(b) that no action needs to be taken in respect of the matters which are the subject of the investigation,

(c) that the matters which arc the subject of the investigation should be referred to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned, or

(d) that the matters which are the subject of the investigation should be referred to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 62(1).").

After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
INVESTIGATIONS: FURTHER PROVISIONS
(".—(1) The National Assembly for Wales may by order make provision with respect to investigations under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner for Wales) (including provision with respect to the obtaining or disclosure of documents or information).
(2) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications)—

(a) any provisions of sections 54 to 57, or

(b) any provisions of sections 28, 29, 32 or 33 of the Local Government Act 1974.

(3) A Local Commissioner in Wales may cease an investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) at any stage before its completion.
(4) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales ceases an investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) before its completion, he may refer the matters which are the subject of the investigation to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned.").
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
REPORTS
(".—(1) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales determines in relation to any case that a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(a) or (b) is appropriate—

(a) he may produce a report on the outcome of his investigation,

(b) he may provide a summary of any such report to any newspapers circulating in the area of the relevant authority concerned,

(c) he must send to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned a copy of any such report, and

(d) where he does not produce any such report, he must inform the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned of the outcome of the investigation.

(2) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales determines in relation to any case that a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(c) is appropriate he must—

(a) produce a report on the outcome of his investigation.

(b) refer the matters which arc the subject of the investigation to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned, and

(c) send a copy of the report to the monitoring officer, and the standards committee, of the relevant authority concerned.

(3) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales determines in relation to any case that a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(d) is appropriate he must—

(a) produce a report on the outcome of his investigation,

(b) refer the matters which are the subject of the investigation to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 62(1), and

(c) send a copy of the report to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned and to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales.

(4) A report under this section may cover more than one investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) in relation to any members or co-opted members of the same relevant authority.
(5) A Local Commissioner in Wales must—

(a) inform any person who is the subject of an investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales), and

(b) take reasonable steps to inform any person who made any allegation which gave rise to the investigation,

of the outcome of the investigation.").
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
INTERIM REPORTS
(".—(1) Where he considers it necessary in the public interest, a Local Commissioner in Wales may produce an interim report on an investigation conducted by him under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales).
(2) An interim report under this section may cover more than one investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) in relation to any members or co-opted members of the same relevant authority.
(3) Where the prima facie evidence is such that it appears to a Local Commissioner in Wales—

(a) that the person who is the subject of the interim report has failed to comply with the code of conduct of a relevant authority,

(b) that the nature of that failure is such as to be likely to lead to disqualification under section 65(4)(b) or (5)(b), and

(c) that it is in the public interest to suspend that person immediately,

1228
the interim report may include a recommendation that that person should be suspended or partially suspended by the relevant authority concerned from being a member or co-opted member of the authority.
(4) The period of suspension or partial suspension which may be recommended under subsection (3) must not exceed six months or (if shorter) the remainder of the person's term of office.
(5) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales produces an interim report under this section which contains such a recommendation as is mentioned in subsection (3), he must refer the matters which are the subject of the report to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 62(2).
(6) A copy of any report under this section must be given—

(a) to any person who is the subject of the report,

(b) to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned, and

(c) to the president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales.").

After Clause 60. insert the following new clause—
MATTERS REFERRED TO MONITORING OFFICERS
(".—(1) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations make provision in relation to the way in which any matters referred to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority—

(a) under section (Investigations: further provisions)(4), or

(b) as a result of a finding under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(c),

are to be dealt with.
(2) The provision which may be made by regulations under subsection (1) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him.

(b) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to make a report, or recommendations, to the standards committee of the authority in respect of any matters referred to him,

(c) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to consider any report or recommendations made to it by a monitoring officer of the authority (including provision with respect to the procedure to be followed by the standards committee),

(d) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority, following its consideration of any such report or recommendations, to take any action prescribed by the regulations (including action against any member or co-opted member of the authority who is the subject of any such report or recommendation).

(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) conferring powers on a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to enable him to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him,

(b) conferring rights (including the right to make representations) on any member or co-opted member of a relevant authority who is the subject of any such investigation.

(4) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(d) includes provision for or in connection with—

(a) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to censure a member or co-opted member -of the authority.

(b) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to suspend or partially suspend a person from being a member or co-opted member of the authority for a limited period.

(c) conferring a right of appeal on a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in respect of any action taken against him.

(5) Nothing in subsection (2), (3) or (4) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
(6) Where a Local Commissioner in Wales refers any matters to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority—

(a) under section (Investigations: further provisions)(4), or

(b) as a result of a finding under section (Investigations hr Local Commissioner in Wales)(3)(c),

he may give directions to the monitoring officer as to the way in which those matters are to be dealt with.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Adjudication Panels]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 41, line 17, leave out ("on such terms and conditions as he may determine").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 157, both of which are technical. It is our policy that a Secretary of State should appoint the members of the adjudication committee and should determine the terms and conditions on which those appointments are made. Members of the adjudication panel will, however, be paid any such remuneration fees or allowances by the standards board because payment is not made directly by the Secretary of State. The amendments help to clarify that so that although it is the Secretary of State who sets the terms and conditions, he is not responsible for payment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 111:
Page 41, line 22, leave out from ("determine") to end of line 23 and insert—
("() The National Assembly for Wales—

(a) must appoint one of the members of the Adjudication Panel for Wales as president of the Panel, and

(b) may appoint one of those members as deputy president of the Panel.").

Page 41, line 34, after second ("president") insert ("(if any)").
Page 41, line 41, after (" 58(3)") insert ("or (Reports)(3)").
Page 42, line 2, after (" 59(5)") and insert ("or (Interim reports)(5)").
Page 42, line 7, at end insert—
("() Where there is no deputy president of the Adjudication Panel for Wales, the reference in subsection (3) to the deputy president is to be treated as a reference to such member of the Adjudication Panel for Wales as the National Assembly for Wales may specify.").
Page 42, line 10, at end insert ("or (Reports)(3)").
Page 42, line 13, at end insert ("or (Interim reports)(5)").
Page 42, line 25, after (" 53") insert ("or (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)").
Page 42, line 34, at end insert—
("() The National Assembly for Wales may incur expenditure for the purpose of providing administrative support to the Adjudication Panel for Wales.").
Page 43, line 29, after (" 59(3)") insert ("or (Interim reports)").
Page 44, line 7, at end insert—
("() A decision of an interim case tribunal under this section shall not prevent a Local Commissioner in Wales from continuing with the investigation under section (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales) which gave rise to the interim report concerned and producing a report under section (Reports), or a further interim report under section (Interim reports), in respect of any matters which are the subject of the investigation.").
Page 44, line 18, after (" 53") insert ("or (Investigations by Local Commissioner in Wales)").
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("Standard Board for Wales") and insert ("Commission for Local Administration in Wales").
Page 46, line 17, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 21, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 27, leave out ("Standards Board") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 29, leave out ("Board") and insert ("relevant person").
Page 46, line 32, leave out ("Standards Board"") and insert ("person").
Page 46, line 35, leave out ("the Standards Board for") and insert ("a Local Commissioner in").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Disclosure of registration of members' interests etc.]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 47, line 28, at end insert—
("() In its application to Wales, subsection (4) has effect as if for the reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 117:
Page 48, line 24, leave out ("or (8)(a)").
Page 48, line 29, at end insert—
(""Local Commissioner in Wales" has the meaning given by section (Local Commissioner and Commission for Local Administration in Wales)(5),"").
Page 48, line 34, leave out ("of the Standards Board for England").
Page 48, line 36, leave out ("an ethical standards officer of the Standards Board for Wales") and insert ("a Local Commissioner in Wales").
Page 49, line 2, at end insert—
("() In relation to a community council, the functions of a monitoring officer under any provisions of this Part arc to be discharged by the monitoring officer of the county council or county borough council in whose area the community council is situated; and any reference in this Part to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority which is a community council is to be construed accordingly.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
RIGHT TO SEND ELECTION ADDRESS POST FREE
(" .—(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 36(2B) there shall be inserted—
"(2C) Section 91 shall apply to elections under the Local Government Act 2000 with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not spend long on the amendment, but it takes us to the topic of freepost for candidates for elected office and in particular elected mayors. I thought that it might be inflammatory to raise the issue in the context of the Bill while the situation in London is still being negotiated. Nevertheless, I believe that there is an issue to be addressed.
I have tabled an amendment to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to apply to elections for executive mayors not least because colleagues in another place may want to consider the matter. I hope that the passage of the Bill can be eased if we can hear the Government's view now. At least we shall have done our job to that extent. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has refrained from being inflammatory. The amendment is a nice try, but we are discussing elections in a different context. There is a long tradition of local government rules which do not include free mail shots. The elections of mayors under the Bill will be local government elections. Admittedly they will be of a special and novel kind and we expect that special electoral rules will need to apply. That is why we are preparing a further consultation paper in the regulation of mayoral elections.
As I stand at the Dispatch Box, I am not convinced of the need to prescribe free mail shots within those regulations, but the consultation will proceed. Of course, the House having accepted the provisions within the Representation of the People Bill, which allows for the experiment on free mail shots for local elections that is being conducted in Watford, we have the ability legislatively to provide for that in certain circumstances.
Rather than put anything on the face of the Bill which I must strongly oppose, I believe that we should leave the matter to consultation and to the possibility that at some future date we might move down that road. However, I suspect that were we to do so, the view would not be that we should provide the full parliamentary mail shot. We might have to have a more compromise position of the kind referred to, if not the actual outcome, in our discussions on the provisions of the GLA Act.
I am straying too far into that territory and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House,
1232
I understand the position relating to the pilot scheme in Watford, but can he remind the House when the consultation will end and how it is likely to fit in with the timetable for the rest of the Bill's passage?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this point I cannot give a closing date for that consultation, but I understand that it would be some time in the summer and therefore beyond the likely passage of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not wish to be inflammatory and I realise that there is another important piece of business to deal with tonight. Therefore I shall not pursue the matter now, but I note the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Allowances and pensions for certain local authority members]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 56, line 10, at end insert C, and
(b) the insertion of the following new paragraph after paragraph (c)—
"(d) a cycle allowance to be payable at a rate to be determined by the local authority".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 20 standing in the name of the Minister. The fact that my amendment comes first allows me to thank him for taking up the matter of allowances for cycles and other non-motorised forms of transport, referred to in his amendment. We are pleased to have achieved a little during the Bill's passage through this House.
I want to ask the Minister a question about his new clause and the regulation-making provision dealing with allowances. Subsection (4) states:
"The provision which may be made under this section includes provision which amends or repeals any provisions of sections 173 to 178 of the Local Government Act 1972".
While I welcome the provision and understand the pressures on parliamentary counsel, I believe it is a pity that we seem to be drifting into a position in which perhaps because of pressures of time a short-cut is being taken. We have in primary legislation a power for the repeal or modification of other primary legislation by regulation. Ideally, if matters are important they should be in primary legislation so that one can follow them. The Government are ambitious about the amount of legislation they are going to get through Parliament and I deplore what I regard to be a short-cut, although I have no doubt that pressure of time brought it about.
Having made that point, I thank the Minister for taking on board our concerns about cycle allowances. If the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, were here I am sure that he would be making points about payment to members of parish councils. However, for the record I repeat that we remain concerned about the distinction between members of the executive and

1233
members of the overview and scrutiny committee as regards certain parts of the remuneration, in particular pensions, which we see as divisive. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my Amendment No. 120 introduces a new clause enabling the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations regarding parish councils for only general allowances. The point was raised by my noble friend Lord Graham and others during the Report stage of the Bill. The regulations also relate to all councils as regards travel and subsistence allowances, including cycle allowances, allowances for attending conferences or meetings and the reimbursement of expenses. The reason the provision is not as definitive as the noble Baroness may have liked is that we are currently conducting a review. We have sympathy with the objectives referred to by the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh.
The outcome of the review is unlikely to be known by the time the Bill has completed its parliamentary stages. Therefore, the new clause allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make provisions—perhaps regrettably from the noble Baroness's purist point of view of how we change primary legislation. It might mean changing the appropriate clauses of the Local Government Act. This is the only way we can make the change without coming back to yet another piece of local government legislation. I hope that in that context the noble Baroness understands why we have done it that way and that my amendment can be agreed.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am a purist, but not so much as to insist on my amendment or to oppose the Minister's. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 119.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 120:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWANCES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to—

(a) allowances payable to members of a parish council.

(b) travelling and subsistence allowances payable to members of such relevant authorities as may be prescribed,

(c) allowances payable to members of such relevant authorities as may be prescribed for attending conferences or meetings,

(d) the reimbursement of expenses incurred by members of such relevant authorities as may be prescribed.

(2) For the purposes of this section a member of a committee or sub-committee of a relevant authority is to be treated as a member of the authority.
(3) The provision which may be made under subsection (1)(b) includes provision with respect to allowances in respect of travel by bicycle or by any other non-motorised form of transport.
(4) The provision which may be made under this section includes provision which amends or repeals any provisions of sections 173 to 178 of the Local Government Act 1972.
(5) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such representatives of local government and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.
(6) In this section—
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
"relevant authority" means—

(a) a body specified in section 21(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989,

(b) a body on which a body falling within paragraph (a) is represented,

(c) a parish council.

(7) In its application to Wales this section has effect as if

(a) for any reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales,

(b) for any reference to a parish council there were substituted a reference to a community council.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 121:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause—
DISCRIMINATION IN THE PROVISION OF FACILITIES OR SERVICES
(".—(1) Subject to provision made by or under any enactment, a local authority shall not cause or permit discrimination as regards the provision of facilities or services, which are not generally available, for the exclusive benefit of any group of persons.
(2) Subject to subsection (4), in any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
(3) The Secretary of State may make and, from time to time revise, a code of practice on the discharge by local authorities of the duty under subsection (1).
(4) Any provision of a code of practice under subsection (3) which appears to a court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings in connection with the application of the duty under subsection (1) shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(5) A code of practice or a revised code of practice under this section shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to in principle on more than one occasion. It has been redrafted in the light of debate on Report. It is concerned with the prohibition of expenditure of public funds by local authorities. It is free-standing in the sense that if Clause 82 were to be rejected by another place, which is on the cards, it would be complementary to the provisions of the Learning and Skills Bill and assuredly not in conflict with such provisions. It would also afford substitute prohibition on the local authority in place of Clause 82. That, if not now but looking ahead, is the way forward. It is of crucial consequence, and that is one reason why I move the amendment.
I must say at once that it does not have the support of my noble friend Lady Young or my party, but that is of no great consequence to me. I am convinced that it provides the way forward for a substitute

1235
prohibition if and when Clause 82 comes back. However, prohibition there must be. It is a provision which prohibits positive discrimination, save as afforded under statute, secondary legislation and, in particular, a code of practice having legal efficacy. It is wholly in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights, which Section 28 as amended by Clause 82 is not. It does not discriminate against any group of persons, whether homosexual, heterosexual or of no particular sexual orientation.
The amendment provides an entirely new approach to an old problem. That problem manifested itself when certain urban local authorities made provision for facilities and services from public expenditure at the behest of the pro-gay and lesbian lobby for the exclusive benefit of such persons. It was a problem which led in part to Section 28 of the 1988 Act which has been effected to contain such conduct and expenditure for some 12 years. Whatever may be provided in any other amendment, surely it is essential that some prohibition should remain and be made in the Local Government Bill, such as perhaps proposed by this amendment.
As matters stand, under Clause 2 of this Bill a local authority may again make the type of discriminatory provision which led to Section 28, unopposed in another place, if it is considered likely to improve the social well-being of the area. What kind of protection or prohibition is that? None. It is a massive delegation of power under Clause 2 which would not be amenable to judicial review, save in wholly exceptional circumstances. All of us recognise that under our domestic law, and having assimilated the European Convention on Human Rights, homosexuals are entitled to respect for their private life and quality of treatment without any form of discrimination against them.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said on Report that this amendment would cut across the whole activity of a local authority so that it would not be able to discriminate in favour of the elderly, the disabled and (he mentioned it) the gay and lesbian lobby. That is not the case. Facilities or services for the elderly are generally available; for the disabled, they are under statute. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, it is true that provision for the gay and lesbian community would be prohibited—and why not?—as, indeed, would any provision for the exclusive benefit of any other group of persons. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we had a full debate on similar amendments during the Report stage of the Bill. Amendment No. 121 seeks to prevent local authorities from causing or permitting discrimination in the provision of their facilities or services which are not generally available for the exclusive benefit of any group of persons. It is not clear what that means in practice or how it would be interpreted by the courts. Even if I accept that it means what the noble Lord says, which I believe is debatable, the Government would be opposed to it on principle.
1236
As I said on Report, the services that local authorities provide depend on their being able to discriminate legitimately between the different needs of different sections of their community. It is important that they should be able to tailor services to meet the particular needs of different groups and to devise specific interventions to improve the quality of life of different sections of their community, whether that be the young, the elderly, the social excluded or the gay and lesbian community. This amendment would seriously curtail their ability to do that. The Government are opposed to it in principle and I hope that the noble Lord will now be persuaded not to move it.
As I believe I made clear at Report stage, Amendment No. 122 singularly fails to acknowledge the respective legal responsibilities of school governing bodies and LEAs. It seeks to ensure that a local authority does not cause or permit material of a sexually explicit nature to be made freely available in schools, except with the approval of the board of governors. It seeks to prevent local authorities from doing something that, in fact, they cannot do. I repeat what was said on Report. As a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, it is a matter for school governors and schools to decide what material is used.
An authority could produce material with the intention of it being used in schools, as could any other person. However, since the Education Reform Act 1988, it is for teachers and governors to decide whether that material should be available in the school and used as a teaching resource.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Baroness has moved on to the next amendment. I am speaking only to Amendment No. 121. I shall move Amendment No. 122 separately, as is my entitlement according to the list.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise. I understood that the noble Lord had not challenged the grouping and therefore I assumed that he was relying on his earlier references to the matters contained in Amendment No. 122.
With regard to Amendment No. 121, perhaps I should place on record an imminent potential personal interest in this matter. When I reach my birthday later this year, I shall be favourably discriminated in relation to public transport in London.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is neither the occasion to reason nor to argue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for dealing with this issue. But I must say, with the greatest respect, she has not begun to take the essence of the argument on the amendment as revised. She has gone back to Report and Committee stages and rehearsed the same arguments, although those arguments have been met by the amendment.

1237
I make no complaint but I merely place on record that this is not a reasoned refutation of the argument which I have advanced for this amendment. In view of the hour and the attendance of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause—
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL IN MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
(".—(1) After section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 insert—
"Sexually explicit material in maintained schools.
2B.—(1) A local authority shall not cause or permit material. which in the opinion of the Board of Governors of a maintained school is of a sexually explicit nature such as ought not to be made freely available in such schools, to be made so available unless it has consulted and gained the approval of the Board of Governors.
(2) The Board of Governors may delegate their functions under subsection (1) to any member of the Board.
(3) In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
(4) In subsection (1) "maintained school" means a maintained school or maintained nursery school within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998."
(2) In section 12(3) of that Act, after "Part II" there is inserted "(other than section 2A)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to in principle and has been redrafted in the light of the debate on Report. I beg the noble Baroness to take on board that it recognises that it is for the board of governors to decide which material is sexually explicit and whether, if so, it should be made available in the schools. That is for the board of governors.
A duty is imposed upon the local authority not to make such material available in the schools—such as, for example, all the junk that we have seen in that exhibition—without having consulted the board of governors and having obtained their approval. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the board of governors may delegate that function to any member or members of the board.
Again, this is a new approach. It is complementary to the Bill as accepted by the Table. It is free-standing to Clause 82 and complementary to such amendments as may be made to the education Acts under the Learning and Skills Bill which, in Committee, I have already accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, took the point that this amendment was not appropriate for a local government Bill. That was an entirely bad point and I propose to show why. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said,
"we are discussing initiatives which might be taken by local authorities. I understand that that has happened on many occasions in the past, they have produced material, spent money on producing it and then presented it to the schools".
1238
My noble friend ended by saying:
"It seems to me that this is a local government issue, not an educational issue".—[Official Report, 2/3/2000: col. 738.]
I suggest that my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth is wholly right on this issue, as indeed I maintained in my reply.
Also in this context, for some 12 years the prohibition under Section 28 served its purpose. I do not pretend that it did not cause confusion nor that it was perfectly drafted. But it served a purpose. There is now a case for the continuance of some prohibition. That is the principle which the Government will not accept. Such a prohibition is provided by the amendment. In view of the massive delegation of power afforded under Clause 2, to which I have already referred, I suggest to the House that such a prohibition is absolutely essential. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would deal with the amendment on the basis on which it has been redrafted. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I genuinely believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is trying to be helpful to the House and, indeed, to the nation. He speaks for many in this concern. But I must say to him—as I say to the many who write to me and to the lady in one of the villages who decided she should give her bishop an "ear-wigging", as she described it today, on the basis of information, I gather, gleaned front the Daily Mail—that there is great misunderstanding in the country about the effect of the 1996 Education Act.
I believe that it undermines the proper authority of the governors of schools to say that we need to adopt a belt-and-braces approach so that there is a prohibition on the local authority. I much prefer this amendment to the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I am grateful to him for redrafting it. But I believe that it undermines the power that has been given to governors of schools.
Also, I think it is time that somebody said that a good deal of this explicit material does not, in the 1990s, as it did in the 1980s, come from a few local authorities. It comes very largely from health trusts which use it because they are dealing with the sharp end of this problem and want it for training purposes; and it is then circulated.
However, I wish to reiterate that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, speaks for many in this country who are worried about this matter. But we must get the message across that responsibility for it rests with governors. Therefore, it is not appropriate to deal with the issue in this Bill. But I am 100 per cent with the sentiment which the noble Lord is trying to express in this amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, since the Education Reform Act 1988, it is for the teachers and governors to decide whether and which material should be available and which should be used as a teaching resource.

1239
I can only repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that these matters are now entirely outside the local authority. Whether Section 28 is retained or repealed makes no difference in terms of what may be taught in schools and who has authority as to what is taught in schools. In those circumstances, this amendment is unnecessary.
I completely support the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn that it would be extremely helpful for governors up and down the country were everyone to say that the debate about Section 28 is not about what happens in the classroom. That is a matter for governors alone. It is extremely important that that is said.
Finally, I am aware of the material that has been on display in your Lordships' House. I have yet to see any evidence of any individual item of material having been approved by any member of any school governing body at any time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am absolutely foxed as to how to deal with it. The noble Baroness says that it cannot make any difference whether Section 28 is repealed. It makes the whole difference because it is only if Section 28 is repealed that this effectively provides a new approach for a new way forward. The fact that the substratum of the argument has not even been understood leads me to a protest of amicable despair—and it is amicable and always shall be.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. At least he understood what I was trying to do and to be understood is everything, even if one is disagreed with. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Executive arrangements: further provision]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 62, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) In the case of a relevant English authority which maintains one or more Church of England schools, an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee to which this paragraph applies must include at least one qualifying person.
(4A) A person is a qualifying person for the purposes of subparagraph (4) if he is nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education for any Church of England diocese which falls wholly or partly in the authority concerned's area.
(4B) In the case of a relevant English authority which maintains one or more Roman Catholic Church schools, an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee to which this paragraph applies must include at least one qualifying person.
(4C) A person is a qualifying person for the purposes of subparagraph (4B) if he is nominated by the bishop of any Roman Catholic diocese which falls wholly or partly in the authority concerned's area.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 127.
These are relatively minor amendments to paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 dealing with Church representation on overview and scrutiny committees which deal with education in English education authorities. On Report, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, while welcoming our policy on that issue, questioned the language we had used in referring to representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church on overview and scrutiny committees. We have reconsidered the wording, and Amendment No. 123 reflects our further consideration.
I hope, therefore, that the right reverend Prelate's concerns are now largely met. The amendment makes it clear, as he requested, that the relevant bishop or bishops for Roman Catholic schools and the relevant diocesan board or boards for Church of England schools will nominate representatives to be appointed to those committees of the local education authority. The remaining amendments are tidying-up amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the Minister's response. It is simply a question of bringing into what is the contemporary practice of both Churches the manner in which representatives are chosen. I need say no more except to thank the Minister for his consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 127:
Page 62, line 31, after ("(4)") insert ("or (4B)").
Page 62, line 40, leave out ("such of").
Page 62, line 40, leave out ("in the authority's area") and insert ("maintained by the authority").
Page 62, line 41, leave out ("as may be") and insert ("but which are").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Standards Boards]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 128 to 175:
Page 65, line 4, leave out ("Neither of the Standards Boards is") and insert ("The Standards Board for England (referred to in this Schedule as the Standards Board) is not").
Page 65, line 6, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 65, line 7, leave out ("each") and insert ("the").
Page 65, line 10, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board").
Page 65, line 21, leave out first ("a") and insert ("the").
Page 65, line 32, leave out ("for England").
Page 65, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 65, line 37, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 65, line 39, leave out ("for England").
Page 65, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 66, line 2, leave out ("for England").
Page 66, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
Page 66, line 9, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 10, leave out ("that") and insert ("the").
Page 66, line 11, leave out ("or (5)").
Page 66, line 12, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 15, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board"),
Page 66, line 18, leave out ("Boards for England") and insert ("Board").
Page 66, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 66, line 24, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 28, leave out ("concerned") and insert ("for England").
Page 66, line 29, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 66, line 32, leave out ("for England").
Page 66, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 66, line 42, leave out ("for England").
Page 67, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Page 67, line 13, leave out ("or (4)").
Page 67, line 15, after ("the") insert ("Standards").
Page 67, line 16, leave out ("Standards Board concerned") and insert ("Board").
Page 67, line 17, at end insert—
(" . The Standards Board for England may pay to any member of the Adjudication Panel for England such remuneration, fees or allowances (if any) as the Secretary of State may determine.").
Page 67, line 19, leave out ("Each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("The Standards Board").
Page 67, line 21, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 67, line 29, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 67, line 41, leave out ("for England"),
Page 67, line 47, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 68, line 7, leave out ("concerned").
Page 68, line 11, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 16, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 18, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 24, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) to (7).
Page 68, line 36, leave out second ("each") and insert ("the").
Page 68, line 38, leave out ("for England").
Page 68, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 68, line 45, leave out ("each of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 69, line 3, leave out ("either of the Standards Boards") and insert ("the Standards Board").
Page 69, line 8, leave out ("entries are inserted") and insert ("entry is inserted").
Page 69, leave out line 11.
Page 69, line 12, leave out ("entries are") and insert ("entry is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I cannot let this moment pass without a few brief remarks. It is a remarkable fact that there have been 438 government amendments to the Bill. The Bill, as it came to us, had 51 pages. If one analyses it, there has been one government amendment for every five and a half lines of the Bill as it came to the House. I used to think of this Chamber as the Government's "think again" Chamber. I am desperately afraid that it is becoming the Government's thinking Chamber. The Bill is the better for the amendments, but it might have been better if a little more care had been taken beforehand.
I should like to place on the record my gratitude to the Government Front Bench for the way they have treated us as their opponents across this Dispatch Box. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is invariably courteous. For a man who does not have local government experience, he has a remarkable grasp of detail. He has picked up the subject extraordinarily well. Indeed, he is difficult to catch up. I am grateful to him and to his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for the courtesy they have shown us and the attention they have paid to the arguments we have presented. I am happy to support the Motion.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if I take only 15 seconds to thank all noble Lords involved in the Bill, I am sure that they will not feel that they have gone unthanked, but will probably thank me more for allowing us to proceed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their courtesies. I believe we are all agreed that the Bill is the better for the provisions agreed in this House—with one rather notable exception this afternoon, if I may introduce a controversial note. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, it is true that I have no local government experience, I did actually spend, along with my friend and noble friend Lord Burlison, 13 years representing a large number of workers who had the misfortune to work for a number of local authorities. I therefore have some knowledge of the subject, although from a different end of the telescope. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): 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:
Representation of the People Act,
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Act.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
8.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Further duties of local authorities towards children whom they are looking after]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("seventeen") to end of line 20.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we debated at the start of Committee stage one of the most important issues—indeed, one of the pivots of the entire Bill—the definition of "eligible child". Our understanding from the Government is that the prescribed period referred to in new paragraph 19B(2)(b)—the period which will determine whether or not a child leaving care is entitled to the support from local authorities for which the rest of the Bill provides—will be a minimum of 13 weeks after the age of 14. In Committee, I argued that the Government had a duty to justify the 13-week criterion. In particular, I suggested that a hard and fast cut-off point of 13 weeks—or, for that matter, any other period—risks disadvantaging some children, either by separating them from their families when that need not happen or, perhaps more seriously, by denying them the support they badly need or deserve when a return to the family is not possible.
I recognise that the three-month criterion was specifically advanced as a proposal in the Government's consultation paper, but the one consistent message in most of the responses was a wish to see clearly defined eligibility criteria in place. Whether there was widespread agreement about the proposed period of 13 weeks is another issue. My understanding is that opinions varied on that point quite considerably. In plumping for 13 weeks, the Government have sought to do no more than to strike a balance. In so doing, I believe that they must recognise implicitly that a period of 13 weeks, while it carries the merit of pragmatism, will never be a perfect solution for all conceivable situations for children in care.
In his reply, the Minister emphasised that the power to make regulations conferred in new paragraph 19B(2)(b) provides Ministers with one significant advantage above all: flexibility. I recognise that. The Minister indicated that the close way in which the Bill will be monitored when it becomes an Act will enable Ministers to make changes to the eligibility criteria should it become apparent that too many deserving cases are slipping through the net.
I pay due heed to that comment. Obviously, I should like to take it at face value. Therefore, I must ask the Minister how the system will be monitored in practice. How complete a picture will the Department of Health have of the pattern of discharges from care across the country and how quickly will those statistics become available to it? I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that matter. I should like to believe that the Government will be in a position to react and respond quickly to any worrying data which may emerge. If that is the case, we can be confident of local authorities
1244
being left in no doubt that a failure to abide by the spirit of this legislation will, in the end, lead them nowhere. But we need to know from the Minister that close monitoring is feasible and that it will be carried out. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I strongly support the spirit of the noble Earl's Amendment No. 1. Indeed it was grouped with a not dissimilar amendment of my own at Committee stage. The essence of it is the kind of assurance that the Minister can give us. In a sense, there is room for argument, as the noble Earl said, as to whether 13 weeks is the correct point. In the early stages one has to make a decision about the correct point, but it is absolutely vital that, if there is abuse and local authorities are discharging young people too early from care so that they do not become eligible and do not have all the liabilities that attach to young people who have been in care for 13 weeks, we should know that, and we should know it soon. It is essential to have information-gathering mechanisms in place. These mechanisms should not become operative three years after the Bill has been in operation but should be part of regular monitoring operations so that the department has that information to hand and will take steps if abuse is demonstrated. It is those kinds of assurances that are sought tonight, and I very much support the noble Earl.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, may I first thank both speakers for their constructive comments. I well understand the concerns which were raised at Committee stage about the eligibility criteria. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has pointed out, there is a balance to be drawn between, on the one hand, open-ended criteria which would have the effect of embracing children who do not need support and which would risk diverting the energy of local authorities away from children who do need it. On the other hand, we clearly need to avoid criteria being drawn so tightly that they exclude children who ought to receive the support that this Bill envisages.
Also, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has intimated, we want to ensure that we have enough flexibility so that, if in practice the eligibility criteria are found wanting or we find some perverse incentives in the system which at the moment are not envisaged, we can act quickly and effectively. I believe that the Bill allows for this but I also accept that it is right for me to give reassurances as to how we intend to monitor the situation.
First, I want to reassure noble Lords that we do intend to monitor the effects of the criteria very closely. Let me say straightaway that if there is evidence of abuse or of the sort of problems that were referred to at Committee stage we will take the necessary steps to make effective adjustments to the regulations.

1245
The intention is to monitor the working of the legislation through the framework which the Government have set for the overall performance of social services authorities. We will be able to gauge the particular effect of the qualifying period through the Department of Health's statistical collection on children looked after by local authorities. This database can be used to monitor trends in the lengths of time care leavers have been looked after, and to spot changes in those trends after the implementation of the Bill, including, for instance, the length of time that children have been looked after from a particular age. For instance, if 30 weeks was to be the actual figure, it would be necessary to identify whether there were an abnormal number of children who were spending 12 weeks in care. Another example would be that of an abnormal number of children leaving care at the age of 15. I quote those as just two examples where we should be able to pick up those kinds of trend and look into the reasons for them.
If, as we intend, the Bill is implemented in April next year, we would expect to have robust data available towards the end of the year 2002—say, about 18 months from the date when the Bill comes into operation. The data we shall be using will be derived from a one-third sample of all local authorities in England, which, I am assured by those who know about statistics, does give a good overall estimate of trends. Where in addition there are concerns about individual authorities, these will of course have been identified through a wider performance assessment framework, through the inspections by the social services inspectorate of individual local authorities, the joint SSI audit commission reviews and annual reviews of social services by the Department of Health's social care regional offices.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we are as anxious as they are to ensure that this Bill delivers what we want it to deliver and that we do have the ability to monitor what is happening. If we come across instances where we see that the eligibility criteria are not coming up to scratch, we have the ability to take fairly quick action.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a very helpful and full reply and I am grateful to the Minister for it. I personally have not been in any doubt as to the Minister's commitment to seeing that this particular provision works properly. It has no doubt been a difficult balancing exercise for him and the department to arrive at a sensible conclusion. This is something that clearly we shall all have an interest in, watching over the months ahead following the Bill's enactment. I can only say that the commitment of all of us here to see the entire Bill work should not be doubted. I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) In section 20 (provision of accommodation of children: general) after subsection (11) insert—
"(12) A local authority shall continue to provide accommodation to any child who has reached the age of sixteen unless that child can demonstrate that he is ready and willing to cease being looked after by them."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on local authorities to continue looking after children that they may have accommodated and to see that they do not discharge these young people before they are ready to take on independence. This amendment relates to accommodated children only, and refers to those aged 16 and over: thus the concern of the Minister at Committee stage that local authorities might be unwilling to provide short-term care for a young child whose parent, for example, is in hospital would come within the scope of the amendment and would be addressed. This consequence was certainly not intended and obviously should be avoided.
The Minister said that this Bill's new provisions will act as a disincentive to local authorities discharging children prematurely from care, because the same authorities will now take on financial responsibility for these young people when they have left care. We feel the balance is right. However, I believe that this amendment is still very important, for the following reasons. It represents a direct statement of government principle and policy, as opposed to relying solely on a new system which may or may not be adequate. It imposes a legal duty on the local authority not to discharge a young person from accommodation unless that young person is ready and willing to leave. It is the experience of the Children's Consortium that, without the imposition of express duties, local authorities frequently do not provide what is owed, thus thwarting the Government's good intentions.
While the provisions in this Bill are considerably stronger than at present, there are still uncertainties about how the Bill will work in practice. In particular, there are uncertainties about the financial arrangements for young people. So far the Government have given no guarantee that minimum standards of financial support will be incorporated in regulations. This is a matter which causes great anxiety to young people about the changes to be introduced by this Bill.
This amendment is not designed to force young people to remain accommodated against their will. The queries from looked-after children to Voice from the Child in Care, for example, are invariably about how to avoid being prematurely ejected from care rather than about being held in care against their will. The purpose is to ensure that young people are not discharged prematurely. There are stronger protections in law for young people who continue to be looked after, affecting important matters such as decisions with siblings, being kept near home and wishes to be in contact with their families, friends or other significant people. In view of the failures that

1247
there have been in the past in the care of vulnerable young people, I hope the Minister will agree about the necessity for such a precaution. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel for two reasons. This amendment gives to local authorities a necessary flexibility. Young people of the age of 16 who have been in care face two situations: first, the disruption of moving from accommodation that provides them with a personal support programme; and secondly, leaving school and entering the world of work, which is a huge change in their lives.
In many of our debates on homelessness we have talked about people needing time to adjust and to gather different life skills. Moving one's residence from somewhere that is secure and supportive as well as dealing with the challenge of starting work is extremely difficult for people whose lives have been full of disruption. Therefore, I believe that this amendment should be supported because it will give young people stability for a longer period, and they will not be denied that stability at an arbitrary cut-off point. It also enables those working with them to plan the support accordingly. For those reasons, I believe there is much to commend the amendment as it stands.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for allowing us to debate these important issues again. On minimum financial arrangements, we intend, through statutory guidance, to issue minimum standards, which will include financial standards. I hope that that meets the point raised by the noble Earl.
I certainly understand the point raised by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. One of the great motivations in all we seek to do in this Bill is to ensure that young people in care do not leave before they are ready to do so. That is the whole purpose of the delicate balance that is placed in the Bill as now before the House. I believe that real risks are involved if this amendment is passed, in that young people would be forced to remain in care against their wishes. It may have the perverse result of giving them an incentive to run away.
I believe that the construction of the Bill as now before the House is the best way to go forward. It provides for the removal of perverse incentives for local authorities to encourage young people to leave, the close involvement of young persons' advisers in decisions about their lives and the future, the pathway plans and the package support from local authorities.
I accept that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has suggested that we need a rather more forceful approach alongside what is contained in the Bill as it now stands, but I believe that such an amendment is unnecessary. First, the neediest young people—those under a care order—will in any case remain in care until they reach the age of 18 unless the order is discharged by a court. For those who are accommodated voluntarily, assessing the optimum time when they should leave care is clearly a very
1248
important matter. It is also a matter which must allow for some choice on the young person's part, recognising that they cannot be forced to remain in care if they are accommodated on a voluntary basis.
I recognise that some young people may well continue to leave the care of local authorities before they are ready to do so, despite the best efforts of all concerned to point out that it will not be in their best interests. However, I feel that it would be wrong to insist that a child who is voluntarily accommodated should remain in care against his or her wishes. As I said earlier, it seems to me that that would do no good and might make a difficult situation worse. Where persuasion and argument are ineffective, coercion is unlikely to improve matters.
I believe that it is preferable for young people to remain in care until they are ready and willing to leave. No one could disagree with that proposition. I believe it is a proposition on which much of the philosophy of this Bill is based. However, I cannot agree that a young person should be forced to stay in care when he or she is determined to move on.
It is also the case that those young people who leave care will no longer be able to step into the streets and disappear. Nor will their local authority be able to forget about them. The responsible authority will be under a duty to support and accommodate young people who leave care 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, regularly reviewed and updated.
As I stated in Committee, at the heart of the Bill is a determination to provide the right kind of support for all young people who have been in care. That includes the recognition that, while each will have different abilities and requirements which must be met in different ways, all of them need the security of having someone responsible for their welfare. The new duties placed on the responsible authority are designed to provide just that. On that basis I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. Of course I am reassured also by his response to the first amendment, which suggests that careful attention will be paid to make sure that the results of the Bill come through as intended. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out line 33 and insert—
("(c) is between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 ensures that local authorities are under a duty to meet the continuing assessed needs of young people up to the age of 21 who have previously been in care. The amendment would provide a safety net for those young people who leave care and get into difficulties later on. It is clear that this matter is of great importance to those on these Benches, as on other

1249
Benches. We had a long discussion on this matter in Committee. It is an important proposed amendment to the Bill.
The background is that Paragraph 19B introduces a new duty on local authorities to assess and meet the needs of eligible young people aged 16 and 17. On 10th February in the debate in grand Committee, the Minister expressed his agreement with the principle of the need to extend the proposed 'new duty to care leavers up to the age of 21: He said that the Government were committed to doing that as soon as possible. However, the problem, as he expressed it, was essentially one of timing. Of course, on these Benches, we understand the timing difficulties faced by the Government and the fact that the Comprehensive Spending Review round two has not yet pronounced. We remain firmly of the view that this amendment, together with a later amendment in relation to education, work and training, should be put on the face of the Bill.
Our view is that if the amendment is not accepted now, we may well be overtaken by new and pressing concerns—that is the nature of the beast—and that young people in care will revert or risk reverting to their former low priority. A powerful moral and practical case for pressing ahead has been made by Sir William Utting in the House of Lords at a meeting in January. He concluded,
"a better time for pressing ahead is unlikely to occur. If it is not done now, can it ever be done?".
I wholeheartedly agree with that.
What is the case for extending the duty to 21? 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. Yet they face additional problems purely as a result of having been in care. Difficulties faced by young people in care in fulfilling their potential were discussed in Grand Committee. In response, the Minister commented that,
"there is no reason why the local authority would refuse an extra year of foster care".—[Official Report, 10/2/00; col. CWH 33.]
Yet there are numerous examples of local authorities which do exactly that.
Let me give the House a case study. John Wells, an experienced foster carer from Kent, spoke to First Key—a well-known voluntary organisation in this field—in relation to David (not his real name). Although David was previously considered to be under-achieving and "lazy", with a settled foster home life and encouragement from his foster carers his standards improved drastically, to the extent that he got nine good grades at GCSE. He is now studying for A-levels and intends to go to university. Yet, with the approach of his 18th birthday in January, he risked losing all of that and the achievement of something he once thought unattainable.
The authority was proposing that, once he was 18, he should leave home and move into his own flat. Only after the intervention of a local councillor, the local MP, the submission of a formal complaint, persistent efforts by his foster carers and the personal interest of
1250
the Head of Social Services, was the matter settled. In the words of his foster carers, it would appear that once young people in care reach the age of 18, the system changes from "care to don't care". The authority has reduced the level of financial support and expects David to move into independent accommodation as soon as his exams are over. As John said,
"We would be interested to know what level of care we should reduce whilst he is still at school and studying for 'A' levels. We never reduced our level of care to our own children between their 18th birthdays and 'A' levels and cannot see any satisfactory reason to reduce David's just because he is in the care system".
John is worried about how David will manage in the future without their intensive support and advocacy on his behalf.
That is a powerful case study. It cannot be right that we expect young people in care to go to such lengths to obtain the opportunities that other young people take for granted. The powers local authorities presently hold must become duties if care leavers are to achieve their full potential.
Let me give another, shorter, case study. Carol—again, not her real name—is another bright young woman who is also sitting A-levels and hopes to go to university. Again, her future is uncertain and she may be forced to move home because she is living in foster care and will be 18 in April. It is unclear what support will be made for Carol once she is 18, which is unsettling in itself. The uncertainty is adding considerably to the stress she is under as she revises for exams.
I shall not go into the costs of the provision from 18 to 21 if this amendment were passed; I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will do that. But let me conclude by saying that it cannot be right that children and young people leaving care have to fight for financial and practical assistance to stay on 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. Now is the right time to make the change and extend local authorities' duty of care to 21. This amendment is supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services. That in itself indicates that this is a clearly practical, clearly desirable course of action and I urge the Government to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, when we debated this issue in Committee, the need to cost the provision of additional support was the reason given as to why the changes advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cannot be made now. We are dependent, so it appears, on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review before we know whether or not what we want and what Ministers say they want, can be afforded.
I should like to know what estimate the Department of Health has now made of the cost of this change. Yet I wonder whether there is a net cost attached to it at all. There is sound independent research evidence that

1251
spending additional money on proper leaving care support and assistance saves money in the long run. Independent research by Barnardo's into the outcomes of leaving care schemes concludes that the schemes work,
"particularly well in respect of accommodation and life skills and to some extent in furthering social networks, developing relationships and building self-esteem".
In a major survey of 3,308 young people leaving care across 46 leaving-care projects, major improvements were identified in relation to young people's housing options. The same survey identified positive outcomes in relation to the reduction of unemployment levels. One leaving-care team in Lewisham reduced unemployment levels among the 325 young people participating from 46 per cent in 1993 to 26 per cent in 1996. There is additional convincing evidence that focused, leaving-care support may also contribute to reducing potential future offending.
Findings like those reaffirm the importance of taking into account the cost of not extending the duty as proposed, a cost measured in higher benefit bills, increased health expenditure and reduced tax revenues, quite apart from the cost to the life chances and opportunities of young people themselves.
Research shows that placement stability and the provision of supporting foster care placements are closely linked to educational achievements. Where authorities have utilised their powers to assist with access to education—for example, in some of the authorities recently achieving a Beacon Council award in leaving care—the results have been very positive. The National Fostercare Association worked with the London Borough of Brent to pilot the provision of focused foster care support together with guaranteed financial support for the young person's first year at college or university. According to Sue Mathews from the London Borough of Brent,
"Everyone benefits. Carers and workers have been delighted to see such successful outcomes—teaching, fashion design, law and engineering are just some of the courses the young people have completed. Many are now living in their own flats and making the most of life's opportunities".
We must not overlook one important fact about children in care. They are not simply needy children or children who will be all right so long as we give them an adviser. They are often very damaged children; sometimes children with mental health problems who are vulnerable and emotionally scarred. Let us be in no doubt that for the state to support such children is and should be an onerous task. It is as onerous as normal parental responsibility, if not more so.
To remove support for a care leaver at 18 flies in the face of everything that Ministers have said about accepting the state's public parental role. At 18 there is little room for error or failure. The risk of a young person of 18 dropping out of the system is considerable. Once we have to pick up the pieces of social exclusion, homelessness and unemployment, the cost is substantial. By comparison, early preventive support has to be seen as both effective and affordable
1252
as well as socially just. Now is the right time to make the change and extend local authorities' duties to care to 21.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, many of the young people covered by this Bill will be institutionalised; many will be late developers; many will have learning difficulties such as dyslexia. The Minister said that there should be flexibility. This amendment gives just that. I strongly support it.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a fundamental principle of childcare that the earlier an intervention is made, the more likely it is that a positive outcome will be reached. A recurrent theme of those who work with damaged children and young people is that of continuity and of maintaining a special and long-lasting relationship with a significant other adult person.
Perhaps I may report to the House my experience of meeting a young woman in Centrepoint's hostel for the homeless. She had a steel pin pierced through her chin. She talked to her friend of her many sexual encounters and her enjoyment of drugs. Later, she sat very close to a male staff member, a new acquaintance, and rubbed herself against him. If a child has not experienced a continuing significant relationship and has not known the love of a parent, she may well seek solace in promiscuity and drug taking or other kinds of vicious, self-destructive activity.
If a child who has been looked after by his foster parent is obliged to leave that carer before he is ready, he may lose out on life's single most important lesson; namely, how to sustain a loving relationship. It is that experience which teaches young people how to find a partner for themselves and to form a family of their own. Of course, foster family support is necessary for helping young people to find education and sustain their educational courses, but they also need help, not only practical but also emotional assistance, to be able to cope with the stresses of taking on a first job or perhaps resisting the temptation to enter into crime.
For that reason, I am concerned that if this amendment is not put on to the face of the Bill, there will be pressures on foster families—most young people in care are in foster care—to terminate such relationships or for those relationships to be diluted prematurely. That is why, as treasurer to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Child, I so strongly support this amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is a significant amendment and an important matter for debate. First, I should like to say to noble Lords that I do not disagree at all about the importance of the points that they have put concerning 18 to 21 year-olds. In Grand Committee I believe that I made it clear that the question for the Government is not "if" but "when".
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the possibility of what he described as "new and pressing concerns" overtaking the focus that we are

1253
currently placing on children leaving care. Perhaps I may reassure him that this matter will remain a priority for the Government. We want to bring about improvements as soon as possible. However, I reiterate a point that I have already made. We must ensure that proper funding is available, but as yet we not in a position to do so. Nevertheless, noble Lords should be in no doubt of our intention to impose the new duty for 18 to 21 year-olds on local authorities as soon as we can.
Before I turn to the substance of the argument, I should make a comment on the drafting of the amendment. I have doubts as to whether making such young people "relevant children" is the right approach. By extending the definition of "relevant children" up to the age of 21, it would mean that all the provisions of the Bill applying to relevant children would apply to all those affected until they were 21 years old. That would include the new financial arrangements, making people up to the age of 21 ineligible for non-contributory benefits. As the Bill stands, relevant children are taken out of the benefits system in favour of comprehensive support from their responsible authority. While I believe that to be absolutely right—indeed, it is a basic tenet of the Bill for children aged 16 and 17—I am not at all sure that that would be the right approach for young people aged 18 and over. Those young people are of course legally adults and, I believe, should be treated as such. However, I recognise and acknowledge the principle that lies behind the amendment rather than only its precise wording.
I believe that we should recognise that it is not the case that the Bill does nothing for care leavers aged 18 and over. In answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when he told the House about the case histories of David and Carol, the Bill offers significant improvements for care leavers aged 18 and over. Section 23C sets out responsible authorities' continuing responsibilities towards former relevant children. They will receive the services of their young person's adviser until they are at least 21 years old. The responsible authority must continue to keep in touch with them until they are at least 21, which includes making efforts to re-establish contact with a young person who disappears. Young people will still have their pathway plans covering future plans and ambitions, including support which the local authority will provide until they are least 21.
I believe that the pathway planning process up to 21 and the young person's adviser will between them make it far more likely that a young person will have the assistance they need to meet their ambitions and to receive the kind of support that I very much agree is necessary. The prospects for care leavers will be significantly improved by the Bill as it stands. However, I agree with noble Lords that we ought to take the extra step to guarantee assistance and we will do so as soon as we are able.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has tempted me to talk about estimates and detailed discussions in the spending review. He knows that I am not going to go down that path, but I well understand the point that he
1254
has made. The whole philosophy of this Bill is predicated on making the necessary investment in services to support vulnerable young people. The knock-on effect of that investment will be of benefit to individuals and to society as a whole. No doubt those arguments will be used to good effect in the discussions that will take place in the future.
I should like to reassure noble Lords that we take this matter very seriously. We are committed to imposing the new duty on local authorities to assist these young people as soon as possible. I can give an assurance that we will make the necessary arrangements as soon as we are able to do so.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply which, like his reply in Grand Committee to a similar amendment, is not unsympathetic. That is much appreciated and phrases such as, "not if, but when", the assurance that the needs of these young people will remain a priority and the further assurance that the Government intend to impose a duty on local authorities are all welcome.
The noble Lord has been helpful in elucidating the position of a young person over the age of 18 even where the new provisions do not come into effect. I accept his points about the amendment. There may well be other forms of words that can be used to introduce a duty to cover those over the age of 18 that do not deprive a young person of benefits in those circumstances.
However, while I appreciate what the Minister has said, the clear fact remains that essentially the only way to guarantee that a young person between the ages of 18 and 21 will be properly supported is to change the definition and to find a form of words to ensure that a young person does not lose his or her entitlement to benefits. For that reason, a change to primary legislation must remain our clear goal. The Minister is clearly relaxed about the cost involved. He has already made his estimates and the department has already submitted them—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong to assume from what I said that I am "relaxed" about estimates for future expenditure.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I would not want the Minister to blot his copy-book with the Treasury. Therefore, I entirely accept what he says. However, whether or not the Minister is relaxed about them, the estimates have clearly been made and they are in place. One hopes that the department has made a rattling good submission with all the right arguments behind it. I would make exactly the same arguments, but our timing is perhaps rather earlier than that for which the Minister has made the case. This is not the time for night-watchmen to be testing the opinion of the House, so I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage. Nevertheless, the Minister can rest assured that we shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
("(1) It is the duty of the responsible local authority to take reasonable steps 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: My Lords, in the regrettable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—he sends his apologies to the House—I shall move this amendment. Noble Lords will remember that we had some discussion on this matter in Grand Committee. The amendment before us is very close to the one that was moved at that stage. A number of noble Lords, including myself and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, raised questions about the meaning of the expression "keep in touch" and about the way in which the intention of the legislation would, perhaps, not be best implemented by such wording.
We are talking about a colloquial expression; indeed, it seemed to us to be a rather flippant one. For example, is sending a postcard adequate to keep in touch? I do not believe that that is a proper way to stay in contact with a young person, but it could be said that keeping in touch by a postcard could qualify under the terms of that section. Under new Section 23B (of the 1989 Act) there are other very concrete duties proposed in terms of both housing and income support. It is wrong that this expression should form part of that section.
When considering the type of continuing relationship that one needs to have with these young people, it is a matter of maintaining proper contact with them. It is not a case of simply keeping in touch, which could be very ambiguously interpreted. I also suggest that the phraseology of "each local authority" in the current subsection is confusing. As new Section 23A(4) refers to a "responsible local authority", it seems to me that that would be the appropriate expression. In Grand Committee, the Minister said that such phraseology appears in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. However, that does not mean that that is the right phraseology for this Bill.
The crucial importance of staying in contact under this Bill is undoubted. It is absolutely vital that that duty should be clearly imposed on a local authority. I do not believe that the use of the expression "keep in touch" contained in another piece of legislation is necessarily a definitive argument for the purposes of this Bill. The wording does not take into account the sensitivities, such as the amount of contact that is appropriate for the young person depending on his or her needs and wishes. The wording in the current amendment would certainly provide the kind of duty and flexibility that is needed in these circumstances. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The phrase "keep in touch" is not just colloquial; it is also vague. It really is not clear to me—nor, I suspect, to others reading the Bill—what that expression means. However, "keeping in contact" carries the
1256
implication of a two-way process. It also carries the implication of something rather more substantial than whatever ideas are normally denoted by the phrase "keep in touch". I wonder whether this is a matter that the Minister and his department should reconsider most carefully.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is not present this evening. I know that he is very exercised about the use of the wording "keep in touch". I offered in Grand Committee to look into the matter, and I have done so. However, despite the best efforts of the noble Lord and the noble Earl, I feel reinforced as regards the use of the expression "keep in touch" in this context.
The key point here is that there is no disagreement between us in one respect. Whether we describe it as "keeping in touch", "keeping in contact", or whatever, it is quite clear that this will be an important responsibility on local authorities. It is not an issue of policy upon which we are disagreeing; it is more a question of language. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, spoke of the importance of using the right language. I agree with him. It is certainly important to get the language right. That is why I have given most careful consideration to the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, described the expression "keep in touch" as being rather "colloquial". As I suggested in Committee, I think that it could actually be regarded as good plain English, which is what many noble Lords are always seeking to insert into the legislation that we discuss in this House.
The term "keep in touch" is used not only in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to which the noble Lord referred; it appears also in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 and the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which I am very glad to pray in aid. I accept that one could argue that the phrase could mean different things in different contexts, but I do not see that as a source of weakness; indeed, it is actually a source of strength because we need some flexibility in these arrangements to take account of the needs and wishes of each young person as an individual.
For some young people, keeping in touch will require only a "light touch", but the door should always be open for more intensive support if it becomes apparent that that is needed. However, a much higher level of support will be needed for other young people who are more vulnerable or more at risk. In that sense, the duty to "keep in touch" allows for both those extremes and everything in between.
On the more substantive issue of how this will actually work, perhaps I may make it clear to noble Lords that we shall be issuing guidance to local authorities about what is expected of them by way of the "keep in touch" provision and what reasonable steps they will be expected to take to re-establish contact if they lose touch. This, together with the performance assessment framework, will ensure that keeping in touch is the proactive and rigorous approach that we all want to see. I can assure noble Lords that through the performance monitoring and

1257
assessment procedures we shall be checking to ensure that local authorities adhere to the guidance and carry it out properly and effectively.
I should like to take this opportunity to mention that the duty will fall on the local authority. It will be up to the local authority to decide who is to discharge the duty of keeping in touch on its behalf. We expect that that would normally be carried out by the young person's adviser, but there might be circumstances under which the duty is discharged by someone else; for example, if the young person and his or her adviser had had a falling out. To allow for this and to clear up any doubt, we shall be tabling an amendment at Third Reading to make it clear that regulations may set out the functions of the personal adviser in respect of all the groups of children and young people who may be entitled to one, but that they may also have other functions conferred on them by the local authority. This would allow the local authority to include keeping in touch as part of the adviser's functions but the ultimate responsibility would remain with the authority.
Although I sense that we disagree about the use of language here, there is absolutely no disagreement at all about this being an important function of the local authority in these arrangements. We shall ensure through guidance that local authorities know what is required of them and we shall through our performance assessment mechanisms ensure that they perform those tasks effectively. Where they do not do so, we shall be able forcefully to remind local authorities of their duties.
9 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a much more persuasive and detailed response than was given in Committee. He has gone into much more detail as regards the "who" and the "how" of the "keep in touch" duty. I very much appreciate that. The use of the relevant words in a 1973 Act shows that some parliamentary draftsman was well ahead of his time in the use of language. Be that as it may, I appreciated the Minister going through with such care all previous legislation containing the relevant words.
I took comfort from the Minister's comments on how the practical duty would be monitored and from his comments on guidance and performance monitoring and assessment. I believe that that is of great importance. I am glad that the Minister announced that an amendment would be introduced at Third Reading with regard to the duties of young persons' advisers. It is tremendously important to clarify the nature of their duties. I thank the Minister for making that provision clear at this stage so that we can be prepared for it.
I shall, no doubt, consult other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on this matter, but in the mean time I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Advice and assistance for certain children and young persons aged 16 or over]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, for me, and I suspect other noble Lords also, this amendment represents one of the two principal issues at stake in this stage of our deliberations on the Bill. I refer to the critical importance of giving young people leaving care the financial support that they need to pursue a course of education or training or to find a job. The Bill, as it stands, gives local authorities a power to provide such assistance. Through this amendment I propose that this power should be turned into a duty.
Why do I make this proposal? The reason is that we already know from the implementation of the Children Act that a permissive power is simply not enough. There is in the Children Act an almost identical power for local authorities to provide assistance to care leavers for the purpose of education, training or employment. That power is hardly ever used for the simple reason that most local authorities cannot afford to do so.
I come back to a point that I made earlier this evening. Children leaving care are not just children in need of support; they are damaged children. They are children whose trauma often has led them to a raft of mental health problems. We should never allow ourselves to forget the extent to which children leaving care need all the opportunity they can get for a stable start in life and for acquiring a measure of self-esteem. Some 75 per cent of care leavers leave school with no educational qualifications at all. The mountain that those children have to climb in terms of achieving employability and financial independence is truly enormous.
What care leavers generally want is not nannying; it is hope, and the opportunity to find their own level in life—the opportunity to make a mistake in the direction they may first decide to take, just like any other normal young person, and not to be consigned to the scrapheap if they make such a mistake.
In that context I ask the Minister a question. In the old days, when children in care were typically retained in the care system until the age of 18, it used to be possible, and quite common, for local authorities to foster constructive relationships with local employers, and for those employers to be ready to give young people that essential lift on to the first rung of the employment ladder. Often the loyalty worked in both directions, with the young person determined to make the most of what had been given him.
Nowadays, with children leaving care at 16 or younger, those relationships with employers have largely fallen away. What thought have the Government given to encouraging employers to take on young people who leave the care system? We are right, of course, to place emphasis on education and training, but there is no doubt that getting a job is the single most important lever that a young person can deploy to lift him out of the culture of dependency. It is the route to self-esteem.
I hope that the Minister can go a little further than he did in Committee. If there is already a general power in the Bill to provide assistance for education and training in the terms of new Section 24B, and if, as the Minister has said, the Government want local authorities to use these powers wherever appropriate, the question arises: is funding really a difficulty here? Will not the funding have to be provided anyway? Let us be clear, this is not an amendment that extends the scope of the Bill in the same sense as does Amendment No. 3. The scope to provide assistance is already there. Therefore, I put it to the Minister: what is to be lost by making this provision into a duty; and, is there not much to be gained? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the very important amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Underlying both this and the previous amendment is the fear that unless the duty is stated in the primary legislation, local authorities will not deliver the support needed to these young people. The noble Earl was correct when he said that they were "damaged" on occasion. They are people who have had none of the advantages; quite often they have to take their opportunities rather later in life than many who have had a simpler and more straightforward family background.
We were fortunate to have the noble Earl, Lord Russell, contribute to our deliberations during the Grand Committee stage. He said:
"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".
He meant that we cannot possibly say that at the moment we have a situation where care leavers have educational opportunities open to them purely on the basis of merit. He went on to say:
"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".—[Official Report, 10/2/00; col. CWH 4.]
He is talking there about the generality of students. If that is the case for the generality of students, then of course care leavers are in a far worse position. Students quite often can fall back on their families; care leavers have no such benefit. What they have to do—and what they should be able to do—is to fall back on their corporate parents. That is what the amendment is designed to do. It seeks to have that corporate parenthood survive through until the age of 24 in terms of education opportunities.
It is important to ensure that these young people—many of whom start their education rather late in life—have the full benefit of a proper higher and further education. The amendment is extremely important in the context of this Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as the House will know, many children in care are often moved
1260
about and foster placements often break down. Education is the most important insurance policy to fit them for adult life. It is very important.
When I visited a drug rehabilitation centre yesterday, I was very heartened to discover that it was encouraging young and not so young people—some of them were over 30—to go to colleges, to take courses and to be rehabilitated. I was pleased to hear that the local authorities were going to pay—or at least they hoped they were going to pay.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, these young people lack emotional security. When they are seeking an education, the least one can give them is financial security. With a lack of emotional security it may be difficult for them to concentrate, but at least they can give it a go.
As my noble friend Lord Laming pointed out in Committee, the implementation of the amendment may not involve a great deal of resource. Experience suggests that, sadly, relatively few young people from this group will choose to stay in education until the age of 24.
The figures underline the importance of the amendment. Nearly 4,000 of the 5,000 young people leaving care each year have no educational qualifications whatever. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made that point very strongly. In the 21st century, young people simply cannot afford to be without an education. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I recognise that the amendment runs in parallel with Amendment No. 3 and that it is as important. I have a great deal of sympathy with the substance of what all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have said. We know that education and training is crucial to all young people, but how much more important is it for this particular group of people who have been so let down by both the care and the educational system in the past?
However, for the reasons I discussed in our debate on Amendment No. 3, I am not in a position to support the amendment because of the funding consequences. I shall say a little more about that in a moment. I want to assure the House that this is a case of "when" and not "if'. As soon as they are able, the Government will seek to extend provisions in relation to education and training to young people formerly in care up to the age of 21.
I should also like to inform the House that on Third Reading I shall be bringing forward amendments which will clarify a local authority's duties in respect of education and employment for relevant children aged 16 and 17. They will also cover assistance with employment, education and training.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the statistics which we discussed at Second Reading and to the quite awful statistic that as many as 75 per cent of children leave care without a single educational qualification as against the national average of 6 per cent. That is such a striking statistic that it has to be

1261
addressed. As noble Lords will know, this has been picked up within the Quality Protects agenda, which has set targets for the educational outcomes of children in care. We certainly intend to build on that initiative and follow it through for young people who leave care.
Perhaps I may turn to a particular aspect of this discussion. As the Bill has gone through the House, we have realised that there is a lack of clarity about local authorities' duties on education and training for relevant children aged 16 and 17. It is important to be clear that this should be a normal part of the support to be provided by the responsible authority. I shall bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to ensure that there is the power to make regulations about assistance with employment, education and training for this group, as well as about advice, assistance and befriending.
With regard to the arguments for providing assistance with education and training, I have already said that we are determined that that should happen, but we run into the same problem as we have for general assistance for young people aged 18 and over. We cannot impose a new duty on local authorities without the funding to back it. I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who said that the funding would be relatively small because so few young people would get through to that stage of education. But I must enter a note of optimism here. We must build what we do in the future on the hope and expectation that, as a result of the changes both in the Bill and in the Quality Protects programme, more and more of these young people will be able to get access to education. That therefore means that the funding consequences will probably be more than the noble Earl suggested.
Although I cannot accept an amendment which would place a new duty on the face of the Bill, I can tell the House that I will be bringing forward amendments at Third Reading covering assistance with employment, education and training. We shall introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a duty on local authorities to assist prescribed groups with the costs associated with employment. These regulations will be used to prescribe former relevant children up to the age of 21. We shall introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a duty on local authorities to assist prescribed groups with education and training. Those regulations will be used to prescribe former relevant children up to the age of 21.
In addition, there will be a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which that assistance should continue beyond the age of 21. Those regulations will be used to ensure that a former relevant child will continue to receive assistance to the end of a programme of education, even if it takes him past the age of 21. That means that if a young person's pathway plan envisages that he might read for a first degree and then follow it up with a postgraduate degree, he would be assisted to the end of that entire programme.
1262
The effect of the amendments that I will bring forward at Third Reading will be to make duties, though of course the crucial question then will be when those would come into operation. I am not able to give a specific date for the very reasons that we discussed both on this amendment and in relation to Amendment No. 3, but the Bill as amended will allow that to take place in the future.
These are significant commitments. I hope that they reassure the House of the seriousness with which we take this issue and our determination to address it.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for an encouraging reply and an encouraging statement of intent on the part of the Government. He has provided us with a great deal more reassurance today than he was able to provide in Committee, particularly with regard to what he said about when and not if. I agree with him that at present there is a lack of clarity in the duties of local authorities. The provision of support for the purposes we have been debating should be a normal part of their activities. It seems that there is little between the Minister and myself and other noble Lords on this issue. We therefore look forward to the amendments that he has said he will bring forward at Third Reading and we shall examine them carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 29, at end insert—
("(3) No local authority shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in respect of a child or young person who is not assisted by an independent advocate, unless having been informed of his right to an independent advocate, he has refused to avail himself of such assistance.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. These proposals relate to the second of the major issues referred to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe; namely, the need to establish in the Bill a legal right of advocacy—and advocacy solely in relation to complaints procedures.
When the Bill was in Grand Committee, there was much discussion about a general right of advocacy. Since that time, the matter has been reconsidered at some length. On this side of the House, we have arrived at the conclusion that, although a general provision of advocacy may be unnecessary, the right of a young child to advocacy during a complaints procedure continues to be necessary.
The Minister is extremely fond of the word "balance". Those of us who meet the Minister in regard to a number of different Bills may perhaps be termed members of the "balance club". Perhaps we should have a self-denying ordinance to use the word "balance" only once. I want to use it now.
I have spoken on other occasions about balance but also about the idea of equation. A number of different factors need to be considered in relation to the word "balance". The more the Minister talks about devolving matters to regulation and guidance, the more some of us will continue to press for a right of advocacy. In that way we shall seek to ensure the correct balance to protect people's rights in all these matters.
Noble Lords may have heard me speak previously about the necessity of advocacy for certain groups of people. I remember once being very touched by a remark made by a middle-aged woman who was a chair user. She said that every major decision in her life had been taken where there was an oak table which smelt of polish. She said that she could not now look at oak table or smell polish without having a rising sense of fear about what was going to be done to her and about whether she would understand what was going to be done to her. That is an evocation of what happens to some people when they are in care.
The right to an advocate during a complaints procedure is an essential ingredient to make sure that the procedure works properly. It should deal not only with serious allegations but should also establish good practice. By the time someone in care has gone to the lengths of using a complaints procedure, that person has summoned up an enormous amount of courage to make the complaint and run the risk of being removed from what is his or her only home. In those circumstances, people have a right to support.
Why is it necessary to have an express right of support on the face of the Bill? Because, without such express provision, it simply will not happen. We have talked already about duties and expectations that will be placed on hard-pressed local authorities. Some of us have expressed doubts as to whether the many priorities that we see in relation to vulnerable people will come anywhere near the top of a local authority list of spending priorities.
I believe that the provision of an advocate in a complaints process is, apart from anything else, one of the key determining factors in good practice—good practice both in relation to people being enabled to express their views and their complaints, but also in providing protection for the staff who are subject to some of those complaints. We must bear in mind that often in residential care complaints are raised which are erroneous and vindictive. We have spoken about that in other circumstances. Having an advocate there has a two-way effect. I believe very strongly that we need to put this matter on the face of the Bill. The Minister has said before that the Government are sympathetic to this issue, but without it being written expressly into the Bill it will not happen. It will be like a Sam Goldwyn verbal contract and not worth the paper it is written on. Therefore, this is one of the key elements of making sure that this Bill works in practice. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support these amendments. I believe that the noble Baroness has summed up the case very well and I do not intend to repeat the points that she made. As has been said on earlier occasions, there is no doubt whatsoever of the degree of user satisfaction for advocacy services. Their impact and benefit are immense. That was recognised explicitly by Sir William Utting in his review. The trouble at present is that the provision of advocacy services is patchy both in quality and quantity across the country.
Young people who are looked after are generally less emotionally mature and certainly less educationally accomplished than their contemporaries. They need to be able to look to an independent adult to stand alongside them and speak for them when necessary.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, the Minister expressed the Government's support for independent advocacy through their Quality Protects programme but resisted the idea of introducing a legal right. I found what the Minister said only partly reassuring. The problem is that without an express legal duty to do so, local authorities frequently do not provide what is hoped of them, whatever good intentions are there in the first instance.
I can only conclude that a child's right to advocacy when making a complaint should be enshrined in primary legislation. There is the point that the proposed right reflects Article 12(2) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It may also reflect Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government have made a commitment to the provision of advocacy support for 16 and 17 year-olds who come within the scope of this Bill. They have given no commitment to younger children who come within the remit of the Children Act. If the Government accept that advocacy is important for 16 and 17 year-olds, it is illogical not to extend that protection to all children who may be involved in making a complaint at some point. For all those reasons I support the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I attended a meeting this week about a commissioner for children. A Minister, Mr Paul Boateng, spoke out very strongly that the voice of the child should be heard. Can the Government say whether there is really joined-up thinking? How is the voice of a child in care to be heard? I would like the Minister to think how it would be heard unless there is an advocate to speak for it. It is very difficult. We have to look back at all the reports that have been made. The Welsh report was the last one. It said that nobody believed the child. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I speak to the point of low self-esteem in these young people. When one has had an unsettled childhood one is likely to have a lower self-esteem and be less assertive. They must be important factors in putting a duty on those who are the state parent, as it were, to provide a mechanism to

1265
ensure that the voice is amplified and that the child is supported in getting what it needs, and not simply fobbed off with what the state or local authority feels it convenient to give.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have been very persuasive in dealing with the impact and importance of advocacy services. While I am unable to accept the amendment, I hope that I can go a long way to meet the concerns that all noble Lords have expressed on this matter. I start by repeating what I said in Grand Committee. I am the first to acknowledge that advocacy can play a very important role in ensuring that young people receive the support that they need and deserve. It is very important that the Government and the nation learn the lessons that emerge from the Waterhouse report and the experiences of the young people described in those appalling cases.
In responding to the amendment it is worth rehearsing the various ways in which at present the Government make clear their support for, and encouragement of, the growth of advocacy services. Noble Lords will be aware that the Children Act itself includes provisions to respect the entitlement of looked-after children to be consulted and to have their views and feelings taken into account whenever there is a decision to be made about them. Further, a local authority must consider a complaint made to it by the child itself or others such as the parents or persons with a sufficient interest in the child's welfare. Many complaints are brought forward by people other than the child itself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said that the voice of the child must be heard. I do not believe that any of us disagrees with that sentiment. Listening to children is a major theme of the safeguards review and the Quality Protects programme. Children's participation is a priority area for the special grant under the Quality Protects programme which is a major initiative to improve services for children. It has at its heart children's participation, listening to children and ensuring that their rights are fully protected. As part of that programme we are researching current provision in relation to advocacy. That will help us to inform future developments as we move towards an advocacy system of greater coherence and high quality.
I am the first to acknowledge the complaints made by noble Lords tonight about the current patchy performance of local authorities. As to those services which are currently provided by local authorities for children who leave care, one can point to excellent services but also very poor ones. Because of that the Government have asked local authorities to pay particular attention to the development of advocacy services.
The Department of Health's guidance to local authorities in October 1999 under the Quality Protects programme included independent advocacy services as one of six priority areas for the children's services
1266
grant. There are also a number of very good national advocacy services which undertake work with a wide range of children. The Department of Health supports that work. The DoH has funded the development of national standards for advocacy services through a grant to the National Youth Advocacy Service. There can be no question at all that the Government are committed to advocacy and will continue to encourage the development and use of a high standard of service. We do not, however, believe that it is necessary to include it on the face of the Bill.
I turn to the two amendments before us this evening. As the noble Baroness who moved the amendment suggested, the proposal raises specific points regarding the use of advocates when pursuing complaints. Amendment No. 6 would make local authorities unable to deal with any representation or complaint by a child or young person in relation to the provisions of the Bill unless he or she was either assisted by an independent advocate or had specifically refused such assistance. Amendment No. 8 makes similar provision with regard to the general complaints procedures about children's services including those for eligible children under the provisions of the Bill.
The first point that I wish to make is that we hope that our new arrangements for young people in and leaving care will reduce the need for complaints by being more sensitive to the needs of the child as an individual. But, of course, there will be cases—few, we hope—where the relationship, for instance, between the young person and his or her adviser breaks down and as a consequence the young person does not receive the support to which he or she is entitled. For those cases a complaints procedure will be required and we shall set this out in regulations. The accompanying guidance will make it clear to local authorities that they should make advocacy services available.
As is already good practice in many local authorities, we know that many, although not all, now entertain complaints brought by advocates on behalf of children. But the guidance we shall provide which will accompany the regulations will ensure that there will be greater consistency in the use of advocacy services.
With regard to the provisions for introducing advocacy services into the complaints procedure for looked after children, noble Lords will be aware that it has become apparent that the existing procedure is imperfect. Many noble Lords referred to the Waterhouse report which provided countless examples of children who attempted to complain about an unhappy situation but whose voices were not heard, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said. In relation to that, we are about to consult on how we might improve the situation. We expect to be able shortly to issue a consultation paper which will include the question of advocacy. For that reason, I believe that it would be premature to start now to introduce changes to Section 26 of the Children Act ahead of the consultation.

1267
In conclusion, I hope that I have assured noble Lords that we are committed to advocacy in practice and in principle, but because of the measures being taken forward in this area at present, and the forthcoming consultation on the complaints procedure, we do not think that this is the time to write advocacy into the Bill.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed and helpful answer.
The Minister said that local authorities have been asked to include advocacy as one of six priority areas for children's services. Where will advocacy come in the list of those priorities? Local authorities are struggling hard to meet many different responsibilities being passed to them. When push comes to shove at local level, advocacy may not make it to the top of the list.
I thank the Minister for his comments about consultation as a result of the Waterhouse report, about which many noble Lords are greatly exercised. The Minister did not specify the consultation period. I urge the Government to include provision for any recommendations arising from the consultation before the Bill completes its passage in another place. All those concerned with children in residential care want urgently to ensure that nothing on that scale ever happens again and wish to put in place good practice as quickly as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 26, at end insert ("and (b) after subsection (6) insert—
"(6A) Every local authority shall provide cash assistance to any relevant child in their area for whom another local authority is responsible under section 23A unless they are satisfied that his welfare does not require it."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment picks up an issue that was highlighted at Second Reading and in Grand Committee; namely, the financial predicament of young people who have become estranged from their local authority.
In Committee, I put the case for the retention of a safety net in the benefits system for that small minority of care leavers who, for whatever reason, have lost contact with their responsible local authority. I argued that the safety net could take the form of a discretionary right to support via the severe hardship allowance.
In reply, the Minister made a number of powerful points. In particular, he drew attention to the perverse incentive that would be offered to local authorities to push young people on to the benefits system when the better and often more difficult course would be to provide them with direct help and support. The Bill provides a mechanism for young people to claim support from their responsible authority and places a
1268
binding duty on that authority to give such support not simply in monetary form but, most importantly, in the form of the young person's adviser.
I fully recognise the advantages and significance of those provisions. However, the Minister said that he understood the concerns that had been expressed about the plight of disaffected young people. One of his arguments was that Section 17 of the Children Act gives a power to local authorities to provide emergency support to estranged young people. However, as I read that section, it confers on local authorities a discretion to provide assistance and only in exceptional circumstances to give assistance in cash.
In practice, there is a great variation as to the provision of Section 17 monies. What is needed for the group of young people that we are discussing is a duty to provide cash assistance. I believe that without such a duty, young people who for whatever reason become disaffected will be exposed to considerable risk; the risk of homelessness, involvement in crime and, as the noble Earl was right to remind us, involvement in sexual exploitation.
The amendment recognises the merits of placing a duty of support on local authorities rather than on the benefits system. It puts in place what to me is the missing piece of the jigsaw; namely, a guaranteed safety net.
It is probably right for me to admit that since tabling the amendment I believe that I have identified a difficulty with its wording. No doubt that could be improved if, as I suspect, it is likely to lead to unintended consequences. However, I am in no doubt about the central point at issue and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I support the noble Earl's intentions. This is where we begin to understand what the failure to keep in touch can mean in practice. Young people leave the authority with which they have been in care for many reasons. It is not unusual for people to run away to major cities and to want not to be pursued. They believe that in their circumstances it is a danger to maintain a link with the authority from which they came. For those reasons, many young people turn to other local authorities for practical and immediate support. The noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Listowel, were right to identify the serious and immediate nature of the dangers which they face.
In those circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that the local authority to which they may present is able to make cash and other payments. Organisations such as that which runs the missing persons' national helpline will often tell how people's experiences with the local authority in whose area they grew up make it impossible for them to remain in touch. That is why they disappear. I believe that in those circumstances the local authority to which they move must immediately meet their needs. Therefore, I believe that

1269
we should support what the noble Earl is trying to achieve. Many of the people who leave care end up on the streets of cities with which they are not familiar.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for again raising this important question. Although I understand the issues that have been raised, I am not persuaded that we need to go in the direction suggested. I believe that mechanisms are provided which will enable the appropriate support to be given to young people in the circumstances mentioned. I also say to noble Lords that, as in relation to other matters in our discussions—I refer to our debate on Amendment No. 1 in relation to evaluating the criteria which are used—we shall, of course, keep these matters under review as part of the normal assessment process.
Certainly, I believe that one has to start by recognising that the situation in which young people will find themselves once the Bill has been enacted will be very different from the current arrangements. I believe that it is the current arrangement that leads noble Lords to express their concerns in this area. The whole point of the Bill is to ensure that young people will enjoy continuous support in whatever form is most suited to their needs and circumstances. That is why the concept of a responsible authority has been introduced. Therefore, it is absolutely clear where support is to come from for each young person. That is crucial because of the mobility of the very people whom we are discussing. Experience of the present system has shown that there have been problems and disputes between authorities over who should give support to these young people. The Bill clarifies absolutely which local authority is responsible.
Therefore, young people will be able to move around the country confident of where their support will be. I believe that, together with the benefits brought about by the young persons' advisers and pathway plans, this key change should cut drastically the number of cases where young people cut themselves adrift and turn up without support.
Of course, I recognise that the amendment is not aimed at the vast majority of cases where young people are working well with their responsible authority, but at those cases, which we hope will become fewer and fewer as the Bill's effects improve matters, where young people run away and lose contact. I share entirely the concerns that in those few cases assistance should be available immediately to tide the young people over until proper arrangements can be made to get them back on an even keel. Of course, none of us wants to see anything other than young people having that assistance.
It may be useful if I spend a moment or two explaining how we envisage that that emergency support will be given. Essentially, there will be two avenues open to young people who arrive in another local authority area in need of support. One port of call would be the social services department, which would, given that emergency support is commonly needed out
1270
of hours and at weekends, normally give assistance through the out-of-hours service. The other scenario might be for the young person to find his or her way or be referred, say, by the police to a voluntary organisation, probably in the homelessness sector. Either way, we would expect assistance to be given to the young person through the second authority, but only for as long as it takes that authority to contact the responsible authority, which would then take over the funding.
The basis on which the second authority would assist the young persons in the short term would be, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, Section 17 of the Children Act. I believe that, in looking at Section 17, we need to look first at Section 17(1), which places a duty on every local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area. The Act then further states that the services provided in the exercise of that duty may include assistance in kind or, in exceptional circumstances, in cash. But the word to which I draw your Lordships' attention is the word "duty" in the first line of that section.
The other important component of the Bill is to turn perverse incentives which presently exist within the system into what I might call proactive incentives. Under the new arrangements, the second authority will have a considerable financial incentive to make contact with the responsible authority as quickly as possible and to agree a proper programme of support. In short, the incentive is there to keep the young person within the social care system.
To make sure that that works properly, we intend to cover the provision of emergency assistance in guidance to local authorities, including the payment, where necessary, of cash.
The intention of the amendment is clearly understood: to remove the discretionary element in Section 17 to ensure that relevant children are not left without financial means if their welfare requires it. But—and perhaps this is the point to which the noble Earl referred—it would have additional consequences, with wider implications both for local authorities and for the effectiveness of this new legislation. For example, it would require a local authority to undertake a needs assessment for every relevant young person for whom another authority was responsible.
The only point I make is that that would be a tremendous bureaucratic burden which is neither needed nor wanted. But I accept that the noble Earl is making the point that he wants to ensure that the kind of matters envisaged would be dealt with adequately in the circumstances which have been mentioned.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that while I appreciate the intention of the amendment, I believe that children's needs can be met in an emergency through the existing provisions of Section 17, backed up by the new arrangements and incentives which this Bill puts in place. On that basis, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he has said.

1271
Essentially, he has indicated that this amendment is unnecessary in practice. I understand the concept and value of the responsible local authority. That is an extremely important concept. I understand that a local authority other than the responsible authority which provides support to an estranged youngster can claim reimbursement from the responsible local authority. What I term the missing piece of the jigsaw is the absence—at least as I saw it—of a specific duty on the second authority to provide the assistance.
The Minister suggested that there is already a duty in Section 17 of the Children Act. If he is right, it is doubly extraordinary that so many local authorities are not taking any notice of that duty. As I said, I shall study very carefully what the Minister said. I recognise that he has tried to be as helpful as he can. Between now and Third Reading I shall decide whether this is an issue to which we should return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Interpretation, commencement, extent, Wales and short title]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 22, after ("Children") insert (and Young Persons").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to add the words "and Young Persons" to the Title of the Bill. I feel that this Bill is so important as we are dealing with the most vulnerable group of young people in our society, people who have been discarded by their families for a variety of reasons. Many of them will have been abused or have seen their mothers abused or unable to cope.
For many years I served on the board of visitors of a young offenders' institution. The young people concerned were between the ages of 15 and 21. About 40 per cent came from care. They were often institutionalised. Many of them had returned after discharge, having found the outside world too difficult to cope with and fallen into crime. Without support and interested people to keep such young people on the right road, that will continue to happen.
Many of the people whom the Bill sets out to help will be late developers. The support for many may continue under the pathway plans until they are 21. A person of 18, 19 or 20 is not a child. Such a person might feel insulted to be covered by a Bill entitled Children (Leaving Care), when the help is ongoing after they are no longer children. Local authorities may find a loophole by saying that the Bill is for children. How would that stand up in court?
Therefore, I suggest that the title of the Bill would be better if it was "Children and Young Persons (Leaving Care)", or perhaps, just "Young People (Leaving Care)". I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the spirit of the amendment since I have
1272
engaged in correspondence with the Minister on that very subject. I am sure that the Minister will reply even more cogently tonight than he did in his letter to me, in which he said that problems were created specifically by the fact that the Children Act contains particular definitions of "child" and "children" and so on. It would therefore be inconsistent legally with that Act, with which the Bill is almost wholly concerned with amending, to discuss "young persons" within the Bill itself. I understand that and I see the merits of that argument.
The part which I cannot see, however—this is where the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, seems to be entirely with merit—is why we cannot simply change the title of the Bill. In his letter, the Minister wrote,
"As for the short title, the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I feel that we ought to leave it unamended in order to signal clearly that it belongs with the Children Act (rather than with the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act). Since, legally speaking, it is children who leave care this is also the logical approach".
I must say that I do not find that argument persuasive. I find the language of the Bill's title as it currently stands rather patronising. It does not really reflect the fact that we are not talking mainly about children who are aged 16 or younger, but about young people who have left or are leaving care. I should prefer to give a clear signal that we are effectively treating such people as adults rather than children. The extremely slight risk of confusion with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 is a price well worth paying to demonstrate that.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will reconsider the matter. There is to be a "Take a child to work" day fairly soon. Care leavers will be coming to this House. It was originally to be called the "Take a care leaver to work" day, but the cared for children were then asked how they felt about it and they said that they did not really want such a stigma attached to them. The term "care leaver" sadly often carries a stigma with it. This is a similar kind of issue; are we going to infantilise those young people? I hope that the Minister will be able to think again about the issue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have thought again. Of course, I understand the substantive points which the noble Lords and the noble Baroness have made in their remarks. I think I would just draw a distinction between the terminology used in the Bill and the Title and the action that has to take place in the field to make sure that we provide the right kind of services. I should like to suggest that, whatever the Title is, the key issue for us is ensuring that young people and children get the kind of services that we want them to get, to ensure that they have a much better start to their lives.
Perhaps I may just go through the reasoning behind the Short Title of the Bill. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill amends the Children Act 1989 and, as your Lordships will know, as we have struggled at times to relate the provisions of this Bill to those of the Act, it

1273
has been framed in a style which has been consistent with that Act. I believe that anyone coming to the Act, as amended, should find the same terminology and definitions used consistently throughout.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said it might be worth some inconvenience to make the change, but for people outside Parliament who do have to consult legislation, it behoves us to make that legislation as clear as possible. I know those are sentiments which many of your Lordships have expressed when various Bills have been discussed in your Lordships' House. Section 105 of the Children Act gives the definitions of terms used within it. Those are the definitions that we need to use in the Bill. The definition of a child is a person under the age of 18 and the Bill is consistent with that definition. Where the Children Act itself is concerned with powers and duties in respect of those aged 18 and above, as in Section 24, it refers to a "person". We have reproduced that terminology in the Bill's restatement of Section 24.
Outside the legislation, of course, we have much more freedom with the language. The audience for the legislation itself and its Title is likely to be comparatively narrow. However, there will be a much wider and more varied readership for the guidance in other documentation that will shape and accompany implementation. I want to reassure the noble Baroness particularly that, in producing that documentation, we will take particular care with the tone and language that is used.
Turning specifically to the Short Title of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, quoted from a letter that I sent to him. He said he was not persuaded. I must say that I was completely persuaded by the logic of my arguments. The point is that the Short Title of the Bill serves for indexing purposes. We need to signal clearly that the Bill before us belongs with and amends the
1274
Children Act 1989 rather than the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act. That is where people will look to find the provisions of the Bill, and amending the title as proposed would cause unnecessary confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as a lawyer, can find his way through these things but I know that in my previous life I found working my way through these indexes very difficult. I think we should have a little bit of sympathy with those people in the field who have to find their way through this. For that reason I think it is unreasonable to change the Short Title. However, in saying that, I want to assure the noble Baroness that I have taken account of what she said and I shall want to ensure that the language that accompanies the Bill will be sensitive to the points she has raised.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, together with the Minister. I thank them very much.
I tried to count in the previous amendment how many times the Minister spoke of "young people". He mentioned "young people" so many times that I lost count. I feel even more strongly that the Bill should have the words "young people" in its title. I do not want to do away with the word "children", but the Minister said "young people" on so many occasions that I believe he is trying to pull in the bad and the slack local authorities which may opt out of dealing with the 18, 19 and 20 year-olds. Therefore, before the next stage I shall get together with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—a small and dedicated group—and carefully read what the Minister has said. We may return to this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.

  Teenage Pregnancy Unit: Local Co-ordinators
  Teenage Pregnancy Unit: Local Co-ordinators
  Medical Devices Agency: Key Targets
  Medical Devices Agency: Key Targets
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  Delegated Legislation
  Delegated Legislation
  Ministers' Letters to Members
  Ministers' Letters to Members
  The e-Envoy
  The e-Envoy
  PFI and Partnership Projects: Value
  PFI and Partnership Projects: Value
  Smuggling: Lost Revenues
  Smuggling: Lost Revenues
  Duty Free Goods Imported from EU States
  Duty Free Goods Imported from EU States
  Tourism Summit: Report
  Tourism Summit: Report
  Internet Stocks: Misleading Information
  Internet Stocks: Misleading Information
  Scottish Parliament Buildings
  Scottish Parliament Buildings
  Football for Girls
  Football for Girls
  Harlan-Hill Crest: BUAV Allegations
  Harlan-Hill Crest: BUAV Allegations
  Clandestine Entrants to UK: Civil Penalties
  Clandestine Entrants to UK: Civil Penalties
  Asylum Support Scheme: Housing
  Asylum Support Scheme: Housing
  Segregated Prisoners: Policy
  Segregated Prisoners: Policy
  Kainos Courses in Prisons
  Kainos Courses in Prisons
  Country Assessments
  Country Assessments
  Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK
  Financial Bonds for Visitors to UK
  Asylum Refusals
  Asylum Refusals